Radical Noesis - Thinking outside the box

Rich Nations Put Global Warming Burden on Africa;

Nepal's farmers on the front line of global climate change;

Poorest countries will pay highest price with global warming;

The Last Tide Could Come at Any Time. Then These Islands at the End of the Earth Will Simply Vanish;

Or, Flu 'could wipe out 62 million' - "And 96% of these deaths would occur in the poorest countries."

Is there any connection between the concentration of wealth and the broad reach of poverty? Is there any connection between the massive consumption of "rich" nations, and the massive risk faced by "poor" nations? It seems highly likely to me.

Figures drawn from the first two articles listed (OneWorld and the Financial Times), to be in the top 1% in terms of wealth you would need more than $500,000 in assets; 10% is above $61,500 in assets, and top half is $2,200 in assets. While the wealthiest 2% control 50 per cent of the world's wealth, the top 1 percent control 40% of the worlds wealth. The top ten percent control 85% of global wealth. Please keep in mind that wealth is assets - not income.

Besides the United States, only Canada, Western Europe, Japan, and Israel showed average personal wealth of more than $50,000.

Pakistan, Vietnam, Cambodia, many former Soviet Republics, and most of sub-Saharan Africa showed average personal wealth of under $2,000. (Glanz, OneWorld)

So pick your crisis - environment, climate, health, war, resources, poverty - and those with the least are the first hit, the hardest, hit, and the most likely to die. Why? Because they have the misfortune of living in "vulnerable" regions and have "bad" governments? No ... because they, and their resources, are exploited and expropriated by the few.

David Loyn, in a BBC article on 12/18/06, writes "Migrants 'shape globalised world'." He details a couple of examples - Doha and China. His focus is on the use of migrant labor and the use of international labor (including human trafficking). He conveniently points at China as a "driver" of these woes, and conveniently leaves out The U.S., Canada, and Western Europe. This is not to say that China (and India) are not up and comers, but the issues of exploitation are hardly confined to them - or the "oil" states.

At protests against the Iraq occupation, there are numerous signs of "no more blood for oil." While I whole heartedly agree with that statement, it does not recognize that it is blood - other people's blood - for virtually everything, It is certainly blood for "our way of life," and that "blood" goes far beyond "war." It goes to a structured and increasing inequality which is concentrating the world's wealth (and that is not just economic) into the hands of very few. Meanwhile, the vulnerability of the majority - regardless of nation - increases with each passing day.

I wonder if we are even capable of envisioning a world that does not operate by the principles that have brought us to the precipice.