Pages 6-8 focus on social progression and why we Americans obtain certain luxuries that other countries or people cannot have. The example that stuck out was the one about the rainforest, which, is a very controversial subject for many people. Like the author showed, the attitude one may have towards it, greatly depends on where you are. We protest, saying, "No way!" Where as families there in those parts plead, "This is how I feed my family". Before even realizing that there were two sides to the argument, I automatically fell in the range that says 'do not kill the rainforest'. Now however, I'm kind of in the middle. I still think it's harmful (as the rise of CO2 testifies to), but I'm also more understanding of why it's needed.
Is it needed though? I mean, can't the United States (world??) come alongside these people and help them feed their families? Can't Obama insist that each American gives $10 or $100 or $1000 (depending on his/her income) to those places so those families don't have to cut trees, or destroy environments? Has it been tried? Would it be that hard? Would it even work?
Interesting point. That example stood out to me too because it shows that in the U.S. has so much wealth compared to these more impoverished countries that while other people are cutting down trees merely to survive, we are complaining that their efforts to survive are hurting the environment. Although deforestation does hurt the environment, shouldn't we worry about struggling lives first?
ReplyDeleteExactly, we have our sights on the wrong problem here.
ReplyDeleteThis problem is a good example of how everybody puts their own self interest first. While it would be the simple solution that everybody who is able gives some money to stop this problem, the majority of people don't.
ReplyDelete