This is what I'm talking about when I say that I am/we are much richer and more educated than the majority of the world. When is enough enough?
If the world were a village of 1000 people:
584 would be Asians
123 would be Africans
95 would be East and West Europeans
84 Latin Americans
55 Soviets (still including for the moment Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians, etc.)
52 North Americans
6 Australians and New Zealanders
The people of the village would have considerable difficulty communicating:
165 people would speak Mandarin
86 would speak English
83 Hindi/Urdu
64 Spanish
58 Russian
37 Arabic
That list accounts for the mother-tongues of only half the villagers. The other half speak (in descending order of frequency) Bengali, Portuguese, Indonesian, Japanese, German, French, and 200 other languages.
In the village there would be:
300 Christians (183 Catholics, 84 Protestants, 33 Orthodox)
175 Moslems
128 Hindus
55 Buddhists
47 Animists
210 all other religions (including atheists)
One-third (330) of the people in the village would be children. Half the children would be immunized against the preventable infectious diseases such as measles and polio.
Sixty of the thousand villagers would be over the age of 65.
Just under half of the married women would have access to and be using modern contraceptives.
Each year 28 babies would be born.
Each year 10 people would die, three of them for lack of food, one from cancer. Two of the deaths would be to babies born within the year.
One person in the village would be infected with the HIV virus; that person would most likely not yet have developed a full-blown case of AIDS.
With the 28 births and 10 deaths, the population of the village in the next year would be 1018.
In this thousand-person community, 200 people would receive three-fourths of the income; another 200 would receive only 2% of the income.
The village would have 6 acres of land per person, 6000 acres in all of which:
700 acres is cropland
1400 acres pasture
1900 acres woodland
2000 acres desert, tundra, pavement, and other wasteland.
The woodland would be declining rapidly; the wasteland increasing; the other land categories would be roughly stable. The village would allocate 83 percent of its fertilizer to 40 percent of its cropland -- that owned by the richest and best-fed 270 people. Excess fertilizer running off this land would cause pollution in lakes and wells. The remaining 60 percent of the land, with its 17 percent of the fertilizer, would produce 28 percent of the foodgrain and feed 73 percent of the people. The average grain yield on that land would be one-third the yields gotten by the richer villagers.
If the world were a village of 1000 persons, there would be five soldiers, seven teachers, one doctor. Of the village's total annual expenditures of just over $3 million per year, $181,000 would go for weapons and warfare, $159,000 for education, $132,000 for health care.
The village would have buried beneath it enough explosive power in nuclear weapons to blow itself to smithereens many times over. These weapons would be under the control of just 100 of the people. The other 900 people would be watching them with deep anxiety, wondering whether the 100 can learn to get along together, and if they do, whether they might set off the weapons anyway through inattention or technical bungling, and if they ever decide to dismantle the weapons, where in the village they will dispose of the dangerous radioactive materials of which the weapons are made.
In this 1000-person community:
800 would have substandard housing.
670 adults live in the community, and half of them would be illiterate.
500 would suffer from malnutrition.
330 would not have access to clean, safe drinking water.
240 people would not have any electricity.
Of the 76 who have electricity, most would use it only for light at night.
In the village would be 420 radios, 240 televisions, 140 telephones, and 70 computers.
(some villagers own more than one of each)
70 people would own an automobile (some of them more than one).
50 people would possess 32% of the entire village's wealth, and these would all be from the USA.
The poorest one-third of the village would receive only 3% of the income of the village.
The following is also something to ponder...
If you woke up this morning healthy, you are more blessed than the million that will not survive this week.
If you have never experienced the danger of battle, the fear and lonliness of imprisonment, the agony of torture, or the pain of starvation, you are better off than 500 million people in the world.
If you have food in the refrigerator, clothes on your back, a roof over your head and a place to sleep, you are more comfortable than 75% of the people in this world.
If you have money in the bank, in your wallet, and spare change in a dish someplace, you are among the top 8% of the world's wealthy.
If you can read this, you are more blessed than two billion people in the world who cannot read at all.
When one considers our world from such a compressed perspective, it becomes both evident and vital that education, acceptance, and compassion are essential for the progress of humankind.
(from here and here)
edit (a couple hours later): to answer the question I pose at the beginning- unfortunately for us and the rest of the world, never.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Dear Tom,
ReplyDeleteMy name is Mark Spencer; Susanna Hasser introduced me to your blog a few months ago and I've been reading it with great interest; I hope you don't mind my reading it and posting a small comment here on what you've been talking about in general. I like reading your blog because you seem to be passionate about what you are thinking about, and more importantly, you are thinking, which is something it doesn't seem like a lot of people our age are doing. I like what you say about the interconnectedness of things: that everything that exists, all of nature is interconnected, and that if one part of this vast schema (say, the human race) "defects" from the order, the whole thing gets screwed up pretty badly. This, it seems to me, is so obvious it should occur to everyone, but as you say, most of the world, particularly those who seem to get themselves in charge of things, seem to miss this every time. Where I don't agree with you is where you say that this means that it is not the place of humans to rule over other creatures. It seems to me that the essential thing is that we get back to living in accord with nature. We are made a certain way, to live a certain way--certainly this includes a diversity of expressions--but it seems that all human beings are at root pretty similar and there are certain moral/spiritual/intellectual norms that are pertinent to everyone. It seems that we all have a nature that is common to us all--and that this nature fits in perfectly with the nature of everything else. If we started paying attention to how things work: the rhythm of the seasons, our real bodily needs (not desires) as well as our spiritual and mental needs, our interdependency with plants and animals and the nonliving world, the world would begin to stabilize and things move toward an equitable situation for everyone. But I don't think this means ending any sort of control over nature. It is an attribute of man that he has reason. If everything in nature is supposed to follow its place, to do what it is most suited to do, then it seems man must use his reason to guide nature. The problem now is that we direct nature in a way that is non-natural. Our guiding, it seems to me, ought to be a perfecting of nature, a guiding that takes the nature of things and perfects them. It seems that hierarchies are a part of nature: food chains, orders of complexity, systems building on systems even within our own cells. Nature appears to be full of systems, even institutions. So while I think you are right to challenge and defy the current capitalistic-socialist economic paradigm and the big business/big government systems, I question whether we ought to go to some sort of "open tribe." Civilization in itself seems a good; it is in accord with the nature of human persons--we are not isolated individuals but rather we tend toward societies, even political entities, and this seems to be, in itself, good for us, even good for the world--the problem is its current manifestation.
These are my thoughts on the subject. It seems to me that if one accepts the interconnectedness of things, one must also accept that hierarchies are a part of this. By the way, I think this vision is very Catholic--I think a lot of your vision is very Catholic at root since it is a sacramental way of looking at things, by which I mean that you see that nature/the material world are basically good, but that they indicate a higher truth, such as how we ought to live, like when you were talking about our sleeping cycles. This is, it seems to me, one of the most basic of Catholic beliefs. I think you are right to question everything, and I wish more people would. The way Catholicism is taught in high schools now-a-days is absolute crap--but this does not mean Catholicism is at root false. You said once that you know that Christianity is false--but I don't think you can say this definitively based on a lot of the other things you have said. As you said, you can only sense the sacred in the tangible. This is the essence of Catholicism, that God reaches down to creation and we encounter Him through material realities. Our meeting with God was never meant to me some blind groping around in the dark for some nebulous person that we encounter through inner "feelings." Our meeting with Him, it seems to me, is here and now, in my current situation, but also connected to every other person, both here and now, and all the way back to the beginning of time and all the forward to the end. Everything is connected, and thus tradition is essential though we must question it all and make it our own. And I think you are right that concrete action is needed, but I don't think you can reject philosophy on this basis. One is always motivated by a philosophy, a basic belief system; one always puts one's faith in certain assumptions; it is impossible not to: the mere statement that "there is a particular way that is right to live" is a statement of faith, the beginnings of a philosophy. But I appreciate your saying that abstract thought by itself without concrete action is bullshit. But I don't think any of this forces you away from Catholicism. Catholicism is, after all, embracive of a wide variety of viewpoints. It is, however, also as you say, intolerant. Every viewpoint is intolerant since the truth is a knife that cuts off everything implausible, everything inconsistent, everything that violates itself. So I don't think that shoud pose much of a problem to you.
Anyways, that was a bit of a rant, I'm sorry I went so long. One just gets going and can't stop, you know. So if you think I'm way off base, let me know, or if you don't want me posting on your blog, tell me that too. But that's what I think on the subject. I'm glad that there are other people out there my age who think about these things, and it's a pleasure to read your stuff and to get a different viewpoint on things. There are lots of books that led me to these thoughts, but I'd like to read some of the ones you've talked about and see where you're coming from. Anyways, that's all. God bless.
peace,
Mark Spencer
For the record, I just memed you.
ReplyDeleteHope that your first semester ended up well, and merry Christmas.
Hi Mark,
ReplyDeleteFirst off, thank you for your comment. I am glad you enjoy reading my blog. Please feel free to comment whenever you like.
I appreciate that you have an open mind when reading my thoughts and can make connections to what you believe and are thinking yourself. I certainly see some of those connections myself, but there are certain points where I feel you have misunderstood me or are trying to make a connection where there isn't one at all. They probably look like little things, but it makes all the difference in how I see the world. For example, when you speak of the "interconnectedness of things" and the way in which the human race has defected from that order, I do not believe that the human race has defected from some order at all. Our culture, not all of humanity, is out of order with the rest of the world. And that is what gives me hope. I will admit that at this point, our culture spans most of the world, but it is not a hereditary trait of humanity to be out of order with the world (what you would consider Original Sin). And when you speak of perfecting nature by human's reasonable control, this is a point we obviously don't agree on. Two things, though: it is precisely because we are trying to control nature that it is so out of wack, and nature is not supposed to be perfect. Nothing is perfect. Nature was doing a pretty damn fine job of governing and "guiding" itself until we (our culture) one day decided that it needed our help (but our intention has never been to help nature, only ourselves). And all those leaders who never seem to catch the message, those hierarchical leaders you want to hold on to, can't be to far off of an accurate reflection of the society that they are leading because leaders are just as much a product of their societies as everyone else. If we are not guiding nature to be perfect now, what is your plan to make humans perfect enough to guide nature into perfection as well? Good luck with making humans perfect.
The open tribe is just a suggestion. It is not a command. I don't mean to sound like I am saying that I believe everyone should form open tribes to support themselves. I am simply considering it as an option for myself, as it is the best model for how to live and make a living that I have yet read about. All I ask is that you allow me the space to attempt to live in a way different from yours. And if you want to join me someday, that's fine too. I personally cannot see how civilization is a good when there has yet to be a civilization that has been in order with nature. It is part of what makes it a civilization that it is out of order with nature, taking as much from nature to benefit the civilization as possible without giving anything back but pollution and a path of devastation (I'm picturing a clear-cut forest right now).
Okay, the "ought to live" part. This is why my thoughts are not Catholic at their root- I don't think there is a way we ought to live. There is no one right way to live. That is a direct quote from both my blog and from Daniel Quinn. I retract my claim, however, that I am trying to move away from philosophy. That was reactionary of me to say. I realize that I will always be motivated by some philosophy, but that philosophy is not based on a foundation of "there is a particular way that is right to live." Your description of the Catholic Church's grasp on the Truth was very well said. And it is that very grasp that drove me away from it in the first place. It was precisely because the Church views homosexuals as implausible, inconsistent, and as violating themselves and therefore cuts them of from the community, precisely this intolerance, that I could not stand. It does pose a big problem for me. Sorry to disappoint you.
Thanks again for your comment. I look forward to continuing the dialogue in the future and hopefully even meeting you in person.
Uh, 'xcuse me, I was just walking by and overheard your 'conversation' and couldn't help adding my two cents (will I ever learn?)...
ReplyDeleteIsn't the conclusion that "there is no one right way to live" a declaration of a right way to live itself? If there really is no one right way to live, then any way one chooses to live should be acceptable even if it infringes upon the space of others, for if the way I choose to live is right for me, then my lack of concern about the consequences to those I use and abuse (actually I can't ab-use someone if what I do is right to me) should not be judged, period. Tolerate me!! (Ain't THAT an appropriate description!)
Re: homosexuals, would that nature could give us some indication that it accepts homosexual relationships between primates/mammals, but it simply doesn't. Nature provides no way for homosexual coupling to propagate the species. It is, by nature, unnatural. And the Church's founding document (the Bible) says what it says (Adam and Eve; two become one flesh) and we Catholics therefore bow to this Truth... who are we to argue with HIStory? It's just unfortunate that in acknowledging this Truth, and defending it against attacks by those who think we're scared ('phobic') of homosexuality -- we're not, it's mere chaff connected to the human grain of wheat that inhibits the wheat from realizing its purpose -- that those defending it may lack compassion in their argument; lack judgment in their choice of when and whom to debate with.
Gotta run. Breakfast calls. Nih!
From Quinn, "Having no one right way to live is not a way to live, any more than having no one right way to cook an egg is a way to cook an egg. Knowing that there's no one right way to live won't tell you how to live, any more than knowing that there's no one right time to go to bed will tell you when to go to bed." A relativism like this does not make all ethical systems invalid, it does the opposite. These ethical systems develop by cultural evolution to guide people towards what works and away from what doesn't. There's no basis for declaring one system superior over another except by divine will, which is always presented as filtered through human bias.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what warped conception you have of nature but homosexual behavior is certainly not a human invention. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-human_animal_sexuality)
Homosexuality actually serves a quite healthy purpose for species who are not dominated by the drive to overpopulate the earth. Limiting population size is a good when resources are limited. Cuz otherwise there's that little thing called famine that kind of brings down the whole population of a species. Reckless propagation of the species is not a good thing, and there are naturally developing balances for it like homosexual behavior. You can stop pushing the Catholic Truth on me because I'm not swallowing it anymore. Perhaps I'm just having a PC moment, but the sexism of the Church is so apparent in your emphasis of HIStory.
Just so you know that last sentence before your farewell- I couldn't decipher its meaning, if you want to enlighten me.
Re: Quinn
ReplyDeleteIf one embraces relativism and states that all ethical systems are valid, then one can't expect their judgment against ANY of them (including Nazism) to be taken seriously because in judging any system, one violates their own ethical principals.
Re: divine will
Christians declare that divine will has not always been presented through human bias, as Jesus, we declare, is the Divine, Immortal Creator of all things, and we therefore embrace all that he says, because it (life and its meaning) is all about HIS story (HIStory, as I put it). The fact of Jesus' maleness just distracts those male-o-phobes from the fact of his divinity and sovereigniy over ALL. But as he states, judge him by his works.
Re: Homosexuality
Of course humans didn't invent homosexuality. Why would someone invent a creature incapable of reproduction, which is the observed purpose of all living things?
The chaff consists of any part of our beings that separate us (the grain/seed) from our ultimate purpose in life. You must believe there is an ultimate purpose in life, that which will make you say "I am fulfilled", or else your time spent debating life would be wasted if there was ultimately no purpose to it.
Re: Catholicism
There really is no "Catholic" Truth (no need to capitalize for my benefit if you hold no esteem for the subject... you give it power by acknowledging it), there's only Jesus.
He is what everything that was, is and shall be, is about. He is the answer to every question springing forth from the human heart. HE is what I'd like to see you address in debate and He is the last thing that the devil wishes you to think about. Concern yourself with the environment, society, ethics, political corruption, overpopulation but for hell's sake, don't think about Him!! For He might be listening.
UncD
Okay, the relativism thing- again, the key element is that what works will naturally be stable and what doesn't work is what is unstable and will eventually break down and end, regardless of whether I judge it so or not. But that doesn't preclude me from the human tendancy to judge, and maybe I'm wrong to call that relativism. That's ok. I'm not really concerned with the name of my ethical principles. I would really rather they remain nameless.
ReplyDeletedivine will- did Jeses write anything down himself (besides in the sand)? Because if he didn't, whoever did is a layer of human bias right there (and that's assuming that Jesus is in fact God).
homosexuality- perhaps there is more to life than procreating. my mom was almost pronounced barren. if that had ended up to be true, would her life then have no purpose? what of the celibacy of priests then? perhaps purpose can be found in other things, like contributing meaningfully to the community you live in (and one such way in an overpopulated tribe might be to refrain from childbearing).
Either Jesus is what he said he is (the son of God), or he is a liar, or a lunatic. That is what I was taught in theology class. Again, on the first option, that is filtered through one layer of human bias. Perhaps that is what his followers wanted Jesus to be. I don't know because I was not there. And Jesus is not here on earth in person now, so, doubting thomas that I am, I am not able to stick my fingers in the holes. Faith is the only option available to me, and there is way too much that I don't agree with in that faith for me to accept it on its own account now. maybe I'll talk about Jesus more later. I'm tired of debating for now.
Mark wrote: "Where I don't agree with you is where you say that this means that it is not the place of humans to rule over other creatures. It seems to me that the essential thing is that we get back to living in accord with nature."
ReplyDeleteWhat a contradiction, the second sentence following the first!
Mark wrote: "But I don't think this means ending any sort of control over nature. It is an attribute of man that he has reason. If everything in nature is supposed to follow its place, to do what it is most suited to do, then it seems man must use his reason to guide nature. The problem now is that we direct nature in a way that is non-natural. Our guiding, it seems to me, ought to be a perfecting of nature, a guiding that takes the nature of things and perfects them. It seems that hierarchies are a part of nature: food chains, orders of complexity, systems building on systems even within our own cells."
Life on earth is a WEB, not a pyramid! The food "chain" is a cycle, not a hierarchy! There are many things in nature that are structured into hierarchy; certainly that is one possible configuration. But this does not mean CONTROL or SUBJUGATION of ecosystems is "man's nature"! How you go from saying there are structural hierarchies within the body to saying that "man" should control nature because "he" has the power of reason is beyond me.
From the link: "Of course, you modern humans don't see your myths as myths, you think they're The Truth, just like every other culture from the Greeks to the Maya has viewed their myths as The Truth. That's what's tricky about myths - they don't appear as myths to those living in them. So although you think modern people have progressed beyond all that mythology stuff, the fact is that snuggled up right beside your scientific understanding of the web of life is the pervasive myth that life on Earth is a pyramid - with humans at the very top.
...
This mythic imagery of a pyramid with humans at top is designed to emphasize several key, interrelated aspects of the "story" being told by the mythology of human civilization:
One, that humans are so special and different from all other forms of life on Earth, that you have somehow been elevated "above" everything else;
Two, that because you are such a special species, you are exempt from the rules of life that govern every other species on Earth;
Three, by virtue of your superior position at the top of the pyramid, you humans are somehow "meant" to rule over and use the rest of life on Earth for your own purposes; and,
Four, even though your supposedly "civilized" way of life is driving you to both a human and ecological catastrophe, you can't give it up because that would mean giving up everything that makes you humans "special" and admitting that you are not, after all, "meant" to be at the top of the pyramid, dominating and using the rest of life on Earth.
In other words, the guiding mythology of modern society is the "myth of human exceptionalism" - a story that tells you that humans are so utterly special that the rules of life that apply to every other species on Earth somehow don't apply to you; that the world was, in effect, made just for humans so you could have a stage upon which to show off what a wonderful and "highly evolved" species you are; and that you have no choice but continue acting as you have, even though you now face ecological catastrophe as a result, because that would mean not fulfilling your supposed "destiny" as the most wonderful, special species that has ever walked the face of the Earth.
The myth of human exceptionalism also tells you that humans are so special that, unlike every other species on Earth, you can somehow control your fate (and the fate of everything else that lives on Earth). That is the enormous - and fateful - conceit and drive behind agriculture and the entire edifice of human civilization that agriculture has inevitably spawned - the desperate attempt to wrest your fate from the "hands of the gods," to become as gods yourselves, supposed masters of your own fate. But you are not gods, you do not have the gods' wisdom about how the world works, so you are making a real hash of things in your vain efforts to be as powerful as the gods."
To go back to what Mark wrote: "Nature appears to be full of systems, even institutions."
This generalized concept of "nature" I find to be not very useful. Who is to say what is "natural" and what is not? As far as I can tell, EVERYthing is "natural," and so there is no helpful distinction to be made in declaring one thing "natural" or another thing "unnatural." It is common to see this error in many discussions on what is moral and ethical, with those arguing that something is ethical or unethical on the basis of whether it is natural or not; see above discussion on homosexuality.
Mark wrote: "Civilization in itself seems a good; it is in accord with the nature of human persons--we are not isolated individuals but rather we tend toward societies, even political entities, and this seems to be, in itself, good for us, even good for the world--the problem is its current manifestation."
The way you speak of civilization, Mark, it is as if you are defining "civilization" as a "society" or "culture". But this is not a helpful distinction, because then we must say that forager bands have "civilization", and that certainly is not the connotation "civilization" gives. Jason Godesky wrote an article called What is Civilization?, defining it anthropologically.
We can thus call the problematic current manifestation of human culture "civilization". In this definition, civilization is to human culture as cancer is to the body. Indeed there are many parallels between civilization and cancer, the necessity of constant growth and the harmful effects on the larger system being two of them. Only a certain number of cultures have ever gone down the path of what Quinn calls the Great Forgetting, the path of civilization.
Just like cancer, civilization continues on its process of anabolic growth until the host organism or ecosystem can no longer support the cancer's demand for resources. At this point the analogy between civilization and cancer is no longer useful, because civilizations at this point go through a process of collapse, whereas in an organism the host organism will die. Since civilization is certainly not the "only" configuration of human culture (and far from the "best"), if the collapse of civilization does not lead to the loss of all human life then other organizations will spring up spontaneously. It is similar to ecological succession in this regard.
For more, see Greer's paper How Civilizations Fall: A Theory of Catabolic Collapse. Also available in .pdf here.
p.s. As for the relativism discussion, I just wanted to chime in with Tom and say that "There is no one right way" is not inherently contradictory. "There is no one right way" leaves room for many right ways and also many wrong ways. Since "right" and "wrong" don't really do much for me as useful concepts, it is more helpful to discuss that which "works" and that which "doesn't work", or that which is "successful" or "unsuccessful", as we would discuss adaptations in ecology. It is helpful to say that civilization is unsuccessful, it is unhelpful to say that civilization is WRONG. The discussion of civilization will invariably get into ethics, but when discussing what is successful or not it is helpful to stay away from morality.
ReplyDelete- Devin