Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Is Columbus’ way of knowing better than our way of knowing?
First off I want to define the meaning “way of knowing.” Columbus’ way of knowing, his way of obtaining knowledge, was mostly guess work and bravery. In his day an explorer would take what was known about the world – which wasn’t much – and then with great courage set out to test the limits of that knowledge. Our way of knowing is mostly through science and advanced technology. So is Columbus’ way of knowing “better” than our way. I would have to answer “no.” Columbus had some knowledge and little accuracy. He was operating from guesses. He had star charts and assumptions to steer by as he explored, but he wasn’t very accurate. Obviously today we have much more accurate information available to us than Columbus’ did, and we have more knowledge on which to base decisions .Today we have hypotheses to test from and to test those hypotheses we have much better equipment that will lead to more accurate results, thus eliminating the need to operate from guesses. Let’s use the example of exploring the oceans. What Columbus did was based on guess work and anecdotal evidence and primitive tools. He was at the mercy of the winds and his limited knowledge, and didn’t know what he would encounter once he set out. Today, our knowledge and our way of obtaining knowledge are far superior. When we explore the ocean we have sophisticated equipment with which to do our exploring and send probes and cameras ahead of human beings so that we know what we will encounter. There was so little of the world that was known to Columbus and there is so little of the world that is unknown to us. We are a little like Columbus as we explore space, but even there our way of knowing is better and more accurate. We are able to send unmanned probes ahead of men to see what we will encounter. We know how to navigate with very sophisticated equipment and so forth. So, I believe our way of knowing is “better” than Columbus’. However, in some ways Columbus was more of a true explorer, because he didn't know what lay ahead of him, but he did it anyway. Today our exploring - in medicine, oceanography, space, genetics - is more accurate than anything in Columbus’ day, but it is a much safer and less adventurous type of exploration.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
My Problems With Prioritizing
As I began to say in this week’s blog response, I was somewhat sickened by the Lomborg reading. It discouraged me to think that we are so limited to our help because, being an optimist, I normally like to think that we have the capability to satisfy everyone’s concerns. I guess that when I start thinking about that I know it’s a little crazy… there are soooooo many problems out there, how could we even begin to solve them all? In that sense, I can now find Lomborg’s ideas reassuring. He has come up with a method to solve these problems in a logical manner: prioritization.
Even though I realize that prioritizing the world’s problems can be positive now (some thanks to Rachel’s post, which I would recommend reading because it is very cheerful and uplifting), I still am uncomfortable with putting off issues that may seem less important. It’s nice to know that there was a lot of thought put into the prioritizing of Copenhagen Consensus project and there was a clear method behind their logic. However, how can we ever really say that one problem is more important than another? Who are we to make that decision? Maybe those questions are irrelevant because prioritizing has to be done, but still my point is that we should be very careful to put one problem over the other.
Something that I also really really did not like about the article is the value that we put on people’s lives. It’s awful to think that one person’s life is more valued than another person’s life even though I may have subconsciously known this already. Not only does it bother me that different people were given according values due to their citizenship, but it bothered me that human life had to be valued in the first place. Why must we always put a dollar sign to things? Was this factor absolutely necessary in prioritizing?
This article was kind of a realistic slap in the face for me… so even though I’m bothered by these various things, I realize that they are sensible. As I titled my last post, if only the world was fair….
Even though I realize that prioritizing the world’s problems can be positive now (some thanks to Rachel’s post, which I would recommend reading because it is very cheerful and uplifting), I still am uncomfortable with putting off issues that may seem less important. It’s nice to know that there was a lot of thought put into the prioritizing of Copenhagen Consensus project and there was a clear method behind their logic. However, how can we ever really say that one problem is more important than another? Who are we to make that decision? Maybe those questions are irrelevant because prioritizing has to be done, but still my point is that we should be very careful to put one problem over the other.
Something that I also really really did not like about the article is the value that we put on people’s lives. It’s awful to think that one person’s life is more valued than another person’s life even though I may have subconsciously known this already. Not only does it bother me that different people were given according values due to their citizenship, but it bothered me that human life had to be valued in the first place. Why must we always put a dollar sign to things? Was this factor absolutely necessary in prioritizing?
This article was kind of a realistic slap in the face for me… so even though I’m bothered by these various things, I realize that they are sensible. As I titled my last post, if only the world was fair….
Secretary of State Position/ Class Presentation:
I want to use one of my last reflections to write about Barack Obama’s possible choice for Secretary of State candidate. Right now, according to news reports, the people on the short list are Hillary Clinton and Bill Richardson. Obama had a discussion with Clinton on Thursday and Richardson on Friday, both in Chicago. While it’s not known what Clinton’s official reaction was, Clinton aides think that if she wants the post it’s basically a done deal for her. Richardson aides said that it’s certainly “not a done deal” for Clinton to get the post. (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/14/transition.wrap/index.html) Both Clinton and Richardson are well respected around the world and both know a lot about foreign policy. Richardson is so will respected because he’s been on many diplomatic missions, most of which were successful in accomplishing their respective goals. Hillary is well respected because of her active role as a first lady during the presidency of her husband, Bill. Also, while in the senate, she’s been on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Between watching first hand foreign policy during Bill’s presidency and serving on the Armed Service Committee she has good experience in the field. That being said, I would be happier with the pick of Bill Richardson, because he, in the end, has more foreign policy experience than Clinton.
The second thing I’d like to comment on is the group that presented in class on Friday. I thought that it was a very informative and interactive class. During the game there were a list of priorities put on the board including sanitation, communicable disease, malnutrition, corruption, and it was each group’s job to figure out how our countries’ priorities changed during different disasters based on a short list of statistics given about the specific country. The game was good at teaching the group that a country must prioritize its resources when presented with problems.
The second thing I’d like to comment on is the group that presented in class on Friday. I thought that it was a very informative and interactive class. During the game there were a list of priorities put on the board including sanitation, communicable disease, malnutrition, corruption, and it was each group’s job to figure out how our countries’ priorities changed during different disasters based on a short list of statistics given about the specific country. The game was good at teaching the group that a country must prioritize its resources when presented with problems.
The complexity of poverty
There are many nations living in impoverished conditions mostly located in the continent of Africa and Southeast Asia. Their people live in extreme poverty yet even with the wealth attributed to their exportation of resources (like the Congo's vast quantity of gold, diamonds and timber and Nigeria's coastal oilfields), there have been no solutions to this problem. In reality, poverty is influenced by about three sources government action, outside forces and economic structure.
On the issue of government action, politicians within these impoverished countries lack the appropriate political experience. This is prevalent in African nations whose leaders come to power via military coup d'etats or from historical fame. An example of the latter would be when Robert Mugabe who has been in political power in Zimbabwe since 1987. Despite accounts of lost ballot votes, mistrust on security and accusations of racism including attacks on white foreigners (taste of their own medicine, eh?), he was supported by a grand majority of the people because of his part in his nation's apartheid and the social programs that raised the infant mortality rate. This allowed him to remain popular and guaranteed him a position in the dual government created in 2008 (all this due to domestic violence by his supporters). Overall, these freed countries chose their leaders based upon their contribution to the post colonialist period and in small cases out of military fear.
On external forces, these countries fall pray to natural disasters and wars. I hate to pick on Africa again so I'll be brief. After the civil war in Zaire, it was divided into the Republic of the Congo and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (probably so its name would appeal to Western nations but that didn't work for East Germany's German Democratic Republic during the Cold War). As the nation tried to rebuild itself and resume trade, Hutu and Tutsi paramilitary forces from the neighboring Burundi and Rwanda spilled into the Congo and plunged the country into what became known as the African world war. Despite the ceasefire, the conflict continues to this day. Putting Africa aside, let's discuss Bangladesh. This nation is situated like the Netherlands for they both lie below sea level. Unfortunately, Bangladesh doesn't have advanced flood walls like its counterpart so its easy prey to violent storms like the infamous 1970 Bhola cyclone, which killed more than 500,000 people and led to estimated damages up to $86.4 million (1970 USD). Due to its geographical location, Bangladesh is hit with violent cyclones and mass floods every year. With this much damage, it's no wonder they're impoverished.
Finally on the subject of economic structure, this is prevalent in most post- colonial nations. First, a lesson on European history. After WWI, the Baltic states in particular Sweden, Finland and Norway executed large systems of state welfare programs, which would lower their unemployment rates and would protect them from the dramatic effects from the Great Depression. Why isn't that the standard system in all countries? For one thing, western nations view the idea of state welfare as socialist (the US still displays anti-socialist views on their own economy particularly during the relief programs launched during the 2008 recession). Second, the European occupiers of former colonies did not establish large scale industries which would industrialize those nations since the colonies were only meant to supply raw resources, which were to be shipped to the factories in Europe. Following the ideas of European industrialization, these countries tried to catch up in this present globalized economy by encouraging rapid urbanization in hopes that this would benefit big businesses. This failed as it increased unemployment and because of the number of foreign companies that already established themselves in the countries. The exception would be India, which was freed early from imperial rule after WWII and despite poor living conditions and religious strife between the country's Hindu, Muslim and Sikh communities, their quantity of resources which were exported to other Western counties helped propel it as a rival superpower to China (Hell, they both have space programs and desire to land on the moon so they act like the US and Russia did in the Cold War). Even though Nigeria follows the same economic policy on the oil trade, political corruption, high crime and ethnic strife hampers their economic development. In general, poverty is a very complex issue for there are three sources that contribute to it's rise, one of them being virtually unsolvable (external forces).
On the issue of government action, politicians within these impoverished countries lack the appropriate political experience. This is prevalent in African nations whose leaders come to power via military coup d'etats or from historical fame. An example of the latter would be when Robert Mugabe who has been in political power in Zimbabwe since 1987. Despite accounts of lost ballot votes, mistrust on security and accusations of racism including attacks on white foreigners (taste of their own medicine, eh?), he was supported by a grand majority of the people because of his part in his nation's apartheid and the social programs that raised the infant mortality rate. This allowed him to remain popular and guaranteed him a position in the dual government created in 2008 (all this due to domestic violence by his supporters). Overall, these freed countries chose their leaders based upon their contribution to the post colonialist period and in small cases out of military fear.
On external forces, these countries fall pray to natural disasters and wars. I hate to pick on Africa again so I'll be brief. After the civil war in Zaire, it was divided into the Republic of the Congo and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (probably so its name would appeal to Western nations but that didn't work for East Germany's German Democratic Republic during the Cold War). As the nation tried to rebuild itself and resume trade, Hutu and Tutsi paramilitary forces from the neighboring Burundi and Rwanda spilled into the Congo and plunged the country into what became known as the African world war. Despite the ceasefire, the conflict continues to this day. Putting Africa aside, let's discuss Bangladesh. This nation is situated like the Netherlands for they both lie below sea level. Unfortunately, Bangladesh doesn't have advanced flood walls like its counterpart so its easy prey to violent storms like the infamous 1970 Bhola cyclone, which killed more than 500,000 people and led to estimated damages up to $86.4 million (1970 USD). Due to its geographical location, Bangladesh is hit with violent cyclones and mass floods every year. With this much damage, it's no wonder they're impoverished.
Finally on the subject of economic structure, this is prevalent in most post- colonial nations. First, a lesson on European history. After WWI, the Baltic states in particular Sweden, Finland and Norway executed large systems of state welfare programs, which would lower their unemployment rates and would protect them from the dramatic effects from the Great Depression. Why isn't that the standard system in all countries? For one thing, western nations view the idea of state welfare as socialist (the US still displays anti-socialist views on their own economy particularly during the relief programs launched during the 2008 recession). Second, the European occupiers of former colonies did not establish large scale industries which would industrialize those nations since the colonies were only meant to supply raw resources, which were to be shipped to the factories in Europe. Following the ideas of European industrialization, these countries tried to catch up in this present globalized economy by encouraging rapid urbanization in hopes that this would benefit big businesses. This failed as it increased unemployment and because of the number of foreign companies that already established themselves in the countries. The exception would be India, which was freed early from imperial rule after WWII and despite poor living conditions and religious strife between the country's Hindu, Muslim and Sikh communities, their quantity of resources which were exported to other Western counties helped propel it as a rival superpower to China (Hell, they both have space programs and desire to land on the moon so they act like the US and Russia did in the Cold War). Even though Nigeria follows the same economic policy on the oil trade, political corruption, high crime and ethnic strife hampers their economic development. In general, poverty is a very complex issue for there are three sources that contribute to it's rise, one of them being virtually unsolvable (external forces).
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
If only the world was fair...
The question I jotted down from class: Is it better to address basic needs or broader structural issues?
My conflicted response: I will start off with saying that I am and have always been a very forward-thinking person. I find it more valuable to look at the long-term effect in complex issues like global climate change but also in simpler, everyday issues like taking care of my personal health. Thinking about the future is vital to our world, but also to every individual. So at first, my reaction to this question was that we should focus on the broader structural issues that will be most effectual in the long-term. Work on fixing the government so that they can fix their people's issues. But on further contemplation, I find the compassionate side of my disagreeing with my initial response; where's my empathy? With what I recently read about poverty in Bjorn Lomborg’s interview and what I heard about last week at Bread for the City, there is no possible way that I can be comfortable with leaving basic needs unattended. How would I feel if I were an impoverished citizen (let’s say in Africa, since that is our UC’s favorite continent these days) who was proposed the same question? Hmm let’s see, would I rather be fed and treated for diseases today in order to survive? Or would I rather wait for my government to get their act together structurally and die in this long, drawn out process? I would want to see myself survive through the night, and also see my family and current generation of citizens served their basic needs. I guess that I can relate this back to the long-term as well which makes me very happy – if a population survives and prospers today, then it will only continue to grow stronger in the future and benefit a society or state as well. So what I’m saying is start off with the basic survival needs because you have to remember that the people we are talking about are people too – they are just like us and they deserve the best we can give them… not in the future, but right now.
Having said all of this, I think basic needs and structural issues don’t need to be mutually exclusive besides for the purposes of this blog question. In reality, both can be addressed so I guess that means both or neither are “better”… And that’s the best I can do to answer this deceptively simple yet very loaded question!
I don’t know about anyone else, but after reading in Lomborg’s interview that it only costs $63 to save the life of an African for one year, I feel like a pretty inadequate global citizen. I have more than that in my pocket right now. If only the world was a fair place…
My conflicted response: I will start off with saying that I am and have always been a very forward-thinking person. I find it more valuable to look at the long-term effect in complex issues like global climate change but also in simpler, everyday issues like taking care of my personal health. Thinking about the future is vital to our world, but also to every individual. So at first, my reaction to this question was that we should focus on the broader structural issues that will be most effectual in the long-term. Work on fixing the government so that they can fix their people's issues. But on further contemplation, I find the compassionate side of my disagreeing with my initial response; where's my empathy? With what I recently read about poverty in Bjorn Lomborg’s interview and what I heard about last week at Bread for the City, there is no possible way that I can be comfortable with leaving basic needs unattended. How would I feel if I were an impoverished citizen (let’s say in Africa, since that is our UC’s favorite continent these days) who was proposed the same question? Hmm let’s see, would I rather be fed and treated for diseases today in order to survive? Or would I rather wait for my government to get their act together structurally and die in this long, drawn out process? I would want to see myself survive through the night, and also see my family and current generation of citizens served their basic needs. I guess that I can relate this back to the long-term as well which makes me very happy – if a population survives and prospers today, then it will only continue to grow stronger in the future and benefit a society or state as well. So what I’m saying is start off with the basic survival needs because you have to remember that the people we are talking about are people too – they are just like us and they deserve the best we can give them… not in the future, but right now.
Having said all of this, I think basic needs and structural issues don’t need to be mutually exclusive besides for the purposes of this blog question. In reality, both can be addressed so I guess that means both or neither are “better”… And that’s the best I can do to answer this deceptively simple yet very loaded question!
I don’t know about anyone else, but after reading in Lomborg’s interview that it only costs $63 to save the life of an African for one year, I feel like a pretty inadequate global citizen. I have more than that in my pocket right now. If only the world was a fair place…
Blog Question #11
There are many indigent countries in the world that have gotten to the state they are in for many different reasons. Because there is not one single issue that brings a country into impoverishment, I believe that it takes a combination of factors to bring a country out of impoverishment. There are two major actions/requirements that a country needs to follow to get out of poverty. The first major requirement is to have a good leader. If the leader of a country is corrupt, that’s a very harmful situation because he/she doesn’t care about the people of that country. Then usually neither basic needs nor the larger issues are being addressed in that country. Usually all or a huge percentage of the country’s money will be “pocketed” instead of going to programs that would help the people. To pull a country out of poverty the country needs a leader who cares about the people. A leader like this will do two things: first, use government money in various means to directly help the people with basic needs, and, second, the leader will work with the government to create better infrastructure in the country.
The second major action to be taken by impoverished countries is to fix specific issues about the country. This includes anything that might be stunting development or the market, such as something quite obvious like improving infrastructure or slightly more complicated like figuring out ways to increase tourism. A boost to infrastructure includes improvements or maintenance to roads or rail lines that would link internal parts of the country or go close to a border so that trade could be facilitated quite easily. Professor Jackson said something that I believe is very telling. He told us in class that it’s very difficult to find flights between African capitols that don’t go through Europe. This probably has an impact on the tourism industry in Africa. I think that if countries could get direct flights to one another’s capitals without going through another continent, which takes time and money, tourism might be increased. And this would bring revenue to any country. This is just one example of how addressing broader issues in poor countries may be as important as addressing issues of basic needs.
So, in conclusion, no one factor brings a country into poverty so no one factor can bring it out of poverty. So a country’s basic needs must be met but the way to do that is to create jobs and stability by addressing broader structural issues. It takes leadership to find solutions for providing basic needs and it takes addressing broader issues to fund those solutions. I think that if countries start to follow the ideas stated here, that well, it won’t be an immediate fix, but there will be relief to the impoverishment over time.
The second major action to be taken by impoverished countries is to fix specific issues about the country. This includes anything that might be stunting development or the market, such as something quite obvious like improving infrastructure or slightly more complicated like figuring out ways to increase tourism. A boost to infrastructure includes improvements or maintenance to roads or rail lines that would link internal parts of the country or go close to a border so that trade could be facilitated quite easily. Professor Jackson said something that I believe is very telling. He told us in class that it’s very difficult to find flights between African capitols that don’t go through Europe. This probably has an impact on the tourism industry in Africa. I think that if countries could get direct flights to one another’s capitals without going through another continent, which takes time and money, tourism might be increased. And this would bring revenue to any country. This is just one example of how addressing broader issues in poor countries may be as important as addressing issues of basic needs.
So, in conclusion, no one factor brings a country into poverty so no one factor can bring it out of poverty. So a country’s basic needs must be met but the way to do that is to create jobs and stability by addressing broader structural issues. It takes leadership to find solutions for providing basic needs and it takes addressing broader issues to fund those solutions. I think that if countries start to follow the ideas stated here, that well, it won’t be an immediate fix, but there will be relief to the impoverishment over time.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Inspiration
Well this has been an eventful week with lots to reflect upon. First of all (and most importantly), we have a new president! I can proudly say that I saw Obama exactly 21 hours before he became President-elect along with 100,000 other Americans (and Rachel) at Obama’s last campaign rally in Manassas, Virginia. It was a spontaneous and irrational decision to go all the way to Manassas because I was putting off an enormous amount of homework and wasn’t even sure how I would get a ride back to AU after the rally. But how could I possibly justify missing this once-in-a-lifetime experience?! I couldn’t! The same reasoning came across my mind on election night when we were debating whether or not to storm the White House with thousands of other crazy Washingtonians. In fifty years I won’t remember that I was exhausted from staying up all night finishing my homework and from getting up early to go to a soup kitchen… I will remember that I had the most amazing two nights of my life. I was moved to tears on Monday night when I heard Obama speak, about 20 feet away from me, about the power of one person’s voice. And on the following night, tears were brought to my eyes again the moment that I realized our country had elected an African American as our President, and consequently as the most powerful man in the world. We have come full circle from slavery and even though racism still exists in our country, this is a huge step to overcoming racial divides. Not only am I hopeful for the future regarding our government, but I am also hopeful for the social equality that our country is clearly striving for. It is truly inspiring and I will surely share the events of the past week with the future generations of our country. I have never been this proud.
On a slightly different note, but still an inspiring one, I really enjoyed our visit to Bread for the City. The people who work there are extremely driven to help others and I admire them so much; these people live with compassion. It goes to show all of us that there is so much that we can do to help others. Besides the fact that I respected the employees of Bread for the City, I’m eager to learn more about the intricacies of poverty this week because it seems like there is a lot going on under the surface. Just from this visit I got the impression that there are social, government, and economical issues that seem to play a huge role in poverty. Hopefully my group can effectively address these issues and more on Friday in class!
Speaking of class, I thought this week’s group did an interesting simulation. Of course we liked it because of the candy, but it really got me thinking about prosperity and wealth. What would I give for a Kit-Kat versus a caramel? What methods did I employ to go about getting candy? I thought the most effective way for everyone to get what they wanted was to get in groups according to what candy you wanted and everyone just give their different colored chips to the groups who wanted each type of candy. More people would get more candy that way. Whether we failed at organizing this system or certain people only had their own interests in mind, that idea just didn’t work. To me, sharing and pooling our resources for the best interest of everybody seemed like a great idea but as we saw in this simulation and as we see in the real world, communistic ideas never run as smoothly as intended. In theory, communist ideology of sharing prosperity is great but it doesn’t play out like that in reality. However, I was content with sharing my Twizzler candy wealth with Andrew and Perry. And I was fully satisfied with my own candy intake by the end of class even though I did not win a full-size candy bar. While I don't deny that I have my own self-interest, I know that I am driven to share. It's in my nature to strive for equality and fairness; that is what inspires me above anything else. I guess that makes me a pinko!
On a slightly different note, but still an inspiring one, I really enjoyed our visit to Bread for the City. The people who work there are extremely driven to help others and I admire them so much; these people live with compassion. It goes to show all of us that there is so much that we can do to help others. Besides the fact that I respected the employees of Bread for the City, I’m eager to learn more about the intricacies of poverty this week because it seems like there is a lot going on under the surface. Just from this visit I got the impression that there are social, government, and economical issues that seem to play a huge role in poverty. Hopefully my group can effectively address these issues and more on Friday in class!
Speaking of class, I thought this week’s group did an interesting simulation. Of course we liked it because of the candy, but it really got me thinking about prosperity and wealth. What would I give for a Kit-Kat versus a caramel? What methods did I employ to go about getting candy? I thought the most effective way for everyone to get what they wanted was to get in groups according to what candy you wanted and everyone just give their different colored chips to the groups who wanted each type of candy. More people would get more candy that way. Whether we failed at organizing this system or certain people only had their own interests in mind, that idea just didn’t work. To me, sharing and pooling our resources for the best interest of everybody seemed like a great idea but as we saw in this simulation and as we see in the real world, communistic ideas never run as smoothly as intended. In theory, communist ideology of sharing prosperity is great but it doesn’t play out like that in reality. However, I was content with sharing my Twizzler candy wealth with Andrew and Perry. And I was fully satisfied with my own candy intake by the end of class even though I did not win a full-size candy bar. While I don't deny that I have my own self-interest, I know that I am driven to share. It's in my nature to strive for equality and fairness; that is what inspires me above anything else. I guess that makes me a pinko!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)