Can poverty be eradicated? (1 Viewer)

[Supaman92]

Its no doubt a big global issue, so whats your opinion? Do you think poverty can really be eradicated? if you say no, why not? and if you say yes then how so?

 

[Kwayera]

Probably not. It depends on your definition of poverty, I suppose. If everyone in the world had our level of wealth in Australia, the world would have run out of resources long ago.

 

[aussie-boy]

i dont think so
at least not with the current global financial system
at the moment, my demand for everything i own relies on there being poor people in the world to make it cheaply

 

[slickstar_01]

im going to be very blunt and cause a lot of stir but, no. its not in our best interest.

 

[Kwayera]

It would be, however, in our "best interest" to stop reproducing (as a species), at least to the extent that we are now.

 

[Trefoil]

Yes, eliminating poverty is quite possible.

It requires social polices and stuff, sure. But the biggest factor driving poverty elimination is technology, and by extension education.

One thing is certain: the world has more than enough resources to sustain human populations many times our current level - and comfortably. It requires less redistribution of wealth/resources, and more intelligent distribution (enabled by technology).

I think it is telling that the HDI of the world has been steadily increasing since the end of WW2 (including Africa). How much of Africa's problem is poverty and how much of it is civil war, HIV, and lack of knowledge of an alternative, hmm?

 

[Trefoil]

To follow up on that, here's the world's human development level over time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index#Methodology

You can tell that the only place which is still likely to be in a bad place in the future is Africa (again, HIV and civil war).

 

[Trefoil]

It would be, however, in our "best interest" to stop reproducing (as a species), at least to the extent that we are now.

That has already happened in the Western world and others. Population decay is a natural byproduct of the post-industrial age (read: information age).

Map of world growth rates (note most of Western and Central Europe is negative): http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Population_growth_rate_world.PNG

Post-industrial population growth model and explanation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition

Projected population growth patterns for the world and continents: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:World_population_(UN).svg

 

[zeek]

Can everyone have access to the basics needed for survival? Yes.
Will poverty (as in the lowest economic class) ever be eradicated? No, because someone will always have more than you.

 

[Trefoil]

Can everyone have access to the basics needed for survival? Yes.
Will poverty (as in the lowest economic class) ever be eradicated? No, because someone will always have more than you.

Who the heck defined poverty as the lowest economic class? That's a fucking stupid definition. 'Poverty' is inadequate access to basics like food. It has varies levels of severity, but none of them include 'inadequate access to televisions and barbie dolls'.

Poverty (also called penury) is deprivation of common necessities that determine the quality of life, including food, clothing, shelter and safe drinking water, and may also include the deprivation of opportunities to learn, to obtain better employment to escape poverty, and/or to enjoy the respect of fellow citizens

Wikipedia has an excellent article on the causes of poverty, and you can see by many of them that they are conceptually easy to fix over time without taxing either planet or Western resources much.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty#Causes_of_poverty

 

[Kwayera]

That has already happened in the Western world and others. Population decay is a natural byproduct of the post-industrial age (read: information age).

Map of world growth rates (note most of Western and Central Europe is negative): http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Population_growth_rate_world.PNG

Post-industrial population growth model and explanation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition

Projected population growth patterns for the world and continents: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:World_population_(UN).svg

I was more talking about poorer areas, in which the birth rate tends to be higher.

 

[Will Shakespear]

im going to be very blunt and cause a lot of stir but, no. its not in our best interest.

agreed

we need millions of poor chinese to make all our shit

without them it'd be too expensive

 

[HalcyonSky]

no.

unless the entire world is taken over by communism.

 

[Trefoil]

agreed

we need millions of poor chinese to make all our shit

without them it'd be too expensive

1) markets cope with price changes
2) China's market is increasingly middle-class consumer driven - i.e. mostly internal, only 10% of GDP is exports
3) we'll just switch to Africa

And Jesus Christ people, you don't need communism just to minimise poverty. Communism isn't the only way to organise and affect change.

 

[Will Shakespear]

1) markets cope with price changes
2) China's market is increasingly middle-class consumer driven - i.e. mostly internal, only 10% of GDP is exports
3) we'll just switch to Africa

And Jesus Christ people, you don't need communism just to minimise poverty. Communism isn't the only way to organise and affect change.

well they don't have to be chinese really

tbh i don't care whether they're in south america, india or madagascar as long as we get cheap labour

 

[Trefoil]

I don't think the cost of labour is significant enough to really make it a problem once Africa eventually becomes developed, too. Maybe things will get dearer. Maybe they won't. If they do, it'll hardly be the end of the world. The end of rampant consumer capitalism, maybe. But look, before things were made in China (so about 40 years ago?) they weren't that much more expensive (for the time), and we've got things that aren't made in China now and they aren't prohibitively expensive.

I suspect most of the cost cuts of using China's 'cheap labour' go to the business, not the consumer, and aren't necessary so much as as way to make even more money.

 

[Lentern]

Not in a capitalist world.

 

[lionking1191]

Not in a capitalist world.

qft

 

[DownInFlames]

no.

unless the entire world is taken over by communism.

but when we look at how communism works in real life (we're not talking the ideals, but what REALLY HAPPENS) would that really make anything better?


It would take a lot of changes to eradicate poverty, and quite possibly it never will be gone. Because people (myself included) watch the adds, feel sorry for the "starving children in africa," and then go out and buy that new CD instead of giving the money away so a family can plant crops or buy a cow or something.

It's so easy to say "it's a capitalist world" like that's the reason there is poverty. It's not our fault that people in other countries don't have enough money for the education, basic healthcare and medical needs, sanitation, food and clean water that we enjoy. We didn't put them there and then steal all their food and water. But when we want to change things I don't think blaming everything on "the way society is" really amounts to anything. It's up to each individual person to care, if they choose to, and to make a difference.

 

[Lentern]

but when we look at how communism works in real life (we're not talking the ideals, but what REALLY HAPPENS) would that really make anything better?


It would take a lot of changes to eradicate poverty, and quite possibly it never will be gone. Because people (myself included) watch the adds, feel sorry for the "starving children in africa," and then go out and buy that new CD instead of giving the money away so a family can plant crops or buy a cow or something.

It's so easy to say "it's a capitalist world" like that's the reason there is poverty. It's not our fault that people in other countries don't have enough money for the education, basic healthcare and medical needs, sanitation, food and clean water that we enjoy. We didn't put them there and then steal all their food and water. But when we want to change things I don't think blaming everything on "the way society is" really amounts to anything. It's up to each individual person to care, if they choose to, and to make a difference.

Rubbish, I'm not a full blown socialist infact I'm a fan of Lord Keynes but poverty is a fundamental part of capitalism, it's a managed flaw, contained if you will to a tolerable level but it will never be gone so long as capitalism exists. Capitalism is cynical government, Socialism is folly idealistic government, only the lattercan have a chance of actually eradicating poverty. That does not mean however that in practice the former won't keep poverty at a lower level.