To clear the air, I'd like to establish that I am a tremendous Tropicana fan, and any orange juice from concentrate is tepid compared to the sweet nectar that is Tropicana Grovestand.
That established, what I'm referring to with the title of this entry is wealth distribution in the world. I don't doubt that any people that fashion themselves as any kind of a (big or small "L") Liberal are ready to jump down my throat right now. While I understand the polarized views on this topic, I recently had a brainwave that made me take a more optimistic stance on the concentration of wealth in the world.
Different experts will tell you that between ten and 20 per cent of the world's population possess 80% of its material wealth. As a bare statistic, this is appalling. Humans all have basic needs and a fundamental level of materials in order to be able to live a fulfilling life. In many areas of the globe, this fundamental level is woefully short. While the investment banker buys a $50,000 vehicle for his/her "winter beater," the surgeon takes yet another trip to Bermuda and the pro athlete "scales down" to an 8,000 square foot home in the Hamptons in the developed world, millions of people are malnourished elsewhere. The nature of capitalism forecasts that wealth progressively gets funnelled into the hands of fewer and fewer, and it does seem to be a gloomy prospect in a world where one hopes human nature is compassionate and sharing.
However, many of the pundits don't understand that a more equitable share of capital would be disastrous for our environment. It is not debatable that our planet is already stretched thin in terms of diminishing natural resources, and it is debatable (but widely argued) that global warming and other pollution-related problems are reaching grave new levels of severity.
If wealth were re-allocated so that all Westerners were placed at or slightly above the "poverty line" in developed nations (roughly $40,000-50,000/year for a family of four), and in turn all the world's dire poor were brought up to or slightly above a developed nation's poverty line - environmental problems would balloon exponentially. There would be millions of more vehicles on the road, there would be a tremendously higher demand for agricultural land (and in turn much more water pollution from pesticides, etc) industrial output would skyrocket and waste would multiply beyond our wildest dreams. Could you imagine if there were even one car per family in nations like China? India? Indonesia? Pakistan? Kenya? Even with Westerners scaling their lives down, demand for environmentally-damaging goods would be unfathomable.
Maybe this is easy for me to say, because I've been lucky enough to grow up in a comfortable community in the developed world, with every opportunity available to me. But most of those out there who criticize the greedy and lament the condition of the world's poor, would themselves also want to be tough on environmental regulation. These are mutually exclusive.
It's true that so many of us privileged (myself included) take things for granted, and put the blinders on when it comes to other's plight. The developed world will eventually have to adjust to a more ecologically friendly lifestyle when economics or crisis forces its hand. But in the end, wealth and poverty are evaluated by capitalists, where the evaluation equates to the level of consumption. That being so, if self-preservation as a species is in our interests, then a more equitable distribution of the world's wealth would never be the answer.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Man, I was expecting a post about Tropicana Field in Tampa Bay and the hilarious hijinks that ensue from their ball-interfering catwalks.
I may be a lefty communist, but I've long considered stuff like this to be true. The world NEEDS there to be people starving and dying from simple problems that haven't bothered us for centuries because, well, if they didn't, the world would be fucked. It wouldn't be able to handle everything. Like when they tell you that, you know, fifteen thousand children die a day in whatever country--imagine if they didn't die, how that would impact the world in even as short a time as a single month.
It's fucking harsh, inhumane and, well, plain fucked up to consider these thoughts, but, sadly, it's also the only practical way to look at the world currently. Makes me sick.
Hmm. Well, I agree that Tropicana is divine, and I understand your point about the environment...but you have to think outside the box.
If wealth were evenly distributed throughout the world, there would be no fat cats. Giant corporations would have far less motivation to manipulate their target audiences into buying their products, as the rewards for doing so would be far less bountiful.
Think of the electric car argument. Why are there none on the road? Because the big car companies smother them, because they don't want us to catch on and bury the fat cats. Take away the fat cats' ability to get rich, and they have no reason not to let the electric car take over.
Imagine how many alternative energy sources would come into common use under equally distributed wealth?
On the flip side of the coin, my vision would also mean that drug companies would no longer need to supress the cures they've likely found for many illnesses (e.g. the common cold)...and the population would grow.
Yeah, except redistrubuting all of the wealth would mean that corporations wouldn't exist because they only exist so really, really rich people can become really, really, really rich people. It's like expecting a fucking Star Trek world when we're all still selfish assholes who would fuck over another group of people just if it meant getting a burger three minutes quicker. And I know that, because we do.
The problem isn't the externals, it's the internals. Humanity just isn't advanced enough mentally and emotionally to do things right yet. Any forced attempts would end in ruin and a lot of deaths. We're all too much of fucking bastards.
And I'm not pessimistic at all.
Post a Comment