by Hector Pocock
"Wealthy" is described as being in abundance of assets and resources. Certain countries could be described as wealthy, but their source and history of this wealth may vary. For example, Saudi Arabia is the largest exporter of petroleum of any country, possesses 18% of all petroleum reserves worldwide and 50% of the country's GDP is from the oil and gas industry . 1 They are an example of a country whose wealth has been built off the back of natural resources. On the other hand, you have countries whose wealth has been built up over centuries on colonial wealth. The United Kingdom is a prime example, whose empire was the largest in the world by 1913, covering 24% of the worlds land and home to 412 million people. Two very different origins of wealth, but wealth nonetheless.
One reason I believe it could be better for the world to be wealthier than equal is that hierarchical systems are a recurring theme found throughout society and the natural world. The USA has the largest economy of any country with a nominal GDP of approximately $21.506 trillion in 2019. A country built on capitalist ideologies and rights where the American dream did 2 and still does inspire many Americans. The USA is a hierarchical system and has economically thrived from it. In the natural world, we also see these hierarchies. A wealthier world, if structured correctly, could benefit both those in AC’s and EDC’s. I think an equal world would mean an abolishment of large amounts of wealth we have today and would in fact have a negative effect on the aim to better the global poverty problems. To try and abolish these hierarchies in the aim of equality is an unrealistic target as they are a fundamental part of society, and so will manifest themselves into so called egalitarian populations.
Another reason a wealthier world would be more beneficial is that more effective top-down development schemes could be put in place. An example of a top-down development scheme is the Sardar Sarovar Dam on the Narmada river . The Indian government built the dam to utilise 3 their heavy rainfall during the monsoon season by using the dam as a zone of accumulation, and then could use this to supply many locals with drinking water, as well as storing some for the inevitable dry season and possible droughts. This is to the benefit of those who live both nearby and in the cities, as the dam provides a more stable water supply throughout the year. This top-down development scheme has been of great positive effect and shows that people can benefit from government investment. However, this investment is only possible if there are greater allowances and funds available to these governments. Projects of varying scale and objectives set up by governments worldwide could make a big difference in improving standards of living and reductions in poverty for example, both pressing matters that not only affect individuals, but whole communities and our future.
However, global equality of opportunity could be better for the world than to be wealthier, as it provides a fair foundation and platform from which all people can achieve whatever it is that lies within their aspirations and intellectual means. At the moment, there are huge disparities between people across the world. Eight of the world's richest men possess the same wealth as approxamitely 3.6 billion of the poorest people . There are obvious inequalities that are not due 4 to differences in work ethic or ambition, but access and possibilities that people living in deprived areas, mostly in EDC’s and LIDC’s, simply do not have. This ideal of equality of opportunity means any differences in outcome between people are because of their differences in interests or application of hard work, as opposed to the unchangeable circumstances into which they have been born.
To conclude, I think that the world would be better off if it were wealthier instead of more equal. Although equality of opportunity for all people globally would provide a fair platform for anybody to succeed, it is an almost impossible ideal to implement. Also, it does not stop the development of inequalities down the line, which in my opinion are an inevitable outcome in human society and found throughout the natural world. This brings me back to hierarchies, which can be illustrated very simply on a much smaller scale. In a game of monopoly, everyone starts with an equal amount of money. Come to the end of the game and one person has all of the money. This is the unavoidable outcome of trading, and is a feature of all systems within a creative and productive body.
One reason I believe it could be better for the world to be wealthier than equal is that hierarchical systems are a recurring theme found throughout society and the natural world. The USA has the largest economy of any country with a nominal GDP of approximately $21.506 trillion in 2019. A country built on capitalist ideologies and rights where the American dream did 2 and still does inspire many Americans. The USA is a hierarchical system and has economically thrived from it. In the natural world, we also see these hierarchies. A wealthier world, if structured correctly, could benefit both those in AC’s and EDC’s. I think an equal world would mean an abolishment of large amounts of wealth we have today and would in fact have a negative effect on the aim to better the global poverty problems. To try and abolish these hierarchies in the aim of equality is an unrealistic target as they are a fundamental part of society, and so will manifest themselves into so called egalitarian populations.
Another reason a wealthier world would be more beneficial is that more effective top-down development schemes could be put in place. An example of a top-down development scheme is the Sardar Sarovar Dam on the Narmada river . The Indian government built the dam to utilise 3 their heavy rainfall during the monsoon season by using the dam as a zone of accumulation, and then could use this to supply many locals with drinking water, as well as storing some for the inevitable dry season and possible droughts. This is to the benefit of those who live both nearby and in the cities, as the dam provides a more stable water supply throughout the year. This top-down development scheme has been of great positive effect and shows that people can benefit from government investment. However, this investment is only possible if there are greater allowances and funds available to these governments. Projects of varying scale and objectives set up by governments worldwide could make a big difference in improving standards of living and reductions in poverty for example, both pressing matters that not only affect individuals, but whole communities and our future.
However, global equality of opportunity could be better for the world than to be wealthier, as it provides a fair foundation and platform from which all people can achieve whatever it is that lies within their aspirations and intellectual means. At the moment, there are huge disparities between people across the world. Eight of the world's richest men possess the same wealth as approxamitely 3.6 billion of the poorest people . There are obvious inequalities that are not due 4 to differences in work ethic or ambition, but access and possibilities that people living in deprived areas, mostly in EDC’s and LIDC’s, simply do not have. This ideal of equality of opportunity means any differences in outcome between people are because of their differences in interests or application of hard work, as opposed to the unchangeable circumstances into which they have been born.
To conclude, I think that the world would be better off if it were wealthier instead of more equal. Although equality of opportunity for all people globally would provide a fair platform for anybody to succeed, it is an almost impossible ideal to implement. Also, it does not stop the development of inequalities down the line, which in my opinion are an inevitable outcome in human society and found throughout the natural world. This brings me back to hierarchies, which can be illustrated very simply on a much smaller scale. In a game of monopoly, everyone starts with an equal amount of money. Come to the end of the game and one person has all of the money. This is the unavoidable outcome of trading, and is a feature of all systems within a creative and productive body.
Comments
Post a Comment
Comments with names are more likely to be published.