> >>Plentiful energy is currently the preserve of the rich (who waste it, >mostly). For most of the world, successful water projects are very >local, and low-tech. But there's no need to argue about which is more >important, of course they're both important, and both problems are >symptoms of an over-riding cause - an unjust and inequitable economic >system. If you can call such insanity a "system" at all.<< > > > Keith, when you talk about the inequality and inequity in the world >economy, what are your views on this? Basically, what do you mean?
Please see below. > Of course the rich waste, but to them they've earned it. If the rest >of the world isn't made up of servants, they say, let them rise up and be >rich. Self-fulfilling prophecy, I think. Nobody earns the right to waste. The rich aren't rich because they've earned it. They talk of wealth-creation, but it usually has more to do with wealth-extraction via poverty-creation. Of course there are exceptions, but that's the general picture, it holds good when you're talking about billions - billions of people and billions of dollars. Of course genuine wealth-creation, real development, can and does exist, but it's almost always bottom-up, decentralised, local-level stuff - "small is beautiful". "In the Industrial World small businesses account for more technological advances in their areas of expertise than government supported researchers or research departments in massive corporations." (Steve Troy of Jade Mountain.) >I wonder what your solution would >be, Keith- i'd just watch out for putting emphasis on supposed human >cooperation, goodwill and the urge to go further, faster. The first two work well, the third's an odd-man-out. Bit like saying "trees, soil, Agent Orange". >God, the >philosophy... I hate it. Why in the hell can't people just 'get along', >'love their neighbors', and learn how to live instead of consuming? That's what the vast majority do, or would do, but for the small minority. >Why, for >example, am I, a purty decent guy, not given options to either consume or not >consume? You do have that option. >Most of us don't have a choice; most of us never will. Most don't have the choice to consume. Many don't have the choice to survive. >The world >might not have a chance, and it's a curse to see the problem without even >knowing how to grind yourself into the gears for a start. The world's got a pretty good chance, I reckon. I think you can start wherever you happen to be right now. Anyhow, I think you've already started, haven't you? >I'll shut up now, thanks. > >_JIM Please see: Community development - poverty and hunger: see "The causes of poverty" http://journeytoforever.org/community2.html Also: The annual UN Human Development Report says the effects of globalisation and increasing economic integration have led to the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer in nearly every way. UN statistics provide evidence of the widening gap between rich and poor: In nine years, the income ratio between the top 20% and the bottom 20% has increased from 60:1 to 74:1. Eighty countries have less revenue than they did a decade ago. The assets of the 200 richest people exceed the combined income of 41% of the world's total population. Monday, July 12, 1999 BBC World News "Economic growth is projected as the road to overcome global poverty. With economic growth of $100 the rich 20% of the world population pocket $83 and the poorest 20% get $1.40. Global economic growth is therefore a highly inefficient way to help the global poor." [I think that "$1.40" is a bit optimistic, often it's a negative figure. Sorry, I've lost the source for this somehow. - K] The world's richest fifth consumes 86% of all goods and services while the poorest fifth consumes just 1.3%. The richest fifth consumes 45% of all meat and fish, 58% of all energy used, and 84% of all toilet paper, has 74% of all telephone lines, and owns 87% of all vehicles. Source: NYTimes, 9/26/98, Week in Review section. The world's 225 richest individuals, of whom 60 are American with total assets of $311 billion, have a combined wealth of over $1 trillion - equal to the annual income of the poorest 47% of the entire world's population. Source: NYTimes, 9/26/98, Week in Review section. By the year 2050, 8 billion of the world's projected people - up from about 6 billion today - will be living in developing countries. Source: NYTimes, 9/26/98, Week in Review section. Three billion people live on less than $2.00 a day. One billion people live on less than $1.00 a day. - statistics courtesy of the World Bank If all this is going to cause a big fuss, we should maybe take it elsewhere. But I should add that it's the backdrop to our thinking about promoting biofuels use, and that of many others on this list. It's also the backdrop to much or most of the environmental degradation which concerns many of us. Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
