1. 1. In order to get quality life, economic wellbeing is the most fundamental element. As I have enough money, I can promote my living condition and get everything that money can buy. Second, Health and life expectancy is other concern for my quality of life because even I am a billionaire, if I do not live long enough with health body, I cannot enjoy my life. Third, family and happiness create a pleasant surrounding since I believe sharing my good quality life with my family will make me happy. In addition, wisdom in understanding the world situation is important, therefore, education also a factor in making a good quality of life
2. 2. I think those resources can be but should not applied to everyone in my society and to the world. First, money is the most fundamental concern for most human being. People always have idea with ‘no money, no talk’. If people do not have enough money, they cannot afford to buy the necessary in their daily life. Moreover, healthy and long life will give time to people to enjoy the money they get. Furthermore, family solidarity make human life meaningful as human is a social animal. In addition, be wise and not fool will make human make sense of the world which create a higher spiritual level. However, different culture and religion background people may have difference idea about my element for quality life, may they think money is not as important as I think, for instance, indigenous people live in rain forest may think money is useless since they can hunt and gain daily necessary in their living place. As a result, the right that I describe can but should not be applied to my society and even to the world.
3. 3. In certain level, Yes. Since people in equal society can have more protection on their invention than unequal country. For example, European intellectual property law is highly imposed but China’s does not. As intellectual property protect is applied, new fruitful result will not be embezzled. In economic view, since people developed their environmental friendly technology can be protecting by law, they can earn money through selling their patent. As a result, an economic incentive can be created; more people will try to invent new technology to address environmental issue. However, there is a question about why Chinese also have many invention but those people are under weak intellectual protection law?
4. 4. In capitalism society, showing rich can show you are in higher class. For instance, buying LV bags is a luxury image to show to the poor that you are rich enough to buy it. As many people does, other does not have will feel they are in lower class and income inequality feeling will be created. Therefore, even people does not have sufficient money, they still borrow money to buy LV bags. This is the evidence to show inequality creates pressure on consuming.
5. 5. China’s Yangtze River ecosystem requires addressing inequity, inequality and injustice in moving toward sustainability. As overfishing make Yangtze River ecosystem damage, less fish is available in that river. Therefore, overfishing fisher does not respect fisher who following national law, it create unequal. Moreover, Yangtze River’s consumers exploit the next generation to taste Yangtze River’s fish, it is injustice. Furthermore, damage the Yangtze River ecosystem will create affect other part of China’s ecosystem, this negative externality is inequity to Chinese in other part. Therefore, Yangtze River sustainability needs to address this problem. However, Yangtze River is the world third longest river and it has dangerously steep landscape, it makes government hard to control the fishing industry in detail.
1. A ‘quality life’ is hard to define, as different people around the globe value different things.
ReplyDeleteI believe a quality life is achieved when there is an equal amount of resources and opportunities available to all; where people are able to live in equal conditions, that don’t favour particular humans/genders/ages/races over others. An equal education opportunity is one of the most important factors in creating a quality life. Education creates an informed society, that creates a prosperous present and future. Education creates productivity in society. I believe that to have a quality life means to have equal employment opportunities and conditions.
The resources (e.g. oil, water, coal, CO2) we have in the first world countries seem to be sustaining a very good quality life, but these should be made available to people in third world countries, even if it means taking away extra unneeded resources from the rich.
Having a truly quality and satisfying life is knowing that others in other parts of the world are not suffering because people in richer places are using extra resources that we don’t need. In order to ensure a quality life, there needs to be restrictions. People must use resources less for personal use, but more for creating a better quality life for thousands of people and securing their life and future lives – For example; using some resources to build up the land, river banks, higher ground, stronger buildings, to help protect people’s lives against natural disasters. Saving oil/fuel and using it to transport thousands of people when the time comes to evacuate.
Resources that promote health are the most important things humans need for a quality life.
It is clear that we don’t need to keep up the high usage of resources (e.g. CO2) to have a high quality life, as many people who are using minimal amounts of things have a prosperous life.
2- Yes. Why should particular group of people have the opportunity to live a more substantial life? What gives them a higher position in the hierarchy? In the end, the king and the pawn all end up in the same box!
I believe all people, not only members of my society, but people all over the planet, and in all the years to come, are entitled to a quality life. A ‘quality life’ should especially not be only for those who can afford it and who live in first world countries with resources readily available. People all around the globe have unique things to offer different societies - they bring experience and knowledge only gained in the circumstances they have lived in. I do not believe money should determine who gets what resources necessary to live a healthy life.
With equal resource distribution, people should have the right to use their allocated amount. It is their prerogative if they choose to accept what they’ve been given. People who live in more rural areas may not need all the materials other societies live off, these should be kept available for them, being put away in future storage until they’re needed.
In saying this, we should not only show concern for the people of contemporary society, but also for people of the future. I believe that it is a good idea to not extract all available resources.
For example, things that are obtained from underground. We should not continue to bring them to the surface in large amounts, because doing that will encourage people to consume them. Humans should leave them in the ground, encouraging people to make do with fewer amounts. Through this, people can learn to create, perhaps, a different lifestyle if need be. This may ensure that resources will be available for the needs of the future.
As the articles said, people should be allowed to use a restricted amount of resources. However, if they are able to adapt using the minimal amounts, I do not believe they should be able to buy more (even if it’s unused by other people). It should be stored for the mass amounts of future generations. It should not be used up just because people can afford it.
3- People in more equal societies usually have a common interest; and usually, they’re all being impacted/affected in the same way. Even in self-obsessed societies, if one individual addresses an issue that is negatively impacting them, they’re probably addressing a common issue, and it would be in the best interest of many other individuals to help solve these matters. Also, equal countries usually have a democracy, and people of that society are given the opportunity to put forward their ideas towards creating innovations.
ReplyDelete4- Yes. In an unequal society, many individuals are left to fend for themselves. They rightfully believe that if they don’t obtain resources needed for their own survival, others will come and exhaust any existing amounts, and there would be nothing left. For example, people in Vietnam overfish, as they believe that if they don’t take what they need, others will come along and leave nothing for anyone else. This pressure to consume is very evident in countries where the majority of the people do not live a quality life, with equal opportunity and regulated resource allocation.
More often than not, this can appear to be a tragedy of the commons.
- I'm still trying to think of something for question 5...
Hi everyone,
ReplyDeleteHere are my thought for this week.
1. Very basically, water, food, clothing, and shelter are required to sustain human life. The amounts and quality of these resources varies depending on what is available and what one can afford. In a capitalist sense, larger amounts and variety of these items indicates a higher quality life. However, due to limited resources and unlimited wants, it is not possible for everyone to have the “best of the best”. So, the best overall quality of life would be for everyone to have adequate, but equal, levels of these basic necessities. In order to obtain a higher quality of life, education, employment, and safety are three important entities. Access to quality education, employment opportunities, and a safe environment are usually provided by government. However, as the figure from the New York Times indicates, a democratic government does not always guarantee these conditions.
2. Yes, everyone should have a right to the above quality of life. I believe we are all innately equal and so should ideally all have access to the same resources. However, this is not the case in reality. It is not possible to equally distribute the world’s resources equitably due to politics, economic factors, and discrepancies in geography.
3. This conclusion does not immediately make sense to me. I was taught in school that competition drives innovation. That is, financial incentive inspires people/companies to create “the next best thing” and patent it immediately so as to own the rights to the profits of the invention. Figure 15.3 in “The Spirit Level” indicates that, generally, more equal societies are generally more creative. However, I question whether the number of patents granted in each country is truly representative of creativity. Perhaps more equal societies are quicker to grant patents because they wish to increase economic growth by encouraging new product development. However, I do agree that much talent and potential is wasted in countries where there is less equality.
4. Consumption definitely increases due to inequality in America. The fashion industry is a prime example. Millions of teens look to have the newest trends in their wardrobes and often look to movie stars for inspiration. Movie stars are obviously richer and more privileged than the average teen. This inequality pressures insecure teens to buy the newest clothing, accessories, new hairstyles, etc. The fashion industry profits off this “jealousy” by inventing (or reinventing “retro”) styles. Even though consumers do not technically need new clothing, every season they inevitably purchase new goods. Don’t know about you, but I am definitely guilty of this from time to time. However, it is just not socially acceptable in western society to sport last year’s (or decade’s) trends!
ReplyDelete5. In some cities, air pollution is a major concern. Poor air quality can detrimentally affect one’s health, so it is important to pay attention and realize that what we put in the air, we essentially put in our lungs. Citizens of a particular city have to breathe in whatever industry expels. This is a violation to environmental justice, as not everyone is protected from environmental pollutants or has control over what they inhale. Travelling throughout SE Asia recently, I have noticed especially in larger cities such as Bangkok and Jakarta, people dawn blue masks. Although they may sometimes wear them so to not spread illness, I suspect that they are also worn to filter the air. In order to maintain peoples’ health, air quality will need to be improved. But who carries the responsibility for maintaining society’s right to clean air? Most of the time, we see government as taking on this role. Many difficult decisions will need to be made and strict regulations placed on polluters in order to clean the air so that everyone may enjoy breathing in clean air, which is currently (and sadly) considered a luxury. To ensure equality, every industry will have to take on equal responsibility for their green house gas emissions, as will consumers.