From the Western perspective: a large number of countries have moved from:

- a technologically backward part of the world

- a colony, exploited for its resources

- an independent nation, still largely controlled by the larger powers of this planet

- truly independent countries, supporting their own economy

 

Right now, a number of Arab countries seem to be making a move: one step up the ladder of progress. They make the final step towards true independence...

Although we must acknowledge that our Western superior power is (relatively) in decline, we have to accept that the world as a whole is making progress! It's good news!

We (Western nations) are as powerful as ever... but we just noticed that these people want to join us... join us in pretty much every sense of the word "join": there will be more free people in this planet. True, they have a different religion, but who cares? They move towards a democracy: freedom! The holy grail of our (Western) civilization.

I don't see any difference between people rallying for economic justice regardless of location, religion, citizenship, etc. To me it comes down to having a concrete discussion about what is legitimate economically and politically and what isn't. People should be free, but their freedom shouldn't be abused to exploit others or unnecessarily exploit resources. The problem with the global economy presently seems to be that consumption has progressed to the point of scarcifying access to economic welfare for many. So anytime people are clamoring for equality with the global middle-class, my question is whether the global middle-class levels of consumption are sustainable to extend rather than curtail. I think that if the global middle-class would consume less materially, more people could attain their lifestyle. In fact, I'm sure there's some level of consumption that would allow everyone to enjoy the same basic welfare and even leave people free to progress beyond the most basic. What's more, I don't think economic totalitarianism is necessary for this to happen. People just have to figure out what standard of living is sustainable and widely achievable and start choosing to live that way. Until they do, what is the point of people asking for equality with a standard of living that will always necessarily exclude some globally in order to favor certain 'equal' others?

Edited February 26, 201114 yr by lemur

I don't see any difference between people rallying for economic justice regardless of location, religion, citizenship, etc. To me it comes down to having a concrete discussion about what is legitimate economically and politically and what isn't. People should be free, but their freedom shouldn't be abused to exploit others or unnecessarily exploit resources. The problem with the global economy presently seems to be that consumption has progressed to the point of scarcifying access to economic welfare for many. So anytime people are clamoring for equality with the global middle-class, my question is whether the global middle-class levels of consumption are sustainable to extend rather than curtail. I think that if the global middle-class would consume less materially, more people could attain their lifestyle. In fact, I'm sure there's some level of consumption that would allow everyone to enjoy the same basic welfare and even leave people free to progress beyond the most basic. What's more, I don't think economic totalitarianism is necessary for this to happen. People just have to figure out what standard of living is sustainable and widely achievable and start choosing to live that way. Until they do, what is the point of people asking for equality with a standard of living that will always necessarily exclude some globally in order to favor certain 'equal' others?

 

Five words connote the worlds immeasurable chaos. Lust, Greed, Envy, Avarice and "Power". Take your pick. Underneath, they all intermingle. What can only be hoped for in a fractured peace, is control of a bad situation.

Edited February 27, 201114 yr by rigney