The First World World

If all countries were like America, with massive use of technology, industrialization, health care, government, transportation, education, and all other aspects of a first world country, what would happen?  What would go wrong?  How long could such a world sustain itself before resulting in chaos, overpopulation, war, famine, pestilence, and all kinds of destruction of the environment?

Do we believe that we enjoy the best standard of health and health care in the world? Hardly. Surprisingly, we (at 6.6 deaths per 1,000 live births) do not appear in the list of the lowest ten infant mortality rates in the world, which is topped by Singapore, and followed by Sweden, Japan, Iceland, Finland and Norway. Even more surprising, neither do we (with 77.4 years, both sexes) appear in the list of top ten in highest life expectancy. It includes Japan, Sweden, Switzerland, Canada and Iceland. Much of this has to do with the rich-poor gap and the selective availability of health care in our privatized system. Forty four million Americans are going without costly health insurance while premiums continue to escalate. According to 2001 World Health Organization statistics, the U.S. ranked a lowly 37th in the world for health care, between Costa Rica and Slovenia, and trailing all other industrialized nations.

Is our national pride based upon the perception that as the only superpower we are the world’s primary caretaker? Another illusion. Of the 21 wealthiest nations in the world, we are in last place in percentage of national income devoted to aiding less fortunate nations. That was less than 1/7th of one percent, according to the late Paul Simon, former Senator and Director of the Public Policy Institute in his 1998 book, Tapped Out. Denmark, Norway, Netherlands and even Saudi Arabia donated seven times what we did, he said. And the trend has continued.

In other terms, we are giving only 13 cents for every $100 of income. Furthermore, when we look at who actually receives this "aid", we wonder how much of it is actually meant for humanitarian purposes; Russian was the top recipient in 2001-2002, followed by Egypt, Israel and Pakistan in second, third and fourth place respectively. Colombia was in sixth place and Peru in tenth. If we subtracted what was effectively used for political leverage, military advantage, economic interests or an alleged war on drugs, how much would truly be left for genuine aid and development?

Are we persisting in the belief that our system is the most honest, transparent and least susceptible to corruption there is? Here comes disillusionment. According to the organization Transparency International, the U.S. scored a lowly 19th on their 2003 list (a three place fall from the year before) with a 7.5 CPI (Corruption Perception Index). Finland, Iceland and Denmark were the top three, with Norway, Sweden, Canada, the U.K. and Australia all in the top eleven. The next place on the list following the U.S., interestingly enough, was Chili.

Have we insisted that the U.S. is the best place in the world to live? According to the UN Human Development Index for 2004, the U.S. places only eighth on the list of most livable countries. First through fourth place went to Norway, Sweden, Australia and Canada.