Re: Salinger's world
AntiUtopia@aol.com
Wed, 11 Aug 1999 16:21:07 -0400 (EDT)
In a message dated 8/11/99 7:52:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time, stray@well.com
writes:
<< Today, the world's resources could be used to feed the hungry and aid the
sick, but instead it's used largely for luxury consumption. I happen to
think this is a rotten state of affairs. But as we fight for the least
fortunate, we must continue to discuss the goals of humanity and society, or
there would really be no point to any of it. We should not trivialize
discussions of what it is to be human and how to -- beyond the four F's --
cope with our existence. For instance, we need to discuss art, spirituality
and the problems of conformity (and phoniness).
-- Sam >>
nah, Sam, this is naive. You're mistaking the world's resources for
America's resources, first of all (and don't bother quoting me percentages of
tuna consumption by Americans relative to the world market, I have the
numbers in a book packed in a box somewhere -- "Rich Christians in an Age of
Hunger," Ron Sider). And you're mistaking one person's affluence for another
person's poverty. It just don't work that way. The poor in Ethiopia aren't
starving because Americans aren't doing enough for them. That's demeaning to
them and misrepresentative of their reality. Most geographical countries
have the means to feed their people, most geographical areas can sustain the
people living on it. It's a matter of the people in charge THERE doing their
job.
But that doesn't always happen.
Yeah, we could ship all our surplus overseas tomorrow, feed everyone for a
couple months, then be right back where we started because we haven't begun
to address the REAL problem.
Jim