Financial inequality continues to be a pertinent issue today. Although philanthropists, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), intergovernmental organisations, multinational companies and others have taken efforts to improve the global circumstances, people still struggle to escape the poverty cycle. However, the surfacing of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) has had a significant impact on some of the issues related to inequality, bringing the world closer to reduced levels of poverty.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is an intergovernmental organisation that manifest the international monetary system. They are an international institution, representing 189 countries, that aim to stabilise exchange rates, correct trade balance problems and promote equitable and ethical world trade. In their attempts to diminish poverty, they provide financial support to less economically developed countries (LEDCs) through their Poverty Reduction and Growth Trust (PRGT), which is better fitted to the needs of LEDCs. Through several credit schemes in the trust, the IMF believes that by achieving macroeconomic stability, inequality will be better addressed. However, the IMF still expects a return on their loans with interest, and have necessary quotas that member nations are obligated to pay.

The World Bank is an international organisation, with several institutions, that provide loans to nations. They also aim to reduce poverty. The organisation believes that in order to most effectively eliminate poverty, they must target certain areas (e.g. natural disasters, education, microfinance, etc…). They create programs to effectively target the key areas, all making it easier to enforce financial equality. They also feel that for reduced poverty, economic growth, better education systems and effective social safety nets must be put into place.

Personally, I feel that “morally”, yes, wealthy or reasonably wealthy members of society should be obligated to take action to help address inequality. However, I think that people have their reasons for not doing so, but most of these members of society, you would think, are educated enough to acknowledge the circumstances in our world today, and hence, should not have to protest to help address inequality. However, I think people need to be wiser with how and to where they donate, as they may not always go for the proceeds they would imagine it would go to. Concerning the IMF and the World Bank, I think they are using the right approach to confront the issue, but there are certainly flaws in the way they carry about enforcing financial equality.

The conservation of our environment continues to be a growing issue today. With newly conducted studies and advanced technology, people have begun to recognise the potential environmental issues our planet is yet to face today. Society view our world in two ways: economic growth and environmental stability. However, these two concepts don’t come hand and hand.

One on side of the spectrum of environmental philosophies, we have ecocentric thinkers. These people believe in biorights (universal rights for animals) and that all living organisms have their intrinsic value. Additionally, to a certain extent, they believe that nature may be more of value than human existence. These thinkers are purely natured centred.

However, on the other side of the spectrum, we have technocentric thinkers. These people believe through technology and innovation, all potential threats will be resolved. They believe we have access to infinite resources and a thriving economy and capitalism is essential for all future problems to be tackled.

As you can see above from the descriptions above of ecocentric and technocentric perspectives, there is a clear contrast between the value of economic growth and the importance of environmental stability. There is great tension between these two concepts because ideally, both of them are essential for our planet to function. However, with the way our earth functions today, some people may prioritise one value over the other.

In my opinion, I believe both are crucial for the well being of our planet. However, I align more with the technocentric ideology. This is because I have always valued economic progress and seen it as something superior to the other essentials. The economy is the reason why we have access to shelter, education, resources and other necessities. But with an economy, comes a sustainable one. For example, We must attach taxes on the production and sale of harmful goods and on harmful resources for our economy to comprise an element of environmental stability as well. Although I am closer to the technocentric side of the spectrum, I believe that certain theories of the ecocentric perspective should be applied in order to nurture our planet onto the correct path.