Whether it’s happening in Bosnia, Afghanistan, or anywhere else for that matter, wars undoubtedly cause a lot of disruption. They disrupt the peace, destroy buildings and hurt families, just to name a few. Joe Sacco, the journalist, author and cartoonist of “Safe Area Gorazde,” tries to accurately reflect the heartache brought forth from the war. In many instances, he does a great job. It is easy to see the suffering that goes on in this war-torn place. Sacco does an excellent job a showing the transformation that happens to the victims. For example, he explains that neighbors who used to be friends are now enemies. While the neighbors of opposite descent are facing similar problems, notably the lack of security, the fear of what to come, and the loss of a stable home, they act as though they cannot understand their old neighbors. They have become strangers to each other. Yet, ironically, they share more in common with each other than they would like to admit. Unfortunately, Joe Sacco is not wrong in his illustration of some of the suffering.
Yet, among the description of the pains of these war victims, Joe Sacco points out something very interesting. It is something that a stranger to war life would not predict or even believe. It is greed. When Sacco recounts his stories of the people in Gorazde, he includes the part about the desires of the victims. They want jeans, cigarettes, and almost everything under the sun. Money is no object, because there is nothing to buy in Gorazde and relatives often send money. Pain, suffering and loss of identity are all aspects of Joe Sacco’s description of Gorazde that are easy to believe, but greed? That was a little harder to grasp.
At first glance, greed just does not make any sense. Why would these people who are faced with constant violence and fear want useless goods like jeans? Shouldn’t they be begging for peace rather than goods? What about a safe exit; isn’t that more intriguing? Don’t they understand that stocking up on material objects will not matter once there are dead? They cannot really be suffering if they are infatuated by greed instead of safety.
Stepping back, the desire for goods no longer sounds that preposterous. If victims are trapped in a ruined city with little to do besides hope for a safe ending, it is not unreasonable that their minds might leap to safer places. They might fantasize about a world without bombings, a world without war. Presumably, if the area that they were imagining were not plagued by constant warfare, it might have a dearth of goods that is no longer available in Gorazde. It might have jeans and food. Maybe, then, thinking about goods is just a way to keep hoping for a future. Maybe it is a way to momentarily step away from the violence that is tarring the city apart.
In fact, at this point, I don’t know if Joe Sacco’s claim that these victims are filled a desire for material goods is unique to Gorazde, or is something that steps beyond this little area. However, it appears to affect other cities in Bosnia. In the movie “Welcome to Sarajevo,” there appears to be a similar desire for goods. When the lead journalist, Michael Henderson, returns to Sarajevo, the driver, Risto Bavic, admits that he has an insatiable desire for dental floss. Later, he explains that recently he has been having many yearnings for goods. So, it is possible to assume that this greed is an element of the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia between 1992 and 1995. Maybe it is even common in other war-torn areas.
After overcoming the initial shock of the ever present greed, accepting that maybe greed simply is not that bad of a coping mechanism, and realizing that it was present in other areas beside Gorazde, I have come to wonder if greed symbolizes something even more powerful. Maybe it reflects our desire to ignore reality. Regardless of whether we are in a developing or a developed world, we have this insatiable desire to acquire meaningless material objects. We want the latest iPod, the newest computer or whatever else the present fad may be. Yet, in doing so, we often ignore the world around us. We create a consumer society to create a fascade of whatever ills that may be affecting us. War is just an extension of our greed or, maybe, it just sounds so unreal or too real in this case.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
As we have already established previously in this blog, Tuberculosis has become increasingly more deadly because of the MDR strain of TB. This mutation of the disease makes it almost impossible, or at least very difficult, to treat. Yet, tuberculosis is not the only disease that is adapting to the aggressive human Treat-All mentality. Recently, infections like the Staph infection have popped into the headlines becauses of the new powerful resistant forms.
The community-Associated Methicillin-Resistant Staph Infection is causing a lot of problems recently. According to the Health and Human Services Department and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, in "Scientists Identify Factor Key to Severity of Community-Associated methicillin-Resistant Steph Infections," the "S. aureaus disease is a global public health concern because some strains, including community-associated methicillin resistant S. aureays, have developed resistance to existing antibiotics." As a result, "the newly described proteins in drug-resistant strains of the Staphylococus aureus bacterium attract and then destroy protective human white blood cells."
Thus, it has become evident that tuberculosis is not the only disease facing difficulties right now. Mutations are occuring at increasingly fast rates. As a result, strains are become ever more difficult to treat. I would not be surprised if once treatable diseases become incurable. Life sure looks great.
The community-Associated Methicillin-Resistant Staph Infection is causing a lot of problems recently. According to the Health and Human Services Department and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, in "Scientists Identify Factor Key to Severity of Community-Associated methicillin-Resistant Steph Infections," the "S. aureaus disease is a global public health concern because some strains, including community-associated methicillin resistant S. aureays, have developed resistance to existing antibiotics." As a result, "the newly described proteins in drug-resistant strains of the Staphylococus aureus bacterium attract and then destroy protective human white blood cells."
Thus, it has become evident that tuberculosis is not the only disease facing difficulties right now. Mutations are occuring at increasingly fast rates. As a result, strains are become ever more difficult to treat. I would not be surprised if once treatable diseases become incurable. Life sure looks great.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Scared of Bacteria?
Bacteria are bad, or so we may have thought. Well, actually leading scientists and other researchers are slowly reaching the conclusion that maybe bacteria are not as bad as we initially thought. In fact, we use bacteria a lot.
Bacteria are an essential part of human life. According to Jeneen Interlandi and Jerry Adler, “bacteria seem adjust levels of the hormones ghrlein and letpin, which regulate appetite and metabolism. Similarly, “the intestinal bacteria are a marvel, a virtual organ of the body which just happens to have its own DNA.” In fact, according to a study done at Duke University, the human appendix “serves as a reservoir of beneficial microbes which can decolonize the gut after is emptied by diseases such as cholera or dysentery.” In all regards, bacteria constitute “an essential step in the development of a healthy immune system.”
Yet, society often ignores the benefit. Increasingly, there is an effort to rid ourselves of the bacteria. Today, people “cover the dirt on the floor of the hut, banish the farm animals to distant feedlot, and treat an ear infection with penicillin” and the list goes on. According to Sachs, “Modern sanitation is a good thing, and pavement is a good thing, but they keep kids at a distance from microbes.” This in turn tips “the immune system in the direction of overreaction, either to outside stimuli or even to the body’s own cells. The result is allergies or asthma.” Are you still scared of bacteria?
Bacteria are an essential part of human life. According to Jeneen Interlandi and Jerry Adler, “bacteria seem adjust levels of the hormones ghrlein and letpin, which regulate appetite and metabolism. Similarly, “the intestinal bacteria are a marvel, a virtual organ of the body which just happens to have its own DNA.” In fact, according to a study done at Duke University, the human appendix “serves as a reservoir of beneficial microbes which can decolonize the gut after is emptied by diseases such as cholera or dysentery.” In all regards, bacteria constitute “an essential step in the development of a healthy immune system.”
Yet, society often ignores the benefit. Increasingly, there is an effort to rid ourselves of the bacteria. Today, people “cover the dirt on the floor of the hut, banish the farm animals to distant feedlot, and treat an ear infection with penicillin” and the list goes on. According to Sachs, “Modern sanitation is a good thing, and pavement is a good thing, but they keep kids at a distance from microbes.” This in turn tips “the immune system in the direction of overreaction, either to outside stimuli or even to the body’s own cells. The result is allergies or asthma.” Are you still scared of bacteria?
Friday, February 20, 2009
Our approach towards bacteria has evolved over the last century. According to Jerry Adler and Jeneen Interlandi, the authors of “Killing Germs May Be Hazardous to Your Health,” “most of the last century is dominated by the paradigm of Total Warfare.”It seems like we as a society attempt to treat any and everything. Even the mildest infections seem to get treatment. “We try to kill them off with antibiotics and hand sanitizers.”
In some regards, this Fix-All-Society is good. It often helps prevent some infections. For example, during the SARS outbreak at the start of the millennium, using Purel was thought to be the appropriate course of action.
Yet, as we find more and more supplements for every infection, the strains of bacteria also evolve. To our misfortune, this is not a good thing. In fact, the bacteria mutate into super-bugs, becoming even harder to kill. For example, “When penicillin began to lose its effectiveness against staph, doctors turned to methicillin, but then MRSA appeared … ranging threat that can strike almost anyone… To be sure, MRSA is a scary infection, fast-moving and tricky to diagnose.” Our approach has become like a vicious cycle, killing the weak and helping the strong.
What does this approach to disease reflect in our society? To some, it is an attempt to gain power in this increasingly complex world. Nancy Tomes, the author of “The Gospel of Germs,” says that she “can’t protect [herself] from bin Laden, but [she] can rid [her]self of germs.” This may be true now. Yet, there is no way of promising that it will be true later. Despite our desire to control every little aspect of life, whether that means killing microbes or even producing human life, we are not powerful enough to truly live with the responsibility of our actions.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
What About the General Public?
Though we have established in previous blog posts that neither the initial patient nor the authorities pose as logical culprits for the spread of Tuberculosis, we have ignored another important player: the general public. If this blog has presented anything useful, it is that the spread of disease is a complicated issue to pinpoint the exact culprit.
If we really cannot full-heartedly blame neither the infected nor the authorities, could we blame the general public? First of all, let’s define the term “general public.” In this case, let’s use it to encompass not only the active members of society, but even the seemingly innocent and banal bystanders that for this case happen to be experiencing some bad luck and are in the a potentially dangerous situation. Simply put, the term basically encompasses everybody.
Well, this is a fairly large group of people if I do say so myself. Yet, by framing the term “general public,” to encompass such a large group of people, well no one can truly be exempt. Then, by these standards, the culprit must be in the group. Well, one would think.
If we really cannot full-heartedly blame neither the infected nor the authorities, could we blame the general public? First of all, let’s define the term “general public.” In this case, let’s use it to encompass not only the active members of society, but even the seemingly innocent and banal bystanders that for this case happen to be experiencing some bad luck and are in the a potentially dangerous situation. Simply put, the term basically encompasses everybody.
Well, this is a fairly large group of people if I do say so myself. Yet, by framing the term “general public,” to encompass such a large group of people, well no one can truly be exempt. Then, by these standards, the culprit must be in the group. Well, one would think.
Friday, February 13, 2009
The Irony of Fighting Globalization
Where have Gustavo Esteva and Madhu Suri Prakash been all of these years? The authors of “From Global to Local: Beyoun Neoliberalism to the International of Hope,” present a convincing argument that shows the problems associated with Globalization. Globalization, once a popular fad, is causing a powerful local fight for flight.
No one anymore wants to be global. Whether that means that globalization is going to be criticized from the locals or even the once-global-leaders, there is going to be distrust. “Even the most single-minded and ambitious free trade advocates cannot fail to recognize the social and human costs of the politics they are promoting.” No one can truly think global. Even organizations that claim to be global cannot be global. They have to have a home base somewhere, and that in turn helps shape their outlook. “Global proposals are necessarily parochial: they inevitably express the specific vision and interests of a small group of people, even when they are supposedly formulated in the interest of humanity.”
Few can deny that globalization is not always the best force in society. Global solutions cannot solve the local problems. This is especially true for the case of TB. When a global effort to banish TB from local societies, especially in developing countries, was established, the plan backfired. Doctors did not prescribe the correct dosage and the patients did not take the full treatment plan. This in turn caused the infectious disease to become even more powerful than even before. With the mutation of the strain to become MDR-TB, no drugs could cure the disease.
However, the efforts to reduce the force of globalization in the past have not encountered much success. Esteva and Prakash claim that “until now, … most of the social movements of campaigns trying to resist the new “global” phenomena have proven to be highly ineffective. Some of them are even counterproductive.” The problem is that humans are limited. Local forces are tiny compared to the massive global strength that sits as the opposition. Before, there seemed little hope of reducing the force of globalization.
Now, there is hope. Everywhere around the globe, there is a general push towards acting locally as opposed to globally. Esteva and Prakash claim that people “are trying to abandon the global thinking with which “industrial eaters” enter their local grocery stores: buying “goods” from any and every part of the earth, motivated solely by the desire to get the “best” return for their dollar.” In order to fight the global force, opponents fight with understanding. There is now a generally thirst for local knowledge. People want to know where their food comes from, and learning that the food is not local has started to pose a greater threat than ever before. Local forces can act together. “The local peoples often need outside allies to create a critical mass of political opposition capable of stopping those forces.” Though the coalition of local forces is not always as powerful as that of the global leaders, it is a start.
Globalization is something that needs to be changed. It is moving society in a direction that is abysmal. These authors make such a good argument. Ironically, it will need a global force of local organizations the fight the global power.
No one anymore wants to be global. Whether that means that globalization is going to be criticized from the locals or even the once-global-leaders, there is going to be distrust. “Even the most single-minded and ambitious free trade advocates cannot fail to recognize the social and human costs of the politics they are promoting.” No one can truly think global. Even organizations that claim to be global cannot be global. They have to have a home base somewhere, and that in turn helps shape their outlook. “Global proposals are necessarily parochial: they inevitably express the specific vision and interests of a small group of people, even when they are supposedly formulated in the interest of humanity.”
Few can deny that globalization is not always the best force in society. Global solutions cannot solve the local problems. This is especially true for the case of TB. When a global effort to banish TB from local societies, especially in developing countries, was established, the plan backfired. Doctors did not prescribe the correct dosage and the patients did not take the full treatment plan. This in turn caused the infectious disease to become even more powerful than even before. With the mutation of the strain to become MDR-TB, no drugs could cure the disease.
However, the efforts to reduce the force of globalization in the past have not encountered much success. Esteva and Prakash claim that “until now, … most of the social movements of campaigns trying to resist the new “global” phenomena have proven to be highly ineffective. Some of them are even counterproductive.” The problem is that humans are limited. Local forces are tiny compared to the massive global strength that sits as the opposition. Before, there seemed little hope of reducing the force of globalization.
Now, there is hope. Everywhere around the globe, there is a general push towards acting locally as opposed to globally. Esteva and Prakash claim that people “are trying to abandon the global thinking with which “industrial eaters” enter their local grocery stores: buying “goods” from any and every part of the earth, motivated solely by the desire to get the “best” return for their dollar.” In order to fight the global force, opponents fight with understanding. There is now a generally thirst for local knowledge. People want to know where their food comes from, and learning that the food is not local has started to pose a greater threat than ever before. Local forces can act together. “The local peoples often need outside allies to create a critical mass of political opposition capable of stopping those forces.” Though the coalition of local forces is not always as powerful as that of the global leaders, it is a start.
Globalization is something that needs to be changed. It is moving society in a direction that is abysmal. These authors make such a good argument. Ironically, it will need a global force of local organizations the fight the global power.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Rethinking the Initial Culprit
Tuberculosis is not always like the common cold. Some people who have tuberculosis do not always know that they have it. According to the CBC News article “Tuberculosis: Anatomy of a Killer,” “Most people don’t even realize they are infected. They don’t feel sick and don’t show any symptoms. In fact, 90 to 95 per cent of people who get infected never get sick.”
This changes everything. If we were to blame the spread of the disease on the people who spread the disease, this accusation would be unfair. Taking the benefit of the doubt, maybe the initial patients did not know that they were endangering the lives of others. Maybe they were totally unaware of the potential implications of their actions.
Yet, if we were to take the benefit of the doubt and assume that the patients are innocent, who then is to blame? Well, this requires a different look all together. Perhaps we could accuse the authorities for the spread. The term “authorities” is very broad. It could refer to the people who maintain the order, such as law enforcement agents. In all respect, law-enforcement agents could have supplied better infection-prevention procedures. On the other hand, it could refer to the people who have the authority to protect the public. In this case, the term would broaden to encompass people in the scientific field as well. People often hold scientists accountable for creating harmful drugs. But, should scientists also be blamed for not creating the appropriate treatment plan? The term “scientific field” would refer to not only scientists, but also the people who help distribute the treatment plan as well. What about globalization? Has this earth-shrinking process, what I like to refer to as “Modern Imperialism,” brought others to the forefront as well? Surely we cannot forget the people who helped encourage the global expansion and later the distribution of drugs into third world countries. Taking this general principal, we still have not found a logical culprit for the spread of TB.
This changes everything. If we were to blame the spread of the disease on the people who spread the disease, this accusation would be unfair. Taking the benefit of the doubt, maybe the initial patients did not know that they were endangering the lives of others. Maybe they were totally unaware of the potential implications of their actions.
Yet, if we were to take the benefit of the doubt and assume that the patients are innocent, who then is to blame? Well, this requires a different look all together. Perhaps we could accuse the authorities for the spread. The term “authorities” is very broad. It could refer to the people who maintain the order, such as law enforcement agents. In all respect, law-enforcement agents could have supplied better infection-prevention procedures. On the other hand, it could refer to the people who have the authority to protect the public. In this case, the term would broaden to encompass people in the scientific field as well. People often hold scientists accountable for creating harmful drugs. But, should scientists also be blamed for not creating the appropriate treatment plan? The term “scientific field” would refer to not only scientists, but also the people who help distribute the treatment plan as well. What about globalization? Has this earth-shrinking process, what I like to refer to as “Modern Imperialism,” brought others to the forefront as well? Surely we cannot forget the people who helped encourage the global expansion and later the distribution of drugs into third world countries. Taking this general principal, we still have not found a logical culprit for the spread of TB.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Waste of Time
What’s so important about TB? Well, Tuberculosis is nothing new. In fact, it has been around for over 5400 years. However, Globalization is changing the face of TB.
Not long ago, this deadly infectious disease appeared to be on the road to recovery. Everything appeared to be solved when the vaccination for TB was discovered and a strong line of drugs were created. The vaccination appeared to be part of the solution to killing TB. BCG is a live vaccine against tuberculosis (TB). BCG stands for Bacillus Calmette-Guerin after two doctors who introduced the vaccine. It was developed in the 1920's and remains the only vaccination available against TB today. However, this vaccine seems to only be slightly preventative and works only about half the time at most.
Similarly, the drug treatment initially seemed to bring more hope. According Dr. Gokhale, at Howard Hughes Medical Institute international research scholar based at the National Institute of Immunology in New Delhi, India, “tuberculosis patients take a cocktail of four drugs, and each inhibits a single enzyme." Treatment for the fortunate in developed countries is no problem. It is a simple treatment.
Globalization changed all of this. All this hope changed when the drugs started appearing in developing countries. Although most doctors brought these drugs over with the good intention of curing many of the infected patients, their plans backfired. There are not enough resources in developing countries to provide and enforce the complete treatment plan. “Patients do not take all their medicines regularly for the required period [partly] because they start to feel better, because doctors and health workers prescribe the wrong treatment regimes, or because the drug supply is unreliable.” As a result, “strains of TB resistant to all major anti-TB drugs have emerged.” According to the WHO, “a particularly dangerous dorm of drug-resistant TB is multidrug-resistant TB (MDR_TB), which is defined as the disease caused by TB bacilli resistant to at least isoniazid and rifampicin, the two most powerful anti-TB drugs. Rates of MDR-TB are high in some countries, especially in the former Soviet Union, and threaten TB control efforts.” MDR-TB is basically incurable.
Because globalization is not only responsible for encouraging development in developing countries, but also the migration from developing countries to developed countries, TB has become even more problematic. Those who are infected with MDR-TB can spread this incurable disease. This means that those who could once have been treated with the traditional drugs can no longer be treated. All they can do is wait to die.
Is there any hope? Despite the efforts of the WHO in their DOTs program, Globalization does not appear to be the solution. It is because of globalization that this disease has gotten out of hand. If a new drug is created that can treat the multi-drug resistant form of TB, who can say that it will not be abused like all of the other TB drugs that are currently on the market? In fact, it could increase the strength of the MDR-TB disease even more.
Stepping back, it is apparent that this idea applies to more than just TB. We as a society are currently functioning as a Band-Aid-Society. This means that as we encounter a particular problem, in this case it happens to be illnesses, we devote all of our attention towards fixing the problem. We develop new drugs. Though it works for the time being, it is not long before the bacteria or virus adapts, and the drugs no longer work. We then start from the beginning again. The only difference is that this time it is even harder to fix. This Band-Aid-Society is a cycle that continues to waste time and money. We can’t keep living like this. At some point in time no invention is going to be able to solve our problems. Then what are we going to do?
Not long ago, this deadly infectious disease appeared to be on the road to recovery. Everything appeared to be solved when the vaccination for TB was discovered and a strong line of drugs were created. The vaccination appeared to be part of the solution to killing TB. BCG is a live vaccine against tuberculosis (TB). BCG stands for Bacillus Calmette-Guerin after two doctors who introduced the vaccine. It was developed in the 1920's and remains the only vaccination available against TB today. However, this vaccine seems to only be slightly preventative and works only about half the time at most.
Similarly, the drug treatment initially seemed to bring more hope. According Dr. Gokhale, at Howard Hughes Medical Institute international research scholar based at the National Institute of Immunology in New Delhi, India, “tuberculosis patients take a cocktail of four drugs, and each inhibits a single enzyme." Treatment for the fortunate in developed countries is no problem. It is a simple treatment.
Globalization changed all of this. All this hope changed when the drugs started appearing in developing countries. Although most doctors brought these drugs over with the good intention of curing many of the infected patients, their plans backfired. There are not enough resources in developing countries to provide and enforce the complete treatment plan. “Patients do not take all their medicines regularly for the required period [partly] because they start to feel better, because doctors and health workers prescribe the wrong treatment regimes, or because the drug supply is unreliable.” As a result, “strains of TB resistant to all major anti-TB drugs have emerged.” According to the WHO, “a particularly dangerous dorm of drug-resistant TB is multidrug-resistant TB (MDR_TB), which is defined as the disease caused by TB bacilli resistant to at least isoniazid and rifampicin, the two most powerful anti-TB drugs. Rates of MDR-TB are high in some countries, especially in the former Soviet Union, and threaten TB control efforts.” MDR-TB is basically incurable.
Because globalization is not only responsible for encouraging development in developing countries, but also the migration from developing countries to developed countries, TB has become even more problematic. Those who are infected with MDR-TB can spread this incurable disease. This means that those who could once have been treated with the traditional drugs can no longer be treated. All they can do is wait to die.
Is there any hope? Despite the efforts of the WHO in their DOTs program, Globalization does not appear to be the solution. It is because of globalization that this disease has gotten out of hand. If a new drug is created that can treat the multi-drug resistant form of TB, who can say that it will not be abused like all of the other TB drugs that are currently on the market? In fact, it could increase the strength of the MDR-TB disease even more.
Stepping back, it is apparent that this idea applies to more than just TB. We as a society are currently functioning as a Band-Aid-Society. This means that as we encounter a particular problem, in this case it happens to be illnesses, we devote all of our attention towards fixing the problem. We develop new drugs. Though it works for the time being, it is not long before the bacteria or virus adapts, and the drugs no longer work. We then start from the beginning again. The only difference is that this time it is even harder to fix. This Band-Aid-Society is a cycle that continues to waste time and money. We can’t keep living like this. At some point in time no invention is going to be able to solve our problems. Then what are we going to do?
Saturday, February 7, 2009
The Problem With Immigration
Countries with open boarders are often portrayed as lands of hope. Immigrants from all across the world and from all walks of life often gravitate to these countries. In fact, most of the immigrants to these types of countries emigrate from their old countries in search of a better life. They want more prosperity. Many of these people who fit this hope-seeking new lifestyle are often from poor countries. Though it is wonderful that countries that have the luxury of supporting open boarders accept refugees, whether they are political, economical or other types of fleerers, this generosity, in most cases, can sometimes backfire.
Across the world, people are in danger. Some hear the sounds of bombs day in and day out. Others are victims of political oppression or genocide. There are few places of the world that are completely safe. In fact, I do not know of any country that is void of problems. As a result, many people want to flee. Some spend their lives waiting for a chance of a better life. They tell imagine a better life, free from whatever may be ailing them. Others are more successful and actually immigrate to the Promise Land, wherever that may be for that particular individual. According to the World Health Organization “in 1994, more than 23 million refugees had fled their homes, and an additional 26 million people had been displaced worldwide. In other words, one out of every 115 people in the world has been forced to leave home.”Regardless of the particular part of society that a causes a person to want to leave a particular country, having countries with open boarders helps satiate the hope of one day reaching safety.
Though the Open Borders concept appears wonderful on the surface, there are some problems. This foreign policy can actually endanger local civilians. It is no surprise that many of the immigrants come from developing countries. Many of these immigrants are classified as some type of refugee. The problem with this is that according to the WHO, “half of the world’s refugees may be infected with TB.” As these infected people travel to the new countries, they expose more people to this deadly virus.
Even more discouraging, immigrants from developing countries are more likely to spread an incurable form of the disease. Since many of the people from developing countries do not have access to the entire dosage of the medicine to cure the disease, their treatment is compromised. Soon enough, the disease progresses into a drug-resistant form. There is no treatment for this form of the disease at the present moment.
As the immigrants arrive in the developed countries, they bring with them not only their heritage, but also the multidrug-resistant tuberculosis. They then expose countless individuals to this disease, which is arguably a totally different disease. It is not as simple to cure as the normal strain of the disease. It is a totally different beast. As a result, the drugs that those living in developed countries normally have access to are no longer appropriate for the treatment of this disease. The infected have no other option but to die and, in the process, expose other people.
Globalization has helped facilitate a totally new creature. Let’s rethink the Open Border Policy or find some way to treat this disease.
Note: Information used from:
Anonymous. “WHO Report on the Tuberculosis Epidemic 1996,” Groups at Risk, 1996. http://www.sirs.com (accessed January 26, 2009).
Thursday, February 5, 2009
The Anti-Thesis
There seems to be a push towards homogenization. As John W. Meyer, John Boli, George M. Thomas, and Francisco O. Ramirez argued in “World Society and the Nation-State,” those that flee from the forces of globalization just get drawn closer into the sphere of globalization. This idea is nothing new. In fact, Roland Robertson argued a similar point in “Globalization as a Problem.” In this article, Robertson believes that the term globalization attempts to simplify this complex world. He says that the “present concern with globality and globalization cannot be comprehensively considered simply as an aspect or outcome of the Western ‘project’ of modernity or, except in very broad terms, enlightenment.”
Though this argument appears to be sound, there is one little inconsistency. When Robertson goes about his thesis, he draws a diagram. He tries to create generalizations. He goes about this argument by creating a diagram in which there are four categories. There are “four major aspects, or reference points… These are natural societies… relationships between national societies […and]humankind.” Through this diagram appears to have good reasons behind it, it is the antithesis. Generalizations are exactly what he claims is wrong.
What is it a about humankind that we prefer to make generalizations? There is something about it that we try to control everything. We want the answers and will do everything in our power to gain control. However, our plans often backfire. This is especially true for the case of TB. In striving to kill this disease, we have created an even more powerful beast.
Though this argument appears to be sound, there is one little inconsistency. When Robertson goes about his thesis, he draws a diagram. He tries to create generalizations. He goes about this argument by creating a diagram in which there are four categories. There are “four major aspects, or reference points… These are natural societies… relationships between national societies […and]humankind.” Through this diagram appears to have good reasons behind it, it is the antithesis. Generalizations are exactly what he claims is wrong.
What is it a about humankind that we prefer to make generalizations? There is something about it that we try to control everything. We want the answers and will do everything in our power to gain control. However, our plans often backfire. This is especially true for the case of TB. In striving to kill this disease, we have created an even more powerful beast.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Resistance is Futile
Freedom is the ultimate utopia. It is common to here some reference to “if I just have more freedom.” People spend their lives imagining or envisioning what their life would be like if they had more freedom. They want freedom from almost everything, whether that means family, rules, authority, even the force of globalization. But is it really realistic? Is it realizable? John W. Meyer, John Boli, George M. Thomas, and Francisco O. Ramirez do not seem to think so, especially when it comes to the creation of nation-states. In their work “World Society and the Nation State” these authors argue that “the world-society models shape nation-state identities, structures, and behavior via worldwide cultural and associational processes.”
In the past few decades, it has become increasingly popular to create nation-states. These creators often flee from the traditional oppressive society in search of a society free from the homogeneous mold of the world. In fact, “more than 130 new nation-state entities have been formed since 1945.” All these people are clearly fleeing from something, but from what exactly still needs to be decided.
As these new nation-states explore a new set of rules that appear to break away from the traditional ones they were once obliged to follow, an ironic pattern seems to emerge. These nation-states become homogenous. They become exactly what they were fleeing from. The authors of the article state t hat “orientation to the identity and purposes of the nation-state model increases the rate at which countries adopt other prescribed institutions of modernity.” These nations are forced to comply with the set guidelines established by a higher power, often the UN. As they follow these rules, “the policies look more like enactments of conventionalized scripts. Even if a state proclaims its opposition to the dominant world identity models, it will nevertheless pursue many purposes within this model. It will develop bureaucratic, authority and attempt to build many modern institutions, ranging from a central bank to an educations system. It will thereby find itself modifying its traditions in the direction of world-cultural forms.” Unknowingly, these nation-states lose their uniqueness.
Resistance to the force of global rules is futile. “Resistance to world models is difficult because nation-sates are formally committed, as a matter of identity, to such self-evident goals as socioeconomic development, citizen rights, individual self-development, and civil international relations.” Essentially, “if a nation-state neglects to adopt world-approved policies, domestic elements will try to carry out or enforce conformity.”
In this light, there appears to be little incentive to become a nation-state. Who would willingly embrace a plan that inevitably bring he/she back to the start? These nation-states become the oppressors from which they were fleeing. The force of globalization is massive - so massive that it is futile to resist. There is nowhere to hide.
In the past few decades, it has become increasingly popular to create nation-states. These creators often flee from the traditional oppressive society in search of a society free from the homogeneous mold of the world. In fact, “more than 130 new nation-state entities have been formed since 1945.” All these people are clearly fleeing from something, but from what exactly still needs to be decided.
As these new nation-states explore a new set of rules that appear to break away from the traditional ones they were once obliged to follow, an ironic pattern seems to emerge. These nation-states become homogenous. They become exactly what they were fleeing from. The authors of the article state t hat “orientation to the identity and purposes of the nation-state model increases the rate at which countries adopt other prescribed institutions of modernity.” These nations are forced to comply with the set guidelines established by a higher power, often the UN. As they follow these rules, “the policies look more like enactments of conventionalized scripts. Even if a state proclaims its opposition to the dominant world identity models, it will nevertheless pursue many purposes within this model. It will develop bureaucratic, authority and attempt to build many modern institutions, ranging from a central bank to an educations system. It will thereby find itself modifying its traditions in the direction of world-cultural forms.” Unknowingly, these nation-states lose their uniqueness.
Resistance to the force of global rules is futile. “Resistance to world models is difficult because nation-sates are formally committed, as a matter of identity, to such self-evident goals as socioeconomic development, citizen rights, individual self-development, and civil international relations.” Essentially, “if a nation-state neglects to adopt world-approved policies, domestic elements will try to carry out or enforce conformity.”
In this light, there appears to be little incentive to become a nation-state. Who would willingly embrace a plan that inevitably bring he/she back to the start? These nation-states become the oppressors from which they were fleeing. The force of globalization is massive - so massive that it is futile to resist. There is nowhere to hide.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
The Danger of Globalization
Globalization is not always a positive good. In some instances, it can even cause chaos, or at least some form of disruption. According to Peter Evans, the author of “Counterhegemonic Globalization: Transnational Social Movements in the Contemporary Political Economy,” there are three basic forms of “transitional social movements aimed at counterhegemonic globalization: labor movements, women’s movements, and environmental movements. Each of these movements confronts the dilemmas of using transnational networks to magnify the power of local movements without redefining local interests, of transcending the North-South divide, and of leveraging existing structures of global power without becoming complicit in them.” These categories are not the strong points of globalization. Instead they are areas in which globalization should be ashamed.
In the eyes of Peter Evans, globalization is causing the worse problems in the job sector of the world. “Jobs are being informalized, outsourced, and generally divorced from anything that might be considered a social contract between employer and employee.” There is a loss of social contract. This is even more damaging for women. Mr. Evans sights that “the disadvantages of allocating resources purely on the basic of market logic will fall particularly harshly on women.” Women have constantly fought and will continue to fight for even a mere resemblance of justice.
All this is true, but Peter Evans is missing an important point. Globalization is not just ruining the social contract in the economic sphere, it is also hurting the health sphere. Whether people are subject to more inhumane working conditions or traveling in dangerous environments, people are endanger. As more companies begin to outsource their products so that they can make the largest profit, the workers’ health is subject to be compromised. Similarly, with the world interacting more and more, contamination of disease, especially TB, is becoming more apparent.
Thus, while Peter Evans understands that the effects of globalization are often problematic, he underestimates the true debilitating affects. We need to readjust our values before there is nothing left to save.
In the eyes of Peter Evans, globalization is causing the worse problems in the job sector of the world. “Jobs are being informalized, outsourced, and generally divorced from anything that might be considered a social contract between employer and employee.” There is a loss of social contract. This is even more damaging for women. Mr. Evans sights that “the disadvantages of allocating resources purely on the basic of market logic will fall particularly harshly on women.” Women have constantly fought and will continue to fight for even a mere resemblance of justice.
All this is true, but Peter Evans is missing an important point. Globalization is not just ruining the social contract in the economic sphere, it is also hurting the health sphere. Whether people are subject to more inhumane working conditions or traveling in dangerous environments, people are endanger. As more companies begin to outsource their products so that they can make the largest profit, the workers’ health is subject to be compromised. Similarly, with the world interacting more and more, contamination of disease, especially TB, is becoming more apparent.
Thus, while Peter Evans understands that the effects of globalization are often problematic, he underestimates the true debilitating affects. We need to readjust our values before there is nothing left to save.
Monday, February 2, 2009
NGOs and a new solution
Where does the future of the world’s problems lay? Can we continue to rely on the world’s governments for a solution to all of our problems? Jessica Mathews, the author of “Power Shift,” does not seem to think so. She points out that the world’s problems are changing. We are now faced by a series of “nontraditional threats, […] -- terrorism, organized crime, drug trafficking, ethnic conflict, and the combination of rapid population growth, environmental decline, and poverty that breeds economic stagnation, political instability, and, sometimes, state collapse.” These new threats cannot merit the same action plans that their predecessors once merited.
As a result, NGOs appear to be the new solution. Mathews strongly believes that “internationally, in both the poorest and richest countries, NGOS, when adequately funded, can outperform government in the delivery of many public services. Their growth, along with that of the other elements of civil society, can strengthen the fabric of the many fragile democracies. And they are better than governments at dealing with problems that grow slowly and affect society through their cumulative effect on individuals—the "soft" threats of environmental degradation, denial of human rights, population growth, poverty, and lack of development that may already be causing more deaths in conflict than are traditional acts of aggression.”
Maybe this is true. Perhaps the NGOs are the solution to our new problems. Never before have we encountered problems like we have today and will have in the future. Relating back to the TB topic, the issues resulting from MDR-TB are new. We have no way of relying on the drugs of the past to cure today’s illness. In fact, using these drugs would only worsen the problem. We cannot resort to past methods of intervention because clearly they failed miserably. It is because of these past interventions that we have the problem not being able to treat people with the Multi-drug resistant form of TB. So yes, maybe, hopefully, NGOs can bring about a solution to the problems our previous leaders have caused.
As a result, NGOs appear to be the new solution. Mathews strongly believes that “internationally, in both the poorest and richest countries, NGOS, when adequately funded, can outperform government in the delivery of many public services. Their growth, along with that of the other elements of civil society, can strengthen the fabric of the many fragile democracies. And they are better than governments at dealing with problems that grow slowly and affect society through their cumulative effect on individuals—the "soft" threats of environmental degradation, denial of human rights, population growth, poverty, and lack of development that may already be causing more deaths in conflict than are traditional acts of aggression.”
Maybe this is true. Perhaps the NGOs are the solution to our new problems. Never before have we encountered problems like we have today and will have in the future. Relating back to the TB topic, the issues resulting from MDR-TB are new. We have no way of relying on the drugs of the past to cure today’s illness. In fact, using these drugs would only worsen the problem. We cannot resort to past methods of intervention because clearly they failed miserably. It is because of these past interventions that we have the problem not being able to treat people with the Multi-drug resistant form of TB. So yes, maybe, hopefully, NGOs can bring about a solution to the problems our previous leaders have caused.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)