Quality of Living

The ideas being discussed today are the differences between the terms "Quality of Life" and "Standard of Living."

I'd say that the main difference is that the term "Quality of Life" deals with a person's entire life, and not just the material possessions. "Standard of Living" deals strictly with material things, such as how much money the person makes, the country they live in, their government system, whether they have access to clean water, and what food they have access to. Standard of Living seems much less sincere, and it almost seems as if each person is being measured as an object, not a person. Quality of Life is far more sincere and seems to be a real representation of how the people are doing.

Recently, places have started to measure people's over happiness as an indicator of how the general public is doing. I think that this is an absolutely fantastic idea. They say that money can't buy happiness, which is why this is a far better representation of the economy's status.

But then again, I find that whenever I have a substantial amount of money, I'm quite content with my life. The whole measuring people's happiness business, as revolutionary an idea as it is, must be extremely difficult to monitor. Money, as heartless as it seems, really does make people happy. You see someone receive a large paycheck, and they instantly become happier - that's just the way it is. As much as I hate to say it, (I know, I'm being contradictory) money is what makes the world go 'round, and it's a mostly accurate depiction of a place's quality of life.

As cool as it is, measuring happiness, it just seems a little unpractical, if you know what I mean. Quality of life should probably be more about you rights and things, and not so much about happiness - it could be a real time-waster for our government.

Knowledge Economy

According to the textbook, the term "Knowledge economy" refers to the use of knowledge itself to provide benefit to the economy. This mostly includes things that have required an advance in technology and knowledge to achieve. Hence the term "Knowledge Economy." The conflict that arises here is that with knowledge and technology accelerating at such an alarming pace, millions of jobs are at stake, threatened to be replaced by machines or computers.

The knowledge economy term originated way back in the 1990's in New Zealand. This was right when high technology businesses that used new computer software, telecommunications, and virtual services were on the rise. The history of it really is quite elementary. We required more technology, and with technology comes knowledge. It seems only logical to name it a knowledge economy, as that really is what we thrive on.

The pros to this are quite obvious. Things get done more efficiently and with far less effort. Everything is constantly being improved, and at an exponentially faster rate. We're living in the future, and it's quite obvious to see. We have machines that make things far easier for people, and they're slowly getting cheaper and cheaper, and more and more advanced.

The cons are also very apparent, as well. The most obvious of which is that with all the new technology doing all new things, people are losing their jobs at an alarming rate. Everyone is being replaced by things that are far more efficient than them. If you look on TV, watch the show "How It's Made." You'll notice that many of the jobs are done by workers, but even more are done by machines. When I see certain jobs done by workers, I think to myself that machines could do it a lot better - and I bet they could, it's just that people want their jobs.

But, overall, I think it's a good thing. I think that our overall quality of life has been improved by the amount of knowledge that has become necessary in today's society. Also, we, the children, your future, are slowly getting more and more difficult schoolwork, mostly because they need us to maintain and improve our technology. Knowledge is power, and knowing is half the battle.

World Bank

The purpose of the World Bank and the International Monetary fund is to provide money and financial assistance to less fortunate or less developed countries of the world. The point of this is to reduce homelessness, improve living standards, and lower the unemployment rate. The World Bank offers low-to-no-interest loans and grants to these people. Normally, these funds are for improving an underdeveloped country's education system or health system, but sometimes goes into things like infrastructure and simply the well-being of the country's inhabitants.

Now, the question that likely needs an answer, and not just straight facts is this: Have they helped to improve living conditions of regular people or are they just a more expensive government?

I believe that they have most definitely helped with poor countries around the world. From all the facts I've gathered from the internet and my textbook, I would for sure have to put the World Bank in my good books. Sure, they may cause more taxes for some people, but really, with the billions of people in the world, what's a few dollars to just one of us, right? Not to mention the only countries who get over-taxed are the ones who can actually afford it most of the time, so it's not like they're really harming a lot of people to help just a few.

Also, another argument for them, according to their facts that are written in the book, they dropped the homelessness count by nearly twenty percent in less developed countries, life expectancy in these countries were increased by about twenty years per person. Think about that - twenty years; that's longer than any of your current students have lived. That is most definitely a very good thing.

To put it simply, I don't see how anyone could see the World Bank as a bad thing. I'm all for having more money in my pocket, but if just a few of my dollars are going to be spread around the rest of the world, I'm totally fine.

Zapatistas

The Zapatistas in the Chiapas of Mexico are a very poor people. So poor, in fact, that they have to survive on grilled cheese sandwiches. But they have no cheese, so they substitute the cheese with dirt. They have no bread either, so they use the leaves off of the trees as the "bread" of their "grilled cheese sandwiches."

Anyways, joking aside, they are really poor. Like, really poor. However, with globalization and availability to new technology and information, they did something not many have ever done before.

Most poor, weak communities would shut themselves away from the rest of the world - in fear of being taken over, or harmed, or something like that. The Zapatistas, (the revolutionary people they are) did the exact opposite. They opened their gates to the world and got messages sent around the internet, letting the general public know of their dire situation. Surprisinly, this is going along quite swimmingly. I'm really quite surprised that not many others (or NO others) have done this before. People really aren't as heartless as many others make them to be. Society sees a person in trouble, and often times, people do what they can to prove to the world that they care. Obviously, some exceptions to this exist, as there are always mean people around. That's just the way it is. But seriously, this is a perfect example of humanity's selflessness. You can look over there, at Africa - one of the poorest places in the world, and every day see thousands of VOLUNTEERS helping the people, with no personal benefit from it. Often times, people look around and see only violence, hostility, and unhappiness. All one needs to do is open his eyes and see all the happy people - I mean, we contribute to society's well-being too, right? There are people laughing, sharing, caring, living, and the Zapatistas are the ONLY people to really take advantage of that.

Oka Crisis

The Oka crisis was a very memorably hard time for the members of the first nations people of the Mohawk tribe. They were marginalized, ignored, killed, and many other things. However, it's not as if they acted in the most... desirable way. They made irresponsible decisions and I think they overreacted to most everything the government did. I think that, as always, everyone took everything too far and that's what ruined everything.

To start, in March 1990, a pretty big group of people from the Mohawk tribe came and barricaded a road near the town of Oka, Quebec. This was the first mistake. No, not the protest or the barricade, the weapons. That immediately poses a threat to everyone else. They were protesting them building a golf course there, on what they considered to be "sacred land". I can understand wanting to protect trees planted by your distant ancestors, but seriously, using guns?

Way, way earlier, in 1717, the Mohawk had claimed that land. They lived peacefully there for over two hundred years before the federal office of Native Claims turned down their land claim. Yeah, somehow, they managed to do that. Legally. I mean, sure, they waited two hundred years, but they still managed to deny a peaceful people's land claim. Seriously, people. Who does that, thinking that their doing the right thing?

Finally, July 11th, 1990, the mayor of Oka called in the cops and ended up with the freaking SWAT team getting involved. They launched tear gas, fired concussion grenades and shot their bullets of rage to break up the barricades. In the commotion (which, by the way, I believe was caused by the gov't), a corporal of the Surete du Quebec police was killed by stray bullets. Yet, of course, everyone blamed the Mohawk people. They were just (forcibly) protecting what was theirs.

You know, I look back, and all I can think is "seriously?"

The question I will be answering today is this: To what extent did imperialist policies and practices in Canada and Australia have similar effects on the Aboriginal peoples of each country? To start, I say that in both Australia and Canada, the aboriginal people were ostracized and were treated as bad, savage, uncivilized people. Imperialism took over, and the native people were left in the dust, as the imperialistic people thrived in land that wasn't their own.

If that's all that was asked, then the question has been answered. Both country's aboriginal people were treated in relatively the same manner. They were undermined, degraded, frowned upon, ostracized, and even killed by imperialists. Their culture was lost, their way of life literally destroyed. The only good thing the imperialists did was bring technology to these normally uncivilized places. I mean, some kindness could have been used on these people...

But, all in all, I'd probably say that both these peoples were treated fairly similarly. Neither were managed the way they should have been, and they both seemed fairly helpless in the ways of the world. Eh, everything could have gone better, but there's no use crying over spilled milk.

Canada and India

Whether you see it as a good thing or a bad thing, the British had a large influence on both Canada and India. They brought technology and culture to these places, but they also practically destroyed other people's ways of life, and they tore apart multiple cultures.

In India, the British pretty much invaded and started the "British East India Company" in the 1600s. This began in the same sort of way that the Hudson's Bay company started: A collection of traders. The company continued to grow, and became more and more powerful over time, and were eventually, became a political powerhouse. They began to take control over India; people who they knew nearly nothing about. Many, many years later, Mahatma Gandhi stepped in and said that the British imposing on their culture was unfair.

However, aside from all that, the British DID bring about new things to India. They had an extremely low quality of life, and, although the British imposed on their way of life, I believe it improved it overall. They also brought new technology about, and new ideas, and it's not as if they were killing off they aboriginal people or anything. Yes, the British were out of line in bringing their culture to the unwilling Indians, but was it really that bad?

The British... it really is quite difficult to choose sides. You could be on the side that says that the British did good in bringing sophistication and technology to otherwise under-developed places. On the other hand, they also took away culture and made unfair deals, and, as one can plainly see, Canada's original culture is practically gone at this point. It's really up to us to decide if what the British did was bad or not.