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.
* * * * *
No comments:
Post a Comment