Zou minder populatie voor meer gelijkheid zorgen?

Dus zijn er te veel mensen of worden de boten

door te weinig mensen beheert die veel macht hebben en het gewoon uit self-interest is.
Hardin praat niet echt over de geschiedenis van hoe het komt dat mensen in de boot zitten en
anderen in het water. Dus de auteur is waarschijnlijk zelf een persoon in de boot.

Er is ook veel food waste terwijl er veel mensen geen food hebben. Is het moeilijk om bv in Afrika
voedsel te brengen?

Waarom helpen we Oekraïne en niet Syrië (immigrants)

Environmental injustice

Relatie mijn studie en global justice = mss iets zeggen over gedragseconomie dat mensen niet enkel
rationeel zijn maar self interest

The reason this gap between rich and poor countries keeps getting bigger is because although rich
countries send yearly 130 billion dollars in aid to this poor countries, large companies take 900 billion
dollars out of poor countries yearly trough trade mispricing (tax avoidance). Also, these poor
countries pay 600 billion dollars in debt service (for loans that often already have been paid). A last
reason is the use of cheaper labour forces and other resources the Western companies find in these
poor countries, this has approximately a value of 500 billion dollars. The only solution for this
problem is to change the rules.
Before the first lecture, I was aware that there is a lot of inequality in the world. It is a subject I do often discuss
with my brother. In these discussions, it is then mainly about how it is that there is such a big difference between
the rich and the poor. We agree that colonization has been a major source of inequality. The West colonized large
parts of the world until the mid-20th century to use it to fuel industrialization. As a result, these colonized countries
never have had this industrialization and now bear the consequences.

Being curious about figures on inequality, I watched the recommended video "Global Wealth Inequality: What you
never knew you never knew". From this I learnt that the richest 300 people have more wealth than the 3 000 000
000 poorest people. This inequality has grown violently in recent decades, 200 years ago rich countries were
about 3 times richer than the poor countries, today rich countries are about 80 times (!!!!) richer than the poor
countries.

The reason this gap between rich and poor countries keeps getting bigger is because although rich countries
send yearly 130 billion dollars in aid to this poor countries, large companies take 900 billion dollars out of poor
countries yearly trough trade mispricing (tax avoidance). Also, these poor countries pay 600 billion dollars in debt
service (for loans that often already have been paid). The only solution for this problem is to change the rules.

Policymakers must change the rules, and as I have already discussed in my task of lifeboat ethics, policymakers
act (partly) in self-interest. If rich countries really wanted to help poorer countries, they would have already done
so. Countries spend absurd amounts of money on military, the US about $800 billion annually 1. Why? Because
geopolitics is a power game. If every country used just a small part of this spending to help poorer countries, it
would already change a lot.

As discussed in the seminar, there are different types of inequality within this general inequality. For instance, we
have environmental inequality where the richer countries pollute the world, and the poorer countries bear the
brunt of this. We also discussed nutritional inequality and food waste. Every year, 1.3 billion tons of food is thrown
away, which is a third of the total amount of food produced 2. How can it be that so many people live in famine but
the rich throw away so much food? A question I often ask myself. We can launch a Tesla car into space but can't
help these people3? Apparently, fair distribution of food is harder than launching cars into space? No, this is
because of self-interest.

To still end on a positive note, the first class and seminar made me think further about inequality. It has clarified
for me where that I am positioned (thanks to the lifeboat ethics article) and that I should not take all opportunities
in my life for granted.

 Is geschiedenis belangrijk in je studie/onderzoeksveld?

 Belang jouw studie in kolonisatie?
 Coloniality VS Colonialism

3
 Do people of color have the right to be mad/angry  ja want er zijn nog niet echte oprechte
excuses aangeboden + nog geen echte compensatie
 Fake decolonization (volgens Shringarpure)? Gewoon dingen doen om van mensen hun
‘gezeik’ af te komen over de kolonisatie maar het niet menen + kan je iets bijzeggen over hvl
geld landen in afrique ontvangen en hoeveel ze eigznlijk indirect verliezen.
 Decolonization  standbeelden Leopold II wegdoen, teruggeven wat er vroeger is afgepakt,
…
 Filip biedt excuses niet aan omdat hij dan letterlijk schuld bekend en dan kan een
compensatie geeisd worden
 Belangrijk om te weten dat een compensatie dmv taksgeld gaat gebeuren

 Universiteit moet betrokken zijn in de dekolonisatie, ze moeten de history vertellen en

studenten bewust maken over de geschiedenis  unief moet niet neutraal zijn, ze moeten
een sterke mening vormen zodat mensen de ernst begrijpen, mensen moeten bewust zijn dat
gebouwen in Antwerpen gefinancierd zijn met middelen uit Congo.

 9. Neen, landen die gekoloniseerd zijn in de 19e en 20e eeuw dragen daar elke dag nog te
gevolgen van. Landen die nu ontwikkeld zijn, zijn landen die dmv middelen van deze nu niet-
ontwikkelde opgebouwd zijn tijdens de industrialisatie. Deze arme landen zijn zo arm doordat
ze geen industrialisatie gekend hebben.
Reflectie Seminarie 2

The seminar did not necessarily change my view on global justice and colonization, but it did trigger me to start
looking things up about the atrocities that happened in Congo and their consequences today. It is a subject that
interests me a lot because you can still see the traces of this period here every day today. Examples include
Antwerpen Centraal Station and Zoo van Antwerpen which were financed with proceeds derived from ivory and
rubber from Congo (obtained through the forced labor of Congolese people where their hands were cut off if the
quota of ivory and rubber was not achieved1). So, compensation for these atrocities would be appropriate, right?

Not according to King Philip, his letter does not even offer a direct apology, let alone compensation. This act of not
offering apologies is a tactical move by which he wants to avoid a claim for compensation. If he was truly sorry
and wanted to do good, he would already have apologized directly and offered compensation.
This letter was written because he knows that the new generation is much more critical of colonization and racism
and so Filip wants to avoid reputational damage. (By contrast, the previous generation was mostly taught
propaganda in school causing no/little criticism in the past.)2 Therefore, based on my perception, we can link this
behavior of Filip to the term discussed in the seminar: fake decolonization, where good actions are taken to get rid
of critics rather than out of guilt and to do good. In this way, the seminar taught me that one must always be
critical of the "positive" actions taken to repair damage in the past.

This brings us to the question we addressed during the seminar: do people of color have the right to be angry? In
my opinion yes, the actions taken such as the letter and removal of paintings (The Brussels Times) are mostly
symbolic (and to save reputation), so it has no real benefit for the people who still bear the consequences of
colonization every day. People in Congo live in poverty because they have not known of any industrialization
because of Belgium, on the other hand, Belgium owes their industrialization and wealth (partly) to Congo. This
seminar was a wake-up call that I live in a country with wealth and infinite opportunities (partly) obtained through
industrialization which was financed by crimes.

I want to conclude with a critical note. Everyone present at the seminar seemed to agree that compensation for
Congo is in order. However, this got me thinking, everyone agrees but this is very difficult to put into practice.
Compensation would be paid with the citizens' tax money which would probably lead to a tax increase. So, you
should ask the following question: "Do you think compensation is appropriate and that it should be paid by the
Belgian citizens through a tax increase?". Many will say that they cannot be held responsible for the damage in
the Congo and therefore should not fund this compensation. But how would you finance it then?
_______________________________
1 [Link]
bouwheer-opleverde~a3079464/?referrer=https%3A%2F%[Link]%2F&cb=e5cb0a5c756bdea570c9e4440a623a85&auth_rd=1
2 [Link]