[CasX]

In the world today, 6 billion 300 million people live.
If this world were shrunk to the size of a village,
what would it look like?
If 100 people lived in this village,

52 would be women, 48 would be men

30 would be children, 70 would be adults.

7 would be aged.

90 would be heterosexual, 10 would be homosexual

70 would be nonwhite, 30 would be white

61 would be Asian, 13 African, 13 from North and South America, 12 Europeans, and the remaining one from the South Pacific.

33 would be Christians, 19 believers in Islam, 13 would be Hindus, and 6 would follow Buddhist teachings. 5 would believe that there are spirits in the trees and rocks and in all of nature. 24 would be believe in other religions, or would believe in no religion.

17 would speak Mandarin, 9 English, 8 Hindi and Urdu, 6 Spanish, 6 Russian, and 4 would speak Arabic. That would account for half the village. The other half would speak Bengal, Portuguese, Indonesian, Japanese, German, French, or some other language.

In such a village with so many sorts of folks, it would be very important to learn to understand people different from yourself and to accept others as they are.

But consider this. Of the 100 people in this village,

20 are underonurished, 1 is dying of starvation, while 15 are overweight.

Of the wealth in this village, 6 people own 59% (all of them from the United States), 74 people own 39%, and 20 people share the remaining 2%.

Of the energy of this village, 20 people consume 80%, and 80 people share the remaining 20%.

75 people have some supply of food and a place to shelter them from the wind and the rain, but 25 do not.

17 have no clean, safe water to drink.

If you have money in the bank, money in your wallet and spare change somewhere around the house, then you are among the richest 8.

If you have a car, you are among the richest 7.

Among the villages, 1 has a college education. 2 have computers.

14 cannot read.

If you can speak and act according to your faith and your conscience without harassment, imprisonment, torture or death, then you are more fortunate than 48, who can not.

If you do not live in fear of death by bombardment, armed attack, landmines, or of rape or kidnapping by armed groups, then you are more fortunate than 20, who do.

In one year, 1 person in the village will die, but in the same year, 2 babies will be born, so that at the year's end the number of villagers will be 101.

[Tigerlily]

Very interesting but a real village wouldn't be that diverse.

Where did you get your numbers?

[Adrien]

It's just an image to bring real proportions to a more concrete level.

Anyway, it's not something "new", it is around for a moment, but thanks CasX for putting it here! I had lost the link where i usually saw it.

Loads of proportions are striking in this thing but two especially:

Of the wealth in this village, 6 people own 59% (all of them from the United States), 74 people own 39%, and 20 people share the remaining 2%.

Of the energy of this village, 20 people consume 80%, and 80 people share the remaining 20%.

[Boondock Saint]

Well ... I wasnt going to comment on it ... since its an extreme simplification of things ...

It sort of makes one look at the world and question things if you were going to take it at face value and leave out important details ...

I suppose its meant to get people to think ... which perhaps it does ...

So, instead of me trying to come up with something let me ask a question ...

What does this say to you? (Not singling anyone out, I would love to see everyones take on the meaning of this.)

[Adrien]

I take it just like you said: it makes us think.

When you give the real numbers to people to make them realize how the world is going wrong, they can't realize, because these numbers are so big, and so abstract. With these proportions, you are forced to face reality..

Well, the first eight datas are anecdotic, it's the others that matter: like i said above, the wealth and energy problem is striking. The huge gap between the, let's say, first 10 and the others too. The proportion of people who do not live with freedom of speech and action is also surprising: a half!

[Boondock Saint]

Ok, so who is responsible for the world being the way it is?

The haves or the have nots?

Are the have-nots have-nots simply becuase the haves make it that way?

Is it the responsiblity of the haves to make sure the have-nots become haves?

To use a real world example, is it the responsibility of the US to make it so that every nation has the same rights as those that live within the US?

If not then how can one hold the haves responsible for the situation the have nots find themselves in?

Whose fault is it?

*take freedom of speach to be the example for the above questions since that was brought up first*

[Adrien]

Wow, that's a lot of questions.

Who is responsible between the those who have and those who haven't? I'd say the haves are. And, logically, those who haven't did not choose not to have what they do not have: thus, it's the haves who made it that way.

And that can be verified even on local scale: if in a country, some people don't have the freedom of speech, it's because those who oppress them chose to make it that way. If somewhere people live in terrible conditions, with almost no money at all, it's because the people who make them work chose not to pay them correctly.

Of course in some countries people are very poor but not because of an horrible company: well, in general, those cases, it's because they did in the past, or because corrupt leaders chose to keep everything for them.

Now, is it the responsability of those who have to help those who haven't? Yes, it is our responsability as human beings, but as you point it out in your example with the US, our duty of human beings is blocked by political aspects and our organization in nations and states. And also the fact that this duty to help people is too often called upon by those who having has corrupt in order to have even more.

But, as the proportions show it, those who have really more than the others are a minority: it could be overthrown by those who have almost nothing, and those who a have less but want to change things. Thus, they would get the majority of ressources back - see energy and wealth.

[Boondock Saint]

Ok, I think its interesting so I will keep going with this, stop me if you dont want to continue.

So, lets touch on something you mention.

it could be overthrown by those who haven't. Thus, they would get the majority of ressources back - see energy and wealth

Well we all know the saying 'one man with a gun can control 100 without' or some variation like that ...

Is the threat of military power and violent oppression what cause the majority to not topple the minority?

How is it the minority came into power in the first place?

Lets say you have two villages ... now, these two villages are no where near as diverse as this topics village ... in fact they are both capable villages.

Both villages are about equal in size. Both hunt for food. But one of the villages has added farming so that they are less reliant on the animals or the hunters. A particularly fierce winter hits and game (animals) are not abundant leaving the village dependent on hunting without.

The village that farms has food 'stores' and is safe.

The winter plays out and half of the first village starves to death while the second village actually grows due to births taking place.

Now, during the winter it would not be possible to travel from one village to the other due to the distance and the severity of this particular winter ...

Now, whose fault is it that the have-nots starved?

[Demosthenes]

Boondock, I like the way you think!

As for Comrade Dri's post:

I'd say the haves are. And, logically, those who haven't did not choose not to have what they do not have: thus, it's the haves who made it that way

Truthfully either way is possible. Although I could have guessed you would see it this way. Are you saying the have nots have no ability whatsoever to make themselves into the haves? If so I think its a foolish opinion spouted out by the lazy. If not then welcome to the club!

[Adrien]

Is the threat of military power and violent oppression what cause the majority to not topple the minority?

Well, we can have two visions:

-the first is where this reduced scale is annoying and where our geo-political partitioning is useful: on a big global scale, the threat may keep the majority calm and submissive, but on the local scale.

On a local scale however, we can think that something could be feasible: some oppressive regime may be weakier than others, or may not contain the majority well enough. Imagine one of them is overthrown. The majority, which has now the power to do things, could help a neighbour to do the same. Then we'll have to countries ruled by the majority. Together, they would help a third country. And so on, with a chain-reaction. One the number of local majorities in power is big enough, the remaining oppressive regime, propably the hardest, would be in a incomfortable situation and would have two choices: or they accept to peacefully and slowly help the majority, or they face the final destruction of the oppression of the minority. That would also bring us to the pure and simple disappearance of the "state": the majority (in power) would absorb the minority and the geo-political seperation would only be a bad memory

-the second solution is the the first taken from the other way round: the "revolution" would start with the more powerful countries, at any price. That could happen if the oppression reaches a terribly important level. The oppressing state would probably be submerged by the majority (assuming it will act with unity) and finally fall.

This violent revolution in the most powerful state could start other revolutions in other countries (like the 1848 and post WWI waves of revolutions). If it doesn't, the new powerful and majority-ruled country would help his neighbours like in the first case. It is important to notice that the support of the most powerful country to revolutionary movements could avoid bloody revolutions: scarred by his threats, the oppressive governments would fall apart without any revolution. Those who resist would be toppled like in the first case.

Now, for your example of the two villages: it is clear that the solidarity couldn't work. But to understand what happened, we should analyse the behavior of the population of the first village: why didn't they build farms too? Did the ones who owned the companies of hunting opposed it? Did the persons who were for building farms were eliminated?

Or maybe the behavior of the second village: was the harsh winter was foreseeable? If it was, the second village should have had a preemptive attitude and should have convinced/forced the first village to build farm.

[Adrien]

Are you saying the have nots have no ability whatsoever to make themselves into the haves? If so I think its a foolish opinion spouted out by the lazy. If not then welcome to the club!

No no, i wasn't saying that they had no ability to change things. It sounded like an assertion because i was looking at one precise moment.

It meant: "at the moment we are analysing, those who haven't did not choose not to have what they do not have".

Plus, i forgot something above: of course, the majority could try to peacefully improve its condition, but if it would work with one big mass of people, in our world, and once again because of our geopolitical separation, it wouldn't change the base of the problem: if the majority of country A manage to improve its condition, the condition of the majority of country B wouldn't be changed. And we can bet those changes wouldn't be very significant.

[Boondock Saint]

It was just in the culture of both villages.

The first hunting village just thought hunting was a better idea and indeed the idea of hunting is thought to make men more powerful.

In the second village the idea that men being hunters is not so important. The men only care that their families are fed.

I have another example, one that perhaps equates to the real world very well.

Using the same two villages as above.

Spring has now come and the two villages go about their business.

The first village begins sending its hunters and gatherers out. They immediatly begin to kill animals and gather berries, bringing nutrition back to their diets. They have learned from their mistakes and now preserve some meat for the winter.

The second village is thriving now, its grown nearly twice its size as it has accepted members of a third village into its numbers (yes the people of the third village have abandoned their old land). These people add a diversity that until now had not existed. These new members have the knowledge and knowhow of boat building ... and begin building boats.

Now, wood is needed to build boats and the second village is on teh coast where for whatever reason the gods have decided not to put many trees.

The first village on the other hand is inland, located inside a forest.

The second village decides ... why not offer to pay for wood from the first village and decides to pay the first village with the 'zig' ... which is the standard currency.

Now, the cheif of the first village happily begins to take every zig he can get. For whatever reason he begins to hoard the zigs, distributing the zigs to only his strongest warriors.

The second village, more concerned with their own troubles continues this trade for a long time and builds a capable port and fleet of small galleys. They add fishing to their food stocks. They also see that the first village has a need for food ... so with a promise of peace they send the first village food at no charge ...

Now as time goes on, the cheif of the first tribe becomes brutal to his people ... well, those that do not obey his commands anyway. He has his people build him a massive hut and has his warriors maintane order.

The second tribe sees this brutality and knows of it but must have the wood ... they have no other choice but to keep trading with the first village as they are the ones who control the forest ...

Without the wood the second village cannot repair their boats of build new ones ... and as time has gone on they are more and more dependent on fishing as their population has grown by nearly 4x.

What is the proper action of the second village?

Should they stop trading with the first village because their cheif is cruel?

Should they continue on with the trade agreement concerning themselves with their own village and people?

And, whose fault is it that the people of the first village are now being treated harshly?

[KurtFF8]

I heard that village thing in 7th grade (the numbers were probably just slightly diffrent then), very interesting

[Adrien]

In the case of the winter, the idea that hunting proves men's power is not innocent: it is the beginning of a separation of the population, those who prove their courage hunting, and those who don't, for some reason. This seperation in the facts would be very sexist.

We can suppose somebody opposed this tradition, claiming that survival is more important, but nobody listened to him: there it's not a problem of oppression if the village almost perished, but a problem of humanity. Men want power, want to be seen as powerful hunters, without maybe even knowing why: they were traditionally corrupted. Now, if the guy who claimed farming was better and his friends (guys like that aren't alone) was lucky enough to understand that, he should have tried to go this way: he could have taught children his ideals. He could also have tried to convice his people telling them farming was a way to be powerful, but that would have encouraged their corruption.

We have to say that if the village could have divided itself in two: those who followed the wise guy, and those who didn't. In this case, the ones who were surprised could have been supported by the wise ones, and the disaster would have been lighter.

Anyway, that is an interesting example: in the general example i was using before, situation was continuing for an indeterminated amount of time, but here, something happened to break this calm time line. The conclusion is: act before its too late.

---

The second example is based on two big problems: human nature and the fact that the opposition majority/minority is not as clear as in the first example of CasX.

As far as human nature is concerned: it's important to realize that our real actual situation is the results of thousands of years of evolution, learning, thinking. We can be sure we made the same mistakes than these villages in the past, and we learn from them, just like those villages are naturally going to do: that's also in human nature.*

The clear majority/minority opposition and the gap between the two entities is also the result of those thousands of years.

*That's why the chief begins to keep all the zigs, he never experienced that, and neither did the wise men and thinkers of the villages. These ones could only reason and think about effects, causes, solutions of the winter episode: they only learnt that.

That's also why the second village didn't react when it saw things change in the first village, and why what mattered was their own business and problems.

This is also because of this lack of solidarity between humans and the fact that they were only caring about themselves that the second village didn't consider the option to overthrow the brutal chief of the first village to help their friends and brothers. They already had experienced the integration of another people in their rank: it would have been possible to rally the first village under a common authority.

So their proper action would have been to act like i said above. They could also have stopped to trade with the evil chief: the island certainly had other forests. Without money, the chief couldn't have maintained his projects of big building and all, he couldn't have payed his soldiers, and his regim would have collapsed: either the people would have taken advantage of the situation to revolt (the oppression of the chief would have created this feeling of minority/majority in the first village, and only in the first village, as they would have learned by experience) and would have overthrown him, or his soldiers, unhappy of not being payed, would have done it. This solution would have certainly installed another dictatorship, but that's what happens sometimes: the circle only starts again, and another opportunity for the people to rise comes up later.

And "whose fault is it that the people of the first village are now being treated harshly"? Like i said, the lack of experience, they never had a dictator, trusted their chief and probably didn't think he could do that. They only understood when he started to treat them this way.

[Boondock Saint]

So then you would support the second tribe invading the first in order to topple the cheif of the first tribe? Even if it meant the death of those you mean to liberate? I mean ... if the two tribes go to war there is no doubt who will make up the armies ...

Sure the first tribes cheif has a powerful group of warriors but the majority of his army would be made up of the others in his tribes, the weaker ... they fear the cheif and his warriors and would not dare oppose them, they would rather march to war under his banner.

So, that means the second tribes men will without a doubt kill many of those the cheif mean to liberate ...

A fourth tribe and fifth tribe then send messages to the second tribe, saying they are angry at their blatant aggression and desire to take the first tribes resources for their own ... they will not engage openly in war with the second tribe ... but most certainly are angry with the second tribe if the war takes place.

What happens now?

here we have a situation ...

The first tribe is now at a place where its people are poor and undernourished but its ruler is strong and wealthy.

The second tribe is by far the most powerful tribe around but their need for trees is great, they cant expand further and cant possibly get enough trees from other tribes around ... they need the trees of the first tribe ... but are being accused of blatant aggression by the fourth and fifth tribes ...

So .. should the second tribe ignore the demands of peace? Should they invade? Should they ignore the plight of the first tribes people all together?

What should they do?

[Adrien]

In my idea we were talking of something like prehistorical: idea of nation as we know it would not exist, that's why i was planning on the fact that the first tribe would help the second tribe (that they would not consider like guys of the second tribe but like brothers), taking advantage of the situation to rise against their chief. If his army of weaker persons only works on fear and not on corruption of their mind, they could rally the rise against the dictator (of course they'd need to be convinced, but it shouldn't be that hard).

If the army is based on corruption of minds, then they are corrupted, believe in the chiefs cause, and will be considered like a part of the "bad guys", and thus would not count in the group of guys the second village is supposed to liberate.

Of course, even if the non-armed and brainwashed population helps the second tribe, there will be casualties. Sometimes, revolutions need to be violent to overthrow an unacceptable and oppressive regime. That bring us to the "does the end justify the means" debate which is debated on another topic around here. To stick with our example i'd say that if the people are intelligent enough to plan their action and all, casualties would be limited and the end will justify the means. But again, that's the kind of things we can *only* say retrospectively.

--

Now the arrival of others nations complicate the problem: these nations apparently don't give a damn about the first tribe's people conditions, otherwise they would have helped (and we are back to the intimidation method: the chief would probably run away).

In this case, i would not make war to the first tribe. I would organize "terrorist" actions to blow the regime from inside. If it is well prepared and if the succession of the leader is assured (not to let the tribe fall in civil war and anarchy) it could work.

Until the fall of the regime, the second tribe will have to find alternative solutions: they could search for new forests, or invent new technics.

[Boondock Saint]

Well said comrade well said.

I must say I was not prepared for the look for new techniques angle.

But in the end my comparison to the real world is obviously not subtle and should be rather obvious ...

I know there are details left out and details added but in the end its close enough.

I was trying to get the point across that the have's are not always reponsible for the have-nots especially when the have's are not in the same tribe as the have-nots .. and in fact the tribe that is considered 'haves' has their own population of have-nots who are have-nots for varying reasons ...

I now pose this question to you.

The second village has settled the issue above and now can get to collected wood.

So, wood cutters are hired. A wood cutter gets two fish and a zig for a days work.

There are three wood cutters that work for the tribe.

Olof is the first wood cutter. He is a massive man capable of holding an axe that no other man could hold let alone swing. He is a natural at cutting wood, this is what he was born to do. His production of wood for the ship builders is three times that of any other wood cutter.

John is the second wood cutter. He is a strong man but not nearly as strong as Olof. His axe cuts a good amount of wood and his work ethic is second to none. He actually spends more time working then Olof.

Franklin is the third and final wood cutter. He is a lazy man, waking at noon and cutting whatever he wishs to cut. Generally speaking his production of wood is nothing compared to others.

Now ... is it fair that these three men all receive the same pay? Afterall Olof provides the most wood, John works hardest out of all three and Franklin is not a very good producer.

Should Olof be rewarded for his ability to produce? It comes natural to him ... so should he be rewarded for a natural ability?

John obviously takes pride in his work and tries hard, he cant produce as much as Olof but no one faults Johns production.

And what of Franklin? He CHOOSES not to do as the others ... because he says 'eh, I get the two fish and the zig regardless of what I do'.

[Adrien]

You're right, the haves are not always responsibe for the situation of the have-nots, but in this case they are often responsible of the fact that their situation doesn't change. But again, theories are not completely fixed and must be adapted to each real case.

The case of the wood cutters is interesting:

-the most striking case is Franklin's one. It is clear that his behavior is not good: with him, the tribe loses money she could use to something useful. In the real world, i wouldn't fire him and leave him without job. I would have two options: or i leave him a chance (but i'll lower his salary as a sanction to wake him up) or i replace him on another job. If he don't like any other job than woodcutting he will wake up, and if he even does badly his new job we would return to the sanction option. Others sanctions can be added to the lower salary, like civic sanctions, but not too hard.

-Olof should have an extra. An extra expressed in money/fishes. But even if his production is like the production of three men, i don't think he should be payed like three men: with the money of two woodcutters it would add to his salary, the tribe could hire two others, who would work at different places than Olof and at the same time. If they are not lazy like Franklin, it should be good to production.

-John is apparently doing his best and has a lot of good will: this kind of model employee must be rewarded too, to congratulate him and show others that good will is useful. But as his attitude doesn't influence highly the amount of wood he brings back, he shouldn't be rewarded with a financial extra, but by a medal, honours or something like that.

--

But these personal changes can be hard to handle at a large scale: pay more this one, pay less this one, decorate the other, pay that one more than him but less than this one, ...

The solution would be not to pay the guys at the day but at the amount of wood. We would still keep the decorations, but that would be easier to handle for the administration. Plus, there wouldn't be any contestation about Olof's extra. This system would automatically wake up Franklin (his salary would fall by itself, without any interference of the administration). This system should be combined to a total opening of the "work market": anybody who needs money to end his month could take his afternoon and help the community by cutting wood. Of course he is not a professional and would not cut a lot, but as woodcutters are payed by the amount of wood, he would know what to expect. This could create a real solidarity between the community and the individual.

Of course, the question is how much should the amount of wood be paid? These numbers don't appear like that, they must be the result of a study of the work, based on the distance between the city and the forest, the climatic conditions, ... Even if we need to create different zones: cutting wood in the mountain would be paid xx, cutting wood in the valley would be paid xxx, and cutting wood in the jungle would be paid xxxx.

[Demosthenes]

Of course, the question is how much should the amount of wood be paid? These numbers don't appear like that, they must be the result of a study of the work, based on the distance between the city and the forest, the climatic conditions, ... Even if we need to create different zones: cutting wood in the mountain would be paid xx, cutting wood in the valley would be paid xxx, and cutting wood in the jungle would be paid xxxx.

Actually none of these factors are valid in concidering what to pay these men for their wood. The price is simply what people are willing to pay for wood. If you break your back chopping crappy wood. You're a poor man with a broken back. If you work a couple hours a day for the really good wood, you're a rich man with a good back. Of course I'm assuming this tribe has a simple market driven economy. Anything else and your suggestions may have validity.

So to modify:
Franklin- works about three-four hours a day chopping the premium wood he discovered awhile back. It is stronger, more resilent, and provides less friction in the water for boats. Therefor demand for it is higher.

Olaf- Is so good at what he does he knows he can make up in volume what his wood lacks in quality. He produces three times what the average woodcutter does, but his wood is of only an average quality. Demand is moderate.

John- works his bee-hind off for wood that is usable but has the lowest quality acceptable for boat building. By the end of the day he is satisfied but exhausted from his labor. Demand is Low.

I know I'm adding additional factors here but they are realistic. With a "quality of wood factor" thrown in you cannot simply quantify the man's labor as the sole determinate in payment. Now Frankilin doesn't look so lazy.

[Adrien]

In this example, the "government" of the tribe was the one who was buying the wood, in order to construct the tribe's boats. It is, indeed, a simple economy.

The simplest way to do is to add the "quality" criteria to the others, especially if the tribe constructs two types of ships: a type that needs common wood (fishing boats), and another that needs strong wood (warships, transports). Seeing that they have at their disposal two types of wood, we can think they will split the production in two.

Then, there will be two seperate demands: Olof will assure the common wood demand, which is higher in fact. Franklin will certainly get the strong wood demand: but if, because he only works 3-4 hours a day, he cannot provide enough wood to make ships, the tribe will forget him and find something else: treated common wood (that will improve the demand and other wood cutters will appear), ...

That's why he will have to work harder no matter the quality of his wood. Of course not as much as Olof, as his demand is lower than Olof's, but enough to satisfy the demand. Then, if you add the quality criteria, you can without any problem keep the system of payment based on the quantity.

Now, what is John supposed to do?

If the demand is really low, too low (and it will probably: why would the town continue to demand low quality wood for its boats when Olof or Franklin can provide enough?), John is human, he will stop cutting by himself and find something else. If he doesn't have any other ressource to live, then we can think he will find another application for his wood, propose the idea to the city, and see what he can do. If he doesn't have his idea of if he can concentrate his work power his other work he'll do it. In that case, his brain should resolve the problem. And if it's not him, it will be someone else that will come up with the idea.

---

And if the production is not split in two, the addition of the "quality" criteria will be enough too: if what Franklin produces isn't enough, he will be discarded and the town will rely on common wood, even for big ships. For them, they will use for example treated or reinforced common wood. That will, by the way, create other professionals.

Then, Franklin will have to increase the quantity of wood he can give. He won't work as much as Olof, because Olof is naturally born stronger, but the extra that the quality criteria added to his salary should compensate.