Global Cooperation: Ideal But Is It Feasible?

(Published by Steve Davis on behalf of asumbrad.)

You can ask anyone around the world, and I’m pretty sure that they will all agree that our world is damaged: poverty is rampant among many countries, rapid growth in population is a problem for countries that can’t support the sudden escalation of people, environment degradation due to human has contributed to global warming, destruction of ecosystems, and loss of species. In the first two chapters of his book Common Wealth, Jeffrey Sachs addresses these issues by stressing global cooperation as the key to fixing these problems.
I agree with Sachs’ belief that humanity shares a common fate. Similar to the butterfly effect, my actions on one side of the world, though seemingly unimportant, can have a huge impact on people living on the other side of the world. If America suffered a total devastation in our economy, it could negatively (or positively) affect the economy of other countries. And while we may not always realize it, the economic problems poverty stricken countries in Africa will/can also have an affect on America. Though people identify themselves as part of different countries or nations, all people are intrinsically connected with each other.
The idea that all people are essentially connected was the basis by which Sachs’ proposes the logical idea to fix the economic problems of our world is international cooperation. Ideally, Sachs’ proposal would be correct. If people worked towards the betterment of society on a global scale instead of looking out for their own interests, I believe society would eventually be able to rectify its economic problems. Unfortunately, the real problem lies in the implementation of Sachs’ proposal. Firstly, would countries be able to overcome their distrust of each other in order for them to cooperate together? And secondly, if by chance the world united as one, who would make the decision for what changes had to be made? It’s hard enough to get people of one country to make a unanimous decision, how much more if all countries were involved? Then, there’s the issue of “fairness”. Should the rich help the poor? And if so, then to what degree? Who would make those decisions?