Just read a nice thoughtful NY Times article. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/02/opinion/global/02iht-GA04Sachs.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ref=sustainabledevelopment
The concluding paragraph about sums it up--
"We enter 2011 confused, demoralized and feeling impoverished; yet we are living at the time of the greatest productivity and prosperity in human history. No problem today — poverty, clean energy or national security — is beyond our technical and intellectual means. Our problems lie elsewhere, in our confusion over the sources of ultimate happiness. If we can behold the power of our tools, and the yearnings for life’s deeper pleasures, then 2011 can be the start of a new era of wellbeing. The choice is ours and ours alone."
When we see someone with an physiological disorder-- an anorexic who refuses to think she is anything but fat-- we see an obvious problem. Yet isn't it just as twisted that most of us in the developed world work our tails off for more mullah while 3 billion people, half the world, lives on two dollars a day. Is our perception just as distorted? We can spend just as much in one weekend shopping spree as most spend in one year, and still feel unsatisfied! Is there possibly a void that cannot be filled with money alone?
It's obvious that money can buy convenience, services, and free time, but when is enough enough?
Is just enough never enough when you can have more?
Does it make sense that 20,000 people die each day because they can't afford food, medical attention, or clean water,and at the same one man can control 50 billion dollars? It's a pretty trite conundrum, but the wealth paradox is worthy of insistent questioning.
And a lot of rich do contribute enormous sums, but I don't think we should fool ourselves into believing the solution relies in philanthropy of the filthy rich.
Another great article I read was a 15 page LA TIMES piece on the conflicting nature of Bill Gates philanthropic work with his investments. It's a detailed article worth reading. Essentially many companies that Bill Gates invests in to make money (some to go to his charitable foundation), are in the face of his foundations goals, mostly involving health and the environment. One example pointed out that Bill Gates owns $100 of millions in the oil companies that were polluting a region so bad that half the kids had life threatening asthma. While Gates may not directly support such pollution, he is voting with his dollars and his vote is contradictory to his philanthropic work.
to quote some other main points
"In 2002, a study found that more than half of the children at a school in nearby Merebank suffered asthma -- one of the highest rates in scientific literature. A second study, published last year, found serious respiratory problems throughout the region: More than half of children aged 2 to 5 had asthma, largely attributed to sulfur dioxide and other industrial pollutants. Much of it was produced by companies in which the Gates Foundation was invested.""At the Gates Foundation, blind-eye investing has been enforced by a firewall it has erected between its grant-making side and its investing side. The goals of the former are not allowed to interfere with the investments of the latter."
"Using the most recent data available, a Times tally showed that hundreds of Gates Foundation investments -- totaling at least $8.7 billion, or 41% of its assets, not including U.S. and foreign government securities -- have been in companies that countered the foundation's charitable goals or socially concerned philosophy."
Here is my philosophy on wealth (without eloquence because it is late)
Basic needs of everyone should be met before others can righteously have more than they need. Most money can be accumulated by investments, and thus the most profitable people invest in places, things, or people they have no connection to. Without connection to an area it becomes exploited. Take for instance International companies who went into Chile and built cellulose mills and dams. Waters were polluted, people were displaced, livelihoods were lost; locals saw things they held dearly, destroyed. But what can't be "fixed" with money and lobbyists? And like the WWI bomber pilots who could kill 1000 people with the push of a button and without the single glimpse of death, it is easy to ignore the affects of something so far away.
As Albert Einstein said "Peace cannot be kept by force; it can only be achieved by understanding." How do you understand a place when you're only their to make money?
.
We would like to think that because land is private it only affects the owner, but in reality everything is common ground because ecological destruction, especially water and air pollution, doesn't have boundaries. There are more than enough resources to go around. The tragedy of the commons can just as easily be the triumph of sustainability. I think we just need to keep asking ourselves-- what am I working for? And what truly makes me happy (making buckets of money, helping others, spending time with family)?
I believe it all starts with a shift in thinking. Our actions are a result of educated thought.
As David Orr, a professor at Oberlin College, says “Much of what has gone wrong with the world is the result of education that alienates us from life in the name of human domination, overemphasizes competition . . . and unleashes on the world minds ignorant of their own ignorance”
Who thought that spending $750 billion a year on the military, but only $15 billion to helping the world’s poorest countries cope with disease, hunger and famine, was a good idea. As Greg Mortenson says "books not bombs" It's time we spent money on constructing, not destructing.
.jpg)
