I made some suggestions for improvement as you'll read below. I also highlighted some points which I found interesting and some others I could not understand very well (e.g. when you say "They" I do not know whether you mean "capitalists" or "workers").
Also, I would like to put a few other points forward:
- Sentences in English (even in the field of social sciences) tend to be shorter, as opposed to sentences in Portuguese. As a general rule of thumb when writing in English, always remember that Less is more
- You could try to use more paragraphs to connect your ideas and attract the attention of the reader. Have you noticed that when we glance at a text that seems somewhat cluttered, it usually looks bigger than what it really is? (anyway, this is my personal opinion). So I broke some of your sentences down into shorter ones and added some linking expressions such as Furthermore etc.
- The only sentence I could not understand is the one in which you use the verb "concretise".
- I love your text. Your ideas are excellent and you are not afraid of taking risks when writing. Congratulations!
Hopefully more people will come up with other suggestions
Hunger for capital
An important aspect to be considered regarding the current capitalist world is the food industry that "poisons" the population in exchange for greater profit. That means that capitalism is not taking people´s health into consideration in order to obtain more capital and hegemony in market
. They (who are they? The capitalists? The owners of capital?)
only create foods that offer a better taste but, in consequence, inject fatty and carcinogenic
substances in persons, which results in a worse physical condition, and shortens the life expectation of the population. Furthermore
, by worrying about
producing unhealthy foods to the rich consumer market, they forget that there is a great amount of the world population in malnutrition and living on
less than one dollar per day, while New Yorkers' squander (use squander as a noun)
could feed a great fraction of this poor population.
Capitalism (Capitalism or capitalists?)
should notice that, from
a profitable point of view, improving the quality of life of the poor populations would increase the consumer market. While the correct is a more humanist point of view, in which we try to end the misery in the world and to generate more life opportunities to everyone... (I feel there is something missing?).
On arranging this, we could solve one of the biggest current problems, like the dilemma of whether or not overpopulation will be maintained by the current reserves (personal choice, I would remove the “we have today”)
, given the fact that the baby number 7 billion had birth this year
And the worst part is that the resources the world disposes of
nowadays are enough to turn it egalitarian
, in function of opportunities of growth (did you mean promoting sustainability?
). As the control of these resources is in the hands of capitalists that crave massive
profit and give short shrift to reality
. This concretizes with the development in the technology, spatial and war sectors (did not understand this sentence)
, in favor of the conservation and improvement in the economic elites' lives, while all those investments could be used in the social and social? sectors, in a bid to bridge the abyss (even though I believe something like bridge or close the gap would sound more natural)
between classes.It's ironic
, for instance, that the creation of the Millennium Goals -- developed by United Nations in order to eradicate the world's poverty-- has not shown the accomplishment of these goals.
Meanwhile, the world organizations seem to be worried about the crisis in Europe, due to the consumption in large scale of the European powers. This depicts how the capitalism, the way it is been applied today, is not being successful worldwide.
They should understand that eradicating poverty
in the world and increasing the opportunities of growth for
everyone would certainly have an impact on the amount of good-natured persons and even prosperous scientists
, changing the life on Earth and elevating the worldwide HDI
. Unfortunately, these minds that would be brilliant can be currently squandered because they are worried about their survival
Beyond this benefit that would provide an increase in the quality of life in both developed and undeveloped countries , we can see that a change of such structure would be a lot beneficial to everyone's lives, because we would be less dependent on overconsumption to which we are subject. Thus
we would enjoy more and with more freedom (that for several times we disregard and disrespect nowadays, but that actually we want on our side),social inequality in the world would shorten. It is important to highlight that it does not mean proposing a total
social and economic equality, as this would refer to socialism, but we propose an equality of opportunities for each child, when born, of having a better education, health and feeding. A total social and economic equality would devalue the effort of work
, which obtained by a person, would have more comfortable and personal accomplishment (great sentence, I couldn´t agree more!).To conclude,
what is really being proposed is the reduction on the concerns and investments in economic and technology sectors and food industries (in favor of the elites), and the redistribution of this capital to a more beneficent and humanitarian proposal, like the eradication of misery and poverty in the world.