Thursday, July 05, 2007
Whose Destiny Are We Manifesting?
I got a response from Bill on my If You Teach a Man to Fish post that I think warrants a fuller response than I can leave in the comments section. Here's what Bill said:
"Sure........bring the African Contintent into the 21st century meltdown so they can experience that too after we exploit all the continent has to offer. Might get the west another 10-15 years and then we will leave it behind."
I agree with Bill to a certain extent. If every person in the world starts consuming at the rate Americans are, we'll be in serious environmental trouble in no time. It's a sticky wicket, but . . . the deal is that other countries are already exploiting Africa's resources for their own gain. I believe it was Bob Geldof who mentioned one of the "deals" other countries have brokered with one of the countries in Africa concerning the production of pineapple. The deal is set up so that African's aren't allowed to fully process the fruit, so they don't reap the full economic benefit. (If I remember correctly, this tidbit of info came from the Travel Channel's show Bob Geldof in Africa, which I discussed here.
So then, if we take it as a given that no "third-world" country should ever rise up to the standard of living enjoyed by "first-world" countries because it will certainly mean planetary doom, what then is the solution? Let everyone die? Come on, people! That's no solution at all. How about this, then? What if Americans decided to consume less? Sacrifice something to the greater good of everyone? Oh, wait. (Get ready for sarcasm.) We can't possibly do that. Americans believe in Manifest Destiny. We get to manifest our destiny, and, by the way, we'll manifest everyone else's destiny while we're at it.
Some serious number crunching needs to happen. How much money would it take for everyone on earth to enjoy a decent standard of living (i.e. food, clothing, shelter, health care, education) while not sucking the earth's resources dry? I'm not referring to an obscene standard of living here. Twelve houses and a personal jet are not necessities, I don't care who you are. Looking at the state of the world today (and in times past), greed and a hunger for power are at the root of this. Until people decide to curb these appetites, we're in for a long row to hoe.
This is not an easy issue, no matter how you look at it. Bill appears to be anti-consumerism, yet, when I posted before about getting Americans to curb their consumption (also in relation to Africa), I got knocked for being anti-consumerist, myself. (See this link, and this one for the previous discussion.) My little blog certainly isn't going to have much impact on the wider discussion, but it's important to look at our deeper reasons for keeping Africa down. What are you willing to give up so that someone else can live a decent life?
"Sure........bring the African Contintent into the 21st century meltdown so they can experience that too after we exploit all the continent has to offer. Might get the west another 10-15 years and then we will leave it behind."
I agree with Bill to a certain extent. If every person in the world starts consuming at the rate Americans are, we'll be in serious environmental trouble in no time. It's a sticky wicket, but . . . the deal is that other countries are already exploiting Africa's resources for their own gain. I believe it was Bob Geldof who mentioned one of the "deals" other countries have brokered with one of the countries in Africa concerning the production of pineapple. The deal is set up so that African's aren't allowed to fully process the fruit, so they don't reap the full economic benefit. (If I remember correctly, this tidbit of info came from the Travel Channel's show Bob Geldof in Africa, which I discussed here.
So then, if we take it as a given that no "third-world" country should ever rise up to the standard of living enjoyed by "first-world" countries because it will certainly mean planetary doom, what then is the solution? Let everyone die? Come on, people! That's no solution at all. How about this, then? What if Americans decided to consume less? Sacrifice something to the greater good of everyone? Oh, wait. (Get ready for sarcasm.) We can't possibly do that. Americans believe in Manifest Destiny. We get to manifest our destiny, and, by the way, we'll manifest everyone else's destiny while we're at it.
Some serious number crunching needs to happen. How much money would it take for everyone on earth to enjoy a decent standard of living (i.e. food, clothing, shelter, health care, education) while not sucking the earth's resources dry? I'm not referring to an obscene standard of living here. Twelve houses and a personal jet are not necessities, I don't care who you are. Looking at the state of the world today (and in times past), greed and a hunger for power are at the root of this. Until people decide to curb these appetites, we're in for a long row to hoe.
This is not an easy issue, no matter how you look at it. Bill appears to be anti-consumerism, yet, when I posted before about getting Americans to curb their consumption (also in relation to Africa), I got knocked for being anti-consumerist, myself. (See this link, and this one for the previous discussion.) My little blog certainly isn't going to have much impact on the wider discussion, but it's important to look at our deeper reasons for keeping Africa down. What are you willing to give up so that someone else can live a decent life?
Labels: africa, america, consumption, environmental degradation, greed, manifest destiny, power, problem, standard of living
Monday, October 23, 2006
I Got the Consumption, Arrrrgh!
I posted my Noble Africa blog entry on reddit.com because I thought it might be of interest to a general audience. I got one comment back through reddit and two (from the same person) to my blog. Here's what Cypherx had to say on reddit:
It is not consumerism per se that I have a problem with. Every living thing on earth, humans, animals, plants, consume. That's part of life. It's consumption for the sake of consumption, rather than for need, that bothers me. It's George W. telling us to not worry our pretty heads and just go shopping after 9/11.
I came of age with Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. American consumption is ravenous and doesn't fit with the Reduce part of the equation. The more we (individually and as a country) ramp up our consumption, the more others feel they have to buy to keep up. When there are people in the world without a roof over their heads, how many immodest houses can some of us justify having? How many cars? How many baubles collecting dust in the backs of our closets? I'm as guilty as anyone in a well-off country of over-consumption. I try to curb it where I can, difficult as that is. I don't think I'll ever reach the point of owning only 55 personal items like Dan Ho.
Of course, Cypherx is right about Africa. The continent can become the equal of America through making appealing consumer products (if I need a T-shirt or tennies, I'll consider the attractive ones offered through the (RED) campaign), but a deeper, human equality does not rest on materialism. Does someone become less human because he doesn't have the proper clothing, the right car, impressive shelter? It's the inherent humanity, and the basic goodness housed within, that I wanted people to recognize about Africa.
Flightless posted two links showing another, more positive, side to Africa, specifically the country of South Africa:
A video on YouTube called Today I Woke Up in a Country. This gave me shivers. And, the website for the International Marketing Council of South Africa.
The question for today: Would you be willing to take less so that someone with less can have more?
It is not consumerism per se that I have a problem with. Every living thing on earth, humans, animals, plants, consume. That's part of life. It's consumption for the sake of consumption, rather than for need, that bothers me. It's George W. telling us to not worry our pretty heads and just go shopping after 9/11.
I came of age with Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. American consumption is ravenous and doesn't fit with the Reduce part of the equation. The more we (individually and as a country) ramp up our consumption, the more others feel they have to buy to keep up. When there are people in the world without a roof over their heads, how many immodest houses can some of us justify having? How many cars? How many baubles collecting dust in the backs of our closets? I'm as guilty as anyone in a well-off country of over-consumption. I try to curb it where I can, difficult as that is. I don't think I'll ever reach the point of owning only 55 personal items like Dan Ho.
Of course, Cypherx is right about Africa. The continent can become the equal of America through making appealing consumer products (if I need a T-shirt or tennies, I'll consider the attractive ones offered through the (RED) campaign), but a deeper, human equality does not rest on materialism. Does someone become less human because he doesn't have the proper clothing, the right car, impressive shelter? It's the inherent humanity, and the basic goodness housed within, that I wanted people to recognize about Africa.
Flightless posted two links showing another, more positive, side to Africa, specifically the country of South Africa:
A video on YouTube called Today I Woke Up in a Country. This gave me shivers. And, the website for the International Marketing Council of South Africa.
The question for today: Would you be willing to take less so that someone with less can have more?
Labels: africa, clothing, consumption, recycling, red, reddit
I agree with most of the post except this silly bit:
Leave the consumers alone! They get something they want, they contribute to something good. It's the best arrangement possible and well intended anti-consumerism can only muck things up.
In fact, I think the consumerism the author loathes is also the cure for his chief complaint. Africa can become the "equal" of the rich Northern countries...if it makes lots of products that appeal to our consumers (either by style, quality or price). Until then, most of the continent will remain a sad charity case.