[extropy-chat] Re: riots in France

[Jack Parkinson]

John K Clark" <jonkc at att.net> wrote
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Re: riots in France
> To: "Jack Parkinson" <isthatyoujack at icqmail.com>, "ExI chat list"
> <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>

> Jack Parkinson said:
>> there is no country on earth where 7 cents an hour
>> is sufficient to meet a  person's basic needs.
>
> That is true, it is also true that is no country on earth where 7 cents an
> hour will not get you closer to fulfilling a person's basic needs than 
> ZERO
> cents an hour.

Yes. I made this point before. It was your characterization of these people 
as 'delighted' I objected to and still object to.
'Desperate' - yes.
>
> You claim to be a great friend of the poor

I don't remember saying that...
Altruistic motives are fine - But I am trying to make the point that there 
are good, solid pragmatic reasons why richer countyries should eradicate the 
nagging inequalities which cause dissent to become radical/militant action. 
We would:
a) save money in the long run
b) have a lot less strife and more peace
c) need a lot less body bags
d) be able to relax a little more at home and stop worrying that the fight 
is about to be brought to our front doors
e) be able to bask in that warm glow you get from actually helping someone 
rather than simply using them

>but you say I should fire 99 out
> of 100 of my employees and give all their salary to the survivor.  You say
> Wal-Mart and its customers are villainous for encouraging sweat shops,

I don't remember saying that either...

> let me propose a little experiment; go to Bangladesh or some other such
> hellhole and tell a worker there that you are lobbying to have sweat shops
> such as his shut down and see if he really thinks of you as a friend. On
> second thought it would be better not to go there personally because they
> will try to lynch you.

I have actually been to Bangladesh and seen rows of seven to ten year olds 
sitting cross-legged on concrete floors in hot, darkened rooms sewing shirts 
for western markets. They work for even less than 7 cents an hour - no money 
at all in fact. They work for food, from dawn to dusk and are beaten if they 
stop. Blindness is an occupational hazard from squinting at stitches and 
threading needles in semi-darkness.
Some of those sweat shops were closed down while I was there (briefly 
probably) - and this lead to an immediate local increase in child 
prostitution. You are right if you mean to say there is no quick fix - but I 
think you are wrong if you advocate that nothing at all should be done.
>
>>  I didn't suggest dividing the wealth of the world.
>
> Well why not?! You said before that there was already PLENTY of wealth in
> the world and that the only problem was that rich people were just too
> stingy, I said the basic problem was there was not enough wealth in the
> world and we should concentrate on making the pie bigger not squabble
> about how to cut it up; are you conceding that I was right and you were
> wrong?

There is no 'wealth problem' in the world and there is an abundance of food 
and medicine. Eradication of US and European farm subsidies alone would 
unlock 300 billion plus US dollars - more than enough to tackle and solve 
the eat/drink/stay well problem for every person on the planet. Trade 
barriers on poor countries cost poor nations at least 100 billion US a 
year - more than twice what they receive in aid. Just lifting these barriers 
may be enough in some cases. See:
http://www.worldlegacy.org/HungerQuiz.htm
http://www.feedthechildren.org/site/PageServer?pagename=dotorg_homepage
Also, the OXFAM, Smith Family, NGO and UN websites have masses of 
information - and their are numerous scholarly articles on this topic..
>
>> $25 billion is adequate for basic food, water and medicine for everyone.
>> This is not a lot of money
>
> Forget 25, 250 billion couldn't provide just medicine for 300 million
> Americans for just one year, much less food AND water AND medicine AND for
> all 7 billion people on the planet.

Not so! In 7 cents an hour country, this sum goes a LONG way...

>However I have nothing against charity,
> I think it's fine, but to suggest that's all that is needed to solve the
> problem is crazy. World poverty will be eliminated someday and probably
> sooner than most people think, but when a full accounting of that glorious
> achievement is made charity will amount to little more than a rounding
> error.

Yes. You don't give someone a fish to eat. You show them how and where they 
can fish - then they feed themselves.
>
>> If terrorism (and rioting for that matter) are the radical extremes of
>> massive discontent - eliminate the discontent.
>
> Making nice to Islam will not reduce their anger one iota because the root
> cause of that anger is not any specific action committed by the west. They
> are angry at us for what we are not what we did. They would be less angry 
> if
> the foundation of the west was dogma, even some dogma they didn't like,
> instead it is based on free markets and pragmatic problem solving (the
> scientific method) and that frightens and angers them. They would be less
> angry if our system just didn't work very well, but we're rich free and
> powerful and they are poor oppressed and weak.

Moslems are not angry at you! If you ever spend time in Moslem countries, 
you will find that the vast majority of people are kind, considerate 
ordinary people. Good citizens who worry about their children, take care of 
their families and wouldn't harm anyone. Most of them are quite secular in 
their attitudes and they generally admire the entrepeneurial business spirit 
of the west and aspire to be a part of it.
They are also as repelled and non-plussed as anyone in the west by radical 
clerics exhorting jihad.

Directing your fear and anger at these ordinary people is not just 
counter-productive - it's completely mistaken.
>
> 800 years ago Islam was the most advanced civilization on Earth but its 
> been
> straight downhill since, today they are not even second or third but dead
> last; we have the word of The Profit so it can't be our fault, it must be
> due to those evil westerners, our only mistake was embracing too many
> new 16'th century ideas, we should go back to the good old 13'th century
> ideas.
>    John K Clark

That last sounds like good old-fashioned prejudice to me. Although I would 
certainly agree if you were to say that a theocracy (of any faith) was the 
most cruel and barbaric form of government we are capable of. All rulers who 
claim to be 'channeling' God sooner or later seem to think that they can 
start burning or mutilating people. And every faith throughout history has 
committed atrocities in those places where the clergy has gained sufficient 
political power. The exception would have to be Buddhism - although even 
there, self-immolation is not unknown...
Jack Parkinson