A european survey shows that 30% of Europeans (Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Spain) feel that the United States is the number one threat to global stability.
I have to agree with these 30%, the US is and has been the greatest threat to global stability.
For a second let us take Iraq out of the equation. The US, only 4% of the population produces 25% of global warming gases. Think about how much energy is burned to produce this imbalance. Think of how much oil must be secured to generate that much energy and you have a formula where the US must be in the back pocket of so many countries, particulaly ones who produce oil and little else.
As problematic Iran and Korea may be, their disruption as seen by this formula is relatively little.
technological advance has two sides. many of our techological advances are based on oil consumption, that not only chokes the planet, but actually hurts most of the population of oil-producing nations. Do most Nigerians, Saudis and Iraqis really benefit from oil profits? Doubtful. Do they pay in corruption, chronic pollution and dictators we intsill and support? Without doubt.
You may respond that I (we) benefit from their suffering. Guess what? We would still need to eat, create housing and jobs. If we didn't have cars we would still find ways to get around, the white flight that killed the inner city and their minority inhabitants may not have occurred. I argue that the progress you speak of is not progress at all when all factors are considered.
2 comments:
I have to agree with these 30%, the US is and has been the greatest threat to global stability.
For a second let us take Iraq out of the equation. The US, only 4% of the population produces 25% of global warming gases. Think about how much energy is burned to produce this imbalance. Think of how much oil must be secured to generate that much energy and you have a formula where the US must be in the back pocket of so many countries, particulaly ones who produce oil and little else.
As problematic Iran and Korea may be, their disruption as seen by this formula is relatively little.
technological advance has two sides. many of our techological advances are based on oil consumption, that not only chokes the planet, but actually hurts most of the population of oil-producing nations. Do most Nigerians, Saudis and Iraqis really benefit from oil profits? Doubtful. Do they pay in corruption, chronic pollution and dictators we intsill and support? Without doubt.
You may respond that I (we) benefit from their suffering. Guess what? We would still need to eat, create housing and jobs. If we didn't have cars we would still find ways to get around, the white flight that killed the inner city and their minority inhabitants may not have occurred. I argue that the progress you speak of is not progress at all when all factors are considered.
Post a Comment