On suffering:
If there's been any tone to my writing this term, it would certainly adhere to the above characteristics. With regard to suffering, Strayer reminds us how fundamental suffering is to the human condition. While I wouldn't call it a necessary human condition, I am inclined to say that it's so pervasive not only within our institutions, but in the way we treat one another and in our sense of insularity, that I'm inclined to call it as necessary an offshoot as water. So while it may not be oxygen, our lives do depend on it, or will always involve it. Can we reduce suffering around the globe? Or perhaps better put, do we have the resources to reduce suffering around the globe? Sure we do. That those resources will never be properly allocated seems to be the real issue.
On human agency:
Change begins with the individual. I relate everything back to the individual, because I've been steeped in psychology, and know both the limits and expanses of the human psyche. I am encouraged by Strayer's contention that "history offers encouragement for those choosing to practice kindness or seek justice," but I'm also realistic in seeing how far off from it we are. What's surprising to me is the innovation that we as humans are capable of, but that we don't seem to exploit. We'd rather exploit each other. Thomas Edison has been quoted as saying, "If we all did things we are capable of doing, we would literally astound ourselves." Just imagine that. To all who are dissuaded by the long road ahead, I'll offer two pieces of advice in the way of adages. One, by Lao-tze, goes: "a journey of a thousand miles begins with one step." This lays as testament not only to our willpower, but to our collective strength as well. Take the first step. Be the first step. The second piece of advice I offer comes by way of John Ruskin, who reminds us that the "highest reward for a person's toil is not what they get for it, but what they become by it."
On our tendency towards insularity:
Just remember that while the world is made up of you and me, it is at the same time, much larger than you and I. It's much larger than the room you're in reading this. It's much larger than the institution that provided the means for you to read this. Even still, it's much larger than the idea that that institution sprang forth from; much larger than all of the thoughts that institution has generated. To quote the still-living Aubrey de Grey, a pioneer in the field of regenerative medicine, "remember your sense of proportion." Your own sense of things is the single most limiting factor of your existence. If utilized properly, it can also be the most liberating.
Thank you.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Antiglobalization
"Economic golbalization may have brought people together as never before, but it also divided them sharply" (p.730).
So while it would seem, judging by the tone of my posts, that I'd be a proponent of antiglobalization, I am not, necessarily. Though it seems to have garnered a fair amount of support, I am not so much for calling to an end to globalization, as it has its advantages, so much as I am for calling for a state that is more inclusive. The ratio between incomes of rich and poor, largely due to globalization, rose from 3:1 in 1820, to 86:1 in 1991. Now that's unfair. And that was some 19 years ago. I'm sure it hasn't gotten much better, if it has all. This is the type of priming that heralds change.
My thought on the widening gap between rich and poor is that if it continues, there are going to be serious consequences, in the form of rebellions, revolutions, and so on. I think it the more obvious and cooperative aim to seek to include those who may not have been opportuned the same life chances. And yes, I just made that word up.
Now the question seems to be, can globalization, which is seen by many as putting corporate interests before the welfare of people be tweaked so as to make for a more even distribution of wealth-one where human capital, land, and natural resources aren't exploited for the benefit of a minority?
So while it would seem, judging by the tone of my posts, that I'd be a proponent of antiglobalization, I am not, necessarily. Though it seems to have garnered a fair amount of support, I am not so much for calling to an end to globalization, as it has its advantages, so much as I am for calling for a state that is more inclusive. The ratio between incomes of rich and poor, largely due to globalization, rose from 3:1 in 1820, to 86:1 in 1991. Now that's unfair. And that was some 19 years ago. I'm sure it hasn't gotten much better, if it has all. This is the type of priming that heralds change.
My thought on the widening gap between rich and poor is that if it continues, there are going to be serious consequences, in the form of rebellions, revolutions, and so on. I think it the more obvious and cooperative aim to seek to include those who may not have been opportuned the same life chances. And yes, I just made that word up.
Now the question seems to be, can globalization, which is seen by many as putting corporate interests before the welfare of people be tweaked so as to make for a more even distribution of wealth-one where human capital, land, and natural resources aren't exploited for the benefit of a minority?
Human Development Reports
Went looking and here's what I found. For current HDR's, click and follow:
http://hdr.undp.org/en/
http://hdr.undp.org/en/
TNC's: Progress in motion?
According to Strayer, "By 2000, 50 of the world's 100 largest economic units were TNC's, not countries."
I was kind of surprised by that. I had heard the moniker "big business" before, but it's suddenly taken on new meaning. It seems I'm a little slow on the uptake. While shocking, I wasn't as troubled by this as I was by the news about Nike who over the course of 5 years, apparently "closed twenty factories and opened thiry-five others, often thousands of miles apart." While great for business, seems largely an irresponsible practice to me. In light of the impact upheavals like this have, should big business be allowed to do this? Is it not enough that they are able to move in and out of regions more accomodating to their needs?
I was kind of surprised by that. I had heard the moniker "big business" before, but it's suddenly taken on new meaning. It seems I'm a little slow on the uptake. While shocking, I wasn't as troubled by this as I was by the news about Nike who over the course of 5 years, apparently "closed twenty factories and opened thiry-five others, often thousands of miles apart." While great for business, seems largely an irresponsible practice to me. In light of the impact upheavals like this have, should big business be allowed to do this? Is it not enough that they are able to move in and out of regions more accomodating to their needs?
Bretton Woods System
Interesting stuff. Here's a brief history I found on TIME:
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0%2C8599%2C1852254%2C00.html
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0%2C8599%2C1852254%2C00.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)