Quote:
Originally posted by Flames Draft Watcher@Jun 9 2005, 09:48 PM
Well don't you think there are other choices? Where 80% of the world's wealth doesn't sit in an extremely small percentage of the world's population?
Shouldn't we be striving for EVERYBODY to have a decent life? Is that too much to ask?
...
How can you believe it's a myth? And how can you leave it at that? This is probably the most fundamental issue in the world today. Providing food, water, shelter, etc for everyone on the planet.
Think of how much you need to live (food, water, shelter). Now think of how much extra you have that you don't NEED to live. Now think of all the rich countries and how many people live in them. Then think about all the poor countries and how much they have, how many people they have and how much they would need to be able to get water, food and shelter.
The average Canadian, American, Western European, etc makes easily over twice what they need to live if not much, much higher.
Saying that we don't have enough resources to feed, clothe and shelter everyone in the world, now that's the myth. And I can't believe anyone could believe it. What's your argument? How are you thinking that's possible?
...
You don't have to offer people things they want. You can trick them into thinking they need the things you provide through advertising. Do we really need 80% of the things we buy? Of course not. Do our kids really need that latest toy to be fulfilled and happy or do we just buy it so they'll stop nagging us?
You could get them addicted to a harmful substance you provide (cigarettes for example.)
And of course as has been pointed out numerous times in this conversation, providing the things you make at the lowest possible cost usually means minimizing labour costs. Which is basically disregarding the interest of your workers. It's in their best interest to make good wages. It's in your best interest to have them making the worst wages they could make.
Don't you see the conflict?
If you can't see that being a capitalist pig is the exact definition of selfishness then you're blind.
...
Giving to charities is great. Helping the poor is great. But all that does is slightly offset the exploitation that currently exists. We need systemic change. We need to change how the world operates. We have to grow up at some point and realize we need to look after the best interest of humanity, not just ourselves. We need to work together at some point for the good of everyone, not just the good of ourselves.
Obviously it's a monumental task. And obviously the current systems in place will resist change. Some will say it's an impossible task, I don't think that's the case. And if we don't change things, I believe change will be forced upon us at some point. I don't think we can repress the majority of the world in poverty forever, at some point they are going to rise against that.
...
Well it all comes to back to selfishness doesn't it. Why should it be the rich people's problem that the poor people are starving? Why not employ them as slaves to our corporations so they can at least scrape by? That's ideal isn't it?
I know we're propagandized to believe our system (capitalism) is good but take off the blinders man. If people are concerned about the good of humanity then we should be worried about sweatshops, about our current political and economic systems. If all you are concerned about is how good your own life is then feel free to tune it all out and hope you don't have to meet these starving people face to face at some point.
We have it good in capitalism because we're relatively in the upper eschelon. But that doesn't mean the system isn't flawed, because it is. And that doesn't mean we aren't exploiting the 3rd world, because we are.
|
Western society consumes more because it produces more. If you are not OK with it, you are free to sell all excess you own and send the money to poor people in 3rd world countries.
The western world has gotten rich thanks to capitalism. It has gotten rich because capitalism allocates resources most efficiently. It accumulates capital that is used to create additional capital, instead of wasting it. It gives all people the best shot at improving their life. It allows people to maximize their utility (utility does not have to be expressed in monetary terms, feeling good from helping others is utility too). The western world hasn’t gotten rich at the expense of 3rd world countries, although I will not deny than colonial empires such as British Empire were getting rich off their colonies, but that was before the industrial revolution, before the dawn of capitalism as we know it. If anything, colonization is argument against the state, not against capitalism.
This isn’t about wealth transfer. It is about wealth creation. 3rd world does not need your charity gifts as much as it needsfree economic environment. Only then those people will be able to produce their own food, build their shelter, in short – improve their lives. You know the saying, give the poor man a fish; you will feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish; you will feed him for the rest of his life.