Dane sent me a topic for discussion about material inequality and fairness. Here's what he had to say:
"The student newspaper recently featured an article (read here) about some film students who went to Cambodia to make a documentary about the lives of people who live in an enormous garbage dump there. Among things that struck me about this article, was what likely happened after the filming. The Americans were able to get on an airplane and fly back to their comfortable homes whereas the Cambodians will continue to live in the same squalor, with almost no chance of achieving a standard of living even close to that of the Americans. In large part, this discrepancy has little to do with thei ndividuals: the Americans were born within the boarders of the geographic area that we call the United States and the Cambodians were born within the boarders of the geographic area that we call Cambodia. By the simple facts of where each individual was born and how the world has been divided upsome individuals get comfortable homes and great opportunity and for others the most appealing place to live is a in garbage dump. Is this just?"
And, if anyone else wants to create a posting on this blog, feel free to type it up and email it to me, and I'll most likely post it.
is it just? I think that's the wrong question to ask. it's not really fair. but if you look at the world - the 1st world countries are having less and less kids (to raise/keep their standard of living and because many are concerned with overpopulation) but the 3rd world countries continue to have more and more kids - thus making the problem worse - and the first world thinks they help out by giving out immunizations to 3rd world babies - thus slowing infant mortality and making the problem even worse. so now those countries have even more kids.
ReplyDeletesure it's not fair - but should we be "saving" the kids and making the problem worse? or should we stay out of the way?
I don't know how I could ever come close to being able to decide whether or not it's fair or just; it is what it is, as you say it is. I was born in the U.S. and that gives me access to the fruits of decisions that were made centuries ago. Whether that's fair or not, it's just how it is.
ReplyDeleteThe real thought I have on this, though, is about how we respond to this reality: Noting that we have no inherent advantage inside of us (in our souls, persons, etc.) that qualifies us for the opportunities available to us, what right do we have to claim any type of superiority or advantage over those who are born into less-advantageous opportunity?
The roots of nationalism are found in the belief that somehow we've earned the right, or that we deserve, to believe that we're superior to others outside of our borders. How wrong is it, though, to claim an advantage when our birth in this nation had nothing to do with any choice that we personally made?
Whether it's fair or not, our responsibility is to bring opportunity to those who don't have it. This responsibility should inform our social and political choices. Rather than closing borders, we should be opening them. Rather than spending less on helping the "disadvantaged" (although we might have a discussion on who *really* has the advantage here -- isn't that just a question of perspective?), we should be spending more.
Wow Jason.... Have you been listening to Michael Savage? That sounded heartless. I bet you laughed when they shot Old Yeller, didn't you?!
ReplyDeleteIs it fair that there is inequality in the world? Maybe not. But is it fair to ask, or require, people to restack the deck in the favor of others? I don't think so.
As Tim pointed out, inequality is an inevitable reality that we haven't figured out how to deal with effectively. Social movements that seek to bring "equality" have generally just resulted in a dystopian nightmare.
I for one am glad that there are at least a few places in the world where there is some kind of social mobility to mitigate the crushing destiny that birth in the "wrong place" most likely brings. These places should be jealously guarded. The existence of such places is the best hope for humanity's success.
I'm not convinced that opening borders is the best solution. Mass, rapid migrations have typically served to destabilize countries, rather than create an egalitarian civil society. Though, I am certainly in favor of continued immigration into the US, but on our own terms.
Also, I don't think that "spending more" is necessarily the best mantra to adopt in addressing poverty. If you mean "spending more" by sending out checks or food to people who make below an arbitrary amount of money, then I have to disagree. There is something to be said for the destructive aspects of dependency.
Aid should be given when needed. But with the understanding that it isn't permamnent.
Anyway, I'm off to bed.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMichael Savage's real name is Michael Weiner.
ReplyDeleteHeh...
I think both are apt descriptions. He can be both savage and a major dic....Er, uh weiner.
ReplyDeleteI've heard the name michael savage - but I refuse to listen to that drivel.
ReplyDeletemostly I make comments to illicit responses.
Sorry for being so late to the game on this one.
ReplyDeleteI'm with Jeremy that Opening the borders isn't the answer.
Interesting link.
http://mapscroll.blogspot.com/2009/01/wealth.html
So yeah, instead of inviting everyone to our house to stay for good, encouraging building up the area that you're in seems like a smarter approach. Teach a man to fish kind of a thing. Or in this case teach a man to build, heal, grow.
A quick note about Savage. He's an angry man isn't he.
I just had an epiphany, that my Radio listening habits match my political views. I'll generally listen to NPR, because it's soothing, and pretty balanced. Then I'll swap to AM talk for the right side sometimes, but never listen to the far left radio.
No, I don't think this situation can be, in any way, described as fair. The only problem is that I have no idea what to do about it.
ReplyDeleteHordes of talented and intellegent people, sometimes with vast resourses, have tried for decades to eliminate poverty, but it's still here. Their efforts have certainly helped, but poverty is still here.
There was an article is the science section of the Economist a month or two ago that discussed research on the effects of social status on the development of the brains of children. The researcher found that the stress of being in a low social position had a detrimental effect on memory.
It has been observed that poverty is often passed from one generation to the next. This detrimental effect was proposed as a mechanism to explain why that occurs.
The Economist article ends by quoting Matthew 26:11 "for ye have the poor always with you." To follow that scripture a little further, I guess now would be the time to sell our precious ointment and give to the poor.