The world and the poor cannot afforded for Americans to live like they do.
If undeveloped countries consumed at the same rate as the US, four complete planets the size of the Earth would be required.
Consumption by the United States: Americans constitute 5% of the world's population but consume 24% of the world's energy.
The early Christians defined sin in two ways sins in two ways:
-A Sin of Omission (a failure to do what one can and must do.)
-A Sin of Commission (is to know something is wrong... and do it anyway.)
For the rich to live in a way that takes the food from the mouths of the poor should be a sin of Omission by anybodies belief system.
I know that you make an honest effort to not behave that way. Still, the government should create policies that make it easy for people to do the right thing.
My comments are not aimed at anybody. It is just something to think about.
Human Resources (both energy and food) are limited supply. If every one lived like an American It would take 4 plant earths to provide the resources for us to maintain our life style. This means when the rich use too much, the poor has to make do with much less.
I see it like this, if a village had a community farm and the strong of the village, on harvest day, ran out and harvested as much as possible and left a very small amount of food for the sick and old. Then donated a small amount to feeding some of the poor in their community. That donation would not reduce the responsibility for taking most of the food.
Few facts :
-At least 80% of humanity lives on less than $10 a day.
-More than 80 percent of the world’s population lives in countries where income differentials are widening.
-The poorest 40 percent of the world’s population accounts for 5 percent of global income. The richest 20 percent accounts for three-quarters of world income.
-According to UNICEF, 22,000 children die each day due to poverty. And they “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.”
-Less than one per cent of what the world spent every year on weapons was needed to put every child into school by the year 2000 and yet it didn’t happen.
Poverty Facts and Stats
"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." Matthew 19:24
I define the rich as anyone who makes over $10 a day. So I am really talking to myself.
In general, I think there should be an emphasis both on consuming less, and on consuming
smarter. For example, with the right technologies and practices, relatively comfortable standards of living can be obtained with reduced waste and energy compared to average American consumption.
For the most part, I agree that errors of omission and commission are similar.
If, for example, a person went to a fine restaurant, and a another person was starving to death right in front of it, but the first person just walked in and ate the food and enjoyed their self, then most people would consider this person to be rather unethical.
If, on the other hand, the first person had direct knowledge that there were people starving, and that they could alleviate some of that starving, but decided to use some of that money instead to go to a fine restaurant, then most people wouldn't think anything negative of this.
Some people might propose that trying to help problems can sometimes make problems worse.
It ends up being almost purely a matter of geography and distance. We're funny, finite creatures, and suffering is an infinite sink of energy and attention. I don't think the human mind developed in such a way to correctly process the amount of suffering that exists, because if it did, madness might occur. Every happy or carefree moment in a person's life would be replaced with tireless work and sadness if people perceived those in grinding poverty, or those in substantial suffering, as they perceive their own family and friends. (Since a person could never be happy if, say, their child or parent was currently in grinding poverty or in some other despair, and would work tirelessly to correct the situation before they could call themselves happy, or relax.) There's sort of a compartmentalization where most minds can block out 99% of what they don't see so that they can live their lives.
It can be difficult, but important, to figure out where the appropriate balance is. If everyone uses 100% of their time and resources to try to alleviate suffering, then there is burn-out. Would suffering ever be eliminated, or would an endless amount of energy be put forth to an infinite problem? But on the other hand, it can be interesting to see how any given person rationalizes spending any unit of time or resource on something other than helping those in grinding poverty or for contributing to a solution to one of the fundamental problems that face humanity, because for every dollar, they're saying that their enjoyment of a fine dinner is more important than what that dollar could be used for.
Hold up. My husband and I work full time and pay for all we consume. We pay taxes in a high tax bracket, and we also give money pretty generously to charities. How are we taking food from the mouths of the poor?
Do you replenish every drop of natural resource you consume with zero negative impact on the world?
Do any of us?
Does physical distance change your perception and interaction with people, such as in the above example?
