No, it's quite true. We're pretty much all bags of **** that only care about ourselves and our close friends and family when you get right down to it. We simply aren't built to consider things on a global scale. Pretty much everyone is equally guilty of it. There are exceptions, but they're few and far between.
We do have the power to influence the world, we just don't care to. If things are okay for us and the people close to us, who cares if a bunch of people I've never met thousands of miles away are starving to death. Sure, it's sad, but we're not going to give up anything of ours to change it..
I think you are completely wrong. We aren't borne like that. It can be different. Its just that our civilisation and society had made us like that, and many people are not like that. Lots of people care about what is close to them AND the world around them.
I'm not convinced of that at all. In the very long term things might be better for everyone, but in the short to mid term, things would need to get a lot crappier for those who are well off now, to make it better for those who are in bad shape.
The average GDP per capita for the US is roughly $50,000. Much of Europe is in the $40,000-$60,000 range. The average world GDP per capita is around $10,000. So a lot of people are getting by on a lot less than that. If we averaged it all and made everything equal for everyone in the world, it would mean the average person in the developed world would have to give up 75%-85% of what they have. And you can say 'Oh, but it's just stuff you don't need', but that doesn't really cover it (and isn't really true). It would mean dramatically lowering healthcare standards in most of the developed world, living in tiny houses, probably being unable to own a car (how exactly will we get to work?), owning fewer clothes (we can't all walk around naked, and clothes wear out), not being able to afford as varied a diet, no access to higher education for most people, etc. etc. etc. It would have a dramatic negative impact on the quality of life for most people in the developed world. And you think they're just going to give that up so some stranger can have clean water and a bowl of rice? Dream on.
But don't let me stop you. If you think it's so important, why don't you give up that computer and internet service you're using to post here (after all, that's just junk you don't need) and use the money to raise the standard of living for some stranger in the Congo.
I tried to read that, but at soon as you started talking about GDP it was really difficult and uninteresting to proceed. Not because of what or how you wrote it, but because I don't believe in GDP. GDP is just a figure, and as a measurement of important things it deeply flawed. Actually the focus on GDP is one of the reasons our whole economic model is so damn flawed, which again is one of the reasons for much of the suffering in this world.
Perhaps I can try to explain what I mean. I will try to work with a very simple example here:
quality vs quantity.
Let's imagine todays market for laptops. Most people have to exchange those quite often, either because they get broken, or because they stop working well.
I happen to think that todays method of constructing laptops is deeply flawed. It leads to poor quality builds. I also happen to think the operating system on most laptops is extremely bad. Actually so bad that it ruins laptops in many case. Burn their processor and spoil it, or overheat and melt parts of or components on the motherboard. Often it melts to fan itself, which causes further problems. Laptops are made with bad material and built in a way that will almost guarantee that they break easily. They also lack much technology that we have available today which would greatly enhance their quality.
John Doe pays $1000 for his laptop. 2 or 3 years later he buys another one, and so it goes.
This all contributes to corporate revenue and profits ofcourse.
Non existant company makes a super solid laptop and put a super great operating system on it, and gives it a 10 year warranty. It also includes features that are not normally available on other laptops.
John Cash pays $2500 for his laptop. After 10 years he still has it. His operating system is continuously developing, increasing its efficiency and so making his computer more powerful. He doesnt need a new laptop! The quality build has assured his laptop has not broken. Sure, his specifications are now not as good as the newest laptops. But his operating system is now so advanced that he can do the same things at the same speed that modern laptops with bloated and inefficient software can. John Cash keeps his laptop for another 5 years.
You see. John Cash and John Doe both get to use their laptop for their intended purpose. John Doe always buys new ones while John Cash rarely buys a new one. John Doe puts his laptop in the trash after 3 years. He spends $5000 on new laptops over a time period of 15 years. He constantly need a new operating system, because his operating system company needs to make money. So they release new systems all the time and force everyone over to it, and all software must move over, otherwise it will not be compatible. John Cash operating system is continuously developed, so is the software for it. The software is always compatible due to the nature of the system.
Etc etc.
The point is that John Doe increases the GDP, while John Cash decreases the GDP. Even though John Cash has a superior product and reduces waste. John Cash is also very happy, because he does not have to change operating system all the time and repurchase new software all the time.
Even though these people have everything they need and a perfectly happy about it. John Cash example would lower GDP even though it would not lower living standard/quality. It would maybe even increase it as there would be less trash around.
I really don't believe in GDP. I know lots of people are obsessed with it.
This example is ofcourse very simple and stupid. But if you gave me time I could make a million examples that would be good ones. In general it is the model of quality vs the model of quantity. Thats what ot boils down to. A model of quality would reduce GDP, although living standards would probably be far higher.
I think its far more interesting for humanity to figure out what we can do with what we already have. To maximize the potential of current technology instead of always just buying incrementally better products all the time. For computers and operating systems, this model is particularily interesting in that operating systems can improve the overall quality while using the same hardware.
I give to the world food program actually. When you mention that.. I don't believe in the model of dropping food. But now we do not have any alternative to that. We could educate them to grow their own agricultural industry instead, but we dont. So, since I have more than enough for what I need, I would find it silly not to support someone who have nothing.
