I do not think that the principles of social
democracy are at odds with green politics at all; in fact, I think they
compliment each other well. We live in a world with a limit to the amount of resources we can use. This means, ultimately, that human society all over the planet can only grow so much.
This site provides a good example of numbers to back me up.
http://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/3_times_sustainable
I have often heard the number 4 billion floated around as the amount of humans that could possibly live on this planet with a standard of living comparable to that which the North American middle class does. So the number in the article backs me up. It says that we would need 1 1/2 Earths to sustain a standard of living for the 7 billion currently hear that compares to what we currently have in North America.
So clearly, there is a problem.
My solutions that I have been developing, based on the research and development of many others before me, are based on the principle of sustainability. We need to find a way to balance our collective impact on mothership Earth before she tosses us overboard.
Now how does this relate to my social democratic outlook on governance?
I believe that everyone has the right to compete in a market environment for things that they want. It provides a motivation that we need as human beings to work hard - something that is not present in countries that completely follow a communist model.
Where I differ from complete capitalism, which believes that "if you're poor, you're out of luck" is that I believe that as compassionate human beings, we have a duty not only to be stewards of the environment we live in, but caregivers for those who through no fault of their own, do not have the resources needed to live a comfortable and meaningful life.
This is why I support social assistance programs, insofar as they help people to get to a point where they can "get back on the horse" and become contributing members to society.
I also understand that, through no fault of their own, some people have conditions and diagnoses which make them incapable of working a 9-5, 5 day a week job. This does not make these people any less important. They are living, breathing human beings who have their own unique talents, qualities and personalities. They need the opportunity to be expressed. They need to have lives that are engaged in their community.
For this reason, I support social assistance programs and non-profit organizations dedicated to helping people with disabilities achieve a meaningful standard of living. It may mean that some of us who are not diagnosed with these conditions have to give up a little bit of what we have - but clearly, we have a lot to give. We do not need all of the resources we use. We can afford to give. It is the compassionate thing to do.
Another reason for my support of social democratic principles is perhaps less obvious, but it does happen.
Market forces will cause some businesses to succeed, and others to crash and burn. When that happens, even the millionaire CEO can lose everything they have. At this point, the former millionaire CEO is in a financial state comparable to someone who is on social assistance - they might have zero credit rating due to bad investments, and they may have had to sell and liquidate a large portion of their assets, including their home.
It goes to show that bad things can happen to anyone, regardless of our socio-economic status. When that happens, we all need help to get us up out of the situation we have fallen into.
For that reason, I support social assistance.
Having said that, it needs to be sustainable.
We cannot have more than 50% of the population living on social assistance. That would tip over the economic ship. We ALSO cannot have more than 50% of the population living in large houses, with two or three cars, a boat, and a time-share in Aruba.
There simply are not enough resources on the planet for that.
But -
I do believe that everyone deserves to have the OPPORTUNITY to visit Aruba, if they can put the effort in to get there.
Some of us may never go, and some of us may not want to go, even. It comes down to personal preferences of what people like.
And now for a tangent, and little example of that last statement.
--
I was at a horse show recently. It helped me get a better sense of the lifestyle of people who care for, breed, and love their horses. Just because I'm a city boy and don't need the wide open spaces in my life, doesn't mean I am against how they live their lives.
I might be against the concept of using vast tracts of land that used to be nature to grow our food (cattle and crops), but the truth about some of the animals that these folks breed and care for is that the animals have always lived in wide open spaces - we humans have simply domesticated some of them.
I have no problem with horse farms - other than the use of fossil fuels in their trucks. I hope for the day when you can pull a horse trailer with horse inside by a 2-ton Ford that runs on algae fuel, ethanol, or green electricity. Giddy up. That's a country song I'd like to hear.
"Got my truck filled up with ethanol
Goin' down to the horse show to have a ball...
Chicken, beer, and jumpin' barrels -
Hell, it's better than a Christmas carol!"
This site provides a good example of numbers to back me up.
http://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/3_times_sustainable
I have often heard the number 4 billion floated around as the amount of humans that could possibly live on this planet with a standard of living comparable to that which the North American middle class does. So the number in the article backs me up. It says that we would need 1 1/2 Earths to sustain a standard of living for the 7 billion currently hear that compares to what we currently have in North America.
So clearly, there is a problem.
My solutions that I have been developing, based on the research and development of many others before me, are based on the principle of sustainability. We need to find a way to balance our collective impact on mothership Earth before she tosses us overboard.
Now how does this relate to my social democratic outlook on governance?
I believe that everyone has the right to compete in a market environment for things that they want. It provides a motivation that we need as human beings to work hard - something that is not present in countries that completely follow a communist model.
Where I differ from complete capitalism, which believes that "if you're poor, you're out of luck" is that I believe that as compassionate human beings, we have a duty not only to be stewards of the environment we live in, but caregivers for those who through no fault of their own, do not have the resources needed to live a comfortable and meaningful life.
This is why I support social assistance programs, insofar as they help people to get to a point where they can "get back on the horse" and become contributing members to society.
I also understand that, through no fault of their own, some people have conditions and diagnoses which make them incapable of working a 9-5, 5 day a week job. This does not make these people any less important. They are living, breathing human beings who have their own unique talents, qualities and personalities. They need the opportunity to be expressed. They need to have lives that are engaged in their community.
For this reason, I support social assistance programs and non-profit organizations dedicated to helping people with disabilities achieve a meaningful standard of living. It may mean that some of us who are not diagnosed with these conditions have to give up a little bit of what we have - but clearly, we have a lot to give. We do not need all of the resources we use. We can afford to give. It is the compassionate thing to do.
Another reason for my support of social democratic principles is perhaps less obvious, but it does happen.
Market forces will cause some businesses to succeed, and others to crash and burn. When that happens, even the millionaire CEO can lose everything they have. At this point, the former millionaire CEO is in a financial state comparable to someone who is on social assistance - they might have zero credit rating due to bad investments, and they may have had to sell and liquidate a large portion of their assets, including their home.
It goes to show that bad things can happen to anyone, regardless of our socio-economic status. When that happens, we all need help to get us up out of the situation we have fallen into.
For that reason, I support social assistance.
Having said that, it needs to be sustainable.
We cannot have more than 50% of the population living on social assistance. That would tip over the economic ship. We ALSO cannot have more than 50% of the population living in large houses, with two or three cars, a boat, and a time-share in Aruba.
There simply are not enough resources on the planet for that.
But -
I do believe that everyone deserves to have the OPPORTUNITY to visit Aruba, if they can put the effort in to get there.
Some of us may never go, and some of us may not want to go, even. It comes down to personal preferences of what people like.
And now for a tangent, and little example of that last statement.
--
I was at a horse show recently. It helped me get a better sense of the lifestyle of people who care for, breed, and love their horses. Just because I'm a city boy and don't need the wide open spaces in my life, doesn't mean I am against how they live their lives.
I might be against the concept of using vast tracts of land that used to be nature to grow our food (cattle and crops), but the truth about some of the animals that these folks breed and care for is that the animals have always lived in wide open spaces - we humans have simply domesticated some of them.
I have no problem with horse farms - other than the use of fossil fuels in their trucks. I hope for the day when you can pull a horse trailer with horse inside by a 2-ton Ford that runs on algae fuel, ethanol, or green electricity. Giddy up. That's a country song I'd like to hear.
"Got my truck filled up with ethanol
Goin' down to the horse show to have a ball...
Chicken, beer, and jumpin' barrels -
Hell, it's better than a Christmas carol!"
No comments:
Post a Comment