Are rich nations turning their back on the world?
August 15, 2016 11:04 PM   Subscribe

The end of internationalism: Are rich nations turning their back on the world? is a piece covering the World Food Programs report: A World At Risk: Humanitarian Response At A Crossroads.

"The more than 60 million refugees, asylum seekers and internally displaced persons worldwide is the most since World War II, and more than 600 million people now live in conflict-affected countries."

International agencies are trying to do more, with larger budgets and more donors, but the size and number of international crises is growing faster than before. There is also a lack of leadership from wealthy nations that was previously available on international crises. Many donor countries are seeing a growth of nationalism within their borders and this makes it harder for politicians to support international efforts.
posted by gen (12 comments total) 13 users marked this as a favorite
 
Hell, the people who control the wealth are turning their backs on the vulnerable within their own borders. No surprise that they're just as short-sighted about everybody else.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 11:17 PM on August 15, 2016 [15 favorites]




a rise of nationalism, a withdrawal from internationalism, manifesting in Brexit, in Trump, in France's Front Nationale and Greece's Syriza, among many others

Just couldn't resist the "both sides do it" journalism, could you, SMH?
posted by gimonca at 7:04 AM on August 16, 2016 [2 favorites]


Rich nations really turning their backs might improve the world. I imagine the author means "Are rich nations humanitarian programs turning their back on the world, while their exploitive programs continue apace."

I'd expect internationalism, or at least globalization, should eventually end as manufacturing technologies become more efficient. Why ship the T-shirts from China when they can be made cheaply here by worker-less factories?

We do still need to liberate the means of production though, especially by eliminating intellectual property and supporting projects that give control over equipment to users, ala open source manufacturing projects that make old equipment usable with new free software.
posted by jeffburdges at 7:07 AM on August 16, 2016 [3 favorites]


People are going to continue to leave their homelands as long as they feel threatened or cannot earn enough to support their families. I honestly do not believe that any amount of outside aid from developed countries will be able to "help" enough. Be enough to stabilize these failed-states. Food and money are not solutions to warlords, dictators, Islamic State, climate change, and an almost complete absence of rule-of-law.

Refugees are being internally and externally displaced seeking what we in developed countries already have. I don't blame them for wanting the same opportunities for themselves and their children that most of us Mefi's have had.

I know (almost) everyone is rightly horrified by colonialism, but as an example, I think there are plenty of young people in Hong Kong who would be a lot happier if the U.K. was still in charge.

I'd be more than happy to support internationally managed city-states, built on the borders between these lawless areas and more stable countries that are bearing the brunt of the refugee influx. Camps are a horror-show, we need actual cities, where people can work, build, and trade.

What the world is doing right now just isn't working, hasn't been for long enough that I'm willing to consider some really radical crazy possible solutions.
posted by sharp pointy objects at 7:15 AM on August 16, 2016 [2 favorites]


Rich nations really turning their backs might improve the world. I imagine the author means "Are rich nations humanitarian programs turning their back on the world, while their exploitive programs continue apace."
agreed on this!

I'd expect internationalism, or at least globalization, should eventually end as manufacturing technologies become more efficient. Why ship the T-shirts from China when they can be made cheaply here by worker-less factories?
having built robots for many years, i don't agree that workerless factories have any true efficiencies. they simply displace the burden. usually something exploitative happening to make the machines somewhere off our soil... solution is more likely less/mendable shirts(or whatever). every village getting back to having a tailor and a cobbler?
posted by danjo at 9:33 AM on August 16, 2016


gimonca: "a rise of nationalism, a withdrawal from internationalism, manifesting in Brexit, in Trump, in France's Front Nationale and Greece's Syriza GOLDEN DAWN, among many others

Just couldn't resist the "both sides do it" journalism, could you, SMH?
"

FTFT.
posted by symbioid at 10:31 AM on August 16, 2016 [2 favorites]


Why ship the T-shirts from China when they can be made cheaply here by worker-less factories?

Well, there will always be an incentive to manufacture elsewhere because of differences in standards of living. It applies just as much between NYC and St. Louis as it does to NYC and Shenzhen. Then there's also how scale reduces costs and also the demand for goods in one place compared to another place.
posted by FJT at 11:06 AM on August 16, 2016


I'm sure automation has a diminishing return on investment after a certain point, danjo, so "worker-less" should not be a litmus test. It costs real money to ship a container full of T-shirts from China incurs a per unit cost too though. You want enough automation to drop the greater marginal cost of paying western workers drops below that shipping cost. Now robot sailboats set a pretty low lower bound inter continental shipping costs too.

I think the important point remains "control over the means of production" though. We do not want the T-shirt markers to make T-shirts with fancy machines, while making sure nobody else can do so. In particular, we need the old T-shirt making machines that get thrown away to run in commercially viable way, so that an independent T-shirt making industry can exist. And that kinda requires those machines be adapted to run on open source software.

It's fine if tailors make a living fixing stuff, but commercial tailors are vulnerable to lock-in too. We've managed to lock-in all the farmers for god's sakes! I'd think tailers could eventually be convinced to buy fancy AI sewing machines that ultimately pay fees to the designers of products they fix too.

We'd be safest if we simply outlawed closed source software, closed source genetic modification, etc.
posted by jeffburdges at 11:56 AM on August 16, 2016


I see a ton of friends on Facebook posting continual "everything about the world is great these days! There's no global problems, you're just getting a biased media view!" like "The decline of war". I recently read this interesting response.
posted by the agents of KAOS at 11:57 AM on August 16, 2016


Oops, to finish that thought: it's a lot easier to think humanitarian aid isn't important when you've been convinced that everyone around the world is doing just fine.
posted by the agents of KAOS at 11:58 AM on August 16, 2016 [2 favorites]


it's a lot easier to think humanitarian aid isn't important when you've been convinced that everyone around the world is doing just fine.

This. I also also know way too many people who seem to think that since humanitarian aid/ participating in government/protesting/voting/[insert any single action here] isn't going to solve all the world's problems in one fell swoop, it isn't worth bothering with at all. Probably sounds all glorious and principled and profound while you're saying it, but after a while it just starts to come off as an excuse for not getting involved.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 4:43 AM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


« Older Totall recall   |   "I wanted to try something a little bit different... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments