 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
November, 2008
Development :Capitalist or Socialist?
During this International Year of the Planet Earth, 2008, there has been a great rush of reports and articles on climate change,
pollution, ecology, and development, and most International Newspapers have introduced permanent sections about ‘Environment’.
Virtually every article I have read has been based on the capitalist model of development, and visions of the future, in which under-
developed countries are encouraged to aspire to the standards of the developed world; in which international trade continues to
expand, and consumerism is the norm with motor cars, airplanes, and open markets. The debates are about how to enable China and
India, the countries of Africa and South America to continue their development into capitalist economies, and fully exploit their
resources: this capitalist ethic dominates the statements and blogs of the United Nations Development programme, and other UN
websites.
At the same time, the increasing demands for corporate Social Responsibility are leading many companies and corporations to pursue
conservation and environmentalism, whilst being careful to protect their profits and market share.
It seems to me that the norms of the capitalist corporations of the US and Western Europe, Japan, and Australasia dominate all the
debates and policies of development .
It is worth remembering that such capitalism is about making profits. Capitalism works by investing capital. This capital is in the hands of
the minority of the world’s population, who are getting richer and richer by the minute.
‘Global Issues’, 2008, reminds us that *World gross domestic product is $54.3 trillion in 2008; The World Bank announces it to be
$54.34 trillion.
Wikipedia.org declares world population to be approximately 6.8 billion in October 2008.
* The world’s billionaires — just 497 people in 2005(approximately 0.0008% of the world’s population) — were worth $3.5 trillion (over
7% of world GDP): whereas in 2008 [according to the World Wealth Report of MerrilLynch/CapGemini] there were 10.1 million $
millionaires [0.15%] worth in total $41 trillion [76% of GDP]; including 103,000 billionaires. One has to admit that there are a lot more
very rich people - and that they still comprise a small percentage of the total population.
Global Issues[Oct 2008] reports that
of the 6.8 billion people living on earth, 80% live on less than $10 a day; 20% on more than $10 a day - of which, I propose,
[based on reports of wealth distribution in the USA,] 13.85% live on $11 to $274 a day; 6% live on $275 to $11000 a day; 0.15 live on
more than $11000 a day. This would mean that 6.15% [418.1 million] earn in excess of $100,000 a year and have more than $275 a
day.
It is clear that 0.15% of the population owns $41trillion.
It follows that 99.85% has $13.3 trillion. This population includes the 5.4 billion on $10 a day and the 1.39 billion on more than $10, but
less than $11000 a day. The World Bank [2008] reports that the global average wage is $7985 a year or $21 a day. It would seem
accurate to state that the majority of the people in the world, 6.7 billion, are poor.
The top 20% of the world’s people in the richest countries enjoy 82% of the expanding export trade and 68% of foreign direct
investment. The capital that will be invested will come from this minority, and will boost their wealth. What it will do for the other 80% is
anyone’s guess ! The World Wealth Report clearly indicates that capitalist enterprise is benefiting individuals in the USA, Japan, the
EU, the Middle East, Russia, Brazil, India,China, and the countries of Pacific Asia such as Australia,Korea,Taiwan: as well as those of
Eastern Europe; all of whom, the report tells us, spend their wealth on more and more luxury items. Charitable works are far from their
minds!
Development and Subsistence
I want to suggest that 'development' must include everyone, and that a sustainable future for the 100% of the world’s population is a
‘subsistence’ future, made easier by the provision of modern technology e.g solar energy, water purification, drugs to cure diseases.
Profits should be spent for the benefits of local communities in the form of health care, sanitation, education, not for the luxuries of the
individual. Muhammad Yunus describes this in terms of social business, a no loss, no dividend company with social
objectives [refer to www.insnet.org/headlines/April]. Ironically, in 2008, we may have taken a step towards this future. The global
financial crisis has led to the collapse of confidence in capitalism, and a reassessment of the world economy.
Already, in a world in which the majority of resources and wealth are controlled by a minority, there is excessive pollution, seas full of
plastic bottles, plastic bags, deserts spreading, and atmospheres full of carbon particles. What will it be like with 80% of the world
population trying to live a life of luxury?
Development and poverty
To be blunt, it will not happen. At this present time, over 5.4 billion people live on less than ten dollars a day. And this number of the
poor would be much greater, 6.5 billion, if we adopted the criterion of poverty used in the USA, and in Europe, where poverty is
defined as $58 a day.
Global Issues.org tells us that nearly a billion people entered the 21st century unable to read a book nor sign their names.
“Approximately 790 million people in the developing world are still chronically undernourished, almost two-thirds of whom reside in Asia
and the Pacific.” Some 1.1 billion people in developing countries have inadequate access to water, and 2.6 billion lack basic
sanitation. Of the 6.8 billion, 2.2 billion are children, of which 1.1 billion are living in poverty.
Despite all the support for capitalism and growth amongst those people and corporations with all the money, we must accept that we
live in a world where poverty is normal.
That poverty is widespread across the globe, not restricted to just Africa and Asia. The wealthiest nation on Earth, the USA, has the
widest gap between rich and poor of any industrialized nation. A report in 2006 said that 37 million people, or 12.7% of the population
of the USA were classified as poor. Rupert Cornwell in Washington for the Independent, reports, 1 April 2008, that in one form or
another, food stamps have been around in the US since 1939, before taking their current form in the 1964 Food Stamp Act, one of the
earliest pieces of major legislation in the Johnson administration's "War on Poverty". Gone are the days when the stamps consisted of
vouchers presented for payment at a grocery store or a supermarket checkout. Now they usually take the form of a credit on an
electronic debit card,reducing the visible stigma of their use by people too proud to admit they cannot cope on their own. Greater public
awareness of the poverty programme, and the downturn now gripping the US , are reasons for the steady increase in the use of food
stamps since 2001, a period of solid economic growth until the full explosion of the sub-prime mortgage crisis in late 2007, which has
transformed into a credit crisis in 2008.
But food stamps are also a reminder of the continuing existence of widespread poverty in the US, and the ever expanding gulf between
rich and poor in the world's wealthiest country. Top income brackets have seen their disposable incomes soar, while earnings of the
lowest paid have struggled to keep pace with inflation. The minimum wage had stood unchanged for a decade , its longest freeze ever ,
until it was increased to $5.85 an hour in 2007 from the $5.15 set in 1997. The national poverty rate stands officially at around 13 per
cent, a level little changed from the 1970s. Poverty is currently defined as an income of $21,500 (£10,750) for a family of four.
Our world is one in which 'wealth' is abnormal.
In the UK 26% of households are described as poor, lacking basic necessities. But the Sunday Times Rich List shows the combined
wealth of the top 1,000 in the UK now stands at £360 bn and there are 68 billionaires in the country - three times as many as in 2003.
The list compilers said the 20% rise in the UK's most wealthy compared to a 14.8% rise in wealth of Europe's top 50 and an 8.3%
increase in wealth of the world's richest people over the past 12 months.
In Greece, a member of the EU, with a low wage, high price economy,it is normal to see people living and sleeping in the fields; and
other open spaces; and for families to be occupying what can only be described as one room hovels.
“The lives of 1.7 million children will be needlessly lost this year because world governments have failed to reduce poverty levels” .
According to UNICEF, 30,000 children die each day due to poverty. And they “die quietly in some of the poorest villages on earth, far
removed from the scrutiny and the conscience of the world. Being meek and weak in life makes these dying multitudes even more
invisible in death.” That is about 210,000 children each week, or just under 11 million children under five years of age, each year.
Millions of the world's poorest children are among the principal victims of climate change caused by the rich developed world, a United
Nations report said recently, calling for urgent action. The UNICEF report "Our Climate, Our Children, Our Responsibility" measured
action on targets set in the U.N. Millennium Development Goals, aimed at halving child poverty by 2015. It found failure on counts from
health to survival, education and gender equality. The report said climate change could add 40,000-160,000 child deaths a
year in Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa through lower economic growth.
In all countries, it would seem that the poor are getting poorer: The poorer the country, the more likely it is that debt repayments are
being extracted directly from people who neither contracted the loans nor received any of the money. The developing world now
spends $25 on debt repayment for every $1 it receives in grants. “The 48 poorest countries account for less than 0.4 per cent of global
exports. The alleviation of poverty across the world must be the top priority of all peoples.
Development and Corruption
But this will not be achieved as a result of capitalist investment. Greenpeace recently revealed that companies working in the poorest
countries in the world take great pains to avoid paying taxes and fair wages. For example, Greenpeace International makes a damaging
case against Swiss logging company Danzer. They have tax evasion schemes to divert profits from its forestry activities in the
Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) to offshore accounts, depriving the local people of an estimated 7.8 million euros in tax revenue.
Many organizations, including Greenpeace, have criticized illegal logging practices in the forestry industry, but less attention has been
given to corporate tax evasion which Greenpeace claims is the norm among those logging companies working in the DRC. Capitalists
will only work to help the poor if there is a profit to be made for themselves or their corporations: they will allocate monies on condition
that they receive many times more back. Danzer Group is a multinational company with subsidiaries all over the world. Greenpeace
alleges that two of its African subsidiaries sell wood to its trading partner Interholco below the market value. The difference is then put
into offshore accounts to avoid paying taxes on profit levied by the DRC government. According to internal company documents
obtained by Greenpeace, the African subsidiaries are also avoiding a DRC tax put on the use of expatriate labor as a way of
encouraging use of local employees. Instead of hiring native Congolese, Greenpeace says the companies use expatriate employees
and pay them with money from the offshore accounts, thereby foregoing the DRC tax.
Gandhi proposed that there is enough wealth in the world for everybody's need, but not enough for anybody's greed.
People such as Thabo Mbeki, Nelson Mandela, Kofi Annan, among many others, have argued that there is enough wealth in the
world today to totally alleviate poverty. But to do this, the wealth has to be redistributed, not spent on the luxurious lifestyles of the
richest individuals.
Development and Socialism. The solution to poverty is a socialist one whereby wealth is taxed, or the wealthy given incentives to
give significant sums to charity, and the proceeds used to provide housing, to facilitate subsistence farming, to prevent starvation, to
cure diseases, to ease water supplies, and provide sanitation; to build schools and teach billions to read and write; to make villages
and neighbourhoods places in which peoples can survive. What is more, such redistribution will have to be accompanied by serious
attempts to stop fraud and corruption so as to make sure that the monies go to the poor and not into the pockets of some third party.
There is no prospect of the many poor becoming ‘rich’ nor ‘comfortable’. The only hope is that they will survive in better conditions than
at present.
It will take a major effort to even begin the process of redistribution. And if the rich people behave as they have always done, they will
spend a lot of the time concealing their wealth, so that no one else can get hold of it! All efforts will be fruitless, unless the wealthy
themselves alter their ‘mindset’ and ‘cultural filters’ and recognise that their wealth depends on others, and those others, require some
of that wealth so as to survive. At the moment it is known that 20% of the population in the developed nations, consume 86% of the
world’s goods. In future we should be looking for 100% to consume these goods.
October, 2008 It has become crystal clear that the wealth-holders of the world, represented by the G7, and the G20, are only really
interested in alleviating the loss of wealth, not poverty. The global financial crisis has seen billions of $ put up to protect the banks and
financial houses from bankruptcy and closure: the same organisations who had precipitated the crisis by their mismanagement of the
capitalist system. The indifference of the wealthy to the rest of us has again been shown by their greed at this time of crisis: the
directors of Lehman Brothers proudly paying themselves $300,000,000 each in the face of the collapse of their corporation; and
directors of several UK banks [on the edge of collapse] going off to luxurious hotels for their board meetings; and CEO's like Bart Becht
of Reckitt Benckiser being paid 22 million GBP; Tom Glocer of Reuters 19 million GBP; while the financial system collapses, and
unemployment accelerates; and so on! The 10 million very wealthy people are busy looking after their own interests.
November 2008 The financial systems of the world are interconnected. The credit crisis in the USA has initiated bankruptcies of
banks, funds, investors, and countries across the globe, and the onset of recession. The World Bank and the IMF are running out of
money to support the liquidity of finance houses across the globe.
And yet there are 10.1 million people, 0.15% of the world population, controlling $41 trillion. If they contributed their fortunes to the
World Bank and the IMF,[at a significant rate of interest, of course] there would be more than enough money to resolve the global
crisis; Or they could redistribute their fortunes by means of charities and trust funds, to alleviate the poverty of the 5.4 billion people
living on less than $10 a day. Alas, the World Wealth Report 2008 [Merrill Lynch/CapGemini] tells us that they spend their monies on
luxuries such as diamonds, boats, cruisers,airplanes,helicopters,mansions across the world, diamond studded credit cards! and so on.
Why should they be bothered with the problems of the 'plebians', the poor?
Development and Profits Why is it that most of the countries that are classified as poor, are part of the developing world? with
families surviving on less than $10 a day? are sources of many mineral resources from oil to gold, providing trillions of dollars of
revenue for the mining/logging companies of the developed world? It seems to me that Anup Shah of Global Issues is correct when he
declares that merchants and traders of the 'developed world' are only interested in 'development' when it protects their trade, profits,
and wealth. Greenpeace and Christian Aid are correct when they assert that 'development' will not happen as a result of capitalist
projects financed by the World Bank, or IMF, or multinational corporations. Such donors have all the money in the first place, and they
will offer it on condition that the clients exhibit 'good behaviour'.......responsible governance, elimination of corruption, and, of course,
preferential treatment of the donors! [www.ethicsworld.org]
Live Green in future.
But if there is to be a future, the rate of consumption cannot be 100 times greater: The trick is that it has to be at the same levels as
today. In 2008 when 20% consume 86% of products, pollution and waste and environmental degradation is at the highest, and climate
change is accelerating, and extreme events more frequent. ‘No growth’ and the abandonment of capitalism, is that the future?
In the USA and Western Europe some years ago, the Green movement evolved. The Green Party and Greenpeace, among other
groups, began calling for a new way of life. A ‘green’ way of living involves eliminating waste, eating locally grown foods, working where
you live, abandoning private transport, utilising public transport, no more international flights, limiting international trade, generating
energy locally, by wind, sun, water; stepping out of the ‘rat race’. Of course, if such changes in living took place in the ‘West’, it would
impact immediately on the rest of the world by cutting demands for oil and gas to a minimum, for tropical foodstuffs, for wheat and rice,
and so on. All the countries supplying these resources would cease to profit, and their inhabitants would lose any wealth they had. At
the moment, the scenario is one in which the world’s resources are being exploited so as to supply the demands of the peoples and
corporations of the ‘developed’ countries of North America, Europe, and Asia. If this stops, then there will be little further development.
On the other hand, if the exploitation accelerates, the resources, such as oil, and timber, and water will run out, and there will be little
further development. The future is not bright!
But what we all know is that most people in the world today are poor, and living in appalling conditions. Such poverty is not restricted to
rural areas. There is overwhelming evidence that rural areas account for three in every four people living on less than $1 a day and a
similar share of the world population suffering from malnutrition. However, urbanization is not synonymous with human progress. Urban
slum growth is outpacing urban growth by a wide margin. Approximately half the world’s population now live in cities and towns. In
2005, one out of three urban dwellers (approximately 1 billion people) was living in slum conditions. .
Kemal Dervis of the United Nations Development Programme declares that it is ethically unacceptable that the poorest die of
malnutrition or preventable diseases while the rich have access to unprecedented wealth and increasingly luxurious lifestyles.
Jean Michel Severino, of the UNDP, reports that in the Millennium declaration the international community took the resolute decision to
embody the principles of the United Nations Charter in concrete and operational programs. In this truly cosmopolitan logic, each citizen
of the planet, by virtue of his or her humanity, is given a right to a minimum living standard including reduction of poverty, universal
primary education, gender equality, reduced child mortality, better health for mothers, medicines, a sustainable environment, and
partnerships for development. Yet despite strong economic growth in sub-Saharan Africa over the last few years, figures show that
many states will not have the macroeconomic capacity to guarantee these basic standards for many decades to come – standards that
will most likely increase in the future. By aiming for targets that are out of reach of the neediest countries’ public authorities, the
international community thus accepts to substitute the provision of basic social services through long-term financial transfers.
This change of philosophy implies a real revolution for the development community, which very few states have fully apprehended. It
sets aside considerations of economic viability, which used to count amongst the cornerstones of development aid. The efficiency of a
programme is no longer evaluated on the capacity of its recipients to emancipate themselves of international transfers through
economic growth, but through the sole improvement of the targeted populations’ basic living standards. To use a common metaphor, it
is as if we had set aside the idea of teaching the weakest states how to fish to focus on large-scale fish distribution. In a way, official
development flows are moving away from a logic of investment towards one of global wealth redistribution.
If financial transfers and redistribution of wealth is to work globally there will need to be ‘global networks’ of allocation, enforcement and
supervision similar to the United Nations and its various organisations. Such systems are possible as has been shown by the European
Union, and the efforts to alleviate poverty, and provide support for technology, amongst those members unable to afford it, such as
Greece. In addition, the EU has recently undertaken to police the billionaires, who are hiding their monies in Lichtenstein, by regulating
the banks and taxing profit, with the cooperation of the governing authorities [as from August 2008]
If there is to be planned alleviation of poverty and the global redistribution of wealth, there will have to be global enforcement by the
governments of countries, or by a world government agency. The Millennium Development goals are already a step in the right
direction. They specify the basic standards of living that are deemed necessary for all humans e.g. a roof over your head, a meal a
day, sources of food and water, sanitation, an education in key skills, medical aid. But such services can only be provided by
socialist redistribution, and regulation, of wealth, for they are a matter of social justice. The current global crisis, in 2008, has
produced a strategy for regulation: the UK has devised a plan whereby the government provides financial support, and the banks and
corporations accept government representatives on their boards, and agree to the regulation of salaries and bonuses. This is the part
nationalisation of key financial institutions designed to secure the monies of the depositors. The plan has been accepted by the USA,
and the EU.
If people are made secure in their villages or towns, then they will stay. The communities must be dynamic so as to ensure a creative
future, The local communities must be supported in their development of subsistence agriculture, or fishing or forestry which will
provide every local person with basic resources, rather than give into the offers of McDonalds or Fyffes or Cadburys and so on to
follow industrial farming as well as other exploitation.
It seems that the future is one of United Nations governance in opposition to the incessant profiteering and exploitation of corporate
capitalism.
WHAT SORT OF FUTURE?
Please refer to: http://www.globalissues.org
Let us be realistic. Human beings will probably not do anything in
particular to limit atmospheric pollution, nor stop poisoning the earth, nor
stop exhausting the rich diversity of resources, nor over using water
supplies…………...until it is too late.
At this time, I live in Thessalia in Northern Greece, in the city of Trikala.
The area is a farming zone with agri-businesses. The local residents dump their rubbish out on the country roads. The local industries,
such as dairy, and cement, and fertilisers, flush their containers in the rivers. There is hardly any concern for the protection of the local
environments. The farmers are constantly demanding to be allowed to pump more water for the irrigation of their fields, even though
there is considerable evidence of the lowering of the water table. Let us accept that when conditions begin to deteriorate such people
will look around for others to blame, and politicians to accuse, and refuse to see that they themselves are to blame. For example, at the
moment in 2008 there is a fuss about plastic bags, which could be stopped, if we all decided to stop using them. A maritime survey has
revealed that a large section of the Pacific Ocean is full of plastic things, floating in the water and not decomposing. We forget that
plastic is manufactured and has to be artificially collected and decomposed. It is not going to happen on its own!
So what sort of future will there be? Given that nothing in particular will be done. It is certain that it will be more polluted by plastic.
What else? An IPCC recent report from the BALI climate conference, Dec 2007, tells us that 75-250 million people across Africa could
face water shortages by 2020;
Crop yields could increase by 20% in East and Southeast Asia, but decrease by up to 30% in Central and South Asia;
Agriculture fed by rainfall could drop by 50% in some African countries by 2020;
20-30% of all plant and animal species are at increased risk of extinction if temperatures rise between 1.5-2.5C;
Glaciers and snow cover are expected to decline, reducing water availability in countries supplied by melt water;
The report states that the observed increase in the global average temperature was "very likely" due to man-made greenhouse gas
emissions.
Research has shown that air pollutants from fossil fuel use make clouds reflect more of the sun’s rays back into space. This leads to an
effect known as global dimming, whereby less heat and energy reaches the earth. At first, it sounds like an ironic saviour to climate
change problems. However, it is believed that global dimming caused the droughts in Ethiopia in the 1970s and 80s where millions died,
because the northern hemisphere oceans did not get warm enough to allow rain formation. Global dimming is also hiding the true
power of global warming. By cleaning up global dimming-causing pollutants without tackling greenhouse gas emissions, rapid warming
has been observed, and various human health and ecological disasters have resulted, as witnessed during the European heat wave in
2003, which saw thousands of people die. So in future, it will be hotter overall. The patterns of global warming that have emerged over
the last 50 years will continue. It does not really matter what is the cause…….natural change or human intervention. What matters is
that it is happening. Deserts will have expanded. Some areas will have become more tropical, others drier and more arid, and of
course, other areas will be colder, and wetter. It is known that the tropics have expanded since the era of reliable satellite observation
began in 1979.
"The edges of the tropical belt are the outer boundaries of the subtropical dry zones, and their poleward shift could lead to fundamental
shifts in ecosystems and in human settlements," researchers write in the journal Nature Geoscience.[ref : BBC Science]. "Shifts in
precipitation patterns would have obvious implications for agriculture and water resources, and could present serious hardships in
marginal areas." The scientists behind the new study note that the tropical zone appears to be expanding much faster than predicted
by computer models.
Some scientists argue that climate change is natural, and cannot be effected by changes in human behaviour. Natural or not, the
impact of climate change will be negative on humans and animals, and plants.
Given that most pollution has been generated by the ‘developed world’, how are global warming negotiations organised? An agreed
principle has been that of common, but different, responsibilities: that is, when the world’s majority countries signed up to a climate
change Convention (including countries like the US who would later withdraw from the subsequent Kyoto Protocol) it was agreed that it
is today’s rich nations who are the ones responsible for global warming as greenhouse gases tend to remain in the atmosphere for
many decades, and rich countries have been industrializing and emitting climate changing pollution for many more centuries than the
poor countries. It was also agreed that the poor countries had pressing needs to meet basic needs and eradicate poverty. As a result,
it was agreed that it would be unfair to put emissions restrictions on poor countries when it is the rich countries who have caused the
problems. The impacts of climate change will be felt on the world’s poorest countries the most. In some cases, climate changes have
already affected some small island nations by the flooding of their land.
Climate justice, equity and sustainable development are all important parts of this debate that are often left out of mainstream
discourse. Equal rights to the atmosphere for all human beings and equity within and between nations are paramount.
One of the consequences of global warming that will affect everyone is the melting of ice sheets and floes and glaciers and the rising of
sea levels, and the flooding of coasts across the world. *Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for
the disappearance of Arctic sea ice.[ ref: BBC Science 2008] Their latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-
free in summers within just 5-6 years. Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous
projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss. Summer melting this year reduced the ice cover to 4.13 million sq
km, the smallest ever extent in modern times.
Remarkably, this stunning low point was not even incorporated into the model runs of Professor Maslowski and his team, which used
data sets from 1979 to 2004 to constrain their future projections. *In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly* says Professor
Peter Wadhams. [2008.]
Given that most of the largest cities are to be found on coasts, many millions of homes will be flooded and destroyed, and millions of
people will be dispossessed and on the move. It is worth remembering that rises in sea level directly affect the flows of rivers, which
directly affect lands well inland. So areas that are well drained today may well become swamps and marshes in future.
One has to accept that for the rich, the consequences may not be so dire. But the vast majority of the world’s population is poor, and
will be directly affected by significant changes in climate and water levels. The rich, and rich communities, will have the wealth to take
protective action. For example, they will be able to build barrages to keep the sea at bay, and to drain lands to keep them dry. Although
it was reported the other day, in the Independent, in March 2008, that the Thames Barrage may not be able to cope with rises in sea
levels, if they are too rapid each year.
As more and more people live in cities, outdoor air pollution will be a growing problem. For example, unless car transport is banned in
the cities, there will be too many cars, belching out too much pollution, just travelling to and from work: Much better for it to be ‘public
transport’. More cities will make public transport systems, the system of choice. Temperature inversions will keep the polluted air at the
surface. Over time, breathing by the residents in cities will become more difficult. This will be accompanied by increasing levels of
bronchitis, asthma, and other breathing diseases. As temperatures rise, the tolerances of the people will reduce, followed by more
deaths.
Indoor air pollution resulting from the use of solid biomass fuels [by poorer segments of society] is a major killer. In developing
countries some 2.5 billion people are forced to rely on biomass—fuel wood, charcoal and animal dung—to meet their energy needs for
cooking. In sub-Saharan Africa, over 80 percent of the population depends on traditional biomass for cooking, as do over half of the
populations of India and China. It claims the lives of 1.5 million people each year, more than half of them below the age of five: that is
4000 deaths a day. To put this number in context, it exceeds total deaths from malaria and rivals the number of deaths from
tuberculosis.
As deaths increase, the rich will move out. The poor will die in greater numbers. According to UNICEF, at the moment, 26,500-30,000
children die each day due to poverty. Around 27-28 percent of all children in developing countries are estimated to be underweight or
stunted. The two regions that account for the bulk of the deficit are South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.
Water problems affect half of humanity: Some 1.1 billion people in developing countries have inadequate access to water, and 2.6
billion lack basic sanitation. Some 1.8 million children die each year as a result of diarrhoea. 443 million school days are lost each
year from water-related illness.
Almost two in three people lacking access to clean water survive on less than $2 a day, with one in three living on less than $1 a day.
More than 660 million people without sanitation live on less than $2 a day, and more than 385 million on less than $1 a day. Access to
piped water into the household averages about 85% for the wealthiest 20% of the population, compared with 25% for the poorest
20%. 1.8 billion people who have access to a water source within 1 kilometre, but not in their house or yard, consume around 20 litres
per day. In the United Kingdom the average person uses more than 50 litres of water a day flushing toilets (where average daily water
usage is about 150 litres a day. The highest average water use in the world is in the US, at 600 litres day.)
Close to half of all people in developing countries will continue to suffer at any given time from a health problem caused by water and
sanitation deficits. Millions of women spend several hours a day collecting water. To these human costs can be added the massive
economic waste associated with the water and sanitation deficit.… The costs associated with health spending, productivity losses and
labour diversions … are greatest in some of the poorest countries. Sub-Saharan Africa loses about 5% of GDP, or some $28.4 billion
annually, a figure that exceeds total aid flows and debt relief to the region in 2003. As more and more people live in the cities, rural
areas account for three in every four people living on less than US$1 a day and a similar share of the world population suffering from
malnutrition.
However, urbanization is not synonymous with human progress. Urban slum growth is outpacing urban growth by a wide margin.
Approximately half the world’s population now live in cities and towns. In 2005, one out of three urban dwellers (approximately 1 billion
people) was living in slum conditions. They will suffer shortages of food. The local markets will become exhausted; and their prices will
go up. Again, the poor will die, and the rich will be able to afford the food.
Food aid is intended to keep the poor alive. But the tying of food aid with conditions that benefit the donor has been one of the reasons
food aid has not been effective, and criticized for benefiting multinational food companies and donor nations more than recipients.
At the same time, economic policies, such as Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs), enforced by the IMF and World Bank for decades
on poor countries have had a disastrous effect on health. The IMF/WorldBank have insisted on the payment of debt and the
abandonement of social medicine: The typical prescription for this economic medicine included: Privatization at all costs; Capital market
liberalization; Market-based pricing; and Free Trade;
as a result of which ‘ Millions die each year, needlessly’ as one billion people lack access to health care systems.
Despite incredible improvements in medicine and health since 1950, there are still a number of challenges, which should have been
easy to solve. Consider the following:
* About 11 million children under the age of 5 die from malnutrition and mostly preventable diseases, each year ;
* In 2002, almost 11 million people died of infectious diseases alone, far more than the number killed in the natural or man-made
catastrophes that make headlines. [These are the latest figures presented by the World Health Organization.]
* AIDS/HIV has spread rapidly. UNAIDS estimates for 2007 that there were roughly:
32.8 million living with HIV
2.5 million new infections of HIV
2 million deaths from AIDS
* There are 8.8 million new cases of Tuberculosis (TB) and 1.75 million deaths from TB, each year.
* Malaria causes more than 300 million acute illnesses and at least 1 million deaths, annually.
More than half a million people, mostly children, died from measles in 2003 even though effective immunization costs just 0.30 US
cents per person, and has been available for over 40 years.
These and other diseases will kill more people each year than conflict alone.
An important underlying cause is poverty. The World Health Organization (WHO) and others repeatedly point out that many of these
diseases are “diseases of poverty.” However, some diseases are now not only the result of poverty, but have been contributing to
poverty—a nasty positive feedback loop. In the case of malaria, for instance, the WHO notes that malaria has significant measurable
direct and indirect costs, and has recently been shown to be a major constraint to economic development. This means that if a country
is poor, or prosperous, and becomes subject to widespread malaria, it will get even poorer.
"Go Forth And Multiply!"
That's what the human population has successfully been doing for thousands and thousands of years, expanding, exploring, migrating,
conquering, utilizing, evolving, civilizing, industrializing, and now, and in future, destroying the very land upon which we live
[www.globalissues.org].
Gandhi believed that the long distance transportation of goods, competitive trading, and relentless economic growth would destroy the
fabric of human communities as well as the integrity of the natural world [after Satish Kumar and opendemocracy.net]. He was right.
Ten Common ‘Mistakes’ to Avoid, and ‘Needs to
Meet, when Seeking to Create a Better World
A commentary by Professor Stuart Hill, recently of the University of Western Sydney
Because of the holistic nature of the approach being advocated, all of these areas overlap and are highly interactive and interrelated.
[Social ecology, as rooted in philosophy, psychology, sociology, earth sciences, and physics and maths, leads us to an holistic
approach, thereby undermining the ‘one-eyed’ expert.] JKR
1. Getting the usual ‘experts’ together, to then plan for a better future. This always leads to tinkering with existing (flawed) plans,
and excludes those most affected by such plans.The trouble with experts is that they have a vested interest in promoting their own
solutions, and rejecting any alternative.
Need: involve mostly ‘different’ people and start by focusing not on plans, but on values, beliefs, worldviews, paradigms – then feelings
and passions – then, emergent from these, hopes, dreams, visions, imaginings, and creative thoughts – only then can ‘design/redesign-
based plans’ (that can proactively enable systems [structures and processes] that meet long-term to short-term, and broad to specific,
goals, AND that make systems as ‘problem-proof’ as possible) be enabled to emerge; and then critically analyse, integrate, and flesh
these out, etc – detailing participatory opportunities, responsibilities, time lines, resource and support needs, means for monitoring
outcomes, tracking progress, and for ongoing redesigning and fine tuning.
[ It is worth remembering that, often, participating groups have no interest in a better future. NIMBY- ism for example.] JKR
2. Taking problem-solving (back-end, reactive/responsive, curative) approaches. These tend to focus on symptom management
and neglect the need to address the underlying maldesign and mismanagement roots of the problems. They typically over-focus on
measuring problems (a prime strategy for postponing action - by those who benefit from the status quo), and on efficiency and
substitution strategies (eg, improved application of pesticide and on finding less disruptive [but still purchased] substitutes, such as
biological controls and genetically modified organisms – same story in other areas, such as medicine and energy).
I am reminded of the conference in Hawaii at this time where the biggest polluters of the world are busy trying to find ways of reducing
pollution and maintaining their profits. In my view you cannot do both.
[Jackson and Achilles recommended that problem identification must come first, then problem analysis] JKR
Need: to redesign existing systems (and design new systems) to make them as problem-proof as possible; and to enable effective
change from these flawed/defective systems to significantly more improved ones.
And of course this means that those concerned have to have a different mindset; one in which ‘problem-proofing’ is more important
than maximising profits.
3. Getting stuck in activities that are ‘pathologically’ designed to postpone (feared) change. These include particularly measuring
problems (‘monitoring our extinction’!), endless collection of data (often ‘justified’ by cries of the need for ‘evidence-based
approaches’), hearings, committee meetings, report-writing, etc – most of which have NO follow-through, and usually only lead to more
of the same.
[ At the moment I am re-watching Yes Minister. Do you remember it? Every episode is a classic example of what you are describing,
whereby Nigel Hawthorne, the permanent secretary, blocks Paul Eddington, the Minister, at every turn.] JKR
Need: postponing pathologies must be recognised, exposed for what they are, addressed and contradicted by taking responsible,
timely, appropriate, collaborative action. Certainly access to relevant data are important for making responsible decisions. Often,
however, adequate data are already available from other places, in other languages etc.
The data may be discredited by ‘causes’. For example, if global warning is ‘natural’, nothing needs to be done as it will all be sorted out
in due course.
Globally, billions of dollars are wasted annually unnecessarily repeating studies in new locations or with mischievous intentions (often
related to perceived threats to existing commercial advantage), when the data for responsible decision-making are already available.
[The officers/officials who are over ruled will of course covertly sabotage the new decisions and actions.] JKR
4. Trying to solve problems within the discipline or area responsible for creating them, or with multidisciplinary teams of selected
experts/authorities from favoured disciplines, with others excluded.
It is necessary to know the values of the teams so as to know how they will solve the problem: social epistemology indicates that what
we see as knowledge is mediated through social groups
Need: genuine transdisciplinary and trans-competency and trans–experience teams, able to access disciplinary and specialised
knowledge as appropriate. Competencies relating to holistic approaches to design, sustainability, wellbeing, and effective change
processes, in particular, need to be included in the teams.
Bearing in mind that different disciplines have different ways of describing the world, and so much attention has to be paid to the inter-
relations within the teams .
5. Patriarchal (them doing things to/for us, and us doing things to/for them) and ‘driven’ do-good approaches are rarely exactly
what is needed. They are generally not sustained or embraced by those being ‘helped’, and they often have some negative
unexpected consequences.
Need: inclusion of those most affected by the proposed improvements as primary collaborators in the change process, from beginning
to end. This enables ownership, relevance, achievability, ongoing improvement and openness to unforseen/surprise benefits.
[Consultation, dialogue, open texts, negotiation; community action with access to expert advice. For example, in a farming area, greater
water supplies may be desired but not advisable.] JKR
6. Planning ‘Olympic/mega-scale’, heroic initiatives (from hearings to projects) with no follow-through or provision for ongoing
support (more than just funding).
Need: diverse, mutually supportive, do-able initiatives that have long-term support and consideration of opportunities for ongoing
improvement and learning our ways forward collaboratively towards improved futures.
[ For example, my experiences in Sydney Stringer Community College, 1970s, revealed that the Home Office withdraw all support for
community development projects because the ongoing costs were more than they were willing to fund and staff.] JKR
7. Over focus on knowledge and data, and neglect of wisdom and experience (much of which cannot be supported by data, and
involves working with the ‘unknown’ – the majority of what is – not just the limited ‘known’); often in ways that rely on intuition and gut
feelings etc.
Need: we need to be much better at recognising, valuing and involving the wisest and most experienced in our society, and not so
obsessed with ‘cleverness’. Whereas the former have competencies that enable them to work with both the ‘unknown’ and ‘know’, the
latter are largely limited to working with the miniscule ‘known’.
[ But as you know this involves challenges to the ‘elitism’ and ‘meritocracy’ that is embodied in our institutions, both private and state.]
JKR
8. Over focus on ‘productivity’, profit and quick dramatic results – this predictably leads to burn-out, only short-term, limited
benefits, and often unexpected disbenefits (new problems).
Need: we need to focus much more on ‘maintenance’, caring for one another (other species and the environment), including prioritising
time and resources for this, celebration, venting feelings, and ‘healing’ sessions, etc. These activities need to be ‘equally’ the focus of
the initiative. In some senses, the latter may be regarded as emergent from, and a product of, the former.
[ If only…………………..my new essay on the website about CSR enabled me to realise fully [how naïve] that such foci are embroiled
with ‘family competitions’ e.g. the Waltons v the Halleys v the Albrechts; or the Fords v the Porsche v the Peugot v the Agnelli and so
on.] JKR
9. Homogenisation tendencies tend to result in the construction of favoured ‘norms’ (for people, structures, processes, etc), failure
to consider diversity, in-groups and out-groups, inclusion and exclusion, and failure to benefit from the creativity that resides at the
margins and in the borderlands of society.
[As our capitalist system is dominated by known families, patriarchal norms will control all choices.] JKR
Need: openness to appreciation of the value of hererogeneity and ‘functional’ diversity within all systems, with its opportunities for
synergy, mutualism, lateral thinking, extension beyond the usual competencies, relevance to needs and possibilities, a sense of
inclusion, ownership, and a sense of place, etc.
And this brings us right back to holistic approaches; as our society rewards individualism, selfishness, personal gain; this society will
have to change to mutualism, inclusion, diversity.
10. Neglect, or only token involvement, of the arts, and over focus on the sciences, technologies, business, politics, the
professions, the media, and the other major institutions within our society. As a result, the arts are poorly supported, regarded as a
luxury or optional extra, an afterthought, or even irrelevant.
[ We live in a society in which all entities are objects to be exploited, so what value is offered by the arts? ‘Arts’ is regarded as a cost. It
has to be supported. We can only have ‘arts’ that make a profit e.g. Harry Potter; Lord of the Rings; Phantom of the Opera.] JKR
Need: recognition of the arts, in its broadest sense, as being an essential part of both the foundation and means for implementation of
all efforts to achieve genuine and sustainable improvement.
Professor Stuart B. Hill, Foundation Chair of Social Ecology , School of Education (includes previous School of Social Ecology &
Lifelong Learning)
University of Western Sydney (Kingswood Campus), Locked Bag 1797, PENRITH SOUTH DC, NSW 1797, AUSTRALIA
Location: Building J, Room JG-16, UWS-Kingswood, Penrith, NSW - Phone: 61(0)2-4736-0799; Fax: -0400; email: s.hill@uws.edu.au
| | | | | | | | | | |
