2015 is a year of global agreements regarding climate change, disaster risk reduction and sustainable development. The new frameworks
proposed will invariably require innovative strategies for change. But is
society ready to accept change and adaptation for the good of future
generations? Change invariably involves sacrifice. The belief that our very way
of life is being eroded by the demands of environmentalists is prevalent, but
we must consider who this narrative serves. The ‘risk’ of change to those who
have accumulated power, wealth and resources under the status quo must not be
ignored. An assessment of ruling-class risk may indeed help us to contextualise
some of the important debate of 2015.
Entitled to Succeed
If schooling has taught us anything, it is that success
manifests as wealth, power, achievements and accolades. ‘Work hard and
succeed`, they say. ‘If you don't succeed, you didn't try hard enough’. Nobody
likes to admit that disadvantage runs deep and 'failure' according to our
system is more accurately predicted by socio-economic indicators than by work
ethic. Those 'born to rule' hate to admit that privilege is a factor and will
point to rags to riches success stories that supposedly
prove that a meritocracy exists. However, the systemic inequality that is all
around us challenges the very values of a free society that our democracies
uphold.
What, in fact, are 'western values'? Freedom, justice,
compassion? The freedom to accumulate. Retributive justice. Conditional
compassion. Perhaps it's the expectation that someone be employed and pays
taxes (so that our government can fund war and distribute private sector
welfare).
In these times of austerity, most Western governments favour
neoliberal economic ideologies and, as a consequence, policies that target the
least at fault for economic crisis and the least able to afford cuts, taxes and
levies. Underpinning this agenda is an insidious belief that the poor are lazy
and the disabled are frauds. We are told that to help such poor souls, we must
impose some sort of punishment. It’s the moral thing to do, after all.
Outsiders:
How does our perception of western values (and the
incentives and punishments attached to these values) affect our attitude
towards those outside our borders, and indeed towards the ‘others’ within our
borders? It's hard to know what our values truly are, if you consider the
rhetoric of our elected leaders. They preach social justice while passing
legislation to persecute the vulnerable. Perhaps that is what social justice
means to such ideologues. How do we view more than two billion in poverty
worldwide, populations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Ukraine exposed to
ongoing conflict or the disproportionate number of people in developing
countries vulnerable to climate change?
Despite all of our advances, every second child on the planet lives in poverty.
Of the world’s 2.2 billion children there are 1 billion in poverty. 18,000
children (under 5) still die every day from poverty, hunger and preventable
disease. As UNICEF articulated in 2000, these children,
“die quietly in some of the poorest villages on earth, far removed from
the scrutiny and the conscience of the world. Being meek and weak in life makes
these dying multitudes even more invisible in death.”
Do we consider that many of the problems felt beyond our
borders persist as a result of inequality? Indeed, systemic inequality is
capitalized upon by western corporate and governmental entities to maintain
growth and accumulate wealth for the 1%. However unintentionally, we in the
west are born with a perceived entitlement to benefit from this inequality,
established hundreds of years ago, largely through slavery and the global
domination and destruction of indigenous people groups.
Climate change,
migration and disaster risk reduction:
"people who are socially, economically, culturally, politically,
institutionally or otherwise marginalised are especially vulnerable to climate
change."
Those most vulnerable; children, women, the elderly and the
disabled, located in developing countries, already suffer disproportionately
due to conflict and disaster. Needless to say, programs that address the underlying causes of
this vulnerability have a significant impact on long term disaster risk.
However, the current near-consensus towards technocratic solutions to poverty does little
to reduce growing inequality and lack of individual freedom. Indeed, the
solutions imposed by development experts often serve to increase vulnerability
among the most marginalised in a society.
Photo credit: worldmaritimenews
Perhaps the Hunger
Games narrative isn’t so far-fetched.
Risk reduction holds a different meaning for the wealthy and
for the poor. As renewable energy alternatives become accessible to all, entire
industries are at risk. The opponents of freely available sustainable energy
will fight on for their ‘right’ to collect profit in the years to come. Global
agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership will attempt to
reinforce structures designed purely for profit and domination. Whether it is
energy generation or food production - sustainability and resilience for you
and I come at a cost to the global elite. Sustainability demands that we
moderate/reduce consumption (largely procure from established corporate elite)
while resilience empowers ‘people’ to cope for themselves (thus reducing
reliance upon elite derived/powered systems and products).
Sameness or Variety:
No amount of positivity or optimism prevents people dying of
thirst and starvation daily. Meanwhile, the west gets fatter. We place our
faith in business, in foreign aid, in development, to provide the solution. Are
we wrong to assume that this system, created by corporations, banks and government,
will act in the interests of humanity? We so easily swallow the narrative that
says that ‘the others’ are out to ruin life as we know it- single mothers,
unemployed youth, the disabled and asylum seekers. But does our existence
really depend on protecting ourselves from these vulnerable groups? The lie is
pervasive. Our leaders tell us to just believe, over and over again.
While 3 million people turn out to advocate for free speech
in Paris, there is little outrage against what Joseph Conrad called "the merry dance of death and trade."
As sections of Western society become more and more polarised and marginalised,
the ability to empathise with ‘others’ is rapidly eroded, within and beyond our
borders.
Current global systems (economic/social/moral etc.) are
ideologically flawed; they assign power, wealth and resources to the few at a
detriment to the many. These systems are also highly contemptuous of change. A healthy system should naturally transition
through periods of creative destruction, allowing innovation and creativity to
flourish. Instead, we have been programmed to favour growth and conservation at
all costs, while protecting the status quo.
Voltaire and
Inequality
Can we envisage a world where no one starves to death or
dies of treatable disease in any given day, and where everyone has access to
life’s basic necessities? Do the poor choose to remain poor?
‘The comfort of the rich depends on an abundant supply of the poor.’ -
Voltaire
If we truly do aspire to a more equitable and sustainable
way of life, what needs to happen to make it a reality? Can current global
systems deliver on such a vision or is such thinking ultimately utopian? The
current status quo gives us a scenario where the poorest 10% of humanity account for just 0.5% ofconsumption while the wealthiest 10% account for 59%. The demand for
global resources and strain on our environment does not arise due to the
actions or inactions of the global poor. Economic distress is never caused by
families on social welfare, it is caused by banks and corporations that
effectively benefit from publicly sourced subsidies (source?). What is the
tipping point for injustice, the last straw before moral outrage?
Is the very (western) way of life that we protect and treasure part of the global malaise? Are we so devoted to materialism, consumerism and individualism (the religions of the West, as defined by Russell Brand) that we would cast off all responsibility for the consequences of the flawed ideological underpinnings of empire and globalisation?
Voltaire’s oft-quoted and adapted words, ‘the best is the enemy of the good,’ in
the poem La Begueule, are commonly used to justify
failed systems or as pretext for trivial solutions. The correct meaning was in
fact to warn against greed, envy and lack of gratitude. It was upon such a
misconstrued meaning of Voltaire’s words that the Obama administration oversaw
the robbery of US taxpayers to feed a reckless and greedy banking sector, as
Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz points out. Consider this on a
global scale...does the current economic system ‘require’ an abundant supply of
the poor? Is growing inequality a positive thing, as argued by Kevin O’Leary? A 2014 report by Oxfam states that the richest 85 people in the world hold the
same amount of wealth as the poorer half of humanity. Inequality is increasing
all across the globe. The clear warning is that,
“when wealth captures government policymaking, the rules bend to favour
the rich, often to the detriment of everyone else.”
Poverty. Inequality. War. The military industrial complex.
Human trafficking. Crony capitalism. Humanity requires drastic reorganisation.
However, those who benefit from sameness will not make way for variety without
resistance.
