By Roger Diamond
Jared Diamond (no relation) says something along the lines of “You will have the privilege of being the last person to die” when referring to the privilege/plight of the rich and powerful during the collapse of a civilisation. I think I am seeing a similar thing when I look at the behaviour of the rich in our society.
Take an example, pertinent in South Africa — security. How much money do we spend in making our houses secure from criminals? How much do we spend on the services of private security, insurance, income protection and other expenses designed to protect us from the possible losses from crime? Dare we ask the question: “What if we spent all of that money on creating a better society?” by paying towards education, a cleaner and greener environment, social improvements and so on. Would we not be able to create a society where crime drops away dramatically and we can live without insurance for theft or even things like hit-and-run, which are partly caused by accident but also by the lack of responsible behaviour?
Perhaps this is idealistic and naive on my part, and undoubtedly large cities anywhere in the world have some level of antisocial behaviour, but it can be very very low, to the extent that people leave doors unlocked, even when no one is at home. Such was my experience with friends who live in San Diego, in an inner city suburb nogal!
Moving from the crime-security analogy, to the environment-energy situation, I seem to be seeing a blindness on the part of those trying to protect their quality of life. This applies to individuals as well as large groups, up to the size of nations. People are going to great lengths in order to have pleasant environmental experiences, whether it be snorkelling over coral reefs or game viewing in the bushveld. The expense required to have a decent natural experience is increasing as natural areas dwindle and people living in cities find themselves many miles from the nearest spot of natural beauty.
Yet, by using ever greater quantities of energy we are both causing a negative impact on the world’s last natural places and reducing the remaining fossil fuel (and uranium) left in order to get to these places and to protect and rehabilitate them, where necessary. If we let go of our addiction to wild thrills in faraway places, we would have the resources available to protect wild areas closer to home and allow more people to enjoy the greater number and size of natural areas.
In essence, the wealthy are creating a network of escapism while the rest of the planet suffers; it is a pretty fortress that unfortunately there is no escape from when the real world burns down. Ultimately, we may find ourselves, the wealthy, in a position where one fine day in the tropics we go out snorkelling from a tropical paradise island, only to come back in the afternoon and the island has vanished under the waters of the rising sea.
You have the chicken/egg question mixed up. In SA currently there is enough money/resources available to Govt from taxes etc to cut crime to reasonable levels so that the rich can ‘spend their money’ on more + social things. It does no good to want to spend socially correctly if one is dead.
Brent
So, aside from the huge taxes paid to government by the wealthy, you also want them to fund your socialist principles. Join the government and ensure the money they collect is spent on your pet projects. Why must anyone endanger themselves and their families lives, possessions and wellbeing for your noble sentiments. Let the government use the countries income wisely and the rest will follow. Unfortunately there is no evidence that this will come to pass anytime soon.
To me it is a strange contradiction that most of us want children, but we can’t seem to look ahead further than a couple of decades. If one believes the predictions, the future for our children may be very bleak indead, but somehow it does not seem real because it’s still years away.
I would leave rich folk alone, if you know whats good for you. Just think about it.. If they dont spend their money on these fortresses, security, and all other kinds of things etc, a lot of businesses would go bust. Their employees would then be jobless…and then? More crime as a consequence.
A lot of people dont realise that the spending power of the rich, is what is keeping this world economically afloat.
You can actually surmise that the recession was caused when rich people got their fingers burnt, when various schemes they invested in turned out to be fruadulent. They then got spend-shy, and it turns into a vicious cycle, where the same thing starts happens down the line.
When rich folk become confident again, and lets go of the purse strings, then voila!, no more recession.
Its always easy to talk about what to do with other peoples money.
Good article.
Maybe the rich should use sail and solar powered yatchs to reach their exotic destinations?
@Brent
Crime is everyones problem. Government need to do their part but so does everyone else.
Violent crime was reduced in Washington DC (USA) by 23% almost immediately over a three week period. Civil society have proven this is possible, now government should implement it long term. If they won’t, as the article suggests, the wealthy could easily do it from the money they spend on “services of private security, insurance, income protection and other expenses designed to protect us from the possible losses from crime” See Washington experiment: http://istpp.org/crime_prevention/
The sooner this is implemented the less chance of dying as a result of crime.
Wouldn’t it be nice if we could live like this? You forget however that it is because of scientific knowledge and technology that we have this great divide. Depending on where one finds oneself conditions differ largely and therefore cultures do as well. We all need to adapt to the environment in which we live. People from the N hemisphere had to do so or death was inevitable. People in the Southern H. also faced challenges tho. very different to thosen the North. They learned to go with the flow and not impose man’s will on the land. Death was and is part of life, natural selection rules and actually just having enough to eat for the day was what they had to concern themselves with and then if there was a drought they followed the animals and the water – they literally did not need material things that had to be carried or left behind. Our ancestors imposed what was necessary in the Northern H when they arrived and that is what led to the problems worldwide. It’s a complex topic but the truth is that less is more and by interference in the laws of nature we have our current problems. Those who place less importance on materialism are happier and more relaxed people.
Your central point is that we are all, rich and poor, resident on the same space ship, planet earth, and if the ship becomes uninhabtable then it will effect all of us. The rich might be able to hide from this reality for a bit longer than the poor but in the end they too will succumb.
@The Praetor
Yup you must not interfere with the spending power of the rich (“I would leave rich folk alone, if you know whats good for you”)
If they bugger up the global economy you just bail them out with a $700 billion dollar package paid for by ordinary taxpayers who are now having their homes repossessed, see USA.
I really believe you need to think through what you sprout a bit more carfully.
Peak Oil Perspectives,
I find it interesting that only one person in the Peak Oil movement in RSA has endorsed the Boycott 2010 World Cup campaign…
Peak Oil Perspectives et al.. appear as silent as the proverbial three monkeys…
Any reasons why??
It is a monumental opportunity to educate, Mr. Ruppert’s COLLAPSE documentary is a radical eyeopener.. endorsed by Boycott 2010 World Cup, as a must see…
Why the silence from Peak Oil Perspectives?
Boycott 2010 World Cup
http://www.boycott-2010-world-cup.co.nr
@Boycott 2010 World Cup
I have just been into your web site and you are obviously a bunch of right wing nutters and opportunists.