I have been doing some research for my masters degree thesis and have come to the following...please feel free to comment as you see fit.
The luxuries a typical American family would have to surrender if they lived among the one billion hungry people in the Third World:
We begin by invading the house of our imaginary American family to strip it of its furniture. Everything goes: beds, chairs, tables, television sets, lamps. We will leave the family with a few old blankets, a kitchen table, a wooden chair. Along with bureaus go the clothes. Each member of the family may keep in his "wardrobe" his oldest suit or dress, a shirt or blouse. We will permit a pair of shoes for the head of the family, but none for the wife or children.
We move to the kitchen. The appliances have already been taken out, so we turn to the cupboards...the box of matches may stay, a small bag of flour, some sugar and salt. A few moldy potatoes, already in the garbage can, must be rescued, for they will provide much of tonight's meal. We will leave a handful of onions and a dish of dried beans. All the rest we take away: the meat, the fresh vegetables, the canned goods, the crackers, the candy.
Now we have stripped the house: the bathroom has been dismantled, the running water shut off, the electric wires taken out. Next we take away the house. The family can move to the tool shed...Communications must go next. No more newspapers, magazines, books-not that they are missed, since we must take away our family's literacy as well. Instead, in our shantytown we will allow one radio...
Now government services must go next. No more postmen, no more firemen. There is a school, but it is three miles away and consists of two classrooms...There are of course, no hospitals or doctors nearby.The nearest clinic is ten miles away and is tended by a midwife. It can be reached by bicycle, provided the family has a bicycle, which is unlikely...
Finally, money. We will allow our family a cash hoard of five dollars. This will prevent our breadwinner from experiencing the tragedy of an Iranian peasant who went blind because he could not raise the 3.94 which he mistakenly thought he needed to receive admission to a hospital where he could have been cured.
Originally posted by flexmoreFor some reason it seems as though 95% of the world wealth belongs to first world nations U.S.A, Britain, France etc however the places in the world that need food and money the most such as Rwanda, India, Burundi etc are starving and homeless.
very intersting to see what the average u.s. family would lose!!!
another question :
if the average u.s. family was to lose this (and their coorporate and militery power to regain it) .... would the third world people gain something?
As for the military regaining what the average american family would lose you are not to far off target here. The only thing that I see the third world gaining ultimately is equalization with the rest of the worlds economies. Everyone would be equally poor. Thus leading to take over by the military ultimately leading to a military state. Many small african countries are so poor that this is already a reality. Somalia in the 90's Mohamed Farir Ahdid controlled the countries food and thus decided who lived or died. 3 million people died of starvation in 1992 because he loved the power.
Hey, this looks like an ideal thread to share some statistics that I got the other day on a diversity course:
If you take the worlds population and condensed it down into a village of just 100 people keeping all proportions the same then the village would be made up of the following:
58 Asians
10 Europeans
6 Soviet (as it was)
5 North American
8 South American
12 African
1 Austrailian
51 Female
49 Male (a slight advantage to the guys)
70 Non white
30 White
67 Non Christian
33 Christian
85 would live in substandard accomodation
70 wouldn't be able to read
85 have malnutritian
1 would have HIV
33 would be children (under 16)
7 would own a car
1 would have a college education
2 would have a computer (at least there could still be a RHP community)
9 would speak English
6 would control 50% of the wealth
Interesting or shocking or upsetting?????
Note: I'm not favouring any race or religion. It's just that this is all the stats that were given us.
😕
Cool figures DangerMouse.
Here are some more...
The top 1% of Americans own as much wealth as the bottom 95% percent.
The total wealth of the top 60% of Americans is 500 times the total wealth of the bottom 40%.
The bottom 40% of households own one-fifth of 1% (or 0.2% ) of the nation's wealth.
Bill Gates alone has more wealth than 40% of the U.S. population combined, or 120 million people.
The typical black household had less than one-quarter the net wealth of the typical American household -- $15,500 vs. $71,700.
You gotta love capitalism. Any ideology where I, as a white man, can dream of having the same amount of money as 120 million people and enough bathrooms to cater for the 120 million people has to be worth fighting and dying for.
D
I've read these facts with much interest, and they don't come as a surprise to me ... It is well known that the world is screwed up and that the rich are getting richer and the poor getting poorer ...
The question I have to all of you ... What do YOU do to remedy some of the pain ??
I wouldn't expect major contributions to charity, etc. (as I'm quite selfish myself and always broke, lol) but think about it, do something ...
I'll for Christmas put on a break-dance show and a cabaret with 9 other graduates at my company and charge £5 per person who is attending which will go 100% to our Variety Club (helping children in need) ... Go figure what you can do
Boris
PS: Yes, you've read right, the Metal-headbanger no1 is breakdancing !! FYI, I've done that for over 5 years when I was younger and was semi-professional at one stage :-)
Originally posted by RagnorakYou're just jealous that you have only ONE toilet, and it doesn't even flush...🙄
Cool figures DangerMouse.
Here are some more...
The top 1% of Americans own as much wealth as the bottom 95% percent.
The total wealth of the top 60% of Americans is 500 times the total wealth of the bottom 40%.
The bottom 40% of households own one-fifth of 1% (or 0.2% ) of the nation's wealth.
Bill Gates alone has more wealth than 40% of the ...[text shortened]... ugh bathrooms to cater for the 120 million people has to be worth fighting and dying for.
D
Originally posted by flexmoreThe thrid world would not gain, the others "powers that be" already mentioned the this thread will take up the slack.
very intersting to see what the average u.s. family would lose!!!
another question :
if the average u.s. family was to lose this (and their coorporate and militery power to regain it) .... would the third world people gain something?
The world is dominated by the US, Europe and Russia. It always has been and it always will be from the way I see it!
Originally posted by MiracleWhat about the likes of China and India? The western world source more goods and services every year from those countries and I believe they are growing in wealth and power all the time...
The thrid world would not gain, the others "powers that be" already mentioned the this thread will take up the slack.
The world is dominated by the US, Europe and Russia. It always has been and it always will be from the way I see it!
So a question for everyone to consider...and please put some thought into this for it is very important. Is the overall equaliztion or distribution of wealth vital to do away with world hunger all together. Is this to say that everyone would need to be equally poor and equally hungry for things to change or matter.
Originally posted by Danger Mouse20 milion australians.
If you take the worlds population and condensed it down into a village of just 100 people keeping all proportions the same then the village would be made up of the following:
...
1 Austrailian
...
6400 milion total
20/6400 = .003125 = 0.3% australians.
so no, there should be no australians.
your figures are incorrect in that regards.
what about the rest??????
Originally posted by deathbypawnThe people with the most to loose are the people with all the big guns. They are unlikely to give up their luxuries without a fight and that fight would be very very bloody. Perhaps it is possible to slowly trend towards a more even wealth dirtibution but I suspect a huge fall in human population is a more likely eventuality: AIDS nearly did it (it only had to live outwith the human bloodstream for another 15 minutes and Africa would be fairly unpopulated today). WW3 may beat natural forces to it, though it can be argued that overpopulation leading to war is a natural force.
So a question for everyone to consider...and please put some thought into this for it is very important. Is the overall equaliztion or distribution of wealth vital to do away with world hunger all together. Is this to say that everyone would need to be equally poor and equally hungry for things to change or matter.
Originally posted by deathbypawnNeither 🙂
So a question for everyone to consider...and please put some thought into this for it is very important. Is the overall equaliztion or distribution of wealth vital to do away with world hunger all together. Is this to say that everyone would need to be equally poor and equally hungry for things to change or matter.
For someone to be rich, someone else has to be poor as it's a comparison. You have to rememeber that a lot of the "poor" nations are poor because they are not allowed to develop. Africa had a lot of natural resources but the west do not let them develop and sell them for themselves. Instead they pay mailitia's to start civil wars so they can come in and mine the resources for themselves.
This is basically western foreign policy, divide and conquer. Until the west changes it's changes you will always have poor nations.
On a lighter note we could help the starving people of the world. We pay our farmers so many subsidies to keep them going that we have mountains of grain which will be thrown away. Canada produces enough grain to feed the world....where does it all go? Im sure it would not cost THAT much to have all the extra food flown to where it's required.
Originally posted by flexmoreObviously the world poplulation cannot be made up of just simply seven categories. Maybe the author was an Australian and was generous with their rounding up.
20 milion australians.
6400 milion total
20/6400 = .003125 = 0.3% australians.
so no, there should be no australians.
your figures are incorrect in that regards.
what about the rest??????
Alternatively, maybe it would have been the next biggest category which to me would make sense rather than quoting lots of countries and races (although equally important) to 0.0000001 % to satisfy you.
If you are bored then prehaps you can research and verify all the other figures...
However, as stated by another poster, what is everyone going to do about helping those less fortunate than ourselves????