The world capitalist economy differentiates between the people who are more or less at risk depending on each person’s economic resources. However, Giddens’ explains globalized risks, such as nuclear war or pollution, have equal consequences for humanity since people will suffer the same massive impact,"The possibility of nuclear war, ecological calamity, uncontainable population explosion, the collapse of global economy exchange, and other potential global catastrophes provide an unnerving horizon of dangers for everyone…globalised risks…do not respect divisions between regions of the world" (Giddens, 1990 as cited in Appelrouth & Edles, 2008, p.779). Giddens’ idea is questionable since economic and technological resources could differentiate who is better prepared to confront a nuclear war or an environmental crisis. The world is divided between the powerful or 'West' countries -which hold more economic and technological resources- and the less powerful or 'East' countries. Thus, the risks that a nuclear war entails are bigger for 'East' than for 'West' countries.
Does Humanity share equal nuclear risks?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is a problem that I also have with Giddens. I am not sure that risk is truly shared equally. Even for "global-scale" environmental risks (eg climate change), those with less money have limited abilities to cope with the problems.
ReplyDeleteI think that even though we all live in the same planet and share a lot of things it is true that the most powerful countries are better prepared in case of an attack and money makes a great difference. The poorest countries will always be in disadvantage in contrast with the wealthy. Those who have more power have more resources and thus it may not affect them the same way as to the poor countries.
ReplyDelete