Over consumption can accurately by called the root of global hunger, poverty, "overpopulation", and several othe large issues. Yet the media tells us to consume more and more. Surely consumption in itself is necessary, but in what amounts? Where can we draw the line? And why is this issue talked about so little? Opinions, please. .......ok...I guess I'll have to start this one off: Just some figures for you: Half the world's people live on less than $2 a day. World Bank, "Global Poverty Measures 1987-1998 and Projections for the Future," 1999. 1.2 billion people live on less than $1 per day. World Bank, "Global Poverty Measures 1987-1998 and Projections for the Future," 1999. The debt burden is the biggest single barrier to development in the Third World, the most powerful tool that western nations use to keep whole countries in bondage. It is estimated that the Third World pays the developed North nine times more in debt repayments than they receive in aid. Africa alone spends four times more on repaying its debts than it spends on health care. Jubilee USA Network - A Beginner's Guide to the Debt Crisis In 1997 the foreign debts of ‘developing’ countries were more than two trillion (million million) US dollars and still growing. The result is a debt of $400 for every man, woman and child in the developing world – where average income in the very poorest countries is less than a dollar a day. New Internationalist - Issue 312 "Debt" “The assets of the 200 richest people in 1998 were more than the total annual income of 41% of the world’s people. UNDP Human Development Report 1999 Three families – Bill Gates, the Sultan of Brunei and the Walton family – have a combined wealth of some $135 billion. Their value equal the annual income of 600 million people living in the world’s poorest countries. World Development Movement. WDM in Action, Winter 1999, Rebecca McQullan (article) Global Inequality - Inequality between countries The richest 20% of the world population now receives 150 times the income of the poorest 20%. UNDP Human Development Report 1992 The richest one-fifth of the world: • Consume 45% of all meat and fish, the poorest fifth 5%. • Consume 58% of total energy, the poorest fifth less than 4%. • Have 74% of all telephone lines, the poorest fifth 1.5%. • Consume 84% of all paper, the poorest fifth 1.1%. • Own 87% of the world’s vehicle fleet, the poorest fifth less than 1%. UNDP Human Development Report 1998 The richest 20% of the population now receives 150 times the income of the poorest 20%. UNDP Human Development Report 1992 The bottom line for poverty and incomes: The share of the poorest 20% of the world's people in global income now stands at a miserable 1.1%, down from 1.4% in 1991 and 2.3% in 1960. It continues to shrink. And the ratio of the income of the top 20% to that of the poorest 20% rose from 30 to 1 in 1960, to 61 to 1 in 1991 - and to a startling new high of 78 to 1 in 1994. UNDP Human Development Report 1997 The income gap between the richest fifth of the world's people and the poorest fifth, measured by average national income per head, increased from 30 to one in 1960, to 74 to one in 1997. Human Development Report, United Nations Development Program, 1999. 826 million people remained undernourished in 1996-98 UN Food and Agriculture Organization - State of Food Insecurity in the World 2000 Hunger continues to plague an estimated 793 million people around the world, including 31 million in the U.S. Hunger kills. Every day, 24,000 people die from hunger and other preventable causes. Nearly 160 million children are malnourished worldwide. Oxfam America - Hunger Fact Sheet Almost 800 million people—about one-sixth of the population of the world's developing nations—are malnourished. 200 million of them are children. Bread for the World (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) Now do you see how a little thing like over consumption can adversely effect our entire world? Just think of our national class struggle; the rich minority making the poorer masses incapable of attaining their riches, so they can remain the rich minority. It's that way nationally, as you've seen (our government and corporations intertwined), and it's also this way on the global level. The First World ensures that the Third World pays the price of their over-consumption (someone has to), and oppresses them with debt, so the First World can continue to remain the First World. It's not that there's not enough resources to go around the world for everyone, it's the inequality and our over consumption that CAUSES world poverty, hunger, and several other crisis'. We're locked in a vicous cycle of development, while the majority of the world suffers.
Well, poverty wasn't meant to be pretty. And that's exactly why not much is done about poverty, most people think that "it's too painful" to deal with. So not everyone leads a cushy life like we do, but we can't be arsed to do anything about it because we don't like to see ugly things like hunger. Man, I come off sounding like a bitch sometimes. Thanks, Link, for telling us where you got all this information.
Its pretty damn hard not to be that cynical when you see cold facts like these laid out before you. And yes, some people find it too painful to deal with; but others find it too painful to ignore. I know I sound cheesy but its true: many acts of kindness are born out of situations like these .
With 4 posts in the thread, apparently it is too painful to deal with. This is one of, if not the biggest problem on the planet, and it's never talked about, never adressed, never changed. In fact, it's only made worse.
I think a lot of the problem is to do with the fact that no matter how many times people are told "any help you can give makes a difference" (and believe me, that line is said to death in the UK), a lot of people just can concieve of £5 (or $5) making that much impact, and so, since they can't realy afford to make a donation that they think is significant enough to help in these kinds of situations, they don't do anything. Thus, the wealth remains unbalanced. But hey, this is only one man's opinion. I could be wrong. I'm interested to hear other people's takes on this.
Well, I can't speak for everyone, but when I first saw your post I thought "Oh shit this is long. I'm too tired for this." My guess is that a lot of people felt the same way. But anyways. Now that I have read it, all I can think to say is that there's no magic answer to fix this. No politician, no matter what they claim, is going to change the social order or make sure the poor get fed. We, as individuals, have to alter our perception and realize that Astray's $5 does make a difference, and we have to realize how goddamn lucky we are and that the less fortunate are just as deserving. Also two more things to ponder-- This kind of descriminating social order is not a new thing. There are tons of examples, large and small scale, of the rich and privilaged keeping the poor down (the Indian caste system comes to mind, though I'm sure there are cases much bigger and older). And perhaps the whole problem is not the problem itself, but the symptom of some deeper instinct? Does this make it "okay?" No. I haven't researched this, it's pure speculation, but the fact that it's a reoccuring pattern certainly indicates so. Like I said before, there is no magic answer. I suspect however, that it has more to do with individual mindset then any politicians plan to feed the hungery.
I mean the fact is poverty is inevitable. One would be crazy to think that poverty wouldn't happen in society. Unless we can move to that medium where we find that Utopian society, poverty will always be present.
Poverty is something that is unevitable in a society. However, the definition of poverty cán be changed. Poverty, in the western society, means not having alot of money to buy large houses and tv's and stuff. And in the 3rd world, and even here only 100 years ago, poverty meant not being able to eat something in 3 days. Just as for example violence. Today, you'll (fortunately) be arrested when you do more then give a correcting slap to your kid when he's put your barn on fire. 100 years ago, children were abused in school, in their homes, each day over and over again. My point: Domestic violence still exists, but the definition of it has been changed. That means, that although some things are inevitable, the definitions can be changed so much that we *would* have a society, with we *now* would call 'utopian'.
Definitely. I'm glad you touched on that. Selfishness is human nature, and it brings up a huge fundamental issue. People work to MAKE themselves better, to put themselves above others. So I guess there must be some sort of inequality in the world for anyone to be "successful," and since it coincides with human nature. But when does this inequality become unneeded excess? Where can we draw the line between the improvement of quality of life and over consumption? It's hard.
Definitely. I'm glad you touched on that. Selfishness is human nature, and it brings up a huge fundamental issue. People work to MAKE themselves better, to put themselves above others. So I guess there must be some sort of inequality in the world for anyone to be "successful," and since it coincides with human nature. But when does this inequality become unneeded excess? Where can we draw the line between the improvement of quality of life and over consumption? It's hard. [/b][/quote] It's difficult. On one hand, if someone works hard for what they have, you can't really blame them for wanting to enjoy it. On the other hand, people living in South Africa or in the Middle East may never, in their entire lives, have the oppertunity, no matter how hard they work, to make that kind of living.