Food Water Ethics: Fill & Download for Free

You may call it greed.Someone else may call it self interest.Another may call it self preservation.It is a human nature and should not be criminalized or judged as bad. It is what motivates most to pursue excellence.Communism fought back “greed” and spread equality. What did we learn from that? It brought agony to all and collapsed. Why? Because between two workers, no matter how one of them did his best, innovated or did double the work, they would be rewarded the same, thus demotivating the hard working and innovative all the same.No economic model is sustainable without greed as we learned from the communism experiment. Because in economics there are Needs and there are Wants. Once you secure the needs (shelter, food, water, etc) you will ask for wants (larger home by a beach, luxury foods like chocolate, energy drinks, etc).We should accept our nature and limit it with ethics.

A very intriguing question, made more complicated because it entangles biology, ethics, & motivation. As stated, you seem to be making some big assumptions:That I have a sister (In fact, I do not)Humanity had gone belly-up, but there are still resources (like food, water) that make survival possibleThat survival equates with repopulating the world with humansBut let’s play. Assume I have a sister. How shall we survive? We’d have to watch out for each other, cooperate more than ever, & do our best to find safe food, water & shelter. In the absence of other people what threats do we face? Predators, bad weathet, tained food & water?As for repopulating the world: Why? Break the sister-brothet sex taboo & assume we planned to have children. We’d need more than one for any future to have people; we’d need both sexes, & that means we might need several kids. Many families produce several boys OR girls, but not both. And say that of 5 children we produced only one of the opposite sex; see where the next generation could br headed?Personally, not my scenario. Maybe just let the 2 of us survive alone until death. And wonder why, of all humanity, we were the only survivors…

I can guarantee you that many developing and underdeveloped countries would want a government like the Chinese and their successful track record on economic development. Not so much in developed countries in the Western hemisphere, where the economies are quite mature.There are numerous reasons why this is the case. I will talk about three.Freedom is a luxury that many people in the world do not have the privilege of enjoying. We can call it a human right, but unless you live in a society with institutions to support those rights, they are non-existent. If you cannot meet your existential needs — food, water, shelter, clothing — what use is freedom to you? Many people in the world want to live a safe and stable life. Freedom is secondary to that. So a government that can guarantee you peace, security, and a job in exchange for a freedom you never had is a no-brainer. You take that deal. Would you rather be free to starve or less free and eat?Liberalism, and all it norms and values, are for many a Western invention that works in a Western setting. It won't work outside that environment. What use is democracy in a country that is plagued with ethnic tensions and corruption? Politicians will pander to people's discrimination and funnel money out of the country. People want a government with a firm hand that can bring law and order to the country. That requires doing things beyond what Liberalism allows. Liberalism is nice when you are developed and have the time to discuss things like ethics, values, and rights.Democracy is bad for development. This is going to be controversial but the recent economic miracles were not democratic. China, Singapore, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and Hong Kong did not successfully develop because of democracy. They developed because they were authoritarian. None of the countries I mentioned were real democracies when they were developing. All were effectively one party states, often times led by a dictator. This model of development is known as the 'developmental state.’ You need to follow a clear plan and that can't happen if the party in power keeps switching every few years. Democracy is also inefficient as parties see to the needs of their voter base versus the needs of society at large.Developmental state - WikipediaDevelopmental state , or hard state , is a term used by international political economy scholars to refer to the phenomenon of state-led macroeconomic planning in East Asia in the late 20th century. In this model of capitalism (sometimes referred to as state development capitalism), the state has more independent, or autonomous, political power, as well as more control over the economy. A developmental state is characterized by having strong state intervention, as well as extensive regulation and planning. The term has subsequently been used to describe countries outside East Asia that satisfy the criteria of a developmental state. The developmental state is sometimes contrasted with a predatory state or weak state . [1] The first person to seriously conceptualize the developmental state was Chalmers Johnson . [2] Johnson defined the developmental state as a state that is focused on economic development and takes necessary policy measures to accomplish that objective. He argued that Japan's economic development had much to do with far-sighted intervention by bureaucrats, particularly those in the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI). He wrote in his book MITI and the Japanese Miracle : In states that were late to industrialize, the state itself led the industrialization drive, that is, it took on developmental functions. These two differing orientations toward private economic activities, the regulatory orientation and the developmental orientation, produced two different kinds of business-government relationships. The United States is a good example of a state in which the regulatory orientation predominates, whereas Japan is a good example of a state in which the developmental orientation predominates. A regulatory state governs the economy mainly through regulatory agencies that are empowered to enforce a variety of standards of behavior to protect the public against market failures of various sorts, including monopolistic pricing, predation, and other abuses of market power, and by providing collective goods (such as national defense or public education) that otherwise would be undersupplied by the market. In contrast, a developmental state intervenes more directly in the economy through a variety of means to promote the growth of new industries and to reduce the dislocations caused by shifts in investment and profits from old to new industries. In other words, developmental states can pursue industrial policies , while regulatory states generally cannot. Governments in developmental states invest and mobilize the majority of capital into the most promising industrial sector that will have the maximum spillover effect for the society. Cooperation between state and major industries is crucial for maintaining stable macroeconomy. According to Alice Amsden 's Getting the Price Wrong , the intervention of state in the market system such as grant of subsidy to improve competitiveness of firm, control of exchange rate, wage levelhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmental_state?wprov=sfla1I will end this with some quotes by Lee Kuan Yew, founder of Singapore, who transformed a former British colony into one of the richest countries in the world.Overview40 years ago, Singapore was confronted with severe unemployment, poor infrastructure, and a housing shortage. Today, the city-state has taken its place among the newly industrializing countries in Asia.https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/singapore/overview