Steve,
I think the argument is that only a relatively small sub-set of the
population would call on the "commonweal" at any one time... Sen's numbers
from Bangla Desh were in the order of 5-10% who were in danger of
starvation because of an absence of income to purchase food at (flood)
inflated prices.
This leaves the other 90-95% to keep the "system" going.
This ties into the discussion on the use by the UNDP's SHD Report of the
issue of Pet Food vs hungry children. Its not that anyone wants to
take pets away from US children or senior citizens, but simply
that the US is the lowest provider (as a percentage of GNP) of foreign aid
(excluding armaments) in the OECD. This is reflected in the much lower
tax rates in the US which in turn means much more discretionary income
which in turn means much more money available to be spent on pet food or
trips to Disneyland or whatever people spend their discretionary income
on. These are social/political choices which the citizens of the US (or
where-ever) make...their choice, but one whose consequences they (and
the world) should be aware of. (Canada's percentage of GNP devoted to aid
along with that of other developed countries has also fallen rather
dramatically in recent years.
The issue of global development placing an inordinate burden on the global
eco/enviro/energy etc. system is a separate one. I think it will loom
very very large in the next century as China and India both see their
mega-populations enter into some sort of non-subsistence (and thus
resource intensive) economies. My thoughts are that some form of system
of global governance which we in the developed world are comfortable with
should be in place before and as that is happening so that the results of
these developments is a leveling up and not a leveling down.
Mike Gurstein
On Sat, 17 Oct 1998, Steve Kurtz wrote:
> This can be seen as problematic if the "commonweal" is separated
> conceptually from the citizenry in toto. Exactly who is being called upon?
> Whose responsibility is it to deliver? Everybody can't call upon some
> abstract system to deliver the goods. We all are part of the system, & have
> a responsibility to co-create it for mutual benefit. Can't have all rights
> & no responsibilities!
>
> Would economic development lead to a better per capita life? I recall an
> article about the likely conditions in China should everyone there get a
> refrigerator, TV, & car.
> And China isn't alone. GDP/GNP is not necessarily an indicator of quality
> of life. At least two other alternative indicators exist (one is GPI, I
> think). Both have substantial sustainable environmental & health
> components.
>
> Money can be printed; real (natural & technological)wealth is a bit
> tougher. Who does the granting of what? Sounds great, though.
>
> Steve Kurtz
>
