De Kadt states that fundamentalist religions aim not to overcome the tensions between different aspects of race identities and not to restore it to an unambiguous oneness. The belief systems have powerful influenced the public and politics of nations worldwide. People of different faiths not only fight over their basic beliefs and land but they end in war. In the world today fundamentalist religions have all sorts of violence; it is like a wild fire when terrorism is the issue. If different religious fundamentalist groups don't have their mind's open, there would be disputed between people and countries on account of their faith. From historical teaching, religions have started wars, ended them, impacted, and persuaded people. Needless to say, beliefs are very influential on the world current days. World terrorism is very violent because there are different groups trying to express their own point of views. Many terrorist groups have been associated with religious ideologies. These show how religion can be a key instrument in World Terrorism from a variety of religions there is a variety of terrorism.
]]> Fundamentalists used a religion to make all their people believe that only their doctrines can rescuer the whole world even had to destroy the other heathens from the beginning. All their doctrines are lying and using religions to gaining power. Fundamentalists told whatever people were believed, to illustrate, it convinced all its disciples with violent behaviors, of course, are at war with the world, and these are how they justify their murder of innocents. As a result, Terrorists are able to convince themselves that no one is an innocent. Reality is that Terrorists are never innocents and their targets are nearly always innocents. World terrorism will never end if there are religions that cannot attain mutual understanding. If religions are to give one a spiritual uplifting, why is it that they can promote such not sacred acts of violence?The purpose of many terrorist acts is to cause fear in the every society. By attacking innocent bystanders, the terrorist hopes to strike fear in all those who can identify with the victims. Therefore, the terrorist will invariably attack common carriers such as aircraft, buses and ships. Or will attack a shopping center, market, bus depot, airport, restaurant, or other famous public place. The terrorist shot and killed one of them and sent him home with a message. The message was violent, intimidating and persuasive to the point that a government gave in to their demands. Terrorism is a frightening and horrifying event for not only the hostages but also those making the decisions for the demands
On the hand, it should be noted that the religious fundamentalist groups have greater influence on public opinion to create or sustains large public support for their highest defense mechanism. Fundamentalists are using Terrorism to create a climate of fear in a given population. Therefore, Terrorist violence targets in any ethnic or religious groups, governments, political parties, corporations and media enterprises. These fundamentalist terrorists can be come from any organization, political, religious and governments. Political terrorism is recently the most often type of terrorism used. Political terrorism tends to involve violence against civilians or other noncombatants (Wardlaw Grant).
The way the fundamentalist religions react to violence determines the power terrorists have to advance their objectives. People believing those religions can never be the start to a better world unless the fundamentalist can accept different thinking of religion. The fundamentalist is an instrument of doctrine that terrorists use to influence what the fundamentalist religions want people to believe it, therefore making public think what they want them to think, do what they want them to bias other religions. Many terrorist groups have been associated with the fundamentalist because these religions will not adapt different views or different beliefs. It is clear that the ideology of fundamentalists is the key to going religious conflicts
The fundamentalist are greedy more power and used to taking advantage of religions. They are pretend having strong moral characters with a solid foundation of religion. However, religions do not affect a fundamentalists' ability to conduct their own moral standard wisely. Throughout the rich history of the fundamentalist, many leaders have been criticized for their morality and violent behaviors. Unfortunately, there have been the various fundamentalist religions that have abused their power and taken advantage of the trust and faith bestowed upon religions. In addition to fundamentalist religions as terrorist groups, some governments today also engage in terrorism. Countries sometimes use terrorism as a substitute for traditional warfare by providing money, training, and weapons to terrorist groups whose activities serve their national aims. Governments may also plan and carry out terrorist actions themselves, although they usually deny responsibility for them.
Work Cited
De Kadt, Emanuel. "Abusing Cultural Freedom: coercion in the name of God." Journal of Human Development. March 1, 2005. < http://www.srwolf.com/wolfsoc/soc206/AbusingFreedom.pdf.> .
Wardlaw, Grant. "Political Terrorism Theory, Tactics and Counter-Measures." Cambridge University Press. February 18, 2008.< http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521368413.>
As we all know, the terrorist
attacks on September 11, 2001 executed by Osama bin Laden and other members of
Al Qaeda had a great impact on this country. Our president at this time was
George W. Bush, our current president. He led the United States into a new
direction in order to take back and maintain our national security in the
twenty-first century. This new course opened with two military attacks on
Afghanistan and Iraq, taking over the governments in both nations. The point of
these invasions were to track down all known Al Qaeda participants, and to rid
of Saddam Hussein who was accused of concealing weapons of mass destruction and
plotting with terrorists. However, both of these accusations against Hussein
were not proven to be correct. Therefore, George Bush ordered to have a country
massacred, killing thousands of innocent people, in order to help "save" them
from their dictator who "could" be of harm to them. All of these actions that
have been taken by the United States government in response to the terrorist
attacks of September 11, 2001 make up the War on Terror. The Bush Doctrine is
the policy that the U.S. has created to guide our military actions in the War on
Terror and to achieve twenty-first-century national security. The Bush Doctrine
II is the U.S. policy for homeland security.
He later said that this meant that
all the world nations had a "decision to make."
He said, "Either you are with us,
or you are with the terrorists."
In my opinion, this last statement
is much too broad of an opinion to make. I do not think it is fair to label
everyone else in the world that is not on America's side as a terrorist. This
is the kind of thinking that causes wars. Why? Because making broad assumptions
is the cause of racism, sexism, stereotypes, prejudice, etc. There are much
more than two black and white beliefs in this world. Given that this is an
obvious fact, why in the world does anyone think they have a right to say, "If
you aren't with me, then you are evil!"?
Well, that is easy to answer: none
of us do have that right!
The
goal of the Bush Doctrine II is to build a fortress society which defends
itself by creating barricades in order to block outside threats from piercing
its borders while at the same time, enlarging pathways across its borders for
wanted business and commerce. I think that this is evidence of the United
States being just a little too power hungry. I understand that the point of
this goal is to protect us from having another incident like the 9/11 terrorist
attacks. However, I think that building a fortress society would just be a
little much. I feel as though there are other things that need to be focused on
before this since we still maintain the greatest military power in the world as
it is. For example, we have extreme poverty and health care issues that need to
be paid more attention to. Considering the fact that by November of 2006, we
had already spent $507 billion, it should be apparent to most people that it is
time to spend a little time and money on other issues as well.
Another
main point of the Bush Doctrine II is the principle that the liberties and
freedoms that are normally enjoyed by Americans are now a weakness in the fight
against terrorism. Therefore, I perceive their conclusion is that the problem
is partially our fault (as citizens) for allowing ourselves to be exposed to
such danger. What I find ironic about this belief of the Bush Doctrine II is
that America seems to stand for freedom around the world. We are such a young
country, so it is hard at times to make as big of an impression as some of the
older, more historical countries can have. This is why I think our government
and our leaders strive so hard for power because they want to feel as though
the United States is even more significant than all of those older countries.
We want to be the greatest, and we want everyone to believe that we are.
Therefore, our motto seems to be "The Land of Freedom." On the other hand, we
are now being told that this same freedom that we are supposed to be proud of
is now being labeled as our weakness. Why can't we ever just be given a
straight answer? It seems like all over this country, people just beat around
the bush to avoid the truth. I believe that if we would have been told the truth
in the first place, I along with many more people would not have as much
animosity towards our country's current state and authority.
Our world as we know it has been orbiting around the sun for over four billion years and has seen many changes. Mountains have formed from the shift of tectonic plates and America's fiftieth state appeared from the depths of the Pacific Ocean. Homo sapiens have only existed on Earth for around two hundred thousand years, a relatively young species in terms of four billion years of life. Yet, in this small amount of time we have been the most destructive force our planet has ever seen. I believe global warming in part is an adverse effect of the development of human civilization. Before us the world went through its cycle of changes, but now it seems the balance of the Earth is in our hands.
]]> I think the origins of the modern day global warming crisis can be traced to the beginnings of the Industrial Age in Britain during the eighteenth century. In past years individuals worked the land to support themselves and their families, but their lives would dramatically change. Agriculture jobs were replaced with the introduction of textile factories, thus humans began emitting harmful gases such as coal into the atmosphere. An event of this magnitude soon spread to North America and all around the world, as a consequence the degradation of the Earth on an unimaginable scale began. These individuals did not know their actions would be the cause of conflict and the biggest threat to the continuation of the all life on Earth. Over the years toxic gases emitted into the atmosphere have ate away at the ozone layer, warming the planet at an alarming rate, never seen before in recorded history. I am not saying that the Industrial Revolution is solely responsible for global warming it just started our modern day capitalistic society based on consumer goods.Now let us fast forward to the present day America where the degradation of the Earth can be seen on a monumental scale. Ever day millions of cars and trucks pack the roads emitting toxic gases such as carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. Oil refineries pump oil out of the Earth's already depleted supply of this natural resource. My point is in today's American consumer based society the Earth is seen as a resource for our expansion. The United States has always held itself on a higher pedestal than others nations, extending our knowledge to other countries in hopes of a better future. We may seem like a role model, but our country produces twenty-five percent of the carbon dioxide pollution from fossil-fuel burning. That is something we should not be proud of and in my opinion the rise of global warming can be linked to the phenomena of globalization.
With globalization brought the idea of worldwide commerce, which in turn was a need for the natural resources and a lack of respect for Earth. I think the thing people forget is, while we as a human civilization is on a rise our planet will not grow exponentially with us. It seems we are in a frenzy to make money, yet it is hurting our planet and most importantly future generations. What will the world be like in 2040? Scientists say the sea level could rise with only a couple degrees of temperature increase in the planet Earth. I think this problem would affect people living on the coast line of the United States the most; cities would face the threat of severe floods. A natural catastrophe such as this would cost our government greatly; living individuals displaced looking for a new beginning. If we do not recognize that global warming is occurring then we will surely face some kind of major catastrophe in our near future. The world is already experiencing significant changes due to a warming planet. The Greenland Ice Sheets are virtually melting away, animal species populations are dropping, and millions of individuals face starvation on a daily basis. These changes may seem small, however overtime their effects could be felt by all individuals. When ice sheets melt they pour huge amounts of water into our oceans, in effect rising the sea level a potential threat to island nations. I grave to see a world when the daily news consists of an animal species facing extinction due to the harsh conditions of the Earth causes by global warming.
I fear if we do not change right now and take action our world will be far different for future generations of human beings. To me it seems some individuals are still somewhat hesitant to take the necessary steps to clean up our planet. I think part of the blame can be placed on our government, because we have not fully educated people about the effects of this process. I mean sure we hear about the government's policies on the emissions of greenhouse gases, yet we are still burn more fossil fuels than any other nation. Now in today's world we have cars running on hydrogen and my favorite bio-diesel, but only a small percentage of the public is taking advantages of these inventions. If America is to see a change it will be like the trickle-down effect, first it starts off small building momentum as it gains followers. If our government put global warming as one of their main priorities then the public would become more aware of their daily actions.
Right now in America it appears we have far greater problems than the threat of global warming, most notably the overextended War in Iraq and our ever increasing struggles with oil dependency. I want a national figure to stand up and take action on this threat like Al Gore did with his film An Inconvenient Truth. I thought the title of the movie speaks our countries problem with global warming; it is simply an inconvenient truth that we will eventually have to deal with. If our president were to stand up during his last months in office and devise a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions people would listen. The reality is he probably will not do this, but I hope our next president whether it is a black man, a woman, or another white guy to make global warming on the top of America's priority list. Significant change will not be seen until everyone learns about the inconvenient truths of this threat to our existence.
Even though I am so adamant about global warming I still drive a car that emits carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. I know right now I do not have the money to but an eco-friendly car, but when I can I will. If others have these same views the government should reduce the prices of these cars greatly cutting down the amount of gases being spewed into the atmosphere. For now I will simply recycle and do my best to take public transportation when it I do not need to drive my car. I hope to see a day when houses all across America are powered by solar panels, using the sun as an energy source, not watts of energy. One day this world will be possible the technology is out their, now it is the responsibility of Americans to make these changes in our lives.
On a sociological level our county must change its rhetoric about alternative energy options, equaling a step forward in preventing the warming of our planet. Any step we take in preventing global warming will benefit our lives and most importantly the lives of future generations. If we change now our impact on the human civilization will be felt for generations to come. Hopefully, in the future, my generation will be seen as individuals who took a stand to prevent the warming of the Earth, not those who saw the beginning of the end of modern civilization.
Bibliography Page
1. Global Warming: How It All Began. Still Waiting for Greenhouse
http://www.john-daly.com/history.htm
2. Eitzen, Stanley D. Zinn, Maxine Baca 2006. Social Problem: Tenth Edition. Pearson, Inc,: Boston.
With the confronting crisis of running out of landfill space, the disposal of solid waste in America will be a major environmental problem.
A. Littering, a source of individual pollution, can be cut back or eliminated if new ways can be found to control it on a community level.
Problems with littering:
1. On a local level.
a. littering pollutes the environment in which we live.
-creates polluted areas that are wildlife habitats.
-cigarettes are the litter most likely to be found, polluting the air and water.
-people from out of town are most likely to litter in places they don't live.
-people are more likely to trash someplace that already has litter on it rather than litter a pristine meadow.
·
Solutions on a
local level
·
-Placing
more receptacles for cigarette butts.
*most
people litter their butts because they don't have a convenient place to put
them.
-putting
up more signs about the fines littering and the rewards for calling in
litterers.
-raising
more funds for beach and park clean ups.
2. On a
national level.
a.
littering is slowing down in the U.S. at
a rate of 2% each year, but is it enough to do nothing more about it?
-the
main sources of litter comes from:
*pedestrians,
drivers, household garbage cans, commercial dumpsters, demolition sites,
loading docks, trucks with uncovered backs.
-as the population swells, these ways of littering will become more of a problem.
-U.S. creates the largest amount of solid waste among the developed countries today.
*on average, every American produces 4.5 pounds of solid trash a day (which has actually risen from 2.7 in 1960, clearly arguing the idea that the U.S. is getting better at littering)
*The U.S. is far behind the recycling efforts made by most European countries
-these countries produce half as much per capita
*the product obsolescence marketing scheme (disposables, cosmetic upgrades to a product) used by most corporations creates a hyperconsumerism in the U.S. for items that are usually non-recyclable.
· Solutions on a national level.
-Placing a greater importance on the recycling developments will reduce the amount of trash that can be littered.
* rewards for recycling and making products out of recycled products and recyclable for materials.
-subsidies and grants.
* creating funds for employed recycling junk yard sweepers.
*expanding the limited range of individual recycling and free recycling utilities for every home.
3. Problems in our culture.
-the U.S. values produced by a capitalist economy has turned the U.S. into a major impact on the environment.
*we put a great importance on private profit and place concerns for the environment behind that.
*the U.S. uses the most resources out of any country in the world
-this has created tensions in many "have-not" societies in the third-world.
- we pollute and litter more than any other industrialized country as a result.
*we view nature as a renewable and inexhaustible resource, or at least we treat it like it is.
*That we are the masters of nature and can use it how we want.
-this value of many corporations leads them to search for more resources at no expense to themselves.
-If we were able to look at nature as something that we need more than it needs us, then the U.S. may start leading to way towards cleaning its act instead of coming up last.
]]>I believe that the greatest social problem we face currently is to be found not in the people of our society, not even in the people who seem to be the "puppet masters" of our society. Rather, the problem is in the structure of the system, a system that has called itself many names but has failed to evolve into anything that is greater than it is. It is a system based on servitude not service, competition not cooperation. It resides in; democratic nations, communist nations, and socialist, presidents, dictators, kings and queens, it is the culture of power.
As a philosophical perspective, I feel there are bonds we cannot always see or feel that connect us all as a part of this world and our actions will directly, and indirectly affect those in the world, people we know and strangers alike. To me, everything is connected, and so when addressing social problems you have to consider that these problems do not just stand alone they are bonded with other issues that have to be identified before attempting to create a solution. Furthermore, too often, there is a reason for social problems that is often a constructed one. Other social or environmental problems could be causing them likewise; they could be causing a very different problem for different groups of a society.
This makes the defining of social problems very tough, for who is going to define the problem? Are the people in power or the people in the middle of a social issue the ones who will define the problem? Or, a group that seems the most removed from the situation, and then who will decide what the solution should be? This is an important part of the problem solving process. The subjectivity of social problems make them very sticky and hard to resolve for it seems often one group is benefiting from a given social problem while another is suffering. What purpose does the problem serve is an important first question to ask. Many of our social problems can be tied to the economic system that we live and operate under. This makes solving a social problem rooted in our economics very difficult because what change is required may affect a completely new group of people. Not just those who directly benefit or suffer would be involved the whole society would be transformed if we were to address a problem like poverty. Change seems to scare many people and most opt for ignorance instead of action, so there will usually be a faction of the community in opposition to a social change or movement even if in the end, they would benefit from their action.
We live in a society where our success is dependent on the suffering of others, often others that are distanced from us by geography or social class. So that we can live our successful lives in the illusion that no one is suffering from our success. Many people would rather continue being ignorant and living their successful lives than face the conflict their lifestyle creates and to take action in fixing their wrongs. What amazes me as I look back on history and at the conflicts and social problems that litter our past I find the roots of our current problematic social tree lie in history. Since the beginning of civilization, there has been a social conflict of inequality, a culture of takers that has thrived at the expense of the environment and or other people. The magnitude and severity has varied and there have been revolutions and movements, wars, and even if we win the battle, the war continues. Problems like poverty, hunger, war, discrimination, abuse, unequal distributions of wealth and power, these problems have persisted throughout written time and continue today. Like the mighty hydra, the monster of injustice has many heads and grows them back as soon as we stop fighting for them.
A society or nation should be judged by the way in which it interacts within itself, with other nations and with the environment. These should be the ranking criterion for determining the health of a nation, and who needs deserves the most aid and support. A nation should not be judged on the amount of natural resources, or labor resources, that can be exploited or how much money it can or does generate. I believe that as citizens of the earth it is our responsibility to live in a balanced and harmonious way with the planet and its inhabitants. Unfortunately, the culture of power has spun the rest of us so far out of balance it may be too late. A wall has been created that somehow distances people from the earth, and people go out into nature like they are walking out on the moon. We pride our species on being wise, Homo sapiens means wise person, yet we are not wise enough to take care of each other or our home, earth. I believe we are brave enough to rise to the challenge, and witty enough to overcome it, but it is as though we have been in a thousand year trance and we keep getting more and more dangerously lost in it.
Eitzen and Zinn say, "the United States along with other developed nations must seek solutions to the environmental crises facing the planet. This means mandating that the developed countries reduce the production of materials that pollute the air, water, and land."(Social Problems p108) The leadership of our nation is turning more people and nations away from us as the effects of our profit mongering corporations our felt across the globe. We are a hypocritical nation and what we will not let our corporations sell on our soil, like DDT, we have no problem with them unloading this toxic material onto other people. Furthermore, we will then more than likely import the foods which had the toxins sprayed on them and put those foods onto the shelves of our local grocery market, this is an import export economy. If we do not begin mandating changes in our economic, international and domestic policies environmental, and social issues will continue to escalate, and within our nation the very grim divide of haves and have-nots' will grow deeper. When it becomes a matter of survival as it is for many groups and societies already, violence and terrorism become all the more likely, even necessary...to live.
The exploitation of natural resources and people, our nation and other colonial and neo-colonial nations, have caused in recent and past years has and will escalate violence across the globe. According to an article posted on Article Archives called, Climate Change May Spark Conflict Between Nations, by John Reid, there are many geographic locations where neighboring societies and cultures have shared resources, but due to climate change, control of these shared resources have become more coveted and restrictive. One of the most precious resources we have, our fresh water, is running low and becomes less fresh each day. Several locations like the Nile River, the River Jordan, and the Brahmaputra River in China and India already are beginning to feel the pressure escalate as control of a resource by one nation may be choking another. The United States may soon face this problem, as it needs more water from the great Colorado River that Mexico is also dependant on. Will we revoke their rights to this precious resource and at what point would the American people feel justified in doing so? What would the response be from Mexico? A chilling but very real possibility as resources like water become scarce and the demand for them continues to rise. It is not in order to be evil, but for sustenance, that the rivers would be cut off.
It is no secret or myth climate change, or, global warming, is related to carbon emissions, mass flooding and erosion that destroys villages and leaves watersheds saturated with sediment is related deforestation, industrialization and corporate practices have exploited and decimated our biosphere and atmosphere, and the result is a rapid climate change, which affects everyone and everything on the planet. The greatest problems that we face as a united global community arise from the malfunctions, or the misleading, of societies and the forces that drive them. I see no distinction from a social problem and an environmental problem and I believe they can be defined in the same way. What is the benefit? Who benefits? Who is affected negatively?, positively? What is the negative? What can be done to achieve the needed benefit without causing the associated problems? What solution will best address the core of the problem and not just treat the symptoms of one.
Bibliography:
1) Social Problems 10th Edition by Stanley Eitzen and Maxine Zinn Pearson Publications page 108
2) Climate change may spark conflict between nations by John Reid posted on Climate Ark http://www.climateark.org/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkID=53205 Last visited 01/26/08
]]>The past couple of weeks the focus in class has been on social problems in relation to the environment, specifically global warming. I believe that there is no distinguishing from an environmental problem and a social one. The way societies are structured has a direct result on the environment of that society and the ecological and environmental systems of a region will have dramatic impact on the structure and issues of a given society.
The complex relationship between a regional environment and its people is still not fully understood, or appreciated, in this modern life. When an environmental problem is addressed by western countries, it is often focused on as an isolated event. The cause of these problems are; presented as complex issues that are rooted in the short comings of “gods’ creationâ€, and not in the societies of man. It seems we have a God-complex and feel we can make the world a better place for us to live in by changing its natural order instead of working with it, and making changes in the way we relate to the earth, the environment… our home.
The problem I am going to define is one that is inherently apart of so many of the social/environmental issues of the day. The problem is in the profit agenda of western cultures and how it plays into, him against me, humans against the planet…the cosmos. The fact is that profit is the driving motivator for action in our world. We do very little without the promise of being paid or compensated.
In an article by Jerry Mander on the eleven rules of corporate behavior, the number one rule he discusses is the profit imperative. Since the rules and operations of corporations set, the standards for how the global and local economies behave this in turn will influence the way societies are structured. “Profit is the ultimate measure of all corporate decisions. It takes precedence over community well-being, worker health, public health, peace, environmental preservation or national security.â€(Mander)
The severity of the profit agenda affects different groups within a society in different ways. From the developing nations who have changed sustenance farming for cash crops. To the tow truck drivers who will swoop off with your car before checking to see if you are around to move it. Profit drives our actions more than goodwill or charity. The US capitalist model, which is being reproduced on a global scale, is base on growth in the form of profits. The people and environments of a nation have historically taking a backseat place to the profit driver. A social model based around an economic system that is unsustainable is an unstable social model.
The extreme forces of the profit agenda have led to mass deforestation, a monument of waste accumulation, and a world wrought with war, terror and violence. These are some of the more dramatic examples of the side effects of a profit driven system. The reckless mass deforestation of the worlds’ forest has been executed in the most cost efficient way with the aim not to be in sustaining the forest, but to cut the most costs and make the largest profit. The techniques of the logging industry leave steep barren slopes in areas of high rainfall. These unstable slopes than rapidly erode turning rainforests to deserts. The cost of sustainable tree harvesting makes it an obsolete practice in this day. There is no incentive for large timber companies to manage the environment as they conduct their business. The result does not affect the corporations, they simply pack up and move on once the resource is depleted seeking a new host like a virus. Who is affected are the people, usually of the local indigenous people who depend on the forest for their food, and medicine, even their spirituality is often deeply rooted within the forest. This process will further hurt our atmosphere, for the trees are the lungs of the planet. This trickledown effect is felt across the globe, as one problem trickles into another, unlike the capitalist trickle down system, which seems to be in a drought.
The mismanagement of our resources and environment is a direct result of people allowing profits to come first in their decision processes. The earth is warming up. We can scientifically prove that as we can prove that this process is a part of cycle that the earth is constantly (over thousands and millions of years) dramatically changing its climate and composition. We can also show that the way we deal with our trash and the resources of the world, that we are making an impact on the rate of this natural process. So we see the Arctic ice shelves breaking apart falling into the ocean, we see cities full of people wearing masks because the air is to toxic to breathe, we see deserts turn to rainforests. However, when these issues come before the global community, and their orgy of power, they are ignored, discredited or dealt with in the most cost efficient way. Often the attempts made to clean up the planet, even when given proper leadership, fall so short on even accomplishing a piece of their specific goal due to the lack of resources allocated.
The profit imperative is not something that only drives the rich and powerful, the corporations and nations. Profit is akin to survival and there is a very stratified structural system directing what kinds of people are profitable and which ones are not. Cutting costs of production and driving up costs of the sales is a strategy many people have adapted. What happens is houses are inadequately built and crumble with the first tremor or ignite from their poor heating systems. Drugs, cut with cheaper, more lethal substances, and children are forced to eat poor processed foods. These are a few examples of how this is adopted in the middle and lower classes. We are encouraged to adopt this model of cost cutting and profiteering but it is a selfish and morally wrong system. However, the general moral population of the western world does not see this profit agenda as a problem. It is the most desperately sought after, and superficially tells people the most about another person.
The system was not so dramatic when there was less people in the rat race but it has become the root of the most severe global crises of our day. The amount of destruction from the horrible Hurricane Katrina could have been stunted or prevented, if the levees were maintained more regularly, but projects to improve and maintain our infrastructure are being ignored or inadequately addressed. The amount of money the US pours into its war machine is more than any other nation by billions. We will not put money into maintaining bridges, roads, buildings and levees. We do not create an infrastructure that can handle the mass exodus of people from our coastal villages and cities, even though we can watch the seas begin to rise. Why we do not do these things is a matter of cost, the bottom line is the green one and we have thrown our foresight out the window. We will profit now and pick up later, soon our technology will be able to save us from our mistakes but until then lets’ make some money.
Eleven Rules of Corporate Behavior by Jerry Mander www.articlearchives/2007/10/eleven_inherent_rules_of_corpo.html last visited on 01/30/08
]]>