Tuesday, July 31, 2012
WRONGS THAT NEED CORRECTION
CONCERNING SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
On July 21, 1969, the first human being walked upon the moon. Since then, many ambitious projects ha ve been suggested by prople in power. For example, in 1989, our first President Bush called for a permanent lunar base, and a mission to Mars; for which experts predicted a cost of half a Trillion 1989 Dollars during the next thirty years.
An unfavorable effect of the newborn space age was the birth of a kind of "space race," eventually involving the United States' NASA, the European Space Agency, and the USSR. It caused NASA to attempt to accomplish "too much too fast"--which resulted in reduced quality control and some disastrous consequences.
However, humanity has at the same time reaped benefit from our newfound technological accomplishments. Today, satellites furnish twenty-four hour weather coverage of the entire globe; and worldwide communications systems have become much improved, thanks to satellite support. Further, a distant, but nonetheless possible prospect of people being able to take up residence upon worlds other than our earth may hold the key to human survival, in the event that one or more of the numerous potential disasters facing us today should happen to occur.
Today as well, international cooperation in space-related activities--a bit similar to that which I herein propose for all of man's activities--has caused our former haste and needless duplication to greatly decrease; and the dangers and disadvantages implicit in such practices to somewhat abate.
* * * * *
One effect of our continuing to exist as a group of separate independent nation-states, however, is the fact that the level of scientific and technological knowledge and development, as well as the enjoyment of the benefits thereof, differ widely in various parts of the world. This is due to the fact that access to information within the worlds of science and technology obviously likewise varies significantly in different places, resulting in a "diffusion lag" concerning new tecxhnologies in the less developed regions.
Even regardng an everyday device like the telephone, the United States was recently said to have had ten times more phone lines than Latin America, twelve times more than Asia, and forty eight times more than Africa. (Notwithstanding, an exception regarding this has emerged in the form of sudden widespread worldwide access to cell phones in many of these places.) Moreover, the use of new advanced materials, such as ceramics, superconductive elements, fiber-reinforced plastics, and numerous other even more recent discoveries, has been estimated to be one hundred times greater in advanced countries than in some less developed places. And worse, this "technology gap" has widened instead of contracting, and (with the exception of a few countries that have now eagerly--and some say recklessly-- entered the industrial age) continues to do so as time goes on. Research and development continue to march forward in the scientifically and technologically advanced nations; while in other places, things continue to be done as they have for decades--even centuries
A single worldwide perspective, fostered by the absence of borders, and a single worldwide governmental orientation, would automatically advance the spread of all the blessings of the modern world to all parts of the world; instead of their being obstructed and confined by national boundaries, together with a myriad of different national systems and economies. Hopefully, this will one day come to pass.
* * * * *
Monday, July 30, 2012
WRONGS THAT NEED CORRECTION
CONCERNING SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
There is no question that mankind has made remarkable progress in the fields of scientific knbowledge and accomplishment, especially during the past half century or so. At the same time, technological advances in communication and transportation have fashioned a global community that could not have been dreamt of a hundred or so years ago. In fact, this oft-cited phenomenon called globalization actually happens to be more a consequence of science and technology than of trade. Or perhaps better said, the economic aspect was brought about by the scientific and technological accomplishments.
Beyond our conscious awareness, and without purposeful effort on the part of most of us, our worlds of science and technology have woven a mesh of knowledge and capability around the entire globe, which serves to affect, assist, and unite all of humanity. And there is still more to be expected in the future, as knowledge and accomplishments continue to exponentially increase and expand.
* * * * *
Despite the general cautious but encouraging optimism prompted by most scientific progress, certain aspects of it have become cause for foreboding. This is particularly true as concerns our having entered into the atomic age. After the awesome power of atomic weapons was demonstrated at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a race among certain larger powers was begun for the acquisition of such fierce and frightening weapons.
In 1947, shortly after the nuclear threat was born, Bernard Baruch devised a plan, which the United States presented to the United Nations Security Council, calling for international controls regarding atomic production, "rather than each country developing and governing its own atomic capabilities." Russia, a member of the Security Council, used its veto to promptly thwart this hopeful beginning, reciting allegations that such acts of cooperation would imperil national independence (perhaps, better stated, "sovereignty").
In 1950, President Truman directed the United States" Atomic Energy Commission to begin to develop even more potent weapons of this sort--notably hydrogen bombs, which were anticipated to be a hundred to a thousand times more powerful than the "A-bombs" dropped on the aforementioned Japanese cities. The purpose behind this, as advised to the American people by their President, was to be sure that our country would be "able to defend itself against any possible aggressor [country(s)]." Since then, quite an assortment of nation-states, both large and small, have become able to produce or acquire such weaponry. And the world thus progressed further into its current sad situation as an armed camp of fortified nations--most being suspicious of, and at times angry at, one or more of the others.
Various countries began conducting tests of their weapons. In the United States, we detonated at least thirty five such explosions in Nevada by early 1953. Since then, many additional tests have been conducted by numerous nations worldwide--the latest being North Korea, in 2006. We are told that radiation levels in our atmosphere have become elevated; that the overhead content of "radioactive debris" has increased dramatically; and that "radioactive snow" has been observed to fall in places as unconnected with atomic weapons as Rochester, New York, and Cincinnati, Ohio. A sobering account concerning the potential for harm to the human race from even a single instance of non-warfare connected nuclear mishap was disclosed in 1986, when scientific experts estimated that the Chernobyl nuclear reactor accident which had then recently taken place in Russia would occasion twenty four thousand deaths from cancer. A more recent cause for similar dread was born when the Pacific tsunami brought damage to a Japanese nuclear power plant a couple of years ago.
As time goes on, additional nations have announced or implied the development or acquisition of nuclear weapons--still ostensibly as a "defense" against other presumed aggressor nations. The latest has been North Korea, in 2006. Attempts by other countries--many being themselves in possession of nuclear bombs and missiles--to persuade these newcomers to discontinue their efforts are usually paid mere lip service, or are basically ignored. Now, attempts to acquire nuclear capability have been undertaken by Iran; and efforts to dissuade these activities have met only rejection by a defiant government.
Grenville Clark and Louis Sohn of Harvard University, co-authors of the classic Introduction to World Peace through World Law, have stated that "without total [nuclear] disarmament, genuine peace is unattainable." In the opinion of many, said comment is absolutely true, correct, and self-evident; for, absent complete disarmament, the specter of danger, from a sudden unexpected conflict or protest becoming a nuclear holocaust will continue to cast a shadow of fear and foreboding upon the entire world.
As I have stated earlier, were there no nation-states, there would be no need for nations to arm themselves against one another. A single body of worldwide regulation would abolish the development, possession, and use of atomic weapons for any purpose. And worldwide vigilence could be exercised to make certain that nuclear weapons had truly become a thing of the past. If a "splinter group" of some sort attempted to violate these worldwide laws, they would be unable to seek refuge within a particular country, because there would be no country left to protect them. Instead, protecting them would merely constitute a group of criminals giving refuge to a group of criminals. All of these sorts of activities would simply be termed and dealt with as law enforcement--instead of "international relations." This would, hopefully, enable mankind to "move on," without the threat of sudden unexpected nuclear annihilation hovering over us at every turn of political events.
* * * * *
WRONGS THAT NEED CORRECTION
ECOLOGICAL ISSUES
In addition to global warming, present methods of production as carried on in many places inflict other forms of serious and irreparable damage to the world's ecological systems, and to the biosphere upon which we all depend for survival. Many industrial facilities--especially in poor and less developed countries--produce vast amounts of air pollution. We are told that, of late, there has been an unprecedented increase in concentrations of not only carbon dioxide, but of methane and nitrous oxide as well in our atmosphere, due to the burning of fossil fuels and the clearing of vegetation in many places. In the United States alone, some sixty thousand deaths each year can be attributed to air pollution. Worse, it is reported that almost a million persons perish annually in China as a result of pollution-related lung disease. Add to this the toll from the same conditions in the rest of the world, and the picture that emerges is indeed very grim.
In addition to air pollution, reckless activities have been identified as having caused, and continuing to cause, pollution, deterioration, and poisoning to land and water in many places as well. As an illustration of this, consider the fact that, between 1950 and 1990, the earth lost one-fifth of its topsoil, and, at the same time, the same portion of its rain forests. A more recent estimate states that the current rate at which the world's croplands are being converted to "urban" (i.e., residential, industrial, mining, transportation, damming, etc.) uses has grown to between one half and one percent per year (this computes to between twenty percent and forty percent during a similar forty year period).. This too is especially prevalent in less developed nation-states, where poverty and need cause income and industrial goods to take precedence over environmental principles. Ecological offenses are thus more prevalent, and natural resources overexploited, in order to accommodate and supply the excessive consumption taking place in wealthier neighboring nations, with their throwaway cultures and traditions of planned obsolescence.
This is an issue that is similar in nature to global warming. We will not see satisfactory degrees of reduction so long as each sovereign nation-state has the last word regarding the quantity, quality, and implementation of steps that will be taken within its territory to improve the condition of our common environment. Thus, in the same fashion as stated heretofore, determinations and decisions, as well as regulatory steps, must be undertaken on a global basis. It is obvious that pollution to air, land, and water does not pause at national borders; but, rather, extends on to neighboring places ad infinitum. It is also obvious that different nation-states have varied laws, and impoose varied degrees of enforcement, regarding offenses that taint our worldwide environment. It therefore stands to reason that effective steps will only become reality--across the globe--when the causes are dealt with on a worldwide basis by a single universal governing body.
* * * * *
In addition to global warming, present methods of production as carried on in many places inflict other forms of serious and irreparable damage to the world's ecological systems, and to the biosphere upon which we all depend for survival. Many industrial facilities--especially in poor and less developed countries--produce vast amounts of air pollution. We are told that, of late, there has been an unprecedented increase in concentrations of not only carbon dioxide, but of methane and nitrous oxide as well in our atmosphere, due to the burning of fossil fuels and the clearing of vegetation in many places. In the United States alone, some sixty thousand deaths each year can be attributed to air pollution. Worse, it is reported that almost a million persons perish annually in China as a result of pollution-related lung disease. Add to this the toll from the same conditions in the rest of the world, and the picture that emerges is indeed very grim.
In addition to air pollution, reckless activities have been identified as having caused, and continuing to cause, pollution, deterioration, and poisoning to land and water in many places as well. As an illustration of this, consider the fact that, between 1950 and 1990, the earth lost one-fifth of its topsoil, and, at the same time, the same portion of its rain forests. A more recent estimate states that the current rate at which the world's croplands are being converted to "urban" (i.e., residential, industrial, mining, transportation, damming, etc.) uses has grown to between one half and one percent per year (this computes to between twenty percent and forty percent during a similar forty year period).. This too is especially prevalent in less developed nation-states, where poverty and need cause income and industrial goods to take precedence over environmental principles. Ecological offenses are thus more prevalent, and natural resources overexploited, in order to accommodate and supply the excessive consumption taking place in wealthier neighboring nations, with their throwaway cultures and traditions of planned obsolescence.
This is an issue that is similar in nature to global warming. We will not see satisfactory degrees of reduction so long as each sovereign nation-state has the last word regarding the quantity, quality, and implementation of steps that will be taken within its territory to improve the condition of our common environment. Thus, in the same fashion as stated heretofore, determinations and decisions, as well as regulatory steps, must be undertaken on a global basis. It is obvious that pollution to air, land, and water does not pause at national borders; but, rather, extends on to neighboring places ad infinitum. It is also obvious that different nation-states have varied laws, and impoose varied degrees of enforcement, regarding offenses that taint our worldwide environment. It therefore stands to reason that effective steps will only become reality--across the globe--when the causes are dealt with on a worldwide basis by a single universal governing body.
* * * * *
Sunday, July 29, 2012
WRONGS THAT NEED CORRECTION
ECOLOGICAL ISSUES
A further area of concern lies in the fact that in many places, rampant population growth is concurrently accompanied by an exodus of greater and greater numbers from rural districts to the cities, again particularly in the less developed parts of the world. This has resulted in the unbridled growth of a number of "megacities," containing extremely large and thus unmanageable numbers of residents; as well as instantaneous giant rings of slum neighborhoods (known in some quarters as "") around their outskirts.
Of course, we are all aware that increased population is usually accompanied by increased poverty within the locale of such growth. Moreover, efforts on the part of peoples of a region to improve the sustainability of the agriculture, forestry, or fisheries within these locales are usually thwarted by this very population explosion that is simultaneously taking place there.
Witness, for example, Bangladesh. An enormous population, confined within the bounds of an insufficient land area, being also an area subject to frequent disastrous flooding, is thereby often devastated by famine as well. As a result, even in comparatively better years, there persists an ever-present problem of providing a decent minimum standard of living to the majority of that country's citizens. These sorts of conditions, whereby people are compelled to live upon, and attempt to cultivate, lands that are often visited by disaster, are referred to as "land hunger." It is obvious that, as populations grow within our present system of national boundaries, larger and larger numbers of people in more and more parts of the world will be forced to endure the same tragic circumstances. Meanwhile, in other parts of the world, there are areas where population density is quite light, and living conditions very favorable. The real "problem" boils down to the existence of national boundaries--which in some places is the cause of "demographic masses" enduring crowded conditions at the very boundaries which separate them from what might be comparatively thinly populated regions.
If the strictures of national boundaries were released, there would follow a natural, somewhat predictable, adjustment of the world's demographic situation. There would of course need to be some restrictions or controls so as to prevent things like a flood of immigration into but a few places regarded as the most desirable to live within. Among other things, these restrictions would additionally need to prevent the formation of the aforementioned fringe slum-dwellings, or "favelas," within or on the outskirrts of cities (although it is my prediction that this aforesaid single change would probably automatically result in an end to such places). And, of course, the concept of private ownership of real estate and other resources, as well as zoning and other regulatory principles, would have to be respected and upheld by law.
Beyond this, however, it seems self-evident that the final, permanent, means of stemming excessive population growth can only be via limitation of the birth rate. This should always be voluntary in nature; that is, a decision of individual parents. I do not wish to become a participant in the debates about birth control or abortion. Nor do I recommend any form of governmental control or restriction concerning childbearing. For these determinations are private, or religious, or cultural, in nature And I would never endorse any interference with private life, or religions, or cultures (unless they are clearly and objectively harmful to the participants or others). Instead, it is hoped, and seems likely, that the intermingling of people the world over, which my suggestions, if followed, would naturally bring about, would promote an eventual sensible approach to these issues on the part of all. Moreover, and more to the point, it is deemed likely that the expanded educational and vocational opportunities, as well as the general atmosphere of improvement in human rights--especially for women--per that which I advocate, would eventually themselves lead to a natural voluntary reduction in the birth rate everywhere.
* * * * *
Another ecological problem that affects all of us, regardless of where we live, is the fact that our planet has exhibited clear signs of warming during the past century. This has been said to have produced the increased temperatures, the more numerous and intense storms, and the more tempestuous conditions in general, that have prevailed worldwide during recent years. Scientific analyses indicate that further significant global warming and climate change are likely during the next several decades; and that if things are permitted to so continue, we may all need to very shortly adapt to catastrophic climatic conditions.
It has been determined that a major contributor to this environmental threat is the destruction of the earth's ozone layer, due in part from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil, as well as various other everyday mechanical, industrial, and agricultural functions that occur around the world on a nonstop basis. The net result is carbon dioxide trapping the sun's radiation, causing unnatural warming of the earth's surface; and destruction of the ozone layer that surrounds our planet by chlorofluorocarbons, causing greater and greater exposure of all of us to lethal ultraviolet radiation.
In 1989, it was reported that the hole in the ozone layer that had been thus produced over Antartica was rapidly enlarging. The same year, it was realized that a similar hole was forming in the ozone layer over the North Pole as well. These kinds of umnnatural conditions can precipitate, and to an extent have already caused, extreme events, such as hurricanes, droughts, and floods--which in turn have the potential to destabilize agriculture and destroy human settlements. One direful warning, pertaining to the North American region, is the prediction that a small further change in average global temperatutre could, over a relatively short period of time, cause further melting of the Greenland ice cap and the West Artic ice sheet, bringing about a consequent rise in sea levels of as much as twenty feet. This would place island and shoreline cities and residential regions at risk of inundation, reduction of land area, and consequent displacement of large numbers of residents and businesses.
We read that international meetings and conferences are every so often held to discuss this challenge; and that various nation-states agree--and disagree--regarding the taking of steps, to various extents, to reduce the causes of this looming disaster. But the plain and simple fact is that global warming and its causes will never be effectively dealt with as long as we are a world composed of separate nations. Many, if not most, nation-states have their own economic agendas, which usually take priority over worldwide environmental welfare. Thus, the fate of the earth is presently governed in large part by irregular, independently arrived at, decisions of numerous individual countries. In the wealthier nations, decisions appear to result, at least in large part, from the various influences of business interests within said states. The United States is one of these very nations. In addition, many smaller, less economically developed, countries have business-related needs or aspirations that leave no choice but to conduct or permit activities that damage the atmosphere which belongs to all of us.
There is still hope, however. Nuclear power, carefully and prudently regulated and handled, could be a more sensible source of energy. Better yet, wind and sunlight are widely abundant and useful as sources of electricity and heat in most parts of the world. It's been estimated, in fact, that wind alone can furnish five times today's global demand for electricity.
What is necessary is the shedding of sovereign states' attachment to the vainglory of sovereignty in deciding whether and to what extent steps will be taken by each in efforts to repair the damage that has been done, and to prevent further, possibly fatal, harm to our world. Instead, a single unified body of members of the appropriate scientific disciplenes must determine what remedies and practices are specifically needed; and a single unified governing entity must impose these necessary steps upon the entire world community. An enforceable international approach to these issues is our only hope--before it is too late. And this will only happen when a single international governing body is at the helm.
* * * * *
A further area of concern lies in the fact that in many places, rampant population growth is concurrently accompanied by an exodus of greater and greater numbers from rural districts to the cities, again particularly in the less developed parts of the world. This has resulted in the unbridled growth of a number of "megacities," containing extremely large and thus unmanageable numbers of residents; as well as instantaneous giant rings of slum neighborhoods (known in some quarters as "") around their outskirts.
Of course, we are all aware that increased population is usually accompanied by increased poverty within the locale of such growth. Moreover, efforts on the part of peoples of a region to improve the sustainability of the agriculture, forestry, or fisheries within these locales are usually thwarted by this very population explosion that is simultaneously taking place there.
Witness, for example, Bangladesh. An enormous population, confined within the bounds of an insufficient land area, being also an area subject to frequent disastrous flooding, is thereby often devastated by famine as well. As a result, even in comparatively better years, there persists an ever-present problem of providing a decent minimum standard of living to the majority of that country's citizens. These sorts of conditions, whereby people are compelled to live upon, and attempt to cultivate, lands that are often visited by disaster, are referred to as "land hunger." It is obvious that, as populations grow within our present system of national boundaries, larger and larger numbers of people in more and more parts of the world will be forced to endure the same tragic circumstances. Meanwhile, in other parts of the world, there are areas where population density is quite light, and living conditions very favorable. The real "problem" boils down to the existence of national boundaries--which in some places is the cause of "demographic masses" enduring crowded conditions at the very boundaries which separate them from what might be comparatively thinly populated regions.
If the strictures of national boundaries were released, there would follow a natural, somewhat predictable, adjustment of the world's demographic situation. There would of course need to be some restrictions or controls so as to prevent things like a flood of immigration into but a few places regarded as the most desirable to live within. Among other things, these restrictions would additionally need to prevent the formation of the aforementioned fringe slum-dwellings, or "favelas," within or on the outskirrts of cities (although it is my prediction that this aforesaid single change would probably automatically result in an end to such places). And, of course, the concept of private ownership of real estate and other resources, as well as zoning and other regulatory principles, would have to be respected and upheld by law.
Beyond this, however, it seems self-evident that the final, permanent, means of stemming excessive population growth can only be via limitation of the birth rate. This should always be voluntary in nature; that is, a decision of individual parents. I do not wish to become a participant in the debates about birth control or abortion. Nor do I recommend any form of governmental control or restriction concerning childbearing. For these determinations are private, or religious, or cultural, in nature And I would never endorse any interference with private life, or religions, or cultures (unless they are clearly and objectively harmful to the participants or others). Instead, it is hoped, and seems likely, that the intermingling of people the world over, which my suggestions, if followed, would naturally bring about, would promote an eventual sensible approach to these issues on the part of all. Moreover, and more to the point, it is deemed likely that the expanded educational and vocational opportunities, as well as the general atmosphere of improvement in human rights--especially for women--per that which I advocate, would eventually themselves lead to a natural voluntary reduction in the birth rate everywhere.
* * * * *
Another ecological problem that affects all of us, regardless of where we live, is the fact that our planet has exhibited clear signs of warming during the past century. This has been said to have produced the increased temperatures, the more numerous and intense storms, and the more tempestuous conditions in general, that have prevailed worldwide during recent years. Scientific analyses indicate that further significant global warming and climate change are likely during the next several decades; and that if things are permitted to so continue, we may all need to very shortly adapt to catastrophic climatic conditions.
It has been determined that a major contributor to this environmental threat is the destruction of the earth's ozone layer, due in part from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil, as well as various other everyday mechanical, industrial, and agricultural functions that occur around the world on a nonstop basis. The net result is carbon dioxide trapping the sun's radiation, causing unnatural warming of the earth's surface; and destruction of the ozone layer that surrounds our planet by chlorofluorocarbons, causing greater and greater exposure of all of us to lethal ultraviolet radiation.
In 1989, it was reported that the hole in the ozone layer that had been thus produced over Antartica was rapidly enlarging. The same year, it was realized that a similar hole was forming in the ozone layer over the North Pole as well. These kinds of umnnatural conditions can precipitate, and to an extent have already caused, extreme events, such as hurricanes, droughts, and floods--which in turn have the potential to destabilize agriculture and destroy human settlements. One direful warning, pertaining to the North American region, is the prediction that a small further change in average global temperatutre could, over a relatively short period of time, cause further melting of the Greenland ice cap and the West Artic ice sheet, bringing about a consequent rise in sea levels of as much as twenty feet. This would place island and shoreline cities and residential regions at risk of inundation, reduction of land area, and consequent displacement of large numbers of residents and businesses.
We read that international meetings and conferences are every so often held to discuss this challenge; and that various nation-states agree--and disagree--regarding the taking of steps, to various extents, to reduce the causes of this looming disaster. But the plain and simple fact is that global warming and its causes will never be effectively dealt with as long as we are a world composed of separate nations. Many, if not most, nation-states have their own economic agendas, which usually take priority over worldwide environmental welfare. Thus, the fate of the earth is presently governed in large part by irregular, independently arrived at, decisions of numerous individual countries. In the wealthier nations, decisions appear to result, at least in large part, from the various influences of business interests within said states. The United States is one of these very nations. In addition, many smaller, less economically developed, countries have business-related needs or aspirations that leave no choice but to conduct or permit activities that damage the atmosphere which belongs to all of us.
There is still hope, however. Nuclear power, carefully and prudently regulated and handled, could be a more sensible source of energy. Better yet, wind and sunlight are widely abundant and useful as sources of electricity and heat in most parts of the world. It's been estimated, in fact, that wind alone can furnish five times today's global demand for electricity.
What is necessary is the shedding of sovereign states' attachment to the vainglory of sovereignty in deciding whether and to what extent steps will be taken by each in efforts to repair the damage that has been done, and to prevent further, possibly fatal, harm to our world. Instead, a single unified body of members of the appropriate scientific disciplenes must determine what remedies and practices are specifically needed; and a single unified governing entity must impose these necessary steps upon the entire world community. An enforceable international approach to these issues is our only hope--before it is too late. And this will only happen when a single international governing body is at the helm.
* * * * *
Saturday, July 28, 2012
WRONGS THAT NEED CORRECTION
ECOLOGICAL ISSUES
It is a universally acknowledged fact that the world of the twenty first century faces many serious challenges. And most would agree that particularly critical among them are issues regarding our environment.
The entire human race is entitled to a secure, healthy, ecologically sound place to live. And yet, so many ecological symptoms suggesting the opposite have raised their frightening heads during recent years. These include overpopulation, food and water shortages, global warming, shrinking forests, abuse of agricultural lands, overexploited fisheries, as well as needless abuse, waste, and destruction of many other of our natural resources. Actions taken thus far by national governments to promote conservation and sustainable use of these resources can be characterized as inadequate in the extreme. And of course, as we know, ecological issues, problems, and disasters know and respect no national boundaries; and are thus usually regional, and even worldwide, in nature and scope.
One oft-mentioned ecological problem regards population and its continued growth. It is frequently referred to by means of questions such as "How many people can the earth support?" The most worrisome thing about this concept lies in the fact that our voluminousness is growing at an increasingly substantial and rapid rate. It is estimated that it took the human race at least fifty thousand years to reach one billion, at about 1840. Since than, we have been increasing our numbers at a faster and faster pace with each passing year. At the turn of the twentieth century, our planet is estimated to have been home to 1.2 billion people. By 1930, our numbers had grown to approximately two billion. In 1970, the estimate had reached 3.6 billion. And, on the date this sentence is being written (July 28, 2012), The United States Census Bureau's World POP Clock Projection guesses that this quantityIt is noteworthy that in recent years, the greatest degree of population growth is taking place in Africa and Asia. For example, in the region embracing has risen to something like 7,029, 199, 493. But even more troubling is the prediction that the human family will increase to nearly nine billion by the year 2050. (United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. World population to 2300)
It is noteworthy that in recent years, the greatest degree of population growth is taking place in Africa and Asia. For example, in the region embracing the African nations of Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Uganda, population has multiplied by at least seven hundred percent since 1915. And, according to a projection published by the United States Census Bureau in March, 1992, the population of the African continent was expected to increase vastly in the years ahead (as of 2011, it has risen to over a billion).
At the same time, Asia is increasing the number of our planet's inhabitants by at least 57 million people each year. The "winners" of the "population prize" are, by the way: China, with at least 1.3 billion, and India, with over 1.2 billion, in 2011.
In addition, Mexico, as well as much of Central and South America, are also playing their part in contributing to the crowd that occupies oiur planet. As an example, we are confronted with the disturbing prospect that, in accordance with its current birth rate, Mexico;s population, already quite sizeable, will double every twenty years. Another interesting factor is that at least of that country's present population is less than sixteen years of age. An unhappy net result of this is contained in the grim observation that in Mexico, and in many other places as well, population has vastly outstripped food supply.
As Malthus warned us, a population rising in an uncontrolled fashion will sooner or later experience crises and disasters, especially among its less fortunate members, by reason of the fact that the earth is but a finite producer. According to this theory, such conditions should naturally serve to curtail further population growth. But it seems likely that today, a number of modern life's new and additional intervening factors have operated to limit or annul many formerly natural restrictive processes. And so, population continues to expand, seemingly ad infinitum, around the world.
Some of these very places just mentioned are subject to regularly occuring spells of drought, and/or other weather-related conditions, which cause periodic episodes of hardship and famine. Of particular note is the fact that when famine does strike somewhere in today's world, political conflict within those same regions may cause it to be difficult or impossible for the rest of humanity to render aid. Food and aid shipments are often confiscated by government and/or rebel forces; and the diverted products used to feed and assist the troops; or worse, permitted to rot unconsumed and unused at the point of interception.
Rebellion and other such political conflicts often comprise efforts by the rebel forces to overthrow current ruling forces within a country, and to thereby assume control of that place. Perhaps, if the world were governed by a single global entity, such rebellious ambitions would assert themselves less often, and less vehemently; as they would likely constitute rebellion by relatively smaller groups--against the rest of the world (a criminal episode, at worst).
Furthermore, under such general ideal circumstances as are contemplated herein, the absence of political conflict and warfare would enable aid, for things like drought or famine, and for other problems as well, to be furnished wherever it should happento become needed, without let or hindrance. Moreover, in a united world, a great deal less attention and expenditure of resources would be wasted on arms and armies; thereby yielding opportunity for more to be devoted to improvements to, and better production of, our necessities, including food and water supplies. As a consequence, famine and water shortages might occur less frequently--and perhaps eventually not at all. But if one of these tragedies should nevertheless occur, it would not be striking at, and straining the resources of, a single small country--which then needs to beg for aid from the rest of us. Rather, it would be striking a small proportional area of our entire world. In such a perspective, as something requiring assistive and/or corrective efforts from a worldwide standpoint, it appears to be a problem more easily and effectively dealt with on behalf of all of us.
Although often related to, or a cause of, famine, water problems constitute a separate set of concerns. Water abundance or scarcity can be a primary factor in determining prosperity or poverty, even life or death. It has even, on past occasions, been a cause for the waging of war. We are warned by experts in these fields, that unless wealthier regions reduce consumption, and population figures are simultaneously stabilized worldwide, water scarcity will lead to greater and greater political as well as general human insecurity in the years ahead.
But relief is as yet not in sight. Today, water scarcity continues to escalate in many areas. In 1990, more than a billion people werre said to be without safe, clean drinking water. Twenty two years later, this sad state of affairs appears to have worsened. It is thus another issue that needs to be viewed and dealt with on a worldwide basis, so that no one will be deprived, due to geography or circumstance, of this basic human entitlement.
* * * * *
WRONGS THAT NEED CORRECTION
OUR EDUCATIONAL SHORTCOMINGS
Surprising as it may be to many of us who reside in places where such is more or less unheard
of, there were 323 million children, throughout the world, who were not enrolled in school in 2007. (David Alexander, "World falling behind on 2015 education goal." Reuters, Jan. 17, 2007) Another shocking statistic tells us that our world is today populated by close to a billion adults who cannot read or write. (New York Times, Wed., July 2, 2008) Universal literacy is more than desirable. In view of the modern technological stage to which our world has been transported, it is absolutely essential.
It is sad to note that some cultures actually continue to discourage attendance at school--especially by girThus, what is required is the establishment of a worldwide educationqal network, heedless of national borders, and instituted for the sole purpose of administering learning to all ls. It is even sadder to realize that, in many places, attendance at school is impossible, even for children of families who desire it, due to the out-and-out absence of reasonably nearby school facilities, and/or transportation thereto. Thus, what is required is the establishment of a worldwide educational network, heedless of national borders, and instituted for the sole purpose of administering learning to all children everywhere, with the same sense of urgency of purpose as the provision of food should be to children who are starving.
Schools need not, and should not, be vehicles for inculcation of national or political values into the minds of the young. It is for this reason in particular that I propose a worldwide system of basic education, of at least twelve years' duration, with no distinction or modification due to its national location. Of course, there is no harm in, and would in fact need to be, a small quantity of supplemental curriculum based upon the geography and distinctive natural and cultural circumstances prevalent in particular places. But, aside from that, everything else--including history--should be taught in an objective fashion throughout the world. A worldwide universal language should be taught as a second language to all students.
Students who obtain "higher" (college level, graduate, or professional) education, wherever they be, should be subject to similar standards and requirements. I also foresee a kind of universal conscription, pursuant to which each such graduate would owe perhaps four years of service in his or her particular field (or perhaps a field related thereto) directed toward the then-prevailing needs of society.
* * * * *
Friday, July 27, 2012
WRONGS THAT NEED CORRECTION
POLITICAL WRONGS
Our society presently consists of a multitude of independent and semi-independent nation-states. Many of these are ruled by governments and leaderships that exhibit much injustice and wrongdoing.
For one thing, various degrees of dictatorship still exist in many countries. The justfications frequently resorted to by dictators are the concepts of national security and/or national power. All of our citizenry must be kept in line, or our nation will be weak and trod upon by our neighbors or our enemies. But it must be remembered that "centralism"--as well as nationalism--should never be permitted to constitute a pretext for dictatorial control., A multitude held together by force is not properly united--and usually eventually falls apart, via seemingly inevitable foreign conflict or domestic revolution. An interesting bit of possible evidence of this may exist in the proposition or adage that "no war has ever occurred between two democratic states." (Can anyone come up with one?)
Of course, nations would not need to maintain "national strength" if there were no nations. In a world of nation-states, strength must always be maintained to the extent necessary to preserve domestic peace. But, in a world without borders, all of the world would be "domestic." Serious domestic disturbances that should occur anywhere would be dealt with as "crime" on behalf of the entire world populace. No longer would alleged misbehavior on the part of one nation--state be the occasion for a contest between its army and that of another (or perhaps several other) nation-state(s). Instead misbehavior or crime would be clearly defined by written statutes, objectively and logically arrived at by legal experts representing a consensus of the will and welfare of the entire world. In actuality, an event constituting such a violation would likely be committed by far less than what would constitute a national entity--and it would be easily dealt with by the balance of mankind, via our single governing body
* * * * *
History tells us that once upon a time, European colonies in South America, and in other parts of the world as well, were operated like private estates. Given this form of political past, the residents within such p;laces are usually unable, after withdrawal of the discipline imposed by the former colonial power, to construct a solid and united governing body. Instead, the division and internal strife that would frequently arise following liberation would impose a need for a strong authoritarian form of government, often in the person of a single powerful and domineering leader. In addition, many of these newly independent nations are frequently beset by chronic economic crises. It is said that such conditions create a desparate need for powerful leadership, and thus usually lead to a form of authoritarian one-party rule. In a number of cases, cruel and brutal side effects of such a type of national government have consisted of summary imprisonment, torture, unexplained disappearances, and outright murder, instituted or tolerated by the leadership, in order to quell any forces within the place that may disagree or speak out too loudly.
The form of government that I bellieve in would have a solid worldwide political and economic basis--because it would consist of the government of the world and oversee the economy of the world. Thus, although conversion to a single world government would entail disentanglement of any and all places from political or colonial domination by others, it would not precipitate weakness or helplessness in any quarter. Instead, the whole world would be a s strong--in fact, probably stronger--than the sum of its parts. For "In union there is strength." And in the presence of such economic and political strength, there would be no need or opportunity for the coming to power of an authoritarian form of government having need to rely iupon improper actions such as mentioned above to acquire or maintain its position. On the contrary, it is hoped that the governing authority that would be thus created would be constituted and function only for the welfare and betterment of all of mankind and society. Liberty and oppoortunity for all, within such necessary constraints as should be required to be imposed by reasonable concern for the freedom and welfare of the rest of mankind, must, and would, always be paramount.
* * * * *
A condition within our world that is the basis of many of our difficulties, and thus requires correction via elimination, is the existence throughout the earth of arbitrary, often historically accidental, political boundaries. Boundaries, in and of themselves, produce a requirement that the people residing on the two sides of the line, "coexist," i.e., live alongside each other in peace. Ironically, these people on both sides of this boundary frequently happen to be related to one another--genetically, economically, and/or culturally.
Historians tell us that "wars come about because nations simply do not believe that they can go on coexisting." Moreover, we recognize that a second "prime purpose of nations at war" is the conquest and acquisition by nation "A" of additional territory (better known as "real estate") from nation "B." Excuses for nation "A" to attack, and in the process to extract some additional real property from, nation "B," have been many and varied for centuries. But, at this point looking at and taking heed from our current scientific and technological capabilities, we hear fair warning that "mankind might not persist beyond [one more] century...unless all nations adopt low-risk and sustainable policies...." (Martin Rees, Our Final Hour ) Surely this includes, and very critically consists of, the cessation of warfare--with our neighbors, as well as with the people on the other side of the globe.
The most obvious means of enabling nations to coexist, and to obviate the need for nation "A" to attempt to confiscate territory from nation "B" (and perhaps, in so doing, to bring about mankind's doom) would be to create an atmosphere wherein nation "A" and nation "B" were parts of one and the same nation--i.e., parts of a single worldwide nation.
* * * * *
Our society presently consists of a multitude of independent and semi-independent nation-states. Many of these are ruled by governments and leaderships that exhibit much injustice and wrongdoing.
For one thing, various degrees of dictatorship still exist in many countries. The justfications frequently resorted to by dictators are the concepts of national security and/or national power. All of our citizenry must be kept in line, or our nation will be weak and trod upon by our neighbors or our enemies. But it must be remembered that "centralism"--as well as nationalism--should never be permitted to constitute a pretext for dictatorial control., A multitude held together by force is not properly united--and usually eventually falls apart, via seemingly inevitable foreign conflict or domestic revolution. An interesting bit of possible evidence of this may exist in the proposition or adage that "no war has ever occurred between two democratic states." (Can anyone come up with one?)
Of course, nations would not need to maintain "national strength" if there were no nations. In a world of nation-states, strength must always be maintained to the extent necessary to preserve domestic peace. But, in a world without borders, all of the world would be "domestic." Serious domestic disturbances that should occur anywhere would be dealt with as "crime" on behalf of the entire world populace. No longer would alleged misbehavior on the part of one nation--state be the occasion for a contest between its army and that of another (or perhaps several other) nation-state(s). Instead misbehavior or crime would be clearly defined by written statutes, objectively and logically arrived at by legal experts representing a consensus of the will and welfare of the entire world. In actuality, an event constituting such a violation would likely be committed by far less than what would constitute a national entity--and it would be easily dealt with by the balance of mankind, via our single governing body
* * * * *
History tells us that once upon a time, European colonies in South America, and in other parts of the world as well, were operated like private estates. Given this form of political past, the residents within such p;laces are usually unable, after withdrawal of the discipline imposed by the former colonial power, to construct a solid and united governing body. Instead, the division and internal strife that would frequently arise following liberation would impose a need for a strong authoritarian form of government, often in the person of a single powerful and domineering leader. In addition, many of these newly independent nations are frequently beset by chronic economic crises. It is said that such conditions create a desparate need for powerful leadership, and thus usually lead to a form of authoritarian one-party rule. In a number of cases, cruel and brutal side effects of such a type of national government have consisted of summary imprisonment, torture, unexplained disappearances, and outright murder, instituted or tolerated by the leadership, in order to quell any forces within the place that may disagree or speak out too loudly.
The form of government that I bellieve in would have a solid worldwide political and economic basis--because it would consist of the government of the world and oversee the economy of the world. Thus, although conversion to a single world government would entail disentanglement of any and all places from political or colonial domination by others, it would not precipitate weakness or helplessness in any quarter. Instead, the whole world would be a s strong--in fact, probably stronger--than the sum of its parts. For "In union there is strength." And in the presence of such economic and political strength, there would be no need or opportunity for the coming to power of an authoritarian form of government having need to rely iupon improper actions such as mentioned above to acquire or maintain its position. On the contrary, it is hoped that the governing authority that would be thus created would be constituted and function only for the welfare and betterment of all of mankind and society. Liberty and oppoortunity for all, within such necessary constraints as should be required to be imposed by reasonable concern for the freedom and welfare of the rest of mankind, must, and would, always be paramount.
* * * * *
A condition within our world that is the basis of many of our difficulties, and thus requires correction via elimination, is the existence throughout the earth of arbitrary, often historically accidental, political boundaries. Boundaries, in and of themselves, produce a requirement that the people residing on the two sides of the line, "coexist," i.e., live alongside each other in peace. Ironically, these people on both sides of this boundary frequently happen to be related to one another--genetically, economically, and/or culturally.
Historians tell us that "wars come about because nations simply do not believe that they can go on coexisting." Moreover, we recognize that a second "prime purpose of nations at war" is the conquest and acquisition by nation "A" of additional territory (better known as "real estate") from nation "B." Excuses for nation "A" to attack, and in the process to extract some additional real property from, nation "B," have been many and varied for centuries. But, at this point looking at and taking heed from our current scientific and technological capabilities, we hear fair warning that "mankind might not persist beyond [one more] century...unless all nations adopt low-risk and sustainable policies...." (Martin Rees, Our Final Hour ) Surely this includes, and very critically consists of, the cessation of warfare--with our neighbors, as well as with the people on the other side of the globe.
The most obvious means of enabling nations to coexist, and to obviate the need for nation "A" to attempt to confiscate territory from nation "B" (and perhaps, in so doing, to bring about mankind's doom) would be to create an atmosphere wherein nation "A" and nation "B" were parts of one and the same nation--i.e., parts of a single worldwide nation.
* * * * *
WRONGS THAT NEED CORRECTION
SOCIAL WRONGS
"State of the World," a respected, nonpolitical, annual publication, recited in its 1995 edition, a description of the social and po0litical symptons of "unsustainability" which certain unfortunate nations had come to exhibit at that time. More than fifteen years later, these symptoms continue to be accurate: "hunger and malnutrition...; environmental and economic refugees; social conflicts along ethnic, tribal, and religious lines; riots and insurgencies." (Lester Brown, et. ors., "State of the World," 1995)
Dr. Peter Taylor's World Government makes further reference to the results of material inequalities within countries. These comprise unstable governments, one-party political systems, governments that revolve around the strong personality of a single charismatic leader, and governments that frequently override or ignore constitutions that are in place.
In his Globalization and its Discontents, Joseph Stiglitz offers another account of the dilemma which afflicts many ill-favored parts of the world, resulting in "vicious spirals." Per his characterization, "...lack of food leads to ill health, which limits their [the poor's] earning ability, leading to still poorer health. Barely surviving, they cannot send their children to school; and without an education, their children are condemned to a life of poverty." Thus the cycle repeats itself again and again.
These tragic pictures are particularly prevalent in Africa, where twenty seven countries hold twenty seven of the lowest places on the scale of human development.
In his One World, Peter Singer asserts that humanitarian intervention is justified when resorted to as a response to conditions that can kill or seriously harm many people--especially when the "state nominally in charge" is not able, or not willing, to deal with it. In their Challenge of Global Capitalism, Robert and Jean Gilpin obviously agree, declaring that "there are many extremely serious social and political problems in the world...." And that "changed national and regional policies could assist the poor and the downtrodden." The questions are: What is the best and most proper form of entity to execute such humanitarian intervention? And, What form of entity should undertake these changed policies? I submit that the substitution of states "nominally in charge" with a single universal governing entity is the ultimate, and probably only, answer; and that this answer needs to be effectuated as soon as reasonably possible.
In his aforementioned work, Peter Singer quotes from St. Thomas Aquinas, who long ago declared that "whatever a man has in superabundance is owed, of natural right, to the poor for their maintenance." Stated in more modern terms, some of our super-rich (persons as well as institutions) should feel a need to be a bit more generous upon realizing that, each day, thousands of children as well as adults die as a result of malnutrition and ailments for which prevention and treatment are readily available, at the expenditure of a fraction of the resources that they possess.
In short, the time has arrived for a change--a change which will elevate conditions within our world to the level of our civilization--a change which, in my opinion, only a unified worldwide entity would have the means to accomplish.
* * * * *
Thursday, July 26, 2012
WRONGS THAT NEED CORRECTION
SOCIAL WRONGS
Closely related to poverty, hunger, and disease is the widespread existence of inadequate housing and homelessness. It has been estimated that as many as two billion people resided in very poor quality housing as the twenty first century began. This includes the forty to fifty percent of the populations of cities in developing countries, who live in slums and squatter settlements. But these "spectacles of misery" are not merely confined to "developing countries." We are told that they can be beheld in many of the world's greatest cities, including Cairo and Rio de Janeiro.
A circumstance that usually accompanies unsatisfactory housing, and in fact constitutes an actual element of it, is inadequate sanitation. For example, in 1985, less than fifty percent of the people living in rural areas of South Africa had safe drinking water; and only three percent had acceptable sanitary facilities. Similar percentages, perhaps not as high but nevertheless dismal, appear in regard to many other parts of the developing world, and during the last two decades as well.
A similar problem, that seems to affect prosperous as well as underdeveloped countries--and is perhaps even more prevelant in the former--is homelessness. As an example, in or about 1980, the word "homelessness" had just entered the American vocabulary; by 1984, it was estimated that perhaps 350,000 Americans had no place they could call home; and by 1990, this figure had risen dramatically--it being said that more than three million Americans lived in the streets. In regard to this problem, I must repeat once more a statement uttered yesterday: that, while poverty and population control are issues to be addressed, once a person is born, he has the right to a decent life--which includes proper shelter.
\
We are able today to send a man to the moon; we are able to create marvels of engineering and structural accomplishment. At such a stage of technological development, we should be able, and willing, to provide at least assistance and instruction, on an appropriate scale, to put an end to deficiencies in health, housing, and living conditions throughout the world. The Peace Corps is a wonderful concept; but what we need is a "giant" version, constituted by a worldwide governing body, and composed of sufficient competence and resources from all quarters as should be necessary to accomplish this task--in the same fashion, and with the same effort as the United States put forth in accomplishing the task of landing a manned spacecraft on the moon over forty years ago.
Another scourge that appears to be incidental to and an accompaniment of poverty, unhealthy environments, and substandard housing, is alcohol and drug abuse. Difficulties regarding both, and particularly trafficking in and use of illicit drugs, continue to be growing of late at an alarming rate. Drug abuse, particularly among the young, is a worldwide problem--which is oblivious to political boundaries.
A key step in effectively dealing with the narcotics trade is reduction of the monetary incentive to grow the crops that go into their production. This requires a worldwide effort, by a single worldwide authority. Moreover, today the governments of certain countries wherein they asre grown or produced are often unable or unwilling to properly eradicate such cultivation or production. In many cases this applies to smaller, poorer nations, where enforcement resources are scanty and consequently weak; and/or where the financial rewards to some to some of the citizens thus involved are among the few viable means of achieving wealth and "success" within that country. Such a handful of "successful" and thus wealthy drug barons are often able to stay beyond the reach of, and may sometimes even be of help to, the governments of such small, relatively powerless, nations. On the other hand, viewed in a worldwide context, the importance and significance of the prosperity of a handful of illegal producers of, and dealers in, such illicit drugs becomes minor indeed, and would be appropriately stamped out and otherwise dealt with on short notice.
It is clear that concerted world efforts need to be undertaken to combat all of these conditions that afflict mankind. But, as long as "more important" business is at hand--such as fighting wars, and other means of protecting and preserving our sovereignty--assistance to the more pitiful segments of our populace must take a "back seat," and be confined to comparatively mild efforts on the part of religious and voluntary organizations, together with well-meaning but limited and overextended United Nations agencies.
* * * * *
It is consequently obvious that human deprivation and sufffering in such gigantic proportions need to be addressed and reduced on a global basis. And if this is what needs to be done, a single world government would do it best. First, if such an innovation in government brings about world peace and harmony, there will be a great deal of wealth that would have been spent on building arms and armies that can be employed toward assisting the real needs within our society and our world. Further, this sort of activity would be free from national political "red tape" or interference. Moreover, it would not be hampered by the existence of war or rebellion within areas most in need of such help.
I do not by this refer to a future mammoth dole to the world's needy. Rather, I envision, in addition to immediate direct aid where necessary, the establishment of systems and programs aimed at teaching and otherwise enabling the poor to overcome their poverty, and consequent hunger and health problems, once and for all.
Of course, immediate needs and emergencies do have to be attended to at once. But it is my opinion that, after that, the primary concept that should be followed is expressed by an adage that says something like, "Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Give him as well a fishing pole and fishing lessons, and he and his neighbors will never be hungry again." Thus, in addition to aid for immediate problems and emergencies, and the establishment of safe and healthy environments, the primary goal ought be the provision of education and related assistance whereby the residents--especially the children--within these areas will be enabled to develop into reasonable, logical, and knowledgeable adults, able to function shoulder-to-shoulder with each other for necessary improvements to civilization, mankind, life, and the world.
Application of these principles could, should, and would conceivably produce assistance regarding various other unfavorable sociological conditions that persist in parts of our world, including:
a. the one billion or so people living today who cannot read or write;
b. the sizeable quantity of child labor that is still resorted to today; together with the horrid working conditions for all--adults and children--that continue to exist in many places;
c. the places on earth where large numbers of young men and women come to maturity without opportunities to learn, work, and make meaningful and productive lives for themselves--resulting in poverty and discontent; and joining up with renegade sectors within their society;
d. the fact that most of the world's disabled lead miserable deprived existences, with little or no access to any social assistance;
e. the inadequate supply , or outright nonexistence in many places, of institutions for the provision of care for the frail and dependent elderly;
f. the ongoing continuation in many parts of the world of large numbers of refugees of war, oppression, economic deprivation, tragic natural events, and numerous other causes.
The means to the realization of all of these accomplishments--and more--are in our possession. But they need to be undertaken on behalf of the entire world, by an entity acting on behalf of the entire world As long as we are divided into separate states, there will be states that are "haves," and others that are "have-nots." And it appears to be a sad, but nonetherless actual, trait of human nature for "haves" to often be less than adequately generous toward the "have-nots." Witness, for example, the fact that, as a nation, the United States is said to have the smallest foreign aid budget of all the advanced countries, in proportion to our gross national product: about one tenth of one percent. (Peter Singer, One World)
According to developmental goals arrived at during the United Nations Millenium Summit held in 2000, it was estimated that $40 to $60 Billion Dollars per year in additional aid would enable "poverty and hunger to be halved by 2015." It is now merely a few years away from 2015, and poverty and hunger have only increased thus far. If this figure be accurate, perhaps twice as much, or $80 to $100 Billion per year, for a few years, would be sufficient to eliminate poverty and hunger altogether. Thus, theoretically, according to the aforesaid, a sum comprising but a fraction of the many hundreds of Billions expended thus far on our activities in Iraq and Afghanistan, could have instead been expended to abolish worldwide poverty and hunger--and without the loss of thousands of lives in combat. Or, to put it another way, if one nation can spend a half Trillion or more dollars on a war during a relatively short period of time, why can't a group of wealthier nations together expend but a portion of that amount to abolish worldwide poverty and hunger for all time?
While my personal position regarding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is irrelevant; and it is not my purpose here to discuss their necessity or importance; it nonetheless seems plain that other, possibly more worthwhile, undertakings are feasible as well--or perhaps instead.
* * * * *
Closely related to poverty, hunger, and disease is the widespread existence of inadequate housing and homelessness. It has been estimated that as many as two billion people resided in very poor quality housing as the twenty first century began. This includes the forty to fifty percent of the populations of cities in developing countries, who live in slums and squatter settlements. But these "spectacles of misery" are not merely confined to "developing countries." We are told that they can be beheld in many of the world's greatest cities, including Cairo and Rio de Janeiro.
A circumstance that usually accompanies unsatisfactory housing, and in fact constitutes an actual element of it, is inadequate sanitation. For example, in 1985, less than fifty percent of the people living in rural areas of South Africa had safe drinking water; and only three percent had acceptable sanitary facilities. Similar percentages, perhaps not as high but nevertheless dismal, appear in regard to many other parts of the developing world, and during the last two decades as well.
A similar problem, that seems to affect prosperous as well as underdeveloped countries--and is perhaps even more prevelant in the former--is homelessness. As an example, in or about 1980, the word "homelessness" had just entered the American vocabulary; by 1984, it was estimated that perhaps 350,000 Americans had no place they could call home; and by 1990, this figure had risen dramatically--it being said that more than three million Americans lived in the streets. In regard to this problem, I must repeat once more a statement uttered yesterday: that, while poverty and population control are issues to be addressed, once a person is born, he has the right to a decent life--which includes proper shelter.
\
We are able today to send a man to the moon; we are able to create marvels of engineering and structural accomplishment. At such a stage of technological development, we should be able, and willing, to provide at least assistance and instruction, on an appropriate scale, to put an end to deficiencies in health, housing, and living conditions throughout the world. The Peace Corps is a wonderful concept; but what we need is a "giant" version, constituted by a worldwide governing body, and composed of sufficient competence and resources from all quarters as should be necessary to accomplish this task--in the same fashion, and with the same effort as the United States put forth in accomplishing the task of landing a manned spacecraft on the moon over forty years ago.
Another scourge that appears to be incidental to and an accompaniment of poverty, unhealthy environments, and substandard housing, is alcohol and drug abuse. Difficulties regarding both, and particularly trafficking in and use of illicit drugs, continue to be growing of late at an alarming rate. Drug abuse, particularly among the young, is a worldwide problem--which is oblivious to political boundaries.
A key step in effectively dealing with the narcotics trade is reduction of the monetary incentive to grow the crops that go into their production. This requires a worldwide effort, by a single worldwide authority. Moreover, today the governments of certain countries wherein they asre grown or produced are often unable or unwilling to properly eradicate such cultivation or production. In many cases this applies to smaller, poorer nations, where enforcement resources are scanty and consequently weak; and/or where the financial rewards to some to some of the citizens thus involved are among the few viable means of achieving wealth and "success" within that country. Such a handful of "successful" and thus wealthy drug barons are often able to stay beyond the reach of, and may sometimes even be of help to, the governments of such small, relatively powerless, nations. On the other hand, viewed in a worldwide context, the importance and significance of the prosperity of a handful of illegal producers of, and dealers in, such illicit drugs becomes minor indeed, and would be appropriately stamped out and otherwise dealt with on short notice.
It is clear that concerted world efforts need to be undertaken to combat all of these conditions that afflict mankind. But, as long as "more important" business is at hand--such as fighting wars, and other means of protecting and preserving our sovereignty--assistance to the more pitiful segments of our populace must take a "back seat," and be confined to comparatively mild efforts on the part of religious and voluntary organizations, together with well-meaning but limited and overextended United Nations agencies.
* * * * *
It is consequently obvious that human deprivation and sufffering in such gigantic proportions need to be addressed and reduced on a global basis. And if this is what needs to be done, a single world government would do it best. First, if such an innovation in government brings about world peace and harmony, there will be a great deal of wealth that would have been spent on building arms and armies that can be employed toward assisting the real needs within our society and our world. Further, this sort of activity would be free from national political "red tape" or interference. Moreover, it would not be hampered by the existence of war or rebellion within areas most in need of such help.
I do not by this refer to a future mammoth dole to the world's needy. Rather, I envision, in addition to immediate direct aid where necessary, the establishment of systems and programs aimed at teaching and otherwise enabling the poor to overcome their poverty, and consequent hunger and health problems, once and for all.
Of course, immediate needs and emergencies do have to be attended to at once. But it is my opinion that, after that, the primary concept that should be followed is expressed by an adage that says something like, "Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Give him as well a fishing pole and fishing lessons, and he and his neighbors will never be hungry again." Thus, in addition to aid for immediate problems and emergencies, and the establishment of safe and healthy environments, the primary goal ought be the provision of education and related assistance whereby the residents--especially the children--within these areas will be enabled to develop into reasonable, logical, and knowledgeable adults, able to function shoulder-to-shoulder with each other for necessary improvements to civilization, mankind, life, and the world.
Application of these principles could, should, and would conceivably produce assistance regarding various other unfavorable sociological conditions that persist in parts of our world, including:
a. the one billion or so people living today who cannot read or write;
b. the sizeable quantity of child labor that is still resorted to today; together with the horrid working conditions for all--adults and children--that continue to exist in many places;
c. the places on earth where large numbers of young men and women come to maturity without opportunities to learn, work, and make meaningful and productive lives for themselves--resulting in poverty and discontent; and joining up with renegade sectors within their society;
d. the fact that most of the world's disabled lead miserable deprived existences, with little or no access to any social assistance;
e. the inadequate supply , or outright nonexistence in many places, of institutions for the provision of care for the frail and dependent elderly;
f. the ongoing continuation in many parts of the world of large numbers of refugees of war, oppression, economic deprivation, tragic natural events, and numerous other causes.
The means to the realization of all of these accomplishments--and more--are in our possession. But they need to be undertaken on behalf of the entire world, by an entity acting on behalf of the entire world As long as we are divided into separate states, there will be states that are "haves," and others that are "have-nots." And it appears to be a sad, but nonetherless actual, trait of human nature for "haves" to often be less than adequately generous toward the "have-nots." Witness, for example, the fact that, as a nation, the United States is said to have the smallest foreign aid budget of all the advanced countries, in proportion to our gross national product: about one tenth of one percent. (Peter Singer, One World)
According to developmental goals arrived at during the United Nations Millenium Summit held in 2000, it was estimated that $40 to $60 Billion Dollars per year in additional aid would enable "poverty and hunger to be halved by 2015." It is now merely a few years away from 2015, and poverty and hunger have only increased thus far. If this figure be accurate, perhaps twice as much, or $80 to $100 Billion per year, for a few years, would be sufficient to eliminate poverty and hunger altogether. Thus, theoretically, according to the aforesaid, a sum comprising but a fraction of the many hundreds of Billions expended thus far on our activities in Iraq and Afghanistan, could have instead been expended to abolish worldwide poverty and hunger--and without the loss of thousands of lives in combat. Or, to put it another way, if one nation can spend a half Trillion or more dollars on a war during a relatively short period of time, why can't a group of wealthier nations together expend but a portion of that amount to abolish worldwide poverty and hunger for all time?
While my personal position regarding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is irrelevant; and it is not my purpose here to discuss their necessity or importance; it nonetheless seems plain that other, possibly more worthwhile, undertakings are feasible as well--or perhaps instead.
* * * * *
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
WRONGS THAT NEED CORRECTION
SOCIAL WRONGS
A bedmate and unavoidabble consequence of poverty is hunger, which in turn resu;lts in malnutrition and starvation. There are many regions of the world where subsistence agriculture is presently the best that can be achieved, and productivity is chronically low. In addition, many of these regions also happen to be places wherein there is constant rapid population growth. Often a grim net effect inevitably follows wherein food production falls farther and farther behind population expansion. Among these sad cases are places such as sub-Saharan Africa and Bangladesh. They have been characterized by some experts as a sort of "Fourth World," wherrein poverty and starvation afflict hundreds of millions of human beings, and where there is at present little hope for improvement.
Another unhappy statistic is contained in the statement that fifty percent of mankind consumes about eighty five percent of the world's food production; while the other fifty percent must be satisfied with the remaining fifteen percent. In 2000, it was estimated that approximately 800 million human beings lacked sufficient food. It was further projected that the number of people thus suffering from acute malnutrition would increase rather than diminish in the years ahead. Particularly sorrowing is the estimate that one third of all children in our world are undernourished; and that a large percentage of these children suffer from the severe form of malnutrition that is frequently fatal.
Together with poverty and hunger, the third member of what constitutes an unholy trinity is disease. Many infectious and parasitic diseases can be overcome by simple improvements to our environment, and other preventive measures. In addition, our current arsenal of medical advances can usually successfully conquer many outbreaks when they occur. However, unfortunately, lack of adequate funds causes chronic inadequacy of surveillance and preventive measures in many less developed areas. This, coupled with existing dangerous ecological factors in these places, continue to trigger tragic episodes of mass illness.
Furthermore, in many poverty-stricken places, preventive and defensive medical measures are beyond reach--thus making epidemics a real possibility. While tragedies of mammoth proportion, such as the influenza epidemic of 1918-19 that claimed 25 to 50 million lives are less likely today, more moderate outbreaks, that might claim only ten million lives, remain a threat, especially in less developed parts of our world.
Another pathetic circumstance that exists in many poverty-stricken places is expressed in the statistics telling us that four million children uneder five years of age residing in such places die each year from diarrhea, which is a condition that is readily manageable. A further four million succumb to other preventable and treatable childhood ailments, such as measles, polio, diptheria, and tuberculosis. Add to this another two million youngsters struck down annually by causes such as plain and simple malnutrition and unsafe water, and we behold a shocking grand tally of at least ten million deaths each year--or thirty thousand each day--striking children under five years of age--deaths that could have been easily prevented. Stated in another fashion, the grim fact is that, in the poorest countries, one in five children is doomed to die before his or her fifth birthday.
Population is another issue, and deservant of serious concern and control. But once a child is born, he or she deserves a "shot at life." No child should suffer or perish because of absence of food, safe drinking water, or readily obtainable drugs or treatment for common ailments and inujuries. And once an individual does survive past childhood, he or she should have access to living conditions and medical facilities that will enable this person to live well beyond the age of thirty six--which is the average life expectancy in Malawi; or forty eight--being the overall recent average age of death in all of sub-Saharan Africa.
Another grim specter of disease that reared its head relatively recently is the human devastation wrought by acquired immune deficiency syndrome, or "AIDS." In sub-Saharan Africa, 29.4 million people were said to be infected in 2003; and this number has only increased to date. In Malawi, close to ten percent of the population was said to be so infected in 2005; and over 650,000 had already perished from this dread disease. Since then, you can be certain, all such figures relating thereto have gone up dramatically and tragically.
A frightening realization consists of the fact that poverty, hunger, and disease complement and actually feed off each other. Hunger contributes to disease; sick people are unable to produce as much; such insufficieant production causes poverty--which in turn results in more hunger--and so on down a vicious spiral. This is why with each successive year, certain regions become more poverty-stricken, hungrier, and sicker.
* * * * *
A bedmate and unavoidabble consequence of poverty is hunger, which in turn resu;lts in malnutrition and starvation. There are many regions of the world where subsistence agriculture is presently the best that can be achieved, and productivity is chronically low. In addition, many of these regions also happen to be places wherein there is constant rapid population growth. Often a grim net effect inevitably follows wherein food production falls farther and farther behind population expansion. Among these sad cases are places such as sub-Saharan Africa and Bangladesh. They have been characterized by some experts as a sort of "Fourth World," wherrein poverty and starvation afflict hundreds of millions of human beings, and where there is at present little hope for improvement.
Another unhappy statistic is contained in the statement that fifty percent of mankind consumes about eighty five percent of the world's food production; while the other fifty percent must be satisfied with the remaining fifteen percent. In 2000, it was estimated that approximately 800 million human beings lacked sufficient food. It was further projected that the number of people thus suffering from acute malnutrition would increase rather than diminish in the years ahead. Particularly sorrowing is the estimate that one third of all children in our world are undernourished; and that a large percentage of these children suffer from the severe form of malnutrition that is frequently fatal.
Together with poverty and hunger, the third member of what constitutes an unholy trinity is disease. Many infectious and parasitic diseases can be overcome by simple improvements to our environment, and other preventive measures. In addition, our current arsenal of medical advances can usually successfully conquer many outbreaks when they occur. However, unfortunately, lack of adequate funds causes chronic inadequacy of surveillance and preventive measures in many less developed areas. This, coupled with existing dangerous ecological factors in these places, continue to trigger tragic episodes of mass illness.
Furthermore, in many poverty-stricken places, preventive and defensive medical measures are beyond reach--thus making epidemics a real possibility. While tragedies of mammoth proportion, such as the influenza epidemic of 1918-19 that claimed 25 to 50 million lives are less likely today, more moderate outbreaks, that might claim only ten million lives, remain a threat, especially in less developed parts of our world.
Another pathetic circumstance that exists in many poverty-stricken places is expressed in the statistics telling us that four million children uneder five years of age residing in such places die each year from diarrhea, which is a condition that is readily manageable. A further four million succumb to other preventable and treatable childhood ailments, such as measles, polio, diptheria, and tuberculosis. Add to this another two million youngsters struck down annually by causes such as plain and simple malnutrition and unsafe water, and we behold a shocking grand tally of at least ten million deaths each year--or thirty thousand each day--striking children under five years of age--deaths that could have been easily prevented. Stated in another fashion, the grim fact is that, in the poorest countries, one in five children is doomed to die before his or her fifth birthday.
Population is another issue, and deservant of serious concern and control. But once a child is born, he or she deserves a "shot at life." No child should suffer or perish because of absence of food, safe drinking water, or readily obtainable drugs or treatment for common ailments and inujuries. And once an individual does survive past childhood, he or she should have access to living conditions and medical facilities that will enable this person to live well beyond the age of thirty six--which is the average life expectancy in Malawi; or forty eight--being the overall recent average age of death in all of sub-Saharan Africa.
Another grim specter of disease that reared its head relatively recently is the human devastation wrought by acquired immune deficiency syndrome, or "AIDS." In sub-Saharan Africa, 29.4 million people were said to be infected in 2003; and this number has only increased to date. In Malawi, close to ten percent of the population was said to be so infected in 2005; and over 650,000 had already perished from this dread disease. Since then, you can be certain, all such figures relating thereto have gone up dramatically and tragically.
A frightening realization consists of the fact that poverty, hunger, and disease complement and actually feed off each other. Hunger contributes to disease; sick people are unable to produce as much; such insufficieant production causes poverty--which in turn results in more hunger--and so on down a vicious spiral. This is why with each successive year, certain regions become more poverty-stricken, hungrier, and sicker.
* * * * *
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
WRONGS THAT NEED CORRECTION
SOCIAL WRONGS
I am sure we all agree that there are many unpleasant, uncomfortable, hurtful, and tragic situations in our world that require corrections which are sociological in nature. What I am referring to are wrongs that affect mankind and society in general; and/or certain groups of people or segments of society in particular. These problems usually recognize no national boundaries, and often range over large areas. I firmly believe that the conversion of our world to a single unified entity would be the source of much assistance in the solution of many of these problems.
Perhaps the most widespread and painful among such problems is the existence of dire poverty in so many places,. In a nutshell, more than a billion people worldwide live lives of unbelievable privation--from birth until death. And there is no hope for them as the world presently exists.
Shouldn't it shock and sadden us to realize that 1.2 billion of us--approximately twenty percent, or one out of five, of us--live on less than One Dollar per day? Or that 2.8 billion--or nearly half of us--make do on less than Two Dollars per day?
To focus into a specific place for an example, it is shameful to note that in the Philippines, having a population of about 80 million, approximately 50 million survive on less than Two Dollars per day. Among these poor souls, more than 30 million spend their entire lives in temporary shelters; and something like 25 million have no access to sanitation.
Even in America, the current economic leader of our world, more than 36 million people--or approximately one out of eight--were living in poverty in 2003. This ratio has not likely improved much since then--and has possibly even worsened with the recent economic disaster that has befallen us. An interesting additional statistic in this regard is the fact that problems that generally arise as a result of poverty have been said to be the number three cause of death in this country.
I am sure we all agree that there are many unpleasant, uncomfortable, hurtful, and tragic situations in our world that require corrections which are sociological in nature. What I am referring to are wrongs that affect mankind and society in general; and/or certain groups of people or segments of society in particular. These problems usually recognize no national boundaries, and often range over large areas. I firmly believe that the conversion of our world to a single unified entity would be the source of much assistance in the solution of many of these problems.
Perhaps the most widespread and painful among such problems is the existence of dire poverty in so many places,. In a nutshell, more than a billion people worldwide live lives of unbelievable privation--from birth until death. And there is no hope for them as the world presently exists.
Shouldn't it shock and sadden us to realize that 1.2 billion of us--approximately twenty percent, or one out of five, of us--live on less than One Dollar per day? Or that 2.8 billion--or nearly half of us--make do on less than Two Dollars per day?
To focus into a specific place for an example, it is shameful to note that in the Philippines, having a population of about 80 million, approximately 50 million survive on less than Two Dollars per day. Among these poor souls, more than 30 million spend their entire lives in temporary shelters; and something like 25 million have no access to sanitation.
Even in America, the current economic leader of our world, more than 36 million people--or approximately one out of eight--were living in poverty in 2003. This ratio has not likely improved much since then--and has possibly even worsened with the recent economic disaster that has befallen us. An interesting additional statistic in this regard is the fact that problems that generally arise as a result of poverty have been said to be the number three cause of death in this country.
WRONGS THAT NEED CORRECTION
ECONOMIC WRONGS
Of late, we observe and witness sudden economic growth and success taking place in other parts of our world wherein it did not exist a relatively short time ago. China, India, Malaysia, Mexico, Russia, together with Brazil and several other nations in South America, have awakened from their economic slumber, and assumed their places as vigorous and thriving participants in various aspects of manufacturing and commerce, as well as oil-producing sources. Their respective economies are thus growing at remarkable rates, and they are simultaneously contracting and exhibiting the symptoms associated with their new-found status: crowded cities, increased motor vehicle traffic, and air pollution; heightened consumption of coal and oil, as well as of less healthy "Western" foods.
But, in my opinion, this sudden and novel eminence is directly attributable to an economic fault that is implicit in, as well as a result of, the very state of affairs that I seek to criticize: a variety of economies and currencies, pay scales, and labor conditions--in addition to environmental standards and tolerances--that enable said nation-states to powerfully attract out-sourced segments, as well as complete facility transfers, from places that had been the leaders in numerous respective fields of manufacturing and commercial endeavor.
In a unified world, with a single economy, a single currency, a single uniform set of appropriate and beneficent labor standards, as well as a uniform, objectively sensible and logical, environmental code, there could be no reason for a business concern in nation A to send a portion of its production process to a facility in nation B--or to close a plant in nation A and open a similar plant in nation B--in order to reduce its costs.
Moreover, a uniform economy and currency across the globe would provide entrepreneurs as well as consumers in the regions that used to be "nation B" with the same opportunity to produce, purchase, and possess similar goods as the producers and consumers in the regions that were once "nation A."
I would thus predict a consequent proliferation and expansion of many aspects of our world to many regions that had heretofore been unable to experience or possess them--and in a more uniform and reasonable fashion as well.
Of late, we observe and witness sudden economic growth and success taking place in other parts of our world wherein it did not exist a relatively short time ago. China, India, Malaysia, Mexico, Russia, together with Brazil and several other nations in South America, have awakened from their economic slumber, and assumed their places as vigorous and thriving participants in various aspects of manufacturing and commerce, as well as oil-producing sources. Their respective economies are thus growing at remarkable rates, and they are simultaneously contracting and exhibiting the symptoms associated with their new-found status: crowded cities, increased motor vehicle traffic, and air pollution; heightened consumption of coal and oil, as well as of less healthy "Western" foods.
But, in my opinion, this sudden and novel eminence is directly attributable to an economic fault that is implicit in, as well as a result of, the very state of affairs that I seek to criticize: a variety of economies and currencies, pay scales, and labor conditions--in addition to environmental standards and tolerances--that enable said nation-states to powerfully attract out-sourced segments, as well as complete facility transfers, from places that had been the leaders in numerous respective fields of manufacturing and commercial endeavor.
In a unified world, with a single economy, a single currency, a single uniform set of appropriate and beneficent labor standards, as well as a uniform, objectively sensible and logical, environmental code, there could be no reason for a business concern in nation A to send a portion of its production process to a facility in nation B--or to close a plant in nation A and open a similar plant in nation B--in order to reduce its costs.
Moreover, a uniform economy and currency across the globe would provide entrepreneurs as well as consumers in the regions that used to be "nation B" with the same opportunity to produce, purchase, and possess similar goods as the producers and consumers in the regions that were once "nation A."
I would thus predict a consequent proliferation and expansion of many aspects of our world to many regions that had heretofore been unable to experience or possess them--and in a more uniform and reasonable fashion as well.
Monday, July 23, 2012
WRONGS THAT NEED CORRECTION
ECONOMIC WRONGS
There currently exists in many places a great deal of anger and resentment on the part of large numbers within the populations of those places, directed toward smaller groups residing among them, who happen to fare better in business, and thus financially, than the majority. These more successful but hated smaller groups are frequently of a different ethnic or cultural background than the majority; or may comprise a group who emigrated there from another place. They are frequently referred to as a "market-dominant minority." What is generally claimed to be sought on the part of the irate majority is more equitable access to wealth and success on their part. At the basis of their demands is usually the fact that they were original long-term residents within the place in question; and/or that they happen to constitute the "market" from which the said minority is deriving its wealth. This resentment and hatred for such groups sometimes boils over into violence, which occasionally escalates into episodes of senseless wanton mayhem, murder, and even genocide.
A factor that contributes to this increasing outpouring of contempt and hatred for "market-dominant minorities " has been the recent widespread expansion of democracy within our world. Such developments have enabled the alleged deprived majorities to communicate their discontent more freely and more widely than ever before. Examples can be cited concerning, among other places, Burma, Latin America, Mexico, the Philippines, Russia, and Zimbabwe.
In the Philippines, hostility is said to have centered around the realization that sixty percent of the nation's private economy was controlled by Chinese residents, who comprised a mere one percent of the population. In Burma it became unhappily realized by the populace that the Chinese minority there dominated every aspect of commerce within that country. In Latin American nations in general, there has been resentment and hatredfor the "tiny white minority," direct descendants of the Spanish settlers, who have become more or less native within these places, and control the economies of their respective nations. In Mexico, relief was attempted to be obtained via nationalization of various entities within the business sector; but in some instances, this has been said to have been "economically disastrous." In Russia, after the end of the Cold War, an economically advantaged minority group offered loans and political support to the government in exchange for majority shares, at a bargain price, in key segments of that nation's economy. And in Zimbabwe, widespread complaints were directed at the fact that seventy percent of prime real estate within the country was owned by white European residents, who constituted but one percent of the population thereof. All of these instances provoked similar outrage on the part of the more or less newly democratized, but still destitute, majorities among the respective populations of these places.
We especially shudder when we learn about the wholesale slaughter that went on in Rwanda in 1994, when Hutus slew Tutsis on a horrific grand scale, and almost a million men, women, and children perished. In like manner, this followed the acquisition by Rwanda of independence from Belgium, and the subsequent conversion of the new government to a kind of quasi-democracy a couple of decades following. At the base of the genocide that finally took place was hatred on the part of the Hutu majority, who consequently controlled the new government, for the Tutsi minority, who were considered to be unjustly economically dominant within the nation.
There has long been resentment in the Middle East for the economic disparitties that exist there. According to a study conducted a few years ago, Israelis enjoyed an annual per capita income of $16,700.; while in Jordan, it was only $1,710.; in Syria, $940.; and in Yemen, a mere $370.
The tragedy of September 11th has been characterized by some as a particularly horrid demonstration of hatred for a "market-dominant minority." It has been proposed by some that this catastrophe was not so much an attack upon a number of innocent individual human beings, as an assault upon an alleged "faceless embodiment of corrupt wealth, arrogance, and abusive power." Pursuant to such a point of view, the World Trade Center was looked upon as a "high temple of capitalism," wherein extravagantly paid minions of our economic system operated and thrived, while eighty percent of mankind was forced to continue to struggle on in poverty.
Of course, it goes without saying that any behavior that results in harm to one's fellow man, to his property, or to any element or aspect of the world in general, is plainly and absolutely wrong. Moreover, such acts are nothing more than criminal behavior and ought never be resorted to or approved by persons of intelligence and logic. The common denominator underlying the various instances wherein people have been reviled or attacked for reasons related to their status as a "market-dominant minority" is apparently a strong feeling on the part of the "majority" for the locale that it calls home. The resentment stems from the fact that, relatively speaking, the "minority" are newcomers to that place, and that they should consequently refrain from eonomically dominating it, or its "majority" original population. These feelings appear to bear relation to the emotions implicit in nationalism, wherein the residents within a particular country desire success and prosperity for themselves and their fellow citizens, by reason of the fact that they have lived together within that nation-state for an allegedly "long" period of time.
But I believe that it is now time for man to progress beyond this "turf" mentality; and to consider anywhere in the world "fair game" for economic success for any members of the human race. Had there been no such country as Rwanda--had there been no countries throughout the African continent in 1994--would the atmosphere that led to the murder of a million innocent people have materialized anyway? Or might the feeling by a "majority" of being disadvantaged by a "minority within our borders" have been theoretically impossible, and thereby have never led to mayhem? It doesn't hurt to wonder.
* * * * *
There currently exists in many places a great deal of anger and resentment on the part of large numbers within the populations of those places, directed toward smaller groups residing among them, who happen to fare better in business, and thus financially, than the majority. These more successful but hated smaller groups are frequently of a different ethnic or cultural background than the majority; or may comprise a group who emigrated there from another place. They are frequently referred to as a "market-dominant minority." What is generally claimed to be sought on the part of the irate majority is more equitable access to wealth and success on their part. At the basis of their demands is usually the fact that they were original long-term residents within the place in question; and/or that they happen to constitute the "market" from which the said minority is deriving its wealth. This resentment and hatred for such groups sometimes boils over into violence, which occasionally escalates into episodes of senseless wanton mayhem, murder, and even genocide.
A factor that contributes to this increasing outpouring of contempt and hatred for "market-dominant minorities " has been the recent widespread expansion of democracy within our world. Such developments have enabled the alleged deprived majorities to communicate their discontent more freely and more widely than ever before. Examples can be cited concerning, among other places, Burma, Latin America, Mexico, the Philippines, Russia, and Zimbabwe.
In the Philippines, hostility is said to have centered around the realization that sixty percent of the nation's private economy was controlled by Chinese residents, who comprised a mere one percent of the population. In Burma it became unhappily realized by the populace that the Chinese minority there dominated every aspect of commerce within that country. In Latin American nations in general, there has been resentment and hatredfor the "tiny white minority," direct descendants of the Spanish settlers, who have become more or less native within these places, and control the economies of their respective nations. In Mexico, relief was attempted to be obtained via nationalization of various entities within the business sector; but in some instances, this has been said to have been "economically disastrous." In Russia, after the end of the Cold War, an economically advantaged minority group offered loans and political support to the government in exchange for majority shares, at a bargain price, in key segments of that nation's economy. And in Zimbabwe, widespread complaints were directed at the fact that seventy percent of prime real estate within the country was owned by white European residents, who constituted but one percent of the population thereof. All of these instances provoked similar outrage on the part of the more or less newly democratized, but still destitute, majorities among the respective populations of these places.
We especially shudder when we learn about the wholesale slaughter that went on in Rwanda in 1994, when Hutus slew Tutsis on a horrific grand scale, and almost a million men, women, and children perished. In like manner, this followed the acquisition by Rwanda of independence from Belgium, and the subsequent conversion of the new government to a kind of quasi-democracy a couple of decades following. At the base of the genocide that finally took place was hatred on the part of the Hutu majority, who consequently controlled the new government, for the Tutsi minority, who were considered to be unjustly economically dominant within the nation.
There has long been resentment in the Middle East for the economic disparitties that exist there. According to a study conducted a few years ago, Israelis enjoyed an annual per capita income of $16,700.; while in Jordan, it was only $1,710.; in Syria, $940.; and in Yemen, a mere $370.
The tragedy of September 11th has been characterized by some as a particularly horrid demonstration of hatred for a "market-dominant minority." It has been proposed by some that this catastrophe was not so much an attack upon a number of innocent individual human beings, as an assault upon an alleged "faceless embodiment of corrupt wealth, arrogance, and abusive power." Pursuant to such a point of view, the World Trade Center was looked upon as a "high temple of capitalism," wherein extravagantly paid minions of our economic system operated and thrived, while eighty percent of mankind was forced to continue to struggle on in poverty.
Of course, it goes without saying that any behavior that results in harm to one's fellow man, to his property, or to any element or aspect of the world in general, is plainly and absolutely wrong. Moreover, such acts are nothing more than criminal behavior and ought never be resorted to or approved by persons of intelligence and logic. The common denominator underlying the various instances wherein people have been reviled or attacked for reasons related to their status as a "market-dominant minority" is apparently a strong feeling on the part of the "majority" for the locale that it calls home. The resentment stems from the fact that, relatively speaking, the "minority" are newcomers to that place, and that they should consequently refrain from eonomically dominating it, or its "majority" original population. These feelings appear to bear relation to the emotions implicit in nationalism, wherein the residents within a particular country desire success and prosperity for themselves and their fellow citizens, by reason of the fact that they have lived together within that nation-state for an allegedly "long" period of time.
But I believe that it is now time for man to progress beyond this "turf" mentality; and to consider anywhere in the world "fair game" for economic success for any members of the human race. Had there been no such country as Rwanda--had there been no countries throughout the African continent in 1994--would the atmosphere that led to the murder of a million innocent people have materialized anyway? Or might the feeling by a "majority" of being disadvantaged by a "minority within our borders" have been theoretically impossible, and thereby have never led to mayhem? It doesn't hurt to wonder.
* * * * *
Sunday, July 22, 2012
WRONGS THAT NEED CORRECTION
ECONOMIC WRONGS
International economic or financial institutions, such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, do function on a worldwide level; yet in no way do they foster, operate as, or resemble, a world economy. Economists, such as Robert Gilpin, have cited the need for reform of these institutions, so that they would be more representative of the economic and political circumstances which exist in our world, and more responsive to them as well. (R. and J. Gilpin, The Challenge of Global Capitalism)
We often hear of complaints regarding these institutions, such as charges that their policies are actually aligned with, and tailored to assist, commercial and financial interests within the nost advanced industrial nations. This is said to be manifested by, among other things, requirements imposed by such institutions, upon countries they are making loans to within the less developed regions, to open themselves to imports from more highly developed nations. The net result of this is undue and unfair competition with the domestic producers of these same products within these very debtor nations, causing social and economic unrest, and generally dire consequences within entire vulnerable less developed regions.
Another form of strain upon the fiber of many new democracies that are springing up within these developing regions is the economic pressure caused by excessive scheduling of repayment for loans that have been extended to them. In sub-Saharan Africa, for example, the region's total debt a few years ago was in the sum of a staggering $180 Billion.We learn that repayment formats, to the tune of $10 Billion annually, comprised four times the sums spent by the governments within this region for its citizens' health care and education.
A primary illustration of this could be perceived in Malawi, a heavily indebted African nation. Lenders and donors, which include the European Union, Great Britain, the United States, Onternational Monetary Fund, and the World Bank, were said to monitor the country's financial activities as if Malawi were a business in receivership. Its fiscal policies and budgetary expenditures were said to be excessively scrutinized; and conformity compelled by means of threats of withdrawal of further assistance. For example, there used to be a forestry department in Malawi, whose activities naturally resulted in improved ecological conditions; but its personnel and activities were compelled to be drastically reduced, by a government under pressure from its creditors.
In a unified world, there would be no such things as loans to countries or their governments. The recipients of financial assistance would not be enclosed within four boundary lines; but, rather, would consist merely of people or entities within particular places in our world. Funding and development in places requiring such would generally be undertaken by private entrepreneurship (regarding economic development) and by government and/or charitable organizations (for humanitarian assistance). Both forms of financial input would be subject to supervision by the world governing body, to assure the absence of any economic or sociological abuses. Money would not dribble down, distributed by intermediary recipient governments, sometimes inept and sometimes corrupt, draining off a fraction, or perhaps most, before the assistance reached its destination. Government--or, better, "operation and guidance," as described and referred to frequently herein by the author--concerning this and all types of such activity, in all of the world's regions--both fully devveloped and underdeveloped--would emanate from a single source, and these activities would be logically planned and efficiently administered for the benefit of all. Opportunities for persons or entities from highly developed places to profit hugely from activities within underdeveloped regions, blessed and protected by said enterpreneurs' own national governments, and those of the places wherein they sought advantage, would be a thing of the past.
Institutions similar to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund could, and probably would, continue to function. But their activities would consist of rendering loans and development assistance to persons and/or entities--not to governments or countries--which recipients would be better equipped to deal with such help thus rendered, on a more direct and straightforward basis.
And there would hopefully be no instances wherein aid to needy people could not be distributed because of rebellion or warfare taking place within the region. As regards rebellion, it is hoped that if there be no more nations, the rebellious aspirations of persons with followings, or of groups, to wrest control of a government or of a country, from the current powers that be, will eventually subside and cease to occur. And when and if they should persist, these actions--when carried on in a fashion contrary or in opposition to the principles of just and beneficent law that would be established--would be considered and dealt with simply as crime. They would, moreover, be dealt with by the rest of the world--not by the aforesaid "current powers that be," who may be no stronger, or possibly somewhat weaker, than the rebellious forces. As regards warfare, it is likewise hoped that the absence (and prohibition) of military arms and armed forces, except for a worldwide law enforcement agency, will obviate the opportunity as well as the likelihood of regions "going to war" with each other. "Warfare" in general would likewise be considered criminal behavior; and be dealt with, in the same fashion as would a street brawl between two youth gangs, by the police force, whose "beat" would be the entire world. (This is not to say that there ought not be means of expression of dissatisfaction or alleged abuse on the part of persons or groups [small or large]; consequent due consideration thereof, utilizing objectively reasonable and logical standards and criteria; and appropriate action or correction taken in regard thereto.)
* * * * *
International economic or financial institutions, such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, do function on a worldwide level; yet in no way do they foster, operate as, or resemble, a world economy. Economists, such as Robert Gilpin, have cited the need for reform of these institutions, so that they would be more representative of the economic and political circumstances which exist in our world, and more responsive to them as well. (R. and J. Gilpin, The Challenge of Global Capitalism)
We often hear of complaints regarding these institutions, such as charges that their policies are actually aligned with, and tailored to assist, commercial and financial interests within the nost advanced industrial nations. This is said to be manifested by, among other things, requirements imposed by such institutions, upon countries they are making loans to within the less developed regions, to open themselves to imports from more highly developed nations. The net result of this is undue and unfair competition with the domestic producers of these same products within these very debtor nations, causing social and economic unrest, and generally dire consequences within entire vulnerable less developed regions.
Another form of strain upon the fiber of many new democracies that are springing up within these developing regions is the economic pressure caused by excessive scheduling of repayment for loans that have been extended to them. In sub-Saharan Africa, for example, the region's total debt a few years ago was in the sum of a staggering $180 Billion.We learn that repayment formats, to the tune of $10 Billion annually, comprised four times the sums spent by the governments within this region for its citizens' health care and education.
A primary illustration of this could be perceived in Malawi, a heavily indebted African nation. Lenders and donors, which include the European Union, Great Britain, the United States, Onternational Monetary Fund, and the World Bank, were said to monitor the country's financial activities as if Malawi were a business in receivership. Its fiscal policies and budgetary expenditures were said to be excessively scrutinized; and conformity compelled by means of threats of withdrawal of further assistance. For example, there used to be a forestry department in Malawi, whose activities naturally resulted in improved ecological conditions; but its personnel and activities were compelled to be drastically reduced, by a government under pressure from its creditors.
In a unified world, there would be no such things as loans to countries or their governments. The recipients of financial assistance would not be enclosed within four boundary lines; but, rather, would consist merely of people or entities within particular places in our world. Funding and development in places requiring such would generally be undertaken by private entrepreneurship (regarding economic development) and by government and/or charitable organizations (for humanitarian assistance). Both forms of financial input would be subject to supervision by the world governing body, to assure the absence of any economic or sociological abuses. Money would not dribble down, distributed by intermediary recipient governments, sometimes inept and sometimes corrupt, draining off a fraction, or perhaps most, before the assistance reached its destination. Government--or, better, "operation and guidance," as described and referred to frequently herein by the author--concerning this and all types of such activity, in all of the world's regions--both fully devveloped and underdeveloped--would emanate from a single source, and these activities would be logically planned and efficiently administered for the benefit of all. Opportunities for persons or entities from highly developed places to profit hugely from activities within underdeveloped regions, blessed and protected by said enterpreneurs' own national governments, and those of the places wherein they sought advantage, would be a thing of the past.
Institutions similar to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund could, and probably would, continue to function. But their activities would consist of rendering loans and development assistance to persons and/or entities--not to governments or countries--which recipients would be better equipped to deal with such help thus rendered, on a more direct and straightforward basis.
And there would hopefully be no instances wherein aid to needy people could not be distributed because of rebellion or warfare taking place within the region. As regards rebellion, it is hoped that if there be no more nations, the rebellious aspirations of persons with followings, or of groups, to wrest control of a government or of a country, from the current powers that be, will eventually subside and cease to occur. And when and if they should persist, these actions--when carried on in a fashion contrary or in opposition to the principles of just and beneficent law that would be established--would be considered and dealt with simply as crime. They would, moreover, be dealt with by the rest of the world--not by the aforesaid "current powers that be," who may be no stronger, or possibly somewhat weaker, than the rebellious forces. As regards warfare, it is likewise hoped that the absence (and prohibition) of military arms and armed forces, except for a worldwide law enforcement agency, will obviate the opportunity as well as the likelihood of regions "going to war" with each other. "Warfare" in general would likewise be considered criminal behavior; and be dealt with, in the same fashion as would a street brawl between two youth gangs, by the police force, whose "beat" would be the entire world. (This is not to say that there ought not be means of expression of dissatisfaction or alleged abuse on the part of persons or groups [small or large]; consequent due consideration thereof, utilizing objectively reasonable and logical standards and criteria; and appropriate action or correction taken in regard thereto.)
* * * * *
Thursday, July 19, 2012
WRONGS THAT NEED CORRECTION
ECONOMIC WRONGS (cont.)
It is a well known and oft-demonstrated fact that economic ills feed unrest in the underdeveloped world. We are thereby warned that the continuation and expansion of poverty, along with its consequent accompanying condition of undernutrition, is cause for a backlash from the suffering victims of such a tragic situation. Prosperous nations do occasionally make promises, and swear to having good intentions, to render assistance to the poor masses living within these countries (that were, ironically, often formerly colonies of theirs). But, somehow, it seldom seems to amount to much; and usually little or no progress results therefrom. Thus, there is good reason behind calls for concerted efforts to effect remedies and changes on a worldwide level, such as are contained herein.
It is submitted that the disparity of which we speak is at least prtly a result of the existence within our world of a myriad of independent nation-states. Many of the poorer nations, locked as they are within their own boundaries, with their particular natural, geographic, economic, and/or political deficiencies and vulnerabilities, are simply incapable of generating any improvement in their own respective conditions; and their respective populations are thus condemned to eternal poverty.
Production is a key to reduction of poverty. An increase of gross domestic product within a region usually effects a significant reduction of want and need in that region as well. But production is dependent upon many things, such as capital formation, a competent labor force, and import of necessary raw materials; together with the availability of hospitable markets for the goods thus produced. Some or all of these necessary ingredients are often absent within, and/or out of the reach of, many areas of our earth as they are presently situated, bounded as they are within four border lines. If I reside within Mali, and have only the politics and resources of Mali at hand, I cannot help but live a probable life of extreme poverty. This is not meant to serve as a predeiction that a unified world order would "open the floodgates," and permit the poor folk of Mali to come to New York to seek their fortunes. Rather, the existence of a single unified world would put the resources and expertise, economic and otherwise, of the world, at the disposal of the people of Mali, and the people of the rest of the world as well, so as to effect a measure of leveling of opportunity for all. Moreover, thus freed--economically, politically, and militarily--of the burdens, distractions, and conflicts that accompany the defense of useless national borders, a worldwide economy could and would probably develop, to the benefit of all of mankind.
Nor is it likely that a result of what is herein sought would be a reduction in prosperity for the more wealthy regions of the world. Fore even if such a reduction were theoretically inevitable because of this, it would be more or less set off by the increase in prosperity for what had been the already-prosperous nations that an end for the need for armies and weapons would bring about. Moreover, I am confident that the ingenuity and resourcefulness of mankind would further operate to diminish or avoid any such happenstance; and that, instead, the result would be an increased opportunity for achievement and prosperity for the residents of these wealthier regions, as well as an overall improvement in economic conditions everywhere.
* * * * *
In years gone by, and to this day as well, crops and livestock have been withheld and destroyed within a nation in order to boost prices for the remainder of such products, to assist that country's economy. Governments have paid subsidies to farmers in such cases as reward for such practices. At the same time, the poor within these very nations, and in other regions of the world in addition, have gone hungry, as abundance was thus permitted to rot in silos, or was put to the torch, for the sake of applying a band-aid to a faulty economy.
Another grievance regards protectionist measures as practiced by the governments of the more advanced industrial nations. Such national tariff barriers to foreign goods are said to have the effect of enabling well-paid workers in inefficient industries to continue to so function, and to thus burden consumers with high prices for inferior goods. At the same time, producers in other parts of the world experience consequent difficulty in marketing their sometimes superior products within these protected industrial nations, which leads to unemployment and poverty in their own countries/.
If there were a single unified world, freed of division into bounded nation-states, agricultural as well as industrial products could be produced and distributed without concern for the effect upon a national economy. Instead, a worldwide economy would enable farmers as well as industries to compete openly on a worldwide level. In such an atmosphere, products and goods would be available everywhere at more or less uniform prices, expressed in a uniform worldwide currency. Prices would be determined by logical standards, such as content, quality, demand in the marketplace, and cost of transportation--as opposed to degree of availability in certain nation-states as a result of protectionist measures such as subsidies paid to producers,r tariffs associated with import. Quantities of production could be freely planned by producers via estimates of worldwide demand and consumption. There would be no surplus within a particular country, because the "country" would comprise the entire world. Should it occur, a surplus would be a worldwide surplus, and deal tith accordingly--perhaps conserved for later years; perhaps sold to consumers at lower prices, as the worldwide marketplace would dictate.
* * * * *
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
WRONGS THAT NEED CORRECTION
ECONOMIC WRONGS
One of the most terrible and dangerous wrongs in our world today is the existence of vast amounts of extreme poverty--at times side by side with instances of extreme wealth. Since the end of World War II, mankind has witnessed a greater and greater disparity between the wealthy nations and the poor ones--as well as between the rich and poor within them. This disparity is not only attributable to the poor nations becoming poorer, but also to the fact that many of our wealthier nations, and certain people within them, have become ever richer.
The gap between the wealthier nations and the poor nations--or, if you will, between some parts of the world as compared to other parts--began widening in the nineteenth century, and continues to this day. But the particular shame lies in the fact that, between 1820 and 1960, said gap grew at the rate of approximately 1.6 percent each year; while since then, it is said to have been growing at an annual rate of three percent. Furthermore, this continuing expansion of inequality between nations has, ironically, taken place during a period when the world has experienced the great deal of growth in world trade which we call "globalization." Thus, the rich continue getting richer, while the poor become more and more destitute. This has sadly resulted in the fact that, in1999, twenty percent of the world's people accounted for eighty six percent of the world's gross domestic product, and eighty two percent of its export markets; while the poorest twenty percent of humanity could claim ownership of only about one percentof each of the above. And in fact as well that the income ratio between the richest and poorest regions was thirty to one in 1960; had risen to sixty one to one by 1991; and has continued to grow similarly ever since. Further, in most poor or developing countries, there is often a great deal of unemployment, and little or no insurance benefits for the jobless.
Here are a few more concrete examples of this enormous disparity that has been heaped upon mankind:
a. In 1960, the twenty percent of the people who lived in the world's richest countries had thirty times the income of the twenty percent who lived in the world's poorest countries. By 1995, that wealthy twenty percent were enjoying eighty two times as much income.
b. In 1989, the group of Americans earning One Million Dollars or more numbered about fifty seven thousand. At the same time, almost thirty two million Americans were living at or below the poverty level.
c. In 2003, the richest one percent of the world's population owned as much as the poorest fifty seven percent.
Another form of "disparity" lies in the colossal incomes earned by, and riches possessed by, some of our super-rich. A few examples of this disgrace follows as well:
a. During the 1990s, a certain U.S. basketball organization offered a certain star player a salary of $98 Million spread out over over seven years. This hefty sum would have been sufficient to pay the then-average salary of an elementary school teacher for 3,267 years (or 109 teachers during their entire thirty year long careers).
b. Bill Gates, of Microsoft fame, was not long ago said to possess a fortune equal to the net worth of the 106 million poorest Americans.
c. And the assets of the world's three richest people were at about the same time tallied to exceed the gross national product of a group of the world's least developed countries, whose populations totaled 600 million human beings.
In addition, it is sad to note that the lower end of this scale of disparity is composed of many other pitiful pictures as well. Consider, for example, that while the average incomes of people in developing nations have almost doubled between 1975 and 1999, that of the inhabitants of sub-Saharan Africa has actually decreased. In fact, during the year 2000, the residents of forty nine countries in Africa had an average annual income of only $670.; and for those living in that continent's least developed countries, it was a mere $270. Calculated another way, these meager wages average out to an income of less that $300. per year (or $6. per week) for one fifth of the world's people; and for the twelve least developed countries, an annual income of around $160. (or $3.20 per week). Yet another set of statistics warns us that one half of the world's population are living on less than two dollars per day; that an increasing number of these poor souls are forced to get by on less than a single dollar each day; and that one half of this latter wretched group actually receive less than 65 cents per day. These sad numbers have not changed to any great extent of late.
During recent years, we have further noted rapid industrialization taking place within a few nation-states, particularly in Asia and South America. It is hoped that such swift growth will not be pursued with consequent excessive disregard for the welfare of the people who comprise the workforce required for said expansion, nor for the environment in such places. All too frequently, vastly increased economic expansion is accompanied by air pollution, urban crowding, poor living and working conditions for the laboring class, heedless cut-and-burn land clearing, and various other insensitive and hazardous practices having only increased profit as a goal.
* * * * *
One of the most terrible and dangerous wrongs in our world today is the existence of vast amounts of extreme poverty--at times side by side with instances of extreme wealth. Since the end of World War II, mankind has witnessed a greater and greater disparity between the wealthy nations and the poor ones--as well as between the rich and poor within them. This disparity is not only attributable to the poor nations becoming poorer, but also to the fact that many of our wealthier nations, and certain people within them, have become ever richer.
The gap between the wealthier nations and the poor nations--or, if you will, between some parts of the world as compared to other parts--began widening in the nineteenth century, and continues to this day. But the particular shame lies in the fact that, between 1820 and 1960, said gap grew at the rate of approximately 1.6 percent each year; while since then, it is said to have been growing at an annual rate of three percent. Furthermore, this continuing expansion of inequality between nations has, ironically, taken place during a period when the world has experienced the great deal of growth in world trade which we call "globalization." Thus, the rich continue getting richer, while the poor become more and more destitute. This has sadly resulted in the fact that, in1999, twenty percent of the world's people accounted for eighty six percent of the world's gross domestic product, and eighty two percent of its export markets; while the poorest twenty percent of humanity could claim ownership of only about one percentof each of the above. And in fact as well that the income ratio between the richest and poorest regions was thirty to one in 1960; had risen to sixty one to one by 1991; and has continued to grow similarly ever since. Further, in most poor or developing countries, there is often a great deal of unemployment, and little or no insurance benefits for the jobless.
Here are a few more concrete examples of this enormous disparity that has been heaped upon mankind:
a. In 1960, the twenty percent of the people who lived in the world's richest countries had thirty times the income of the twenty percent who lived in the world's poorest countries. By 1995, that wealthy twenty percent were enjoying eighty two times as much income.
b. In 1989, the group of Americans earning One Million Dollars or more numbered about fifty seven thousand. At the same time, almost thirty two million Americans were living at or below the poverty level.
c. In 2003, the richest one percent of the world's population owned as much as the poorest fifty seven percent.
Another form of "disparity" lies in the colossal incomes earned by, and riches possessed by, some of our super-rich. A few examples of this disgrace follows as well:
a. During the 1990s, a certain U.S. basketball organization offered a certain star player a salary of $98 Million spread out over over seven years. This hefty sum would have been sufficient to pay the then-average salary of an elementary school teacher for 3,267 years (or 109 teachers during their entire thirty year long careers).
b. Bill Gates, of Microsoft fame, was not long ago said to possess a fortune equal to the net worth of the 106 million poorest Americans.
c. And the assets of the world's three richest people were at about the same time tallied to exceed the gross national product of a group of the world's least developed countries, whose populations totaled 600 million human beings.
In addition, it is sad to note that the lower end of this scale of disparity is composed of many other pitiful pictures as well. Consider, for example, that while the average incomes of people in developing nations have almost doubled between 1975 and 1999, that of the inhabitants of sub-Saharan Africa has actually decreased. In fact, during the year 2000, the residents of forty nine countries in Africa had an average annual income of only $670.; and for those living in that continent's least developed countries, it was a mere $270. Calculated another way, these meager wages average out to an income of less that $300. per year (or $6. per week) for one fifth of the world's people; and for the twelve least developed countries, an annual income of around $160. (or $3.20 per week). Yet another set of statistics warns us that one half of the world's population are living on less than two dollars per day; that an increasing number of these poor souls are forced to get by on less than a single dollar each day; and that one half of this latter wretched group actually receive less than 65 cents per day. These sad numbers have not changed to any great extent of late.
During recent years, we have further noted rapid industrialization taking place within a few nation-states, particularly in Asia and South America. It is hoped that such swift growth will not be pursued with consequent excessive disregard for the welfare of the people who comprise the workforce required for said expansion, nor for the environment in such places. All too frequently, vastly increased economic expansion is accompanied by air pollution, urban crowding, poor living and working conditions for the laboring class, heedless cut-and-burn land clearing, and various other insensitive and hazardous practices having only increased profit as a goal.
* * * * *
Monday, July 16, 2012
WRONGS THAT NEED CORRECTION
My primary purpose is to propose, and to outline suggestions as to the implementation of, a state of world unity, presided over by a single government. It is suggested that such a conversion within our society is actually not a difficult step. It would not entail a surrender to an overshadowing worldwide dictatorship. Rather, it would consist of a mere joining together of all present national entities into a single universal entity. Self-inteerested, ever-bickering, national governments would be replaced by a single worldwide guiding body, logical and efficient fromn an objective standpoint, and designed to promote only benefit and advancement for all of mankind. And, for a change, in place of efforts and exertions on the part of various peoples and nation-states to safeguard their respective "turfs," there could at last be joint efforts and exertions by all prople to conquer the evils that threaten and prey upon all of mankind, to the ultimate profit of every one of us.
To be sure, there certainly are many evils and problems in our world in addition to our political diversity and our system of sacred boundaries. Wrong is wrong and is to be dealt with, evil is evil and is to be stopped, regardless of where it occurs, or how many boundaries it crosses in its existence and its travels. The trouble is that we are so busy, and spend so much money, time, talent, manpower, and energy, guarding against and fighting with each other, that we have far less resources left to face and defeat the real problems that beset all of us. Instead of using our science and technology toward motre dilligent efforts to conquer things like hunger and disease, we spend a great deal of it upon never-ending searches for bigger and better weapons. And in fact, in view of the state of the world as it presently exists, this acquisition and maintenance of national arsenals is not altogether wrong. For, in a situation wherein we are divided into a number of "sovereign" nations, many of whom being at odds with each other, it is reasonable for each nation to possess weapons, at least for defensive purposes, to guard against possible aggression on the part of one or more of the other nations. But if there were no "other nations"--to require arms for protection against, to stand up to in the event of aggression by, and to fight with in case of attack by--i.e., if the worrld were but a single nation--then most of our weapons would be unnecessary and turn to rust. Instead the fight could be by all of us who are capable of doing so, against poverty and disease and ignorance.
If what now goes on in our world were reduced to a finer focus within the United Stsates--or, to put it another way, if the states which comprise our union were themselves all sovereign nations--then the United States would be the world in miniature. Different states would form alliances with each other, and with other countries as well. Each state would have its own army, and maybe a navy. Each state would not be as able to provide for the welfare of its citizens, because it would need to expend a large portion of its revenue upon its arsenal and further development of its weapons. And war would occasionally break out between states, or groups of states, or maybe states as allied with different foreign countries.
But what if this horrible phenomenon occurred --instead or as well--on lower levels? What if every county or borough or parish had to maintain its own army and navy, and its own cache of weapons? A worse nightmare could be imagined if this scenario were applied to each city and town within our country. And, to bring it to its ultimate ghastly fundamental, what if each family or household found it necessary to arm itself in order to protect its "sovereignty" against possible aggression by "the people next door"? This would truly returm the human race to an atmosphere that likely prevailed in prehistoric times, when the earliest humans resided together in small groups, ever watchful concerning possible aggression on the part of animals or other humans.
But the fact is that we have progressed--to a level of political organization wherein, with a few notable exceptions, people agree to live more or less peacefully within giant groups called nations. Logic tells us that progress to the next and final step is to a final union of the entire world into a single political entity.
I hope to convince whoever reads this that such a joining together by all peoples of our world would accomplish the correction or elimination of many of the evils that presently afflict mankind.
* * * * *
To be sure, there certainly are many evils and problems in our world in addition to our political diversity and our system of sacred boundaries. Wrong is wrong and is to be dealt with, evil is evil and is to be stopped, regardless of where it occurs, or how many boundaries it crosses in its existence and its travels. The trouble is that we are so busy, and spend so much money, time, talent, manpower, and energy, guarding against and fighting with each other, that we have far less resources left to face and defeat the real problems that beset all of us. Instead of using our science and technology toward motre dilligent efforts to conquer things like hunger and disease, we spend a great deal of it upon never-ending searches for bigger and better weapons. And in fact, in view of the state of the world as it presently exists, this acquisition and maintenance of national arsenals is not altogether wrong. For, in a situation wherein we are divided into a number of "sovereign" nations, many of whom being at odds with each other, it is reasonable for each nation to possess weapons, at least for defensive purposes, to guard against possible aggression on the part of one or more of the other nations. But if there were no "other nations"--to require arms for protection against, to stand up to in the event of aggression by, and to fight with in case of attack by--i.e., if the worrld were but a single nation--then most of our weapons would be unnecessary and turn to rust. Instead the fight could be by all of us who are capable of doing so, against poverty and disease and ignorance.
If what now goes on in our world were reduced to a finer focus within the United Stsates--or, to put it another way, if the states which comprise our union were themselves all sovereign nations--then the United States would be the world in miniature. Different states would form alliances with each other, and with other countries as well. Each state would have its own army, and maybe a navy. Each state would not be as able to provide for the welfare of its citizens, because it would need to expend a large portion of its revenue upon its arsenal and further development of its weapons. And war would occasionally break out between states, or groups of states, or maybe states as allied with different foreign countries.
But what if this horrible phenomenon occurred --instead or as well--on lower levels? What if every county or borough or parish had to maintain its own army and navy, and its own cache of weapons? A worse nightmare could be imagined if this scenario were applied to each city and town within our country. And, to bring it to its ultimate ghastly fundamental, what if each family or household found it necessary to arm itself in order to protect its "sovereignty" against possible aggression by "the people next door"? This would truly returm the human race to an atmosphere that likely prevailed in prehistoric times, when the earliest humans resided together in small groups, ever watchful concerning possible aggression on the part of animals or other humans.
But the fact is that we have progressed--to a level of political organization wherein, with a few notable exceptions, people agree to live more or less peacefully within giant groups called nations. Logic tells us that progress to the next and final step is to a final union of the entire world into a single political entity.
I hope to convince whoever reads this that such a joining together by all peoples of our world would accomplish the correction or elimination of many of the evils that presently afflict mankind.
* * * * *
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)