I'm struggling: Is the real problem money?

Everyday it seems that there is not enough money. When all I pull from my pockets at the end of the day is an addictive tube of lip balm and a hair tie among balls of navy-colored lint, I get depressed. However, this isn't a post about my financial issues. Although I do have a number myself (attending a private college and having no job creates a seemingly infinite need for green). My concern is the broader issue of distribution and global demand for more money to fund more services for more people. Is it the real issue?

As I learn more about the world, I am finding that very few people of the six plus billion can honestly afford to "waste" money. Arguably, this group of comfortable individuals is shrinking--greater amounts of money is being funneled into fewer bank accounts. Accordingly, larger groups of people worldwide are running out of things to empty their pockets of. There is a correlated strain on service institutions of local, regional, national, and international realms.

This comes to what started this whole rant: today, the World Food Programme (WFP) appealed for increased funding. The United Nations agency just started a new program in Azerbaijan to feed some of the 300, 000 people that will have continued food dependency throughout the coming years (WFP Food Security and Nutrition Assessment 2005). This new program is slated to provide "26,833 metric tons of food assistance valued at $15.7 million to the most vulnerable of the displaced population, particularly women and children," and is the last phase of a broader operation in Azerbaijan (United Nations News Centre 2006). According to WFP’'s Regional Director for the Middle East, Central Asia and Eastern Europe, Amir Abdulla, continued financial support from donors is vital as this final phase needs to provide a smooth transition to government control of this service.

Over the past twelve years, WFP has provided more than 100 million dollars to Azerbaijan for the food security of some million displaced people. Since the creation of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), WFP has coordinated its operation in the west Asian country to parallel and compliment the State Programme for Poverty Reduction and Economic Development and with the Millennium Development Goals which works to remedy a number of socio-economic issues. Also, this WFP operation has included a Food For Education component (improves primary school enrollment through providing school meals) and a Food for Work component (increases employment opportunities for rural households, particularly for women).

It is noteworthy that the WFP runs operations in over a third of the countries of the world and is working in every continent except Australia and Antarctica. While it is a United Nations Agency, the General Assembly does not appropriate funds to WFP--all of the WFP operations are funded by voluntary donations. Most of these donations come from governments, but there are also contributions from businesses and individuals. Despite these donations, WFP programs are frequently underfunded. The WFP emergency operation in Kenya has been funded 60% of the necessary US$352,322,333 to feed 3.5 million children, pregnant and nursing mothers, and pastoralists who have gone hungry due to drought. The operation in Niger--56%.

Some would argue that, if the WFP does not have the money to run these programs to feed people, it should not run the programs. This is valid--to a point. If the WFP does not feed these people, they are left without access to necessary food and water. The families that benefit from the aid provided by WFP depend on it for survival. Does the WFP, then, have a choice? If they start a new program that is underfunded because the need is too great, should they have not tried to remedy the situation; thereby, leaving millions without resources necessary for life? 'Cut back or kill' does not seem a very civil choice.

I think what the real issue boils down to is: can we, as a planet, continue to grow and, through smart development, survive? Forever an optimist, I feel that we can. Forever a realist, I don't think it will happen. Every person in the developed world and many in the developing world realize that the manner of which we go about living on this planet--taking and rarely giving back--has to stop. We have to live better. The planet is full of too many people and reckless absorption of irreplaceable resources. We suck oil from the Earth. We cut down trees and condone air pollution. We dump trash in our water. We waste. For many of us, this destruction has been subconsciously justified by the idea that humans are, after all, the dominant and destined species on the planet--I daresay, the universe. Humans are in control, take no heed to the laws that govern the rest of creation.

Most of this thinking is inspired by a novel I have been reading (I lost it and cannot find it to finish it). The novel: Ishmael. The book explains our problems simply. All over the planet, species are subject to basic laws of ecology. Those are: if there is an abundance of resources, populations will increase; If the food disappears, so do the populations. What we have done to ensure that our needs are met with the growing population is to destroy natural threats to our resources. Hypothetically, a bison is roaming the plain. We eat the bison, but we need more bison to supply our meat demand. So, we protect the bison from it's other threats. We kill off it's predators and take it into captivity. Husbandry. Bison populations increase, human populations follow suit. Soon, the bison is no longer enough--we need more. We kill off the threats to the bison food supply. One grass takes over, the bison populations rise, human populations grow. The cycle continues.

We have been reducing diversity of the world to cater to the human race, but at a cost that we are now beginning to realize. We destroy something that is not necessary for our survival, like the grass varieties competing in the same field as the bison grazing grass. This destruction echoes through the ecosystem. Humanity can only evade ecological law for so long.

It is my opinion that the WFP appeal for money is only a symptom of Mother Nature's karma-like impact on humanity. Unless we shape up, look at the larger mistake (destroying the world because we are humans and we can), and change our lifestyles worldwide, we are entering war with the rest of the planet. That isn't to say we are completely disabled. I think we could do it--if we want to. However, I don't think enough people care and, for me, the future seems a dark place, ridden with serious challenges for humanity.


Nevertheless:

"Whoever saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind" Qur'an 5:32

... keep trying.