My brother sent me an article about this year's World Economic Forum, and here are some quotes from some attendees that interest me.
"I do not see much hope in the political domain, but a lot of hope in the technological domain," said [former Israeli Prime Minister] Shimon Peres....This seems to be a common meme, but it's entirely baseless. Technology itself is a tool, and politics will always determine how that tool is wielded. No matter how advanced your hammer, if your building plans are flawed your house will turn our poorly. Likewise, technology alone does nothing to guarantee the future prosperity of mankind. Only those who worship technology as a religion can think otherwise.
Peres was one of many speakers who made the very Davosian point that in a world of six billion people, 80 percent of the economic activity is coming from a mere one billion, while another billion lives on less than $1 a day.That's a meaningless statistic. There certainly are desperately poor people in the world, but $1 can buy a lot more in Zimbabwe than it can in America.
And there was energetic interest among many in Davos about using technology to improve the lot of the poor.The thing holding poor nations down isn't a lack of technology, it's a lack of democratic institutions. As I said above, technology won't save people if they're still oppressed by politics. Actually, there is one technological advance that could be of assistance: guns. Give every person in the world an M16 and a thousand rounds and I bet things would change pretty quick.
Giving poor nations money and technology is like giving them fish, whereas giving them a democratic government is like teaching them to fish.
Another prediction: "Life expectancy will go to 150 in the next half-century."I think that's conservative. We'll see.
There is some attention paid to the political aspect of technology, but unsurprisingly it takes the wrong tack.
Scary though it sounds, over time we will have a hard time keeping the most powerful weapons and tools out of the hands of anyone. We have to somehow create a world where that is not a threat. ...The reason we need national borders seems blatantly obvious to me, but let me explain anyway. Despite Mr. Gate's praise for the "breakthtaking" economic situation in China ("it's capitalism at full speed"), that nation is still a Communist dictatorship, and its people are still horribly repressed. As long as the Communists want to maintain power (i.e., forever) they're never going to open their borders or allow truly free trade. Likewise, America can't afford to open its borders because the oppression in the rest of the world keeps most people poor and uneducated and unable to contribute to our modern society except as manual labor (and thugs). Until there's economic and political similarity -- even if not equality -- opening borders would be suicide.Microsoft chief Bill Gates spoke privately to the press late Friday night, and he was full of notable thoughts that were generally as optimistic as those of Peres. ...
He also made a statement of the kind one doesn't hear often enough from global leaders: "If you ask what's the greatest divide in terms of rights and equities," he said, "it's national borders. That doesn't seem to bother people as much as I think it will."
What Gates and many at Davos realize is that it's not only charity to help the world's poor improve their lot. It's an issue of security. As Peres put it at breakfast, "Terror is the war of poor people, and suicide bombs are the weapons of poor people."Absurd. Terror is the war of Islamic fascists. The September 11th hijackers all came from wealthy families. Most Palestinian bombers are poor, but then almost everyone in Palestine is poor because of Arafat and his cronies. Further, there are plenty of poor people in the world who don't go around committing terrorism. Basically, the only terrorists are Islamic fascists. (Some people will then point out the Irish Republican Army, but they seem to have quit, and they aren't poor; name another non-Islamofascist terrorist group.)
And then the World Economic Forum turned to more serious issues, like fighting spam.
I'm certainly relieved to find out that what Christ preached about the poor is a fraud. Obviously, many of the poor that he preached about had more than a lot of folks.
I don't understand.
Yes you are right. Understand this- Gates and the global elite want one thing- to erase the nation state and people's attachment to it because it's the one entity that can stand in the way of they're ruling the world as a corptocracy. Kiss all environmental and labor standards goodbye along with any kind of constitutional rights (what constitution is there once the nation is gone? ) and say hello to the absolute dominance of corporations. Gates HATES the fact that there was something "bigger" than him- the US Govgt, and that they threatened to end his ittle party. If you want ot see how MS conducts itself in the world, read teh opionion of the judge who found them guilty. IT's an eye opener. And that's wht they do when they are constrained by the laws of a nation. Just wait until they erase teh nation state. Absolute power. Gates is a sick sick megalomaniac with nothing but contempt for Democracy. The fact that Forbes Magazine applauded his comments in their magazine shoudl come as no surprise since they ARE the global elite. Get this- the ulrtra-rtich want once and for all to destroy the collective will of the people so they can reign supreme once and for all. Gates is nothing but a wanna-be world dictator.. that is not an exaggeration. He has to be stopped as do the Fortune 500 before they succeed in destroying Democracy and installing themselves as absolute rulesr "for the good of mankind" . This sounds far fetched? So did WWII and the rise of Hitler- just before it happened. Take it seriously. Take Gate's comments seriously. They want to erase all borders and loyalties and turn all of humankind into a roiling, rudderless mass of desperately poor people who can only act on their most immediate and pressing need for food clothing and shelter and are never again able to express their collective will against Microsoft or any other corporation in the new WOrld Corptocracy.
Yes, and Bill gates is working in conjunction with the aliens and Masons to rule the nether-aether-world so that they can bring the green blobs over from the 18th dimension to rule our minds! Believe it!!
so will it be a better world when those now poor are wealthy, and can afford better weapons to impose their islamofascist ideas on the rest of the world?
is that what we have to look forward to??
You said this above in your post:
"The thing holding poor nations down isn't a lack of technology, it's a lack of democratic institutions."
I'm all for democracy, but how do you square your statement with the fact that most of the poor nations that have become significantly more wealthy in the last 30 years (Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, China, Chile) did much of their growing as dictatorial, one-party states and military dictatorhips?
Which Korea? South Korea has been democratic for a while, as have Singapore and Taiwan. China is growing because their economy is becoming freer, even if their political system isn't yet. They're on the road, however. Chile seems like it's in perpetual revolution.
Nonetheless, I'm not incredibly familiar with the recent histories of these countries. As tyrannical governments become less so, there's certain to be growth. Plus, the whole world is riding high off the technology produced by America, and a rising tide lifts all boats, even the leaky ones.
Military dictatorships, complete with imprisonment and murders of dissidents, ruled in Taiwan and South Korea until 1988, by which time the countries were already developed, having experienced more than two decades of blistering economic growth. One man, Lee Kwan Yew, ruled in Singapore from 1959 until 1988, with many limitations on civil liberties, which continue through today. In these countries growth led to more democracy, not the other way around.
China has been experiencing rapid growth since Deng Xiaoping's opening of the economy in the early 80s, however there is still no semblance of democracy there.
Again I am in no way advocating repressive governments, I'm just disputing the statement you made.
Then in your response you say "the whole world is riding high off the technology produced by America." whereas in the statement we are debating you said: "The thing holding poor nations down isn't a lack of technology."
Luke: My point about leeching off America is, to follow the fish analogy, that as long as we keep giving them fish they'll look wealthy. If technological innovation in America stops, however, much of the benefits reaped by other nations through trade with America would disappear.
Luke:
"I'm all for democracy, but how do you square your statement with the fact that most of the poor nations that have become significantly more wealthy in the last 30 years (Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, China, Chile) did much of their growing as dictatorial, one-party states and military dictatorhips?"
Your question is valid. I would point out that the "Asian Miracle" states are in a category by themselves, as there are some significant cultural reasons why they've succeeded with authoritarian states.
Chile, however, is thriving now for other reasons other than Pinochet's imposed market capitalism. As my Hispanic girlfriend has pointed out, out of all the South American countries, Chile had a long history of relative prosperity and democratic stability before Allende and Pinochet arrived on the scene. This tradition served Chile well under Pinochet, as there always was a sense that eventually the country will return to full democracy.
Chile's boom can be seen as a continuation of Chile's former democratic prosperity, which tragically got interrupted when Allende began to impose ideological "solutions" to systems that did not need fixing.