Consider these two hypothetical: suppose there are two squirrels each living in a different tree. One of them, Jimbo, lives happily and is able to obtain a large amount of acorns from the tree to the point where he is not even sure where to store them when winter seasons come. Unfortunately for Tiffany, the other squirrel, her tree for some reason produces a small amount of acorns that she often has to cut back in her meal to be able to survive. While it is clear that it is not Tiffany’s fault that her tree does not produce enough acorns for her to live off well, it may seem like it is unfair that Jimbo is getting a better treatment out of this.
While I hate to bring up the concept of Social Darwinism in this argument, the fact that some countries have more resources than others allows them to have a higher advantage in the economic competition. Whether it is the country’s nature (either geographic or environmental) or its historic past, certain nations have developed to become better prepared in today’s economy, while others struggle to keep up. Given the situation, one would argue that it is unjust that other countries are doing better. I, however, would argue the other way. Rather than looking at a nation’s modern economic status, we have to remember that not all countries used to be the same in the past. It was through years of slow development that has brought a nation to be where it is today. It may seem hard for undeveloped countries to compete other countries that have a better and stable economy in today’s society, but it does not mean it is unable to achieve. Looking back at the hypothetical situations, while Tiffany is not able to control the production of acorn from the tree she is living in, she is able to interact and work together with Jimbo with hopes that Jimbo might share some of his acorns to Tiffany. Similarly, countries are not able to control the nature and history that is affecting them from moving forward, but it certainly does not mean the nation is not able to cooperate with other countries to improve the situation.
Instead of taking the conditions for what it is and allow “Social Darwinism” to play its role and have the more developed countries to continue to grow, the less fortunate nations should work to figure out solutions to the problem. My suggestion to these solutions would be to provide more education to the people in the country. One cannot stress how crucial it is for citizens of a nation to be well educated in order to help the country develop. Similar to the United States’ government in which it provides large amounts of education funds in hope that it would benefit the economy in the long run by having a greater number of educated individuals, other countries should fund their education system too.
While I agree that it is unfair for one nation to be better suited in the economic competition than other countries, it doesn’t mean nothing can be done about it. It is not their fault that they just happen to have it worse. Life is unfair. It is the nature in it that (to some) motives and causes one to take action and change the situation to make it better. Otherwise, you can sit there with your sob story and wither away.
Garry,
ReplyDeleteIf you read my post you can see that I make basically the same argument as you. Life is unfair, and not all countries started off equal. But just because some countries started off worse than others, they were still able to work their way up and were able to change their "natural" outcome. But this week I was thinking about this point and I changed my mind a little. Yes, countries can try to make their situations better, but how much better could they truly make it? These countries do not have the money or resources to try to improve themselves, they just have enough money to get by. So is the world system actually unfair?