in ,

The connection between human rights and the global economy

Main sponsors

It's five in the morning. Every day at this time, life begins in a small African village. The men go hunting and the women go to the fields to pick grain. There is no food waste, nor is there an above-average consumption of food. Everything is grown and produced only to maintain one's own existence. The biological footprint is well below 1, which would mean if everyone lived like the African village, then there would be no famine, no exploitation of poor population groups in other countries and no melting of the polar ice caps, since global warming would not exist.

Nevertheless, various large corporations are trying to exterminate and drive out these ethnic minorities in order to extract even more resources and convert rainforests into fields for agriculture.

Here we are now. Who is the culprit? Is it the small farmer who only works for his own existence and does nothing to globalization? Or is it the large companies that are driving global warming and polluting the environment, but providing a broad section of the population with affordable food and clothing?

There is no clear answer to this question, because it depends mainly on your own opinion and morals which side you choose. But if you now consider that every person on earth, regardless of whether they are rich or poor, big or small, inherently has human rights, then in my opinion the exploitative corporations are definitely violating these. A big issue in this context is the public, a well-known example of which is Nestlé. This company called for the privatization of water sources, which would mean that people who have no money have no right to water. However, water is a public good and everyone has a right to water. But why do you hardly hear about these topics? On the one hand, a lot is being done by Nestlé and its consorts to prevent such scandals from becoming public. On the other hand, the personal relationship also plays a role, which many people cannot establish due to the distance and the different living conditions.

Many well-known brands would not tolerate this behavior. However, the problem arises due to the opaque supply chain, as the raw materials are usually bought through several middlemen.

There are many possible solutions, but only a few have direct effects. One of these approaches would be, for example, to keep your distance from articles with the words “Made in China” and try to promote the regional or European economy. It is also extremely helpful to find out about the origin of the products and the working conditions there in advance on the Internet.

The big ecological footprint will exist as long as the big corporations will exist. So one must appeal to the common sense of the population to prefer the products of the regional economy.

Julian Rachbauer

Photo / Video: Shutterstock.

This post was created by the Option Community. Join in and post your message!


Main sponsors

Written by Julian Rachbauer

Recommend this post?

Leave a Comment

New superconductor should revolutionize power supply

There's a monster in my kitchen | Greenpeace UK