As promised, more time so many more comments, to catch up on sincemy last post way back in December (I forgot to mention that thebirthday party was good and I am no a convert to Korean BBQs, mmmm)
When we were in Yangshuo, which is the wonderfull village/town(still fairly big), we cycled off out into the countryside, whereyou feel they rarely see foreigners venture; although we did pass 2.
We rode through some villages; very basic villages. I imagine theyare very typical of China's rural population, in that most werebrick, the paths nearby were just wide enough for walking or cycling(no vehicles) and they were getting their water from a well (thevillage is near a river). The agricultural land surrounding thistiny little hamlet (maybe 20 orso houses) seemed very 'efficiently'farmed -every inch was used for different cropps, their wasirrigation channels, terraces and it was extraordinarily pretty asthe little patches were small, but every patch had different coloursand types of crops growing. This led me to conclude that the peopleare pretty self-sufficient in that they can grow almost all types offood they need, and that every person seemed to help. Any extra theygrew I presume they sold for money. I used '' for efficient becauseby western standards it probably is not. Its slow with small fieldson different levels growing different things and all done by hand.But then western farmers dont grow enough variety to feed themselves.
The point of this is all that to me these people are not starving;they are all pretty happy, from our cycle through their villages,especially once the kids saw us and scremed 'hello'. For me this isthe closes I have come before to such an environment and was buzzingwith interest. Are these people poor?Firstly I can tell you that you can quite easily buy food in Chinafor 3 meals each for $2 US, at the most. If you are a local,probably much less. Secondly these villages (and this might not bttypical) seem very self-sufficient. I am aware that definitions ofpoverty tend to hover around % of people earning less than 1 ormaybe 2 $ per day; but these people probably do not need to earn anymoney at all for their water or food needs (accommodation excluded).I am sure they don't have as much luxury goods as me, or able toenjoy as varied pleasures in life (from bunjee jumping to theinternet -I think there may have been 1 phone line or electricitycable serving the village) but they seemed happy to me.
Now I am making a big presumption that most people in China or Asiaat least are lucky enough to live like this; and thus are not inpoverty (although they may be poor in relation to me). People whocannot survive day-to-day, that to me is true poverty, and theTsunami disaster I think shows that it has left in its quake peoplewithout homes, food, or water. For me its an interesting thought.The result, which harks back to something else I read about the MDGs(Millenium Development Goals aiming to reduce the number of peoplein poverty) was that, actually although the gap between rich andpoor may be growing, at the same time the base level of the poor isgrowing; which means the number of people who are not in poverty islower, but the number of people who are poor is still large,because, and this is the 'great' thing, our definition of 'poor' hasbeen raised, so for example the MDGs can aim to ensure every childhas a certain amount of formal education. This for me is wonderful;that mankind has actually managed to support such huge populationincreases in the last 200 years relatively (and it is all relative)well.
Of course, I now think that edcuation is the defining point betweenthe rich from the poor (I still think maybe 10% of the World is 'inpoverty', at the level below 'poor' though). Education is what willallow people to develop democracies, develop their abilities toprovide for themselves, understand others and allow them to supportthose less fortunate. The other thing I realised is how probably 95%of the world have access to a telephone or electricity in some form(fixed and mobile), or if not now, then will do in the next 5-10years, and thus this leads me onto the internet -how the internetcan serve such a wonderful public good by (if it can be madeaccessible to all) providing this education to continue the raiseour definition of 'poor' upwards.
I am not sure what everyone else thinks, but what concerns me isthat if you sat anyone in front of the internet, they would actuallystruggle to find anything of any use -in the sense that it can beused to develop your basic knowledge -i.e. of use to these lessfortunate people who may not know about other cultures, about humanrights, about efficient use of land (not just telling them about newtechnology or whatever). Anyway, I know there are many commendableefforts globally to provide access to the internet but probably notenough efforts are being made to ensure it can be best used foreducationally purposes (especially in multilingual formats).
This for example is why I am so irritated at the limitations beingplaced on the BBC in the UK -apparently some of the things it doescan be done better by commercial organisations. As far as I amconcerned, much of what it does, specifically is for 'public good'.Its website has some of the best educational material around, and itcan use its brand to make a difference, to play a apart in providinga global source of educational materials that be used more widelythan just in the UK.
Some thoughts on poverty (from my limited experiences/knowledge) andthe internet...anyway for those interested the BBC's CSR report isinteresting -not that is a great CSR report (there is very littleself-criticism, probably becacuse of its charter review!) butbecause it explores some of the ways the media in general can make adifference. You can find it at www.bbc.co.uk/info/csr (or if you arein China and thus cannot access it, ask me for an email version)
All the best
Adam
No comments:
Post a Comment