Idolatry alive and well
If I were Christian, I'd argue that God is a God that supports human life. Not just the life of the "soul" but also our concrete bodily life. An idol, on the other hand, requires human sacrifices. So any line of reasoning that justifies the sacrifice of human life is by definition idolatrous.
Take, as an example, a memo written by Larry Summers while he was the World Bank Chief Economist and Vice-President for Development Economics. In the memo, Summers presents the economic logic behind the dumping of polluting industries in the poorest parts of the globe. This is the key argument: "the measurements of the cost of health impairing pollution depends on the foregone earnings from increased morbidity and mortality. From this point of view a given amount of health impairing pollution should be done in the country with the lowest wages. I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that."
The reasoning is simple. If one were to place toxic waste in a rich country it would lead to the illness and death of wealthy people with high life expectancy. Lets say that a North American or European contributes $20,000 per year to the global economy while an inhabitant of one of the lowest wage countries contributes a paltry $360 per year. If both are forty years old, the wealthier of the two can be expected to work for at least twenty five more years during which he will contribute another $500,000. The poor person at forty, on the other hand, will likely work for only fifteen more years to muster a mere $5,400. In economic terms, the lives of the wealthy are far more important to the workings of the global economy than the lives of the poor - so it's economically logical that illness and death should occur in places where the lost earnings will be the least.
Notice the outcome: when worth is measured according to this logic the poor are inevitably sacrificed, and that sacrifice, moreover, is scandalously justified as legitimate.
Take, as an example, a memo written by Larry Summers while he was the World Bank Chief Economist and Vice-President for Development Economics. In the memo, Summers presents the economic logic behind the dumping of polluting industries in the poorest parts of the globe. This is the key argument: "the measurements of the cost of health impairing pollution depends on the foregone earnings from increased morbidity and mortality. From this point of view a given amount of health impairing pollution should be done in the country with the lowest wages. I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that."
The reasoning is simple. If one were to place toxic waste in a rich country it would lead to the illness and death of wealthy people with high life expectancy. Lets say that a North American or European contributes $20,000 per year to the global economy while an inhabitant of one of the lowest wage countries contributes a paltry $360 per year. If both are forty years old, the wealthier of the two can be expected to work for at least twenty five more years during which he will contribute another $500,000. The poor person at forty, on the other hand, will likely work for only fifteen more years to muster a mere $5,400. In economic terms, the lives of the wealthy are far more important to the workings of the global economy than the lives of the poor - so it's economically logical that illness and death should occur in places where the lost earnings will be the least.
Notice the outcome: when worth is measured according to this logic the poor are inevitably sacrificed, and that sacrifice, moreover, is scandalously justified as legitimate.
posted by elivo at 12:51 AM
1 Comments:
so, hmm make sure you're part of the "wealthy" so that you don't get dumped...on.
hahaha. life is not fair.
Post a Comment
<< Home