Could the nations agree on a just and equitable use of the world natural resources?

Question

Natural resources are the cause of many international conflicts in wich real people suffer.

Answer 1

I believe the answer is no. Disagreement when it comes to such things is inevitable, and discussion is hard to facilitate when it's over such a large area (the world). However, I think it might be easier for us to start with smaller problems that are nationwide, or even within a town, and work our way up.

Answer 2

Well economics is pretty much the study of allocating limited resources to unlimited want. Not every place in the world has the same requirements and what may be important to some may seem as a waste of resources to others. I think a more valid point to argue is whether there should be an ethical element in economics or should we just find better ways of exploiting natural resources until they run out. Also it is not always wise to give aids(They are only good during famines and natural disasters) to other poorer countries as this would result in the complete destruction of the local suppliers. For example Canada threw 100s of tons of wheat into the oceans in the 1990s. And to further complicate not many people are ready to share their resources and the power full seem to rob the weak of their resources, politically or militarily.

Answer 3

The problem, as I see it, isn't an equitable distribution of resources.

Supposing your premise were possible, who exactly would you be willing to do the distribution for you?

Once put in that framework, one can easily see that equality of resources, like equality of ability or intelligence is a myth.

The moment real people get involved, then equality disapears (except under a nation of laws, but not as regards resources, natural or intellectual).

My view is that resources should be utilized by those best capable of turning them into marketable products of value to society.

Again the problem enters of who should do that. The natural method of determing this is the free market. Similar to the concept of natural selection (but not the same of course), those that are best able to utilize resources, somehow find ways to do that and if left alone, everyone benefits with more consumer products, jobs and higher and higher standards of living for all. Maybe not all, but in the natural world, not everyone or everything survives.

What you imply is socialism in it ivory tower idealistic state. Unfortunately in the real world, it doesn't work this way, not by the choice of a few, simply because the free market is the only economic "system" that isn't really a system. It is the natural way that the world works.

Everything else devised to counter the hated free market ARE systems created by individuals sitting in ivory towers as a means to achieving their own agenda and concepts of power.

Do you think that in Marx' "system" that HE considered himself one of the ones on the base layer, the "worker" that get only menial support back from the State? I don't think so, I am sure he envisioned himself as being one of the pampered elite in that system. The rest of his "workers" would be worse off than before, as has been seen demonstrated throughout history.

Answer 4

Disagree. would not tackle the reason. And what happened to the pill and UN relatives making plans which has been underway for some years? quite start costs are no longer the effects of purpose possibilities yet of social stress and unrest commencing from loss of social mores to lack of wisdom, poverty, conflict and famine, and so on. the belief, like one in each of those great style of interior the worldwide at the instant, won't make any important replace interior the situation.

Answer 5

There isn't any "fair" or "equitable" distribution of the worlds natural resources. Every person has a definition of what is fair and unequitable and none of them agree on what the definition is.

Answer 6

That would be nice but I just don't see that happening.
That would require a global one world government and quite frankly the idea of something like that scares the hell out of most people because if that government becomes corrupt there would be no place left to go to flee the tyranny.