This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Is it really possible to eliminate poverty around the world? or is it just an utopia?
I'm from Mexico, and this Sunday Mexicans will elect a new president. Why do I give this explanation? Because the main topic that all the candidates had was the elimination of poverty in our country. But those statements really make me think deeper in the subject, and look back across human kind history, just to find out that poverty is almost inherent to human kind, and across all this years the people have been in this world, there always have been poverty.
Why? simply for the very own nature of the human kind and the relation between each other.
Then I ask myself, how a single person, in this case the president of a nation, can promise millions of persons, that will eradicate such a big problem, that has been with us for thousands of years.
Going in another line, millions of persons across the world are becoming more aware of the world situation about poverty, but it just stay there, very few people do something about it, including myself, I must say. But how can a few persons can make a difference? and going on with that idea, will it be sufficient to really solve the problem? Will it be eradicated for good? or just because our nature it will never be possible?
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Lejan . 30+
First of all the term poverty is relative, which makes it a bit difficult to compare throughout this world.
But if we would define poverty as a state of daily struggle for nutritious food, clean water, appropriate cloth, adequate shelter and medical care the answer to your question is YES, it is possible to eliminate poverty arround the world.
For the given population the earth has enough resorces to support all of its habitants in all basic needs for a living.
It would even be possible to raise the standard of living for each individual way beyond those basic needs, including education, energy access, own property, etc.
In my view the moment mankind claimed to be distinct from animals, we took on the responsibility of humanity with all its immanent obligations. Since that time we are constantly failing, which is also part of our nature, yet we also made locally become true what can be achieved.
The reasons why poverty has not been overcome globally by now is manifold and are to be found within our nature as well. Personally I consider greed, for power and wealth as the main reason why this task has not been accomplished yet. And will we ever be able to get there? If we'll have enough time as a species, YES, I truly think so!
Don Wesley 50+
Where ever poverty exists there is injustice and crime. We need only to take our hands off our eyes and see it; then decide, now, to do something about it. Not to do so makes us a partner in that crime.
Lejan . 30+
the argument you contribute is valid in my opinion too. Before I wrote this comment I was debating on a quite similar subject for quite some hours, in which, to stay in your picture, a lot of wood got burned into ashes. So when I found this debate I choose for a more optimistic approach to start anew forming my views into words with an emphasis on casting more light than shadows.
I am with you that poverty exists because of injustice and crime. To me, the greed for power and wealth implies injustice at its very core in most of, if not all the time.
Thank you for adding this precision by naming the cause.
Don Wesley 50+
Together we are growing; fantastic
Until soon,
Don [From The Silent Generation - the 30's]
pat gilbert 50+
Poverty comes from sloth. Of course if you are looking for an excuse for poverty blame it on someone else (preferably with self righteous indignation), the most popular is big business, you know the one that has raised the standard of living of mankind for the past millennium or so...
Lejan . 30+
it seems to me you have not witnessed the 'opposite in opinion' often,
or is it just me not getting your sense of humor?
Please let me in on this, so I know were to put your comments.
If poverty was caused by sloth as you promote, how do you call those people who are working hard every day, yet still remain below the poverty line in many countries?
pat gilbert 50+
On this site, you are the one who is joking.
The sloth would be with regards to communication and learning, in other words doing the same thing without changing.
Everything that is accomplished is accomplished by a decision, most likely that is the way they want it. The question would be did they decide that is the way they wanted it without questioning the leaders or culture that told them this is the way it is?
Lejan . 30+
I still don't know were to put your comments as your last intro still allows interpretation were I wish to be certain. So I like to ask you again what your intention is by that.
Yes, I have seen people remaining in low paid jobs or within our welfare system because of sloth and especially the last mentioned are constantly causing debates on this topic in Germany, and it turns out difficult to get them motivated or re-motivated once they settled into that sort of apathy. But this is no form of poverty as they get all the necessities for a life in dignity.
The poverty I am concerned about is were sloth is not an option. No living beeing would freely choose starvation out of sloth, as starvation is getting them to the core of plain survival were the luxury of sloth is out of discussion and far beyond any influence.
Poverty is no matter of choice, indeed, choice is what is missing. Communication and learning, what you also propose, is neither addressable nor accessible to many due to a variety of reasons. At such a state of existence you may question the leader or culture, yet beeing the last in the chain of influence, questioning does not result in any change.
Situations like this are not acceptable and regardless what causes it, the cause has to be stopped and the people helped to that point, they are able to sustain themself again or even the first time ever.
pat gilbert 50+
To be as clear as I can be I'm not joking and I certainly get more disagreement than agreement. I hope that is clear?
If these people are below accessing any kind of education then how do you know that they are in poverty? Claudia Valdesl or Shokrullah Amiri in Afghanistan are not below this level. I'm sure there are people who are below this level but then the question is would they not be removed from where the water is polluted and are not only surviving but happy as unlike you they do not know how things are supposed to be?
Once again perfection is a heavy cross to bear and will always result in failure?
Lejan . 30+
now you are talking! And because you have not been joking, some of your remarks has therefore to be taken as intended insults, which I am neither willing to accept nor to tolerate.
I am sincerely willing for any sort of discussion, debate and exchange of minds yet this at a minimum of appropriate and polite manners only. Get harsch on my arguments, not on me personally.
So if you are willing to return of what you can expect from my side and to stay to those basic social rules, you are welcome to talk with me abot anything at any time.
It is now up to you, only.
pat gilbert 50+
Earlier you commented that you (in effect) don't use logic.
Humor by definition is pointing out things that don't make sense. I have shown great restraint in this regard.
Claudia Valdes is looking for some benchmarks on the subject of poverty, it would be a disservice to her to allow specious comments (no matter how well intentioned) to go unchallenged.
If your feelings are hurt too bad.
Lejan . 30+
pat gilbert 50+