TaN: It would appear that the best way to ensure sustainable development of a particular environment or locality is for only the permanent residents to be permitted to develop their environment. Although there are those (businesses) that really and truly practice sustainable development of an environment, this would be more of the exception than the rule and there should be provisions in the principle or law or ordinance that permit such collaborations.
It is common sense that people with the most to lose can be trusted to take the greatest of care, so it would make as much sense to entrust to them the use, (proper) exploitation, and development of natural resources in their local surroundings — i.e., (genuine) sustainable development.
Genuine sustainable development means little or no footprint (i.e., environmental damage where “damage” is not that there is no destruction but that the “destruction” is in tune with the equilibrium of nature because nature and everything in this temporal world is in constant flux or change). People indigenous to a locality and has been there for generations and intends to live off the land will or can always be relied upon to harvest on what they need and only those that will not severely upset the ecological equilibrium — because their very existence depends completely on the ability of the local surroundings to sustain them. They cannot afford to significantly and negatively impact their very means of existence — else they perish.
It is not unusual or (generally) wrong to assume that outsiders or non-indigenous people will not take care of an area which they are not part of because they belong somewhere else and wreaking havoc does not impact them — ignorant of the “butterfly effect” or “what goes around, comes around” or the principle of karma.
Remember that I am taking a general “rule of thumb” point because I know that there are people who behave responsibly and maturely — like the Scandinavians, most Native Americans, (practically) all ethnic tribes, all indigenous peoples, and most people who find little or no use for money or the obsession to amass wealth (by any means).
In the end, since most of the so-called civilized world are ruled by greed and inconsiderate self-indulgence and a deep-seated and burning desire to seek hedonistic self-satisfaction without qualms for others, it is not surprising that there is no stopping the world’s downward spiraling plunge into oblivion — so it is written and so it must come to pass. For God’s word is Truth.
TaN: It is written that (and I paraphrase): Those men deem intelligent are fools to God and those men deem fools are intelligent to God. It is very true today, especially when it comes to our “well-educated” multiple degree holders and scientists. Their constant and persistent “interference” with nature — trying to “re-equilibrize” or return to balance — is making the situation ever worse and making climate change more and more a stark reality.
It is this “arrogance” of man — thinking he is the most intelligent and, therefore, in the best (and self-appointed) position to improve the world and create paradise on earth — that has resulted in ever-worsening quality of life for most of the global population and benefiting only the global elite and the wealthy. This is reflected perfectly in the old joke, Progress is the ever-changing process of making things as good AS THEY USED TO BE.
The so-called technological advancements and the benefits they bring are mere illusions that have been “programmed” into most of us into believing the world today is better (and keeps getting better everyday). The advancements and better quality of life are only for the wealthy. For the rest of us mere mortals, we suffer hunger (and famine), homelessness and internal displacement, malnutrition, disease, deprivation, violence and conflict, abuse and maltreatment, subsistence wages and living (or even less), and many more, while the privileged global elite wallow in decadence, affluence, even debauchery and various forms of excess.
Anyway, it is so easy to be mesmerized and dazzled by the material world that we forget how much more real the spiritual world is. Instead of the higher (metaphysical) plane seeping down to the lower (baser) plane, we have done the reverse and this is what is at the root of our woes and misery. We go from the corrupt lower plane up and, by so, we contaminate and corrupt the spiritual.
This is at the core of the passage in the Holy Scriptures — that we are so self-absorbed and full of ourselves that we lose sight of what is truly worthwhile and good. We have turned the world upside down because it is easier.
This is why we revere the inane and absolutely useless while, simultaneously, debasing what are truly valuable and precious. We look down (and even ridicule) on farmers and fisherfolk and garbage collectors and street sweepers and domestic helpers and all the lowly manual laborers and servants while we glamorize and even try to emulate those with the least or most worthless “contribution” to the flourishing of man — like the professional sports players, the fashion designers who produce the most bizarre and unwearable rags and claim them to be works of art, the entertainment celebrities who have done nothing but immerse and indulge themselves in hedonistic pleasures and debauchery without the slightest consideration of sharing their fortune with those who have (much) less, and the corporate executives who earn more in a minute than most of us poor souls (and this is not including the perks and benefits the corporate fat cats enjoy as well).
What we value in this temporal materialistic world is worthless to God in his Paradise and what is valuable in Paradise cannot seem to find people who will give it the proper respect and importance it deserves.
TaN: Instead of huge mega and multinational corporations, SMEs or small-to-medium enterprises should be encouraged. There are several advantages to SMEs and the most important is that it is to the advantage of labor, government, and society as a whole, whereas huge businesses where employees number in the thousands and tens of thousands and more are advantageous only to business owners or stockholders and are purely for profit objectives — to maximize the bottom line for the pockets of the already-filthy-rich.
The Age of Dinosaurs are long gone and large mega and multinational corporations — that employ not just hundreds but thousands — are or should be long gone as well. These massive businesses that employ not just thousands but tens and some even hundreds of thousands of people, though are showcases of efficiency in terms of the bureaucracy and business operations, have become dangerous threats to the economy. The best example are the “too-big-to-fail” industry behemoths run by corporate imbeciles and nincompoops that Mr Bush Jr and his predecessor Mr Obama had to “reward” with billions of freshly-printed and totally-without-gold-backing billions for their incompetency.
In the 21st century where the days of the massive centralized data processing has been replaced with distributive and cooperative data processing (networks of small computers that can standalone and function independently of one another), the same should go for the business model.
China has since seen the wisdom of the networked set-up and one of its earliest applications was in the “mini” power plants that were constructed and linked as a network. In this set-up, instead of one massive power plant to supply 100 megawatts of electricity, the network is synchronized with, say, 10 10-megawatt power plants, to provide a unified and coherent source of power but each component power plant can be taken off the grid — due to (regular) maintenance or for any other reason. The output is still the same — 100 MW — but a breakdown or shutdown in the network will not significantly affect the overall power output whereas it is not so with the single 100MW.
Applying this to other industries, especially to commercial establishments, small family or cooperatives (not the huge multi-million ones) or mom-and-pop operations are ideal because, should the business run into trouble and must fold or close shop, the incident would not have a significant impact on the overall industry as compared to a mega corporation that has even just a 30 percent share would severely cripple the industry.
No single business should control or have a significant share of the industry or market to such an extent that its collapse or even just running into liquidity or some other major event would not cause a noticeable impact on the overall market or industry.
The percentage share of the industry or market will depend primarily on its volatility or stability — i.e., if it is, say, the rice supply, the allowable percentage share should be small, let us say, less than 10 percent (meaning it should not even reach ten percent). In cases like processed food industry, the percentage share can be higher because the industry or market is not that vital or essential as to cause any life-threatening or public safety disruption that would severely impact the overall economy and the consuming public.
In conclusion, mega corporations — i.e., those that employ a large labor or employee force or provide vital services or goods or have massive financial investments — can hold the government “hostage” as in what transpired during the Bush Jr and Obama administrations following the financial crisis of 2008-09. This should never have happened had government had the political will to wield its prosecutorial power and authority to coerce and hold accountable all those responsible for the (near) collapse of the mega corporations. Bailing out the failing giants — mostly the mega banks and financial institutions — not only “rewarded” the incompetence but even gave the tragedy a “pat on the back”, like saying good job and go ahead and do it again.
Let those corporate relics go the way of the dinosaurs — to extinction.
TaN: The various societal gaps — like wealth gap, income gap, etc — are all interrelated and as consequences of each other. Of course, there are exceptions. There are always exceptions. There will always be exceptions.
As case in point is the income gap. Those in the higher income brackets mostly come from the wealthy families (the wealth gap). This is because, being with wealth, they can afford to attend better schools (the education gap) and have better education and become better prepared for employment. Moreover, the wealthy families usually know each other and, thus, enjoy an advantage because the owner or those in the higher ups in the corporate ladder would pick them.
Of course, as mentioned earlier, there will always be exceptions, like someone from the less fortunate families work extremely hard and get noticed by upper management resulting in a rise in the corporate ladder. But these are exceptions.
In addition, since the basic needs of man are usually not very different from each other, higher income brackets tend to get wealthier because there is a greater amount or percentage of income left unspent (or disposable) which adds to their already wealthy status.
Meanwhile, for those in the lower income bracket, much of their money is spent on the basic necessities — i.e., the prices of electricity and water and telephone is more or less the same regardless of wealthy or not-so-wealthy, varying only in the gross amount usually because of greater consumption which puts the wealthy in a higher price bracket or range.
Furthermore, there are intermittent or regular promotions and sale events for those who can spend more — like wholesale and introductory prices and special offers. Though these such instances mean that the wealthy spends more than those with less, the aggregate total spending of all the wealthy for a specific period of time is significantly minuscule when compared to those of the less wealthy for the same period.
In the final outcome, the percentage of income spent by the wealthy is much smaller than that of the less well-to-do. And the wealth gap continues to widen.
With the larger amount in unspent income added to the already existing wealth, the vicious cycle repeats.