We can eradicate the poverty by serious social solidarity.
It depends on the definition. Income, property ownership, homelessness etc. My income is low, but it depends on your definition of income. My thought is poverty is more about access to resources. The fewer resources you have access to, the more poorer you are. My income is low, but I have resources. I own my house, which is a resource and I have land around my house. I also have access to other resources such as food from various sources. And assistance from the government and other agencies. And the low income is because I am not working. But, when I am working I have access to well paying jobs, another resource. Providing access to resources would help. Perhaps the great resource are people. I live next to a homeless shelter. I have seen people get kicked out because they were not following their rules. And I mean old people. Now what?
Here are some potential ways to end poverty worldwide:
•Enhance economic growth with targeted action.
•End all forms of poverty.
•Commit national governments to end extreme poverty.
•Develop national poverty reduction plans.
•Continue to support the poorest people through aid.
•Equal education.
•Access to health care.
•Water sanitation
•Teach children about their rights and how to take active roles within their community
For all extents and purposes the developed countries have eliminated poverty.
But, since we look at poverty as a relative, and not as an absolute term, we call the people of the west who make a lot less than others in their society "poor."
The poor in America eat too much food, have cell phones, color TVs, cars, and air conditioning.
They live better than most kings and queens of history.
But our moral outlook still wants to label then as POOR because they have far less than the others today - who we say are RICH.
Once all third-world nations join the world-wide capitalist production and trading network, poverty will be eliminated there as well.
But no matter how fantastically well off even the poorest of our societies are,
we will always imagine there is a "poverty problem" as long as there are others who live better.
Another lesson from history.
Poverty could be described on a spectrum or a scale (poor to rich, and how to measure would be a challenge) which is depending on cultural relativism. But it would seem that regardless of how other cultures perceive poverty, if those individuals who are closer to the culturally relevant definition of poverty then those individuals will still suffer from the effects of inequality such as anxiety, stress, mental illness and other ill-health effects. So it would seem that poverty based on this idea could be fixed by some level of economic leveling or allowing more economic opportunities to improve social equality. Now, how do we as society do this? Individually, as a group, through policy. Personally, I have always felt the best social leveler is education, which allows the most potential for economic advancement. But, even in education there is inequality or at least missed opportunities (such as students not being focused even when everything is available to them, I have seen this working in an inner city school district. I believe it is because of a false belief, or false logic in that these opportunities will not change their situation, resulting in a self-fulfilling prophesy). So, based on that poverty is still very cyclical from generation to generation. Perhaps the greatest social changer would be to change the belief that one is destined or fated to be poor.
create job opportunities
a persons ready to work any kind of job with honesty
a person to create job for his convenience or suitability (self employment)
Stephen Martin Fritzm that is not a fact- poverty exists all over the world and there are poor in america. to say they "...eat too much food, have cell phones, color TVs, cars, and air conditioning" is a myth that went out with the 60s-- can u soe some resrearch vidence for such inaccuracies. just a few facts--people die when the weaterh gets too hot, (or too cold for that matter) there are homeless, many who don't hve enough to eat food insecurty- -and there is a wide gap still in technology still with many w/o interent computers cell phones etc. -- likewise in london, paris, and all the other developed countries. this, " They live better than most kings and queens of history is a ridiculous laughabe sattement. come on over and you can have a tour or "poverty in america." or you can simply do a ittet reserch as thet is plenty of documentaton on poverty in america and the developed countries.
as far as the question-- poverty cannot ever be eradcated- it has alwsya been with us and will always be with us.ws
Wee Mary-Helen Castanuela I suppose I should have qualified my statement by saying that in the developed nations poverty has been eradicated for those of of at least average intelligence, moderate ability, and mediocre ambition.
Those with mental or physical problems will remain unable to get by without further and perpetual assistance.
It is debatable what can be done for those who are poor through their assorted addictions and criminal behaviors.
Much of modern governance in all developed countries have been to redistribute wealth from the top to the bottom of society. And there is no doubt that this is beneficial for all.
After all, if the assorted welfare programs suddenly ceased to operate, how many beggars would we be stepping over when we traveled to the mall to buy our 13th pair of shoes?
Yet, we are compelled to wonder:
"Is there a point of diminishing returns?" in our wealth redistribution schemes? At what point is enough-enough?
Can there ever be enough wealth redistribution?
My guess is that for those of the liberal persuasion the answer is NO. With effort we can dig up poverty somewhere and cry that it is still (and forever) a major problem!
We can grasp the fact that there is a variation in how tall people will grow.
And we can accept the fact that there is great variation in how well people can sing.
But we have trouble accepting that there is also a variation in how well people will do in a free and prosperous society. We live in the easiest most prosperous times in human history. So we have to ask ourselves:
Should I be free to live my life as I choose? What if it means I end up with children I cannot care for, addicted to cocaine, illiterate, and living a hand-to-mouth existence one step outside the gutter? If the sum of my free choices places me in the life I just described, are my fellow society members obligated (because they can afford it) to support my children, rid me of my addictions, and feed me … all so that that I do not fall too far away from some basic level of equality with the rest of them?
With more stuff for everybody, and more choices, failures naturally multiply alongside successes. Social safety nets and welfare programs, now easily funded by our rich culture, take the sting out of bad behavior and basic incompetence or inherent inability.
no! there a plenty of people w/o any disability who are poor-- again research evidence not just opinions
Mary-Helen Castanuela Could I cite any study that you could not refute with a different study?
My suggestion is go outside and look around.
Encourage or provide means or support by which every poor person becomes or is able to be self employed. Take for example example of Grameen bank in Bangladesh. One of the best ideas to bring poor communities out of poverty.
And the main idea behind Grameen bank and similar ideas is to instill belief in economically less off individuals that they are themselves masters of their own destiny. Giving money only takes away this empowerment....causes more damage than improvement....kills self reliance, increases dependence.
Stephen Martin Fritz--not studies sweetie, census, ststs government agencies, etc. most government includiong us collect, maintain and keep recent all kinds of data on these issues
Mary-Helen Castanuela The data on the massive decline of global extreme poverty is documented by every politically neutral observer who has looked at the data, including economists like Angus Deaton and other experts in global development (e.g. Charles Kenny, the Roslings, etc.). It is also supported by the United Nations, which reported that its Millennium Development Goal of reducing extreme poverty by half was reached 5 years ahead of schedule. Many countries that were once poor (e.g. South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore) are now rich, and many poor countries have seen spectacular poverty reductions (e.g. Bangladesh, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Mongolia, Mozambique, Rwanda, Vietnam ...).
The World Bank reports that in more than half of the countries of the world, the share of the population in extreme poverty is now less than 3%, whereas just a few generations ago, in these same countries, the huge majority lived in extreme poverty.
Furthermore, as Stephen Pinker highlights, the drastic decline in extreme poverty is corroborated by other measures of well-being besides income: Longevity, literacy levels, education and consumption have all increased worldwide, while child mortality, maternal mortality and undernourishment have decreased significantly. Obesity, once considered a "rich country problem," is now on the rise in middle- and low-income countries. The World Health Organization reports that most of the world's population live in countries where overweight and obesity kill more people than hunger does.
This is not to claim that there is no room for improvement. It is simply to acknowledge that significant progress has been made over the past few generations and is likely to continue. The optimist sees the doughnut and the pessimist sees the hole.
Mary-Helen Castanuela The problem gorgeous, is that studying the human condition is not like the measurements taken in the hard sciences (as noted by Aristotle 2400 years ago).
Just what is "poverty" and how do we know it?
Is a person poor in an absolute sense (no home and dying of starvation) or should people be regarded as poor in a relative sense (most everyone around them lives in far greater material abundance.)
There is no consensus on these issues and when the world grows three times as rich as it is today we will still hear the laments of some researchers that "The rich are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer."
I'm not sure where you are from, but here in America it is common to listen to some claim that THE INCOME OF AVERAGE WORKING PEOPLE HAS NOT INCREASED IN 30 YEARS!
Is this a fact? Or is it only a truth?
Thirty years ago homes were smaller, cars less reliable, no one had cell phones or computers, prescription drugs less effective and more expensive, the poor were dropping like flies during the AIDS epidemic, but that has changed. all improvements in these areas have been shared by every strata of society.
But what does this mean??
Have we eradicated poverty? How will we know it when we have?
Mary-Helen Castanuela please tell me what the phrase ERADICATE POVERTY means to you. How will YOU know when the world has eradicated poverty?
you are confusing "the human condition" with simple albeit large counts, like the census are you not fsmiliar with the american survey? plus we've had the "had sciences vs social sciences discussion for hundreds of years. are you or not a rsarcher?
Denise Morel i stand by what i say and yes i am definitely not an optimist or positive thinking person and whether u use the doughut hole of glass half full glass or lemonade i am a realist, pragmatist
besides i see the hole beause i ate it before i got to the doughnut!
Mary-Helen Castanuela I ask again....
Please tell me what the phrase ERADICATE POVERTY means to you.
How will YOU know when the world has eradicated poverty?
i do not belive in individal meanig for/of words- we have shared meaning for ease and effective communication (pleae don't start with intepretation we're not talking literature here) an apple is an apple and an orange is an orange.
"eradicate: /əˈradəˌkāt/ verb verb: eradicate; destroy completely; put an end to. "this disease has been eradicated from the world"
If you look at the very question we are supposed to be answering here Mary-Helen Castanuela it involves eradicating poverty.
I would imagine before we address the problem of how to eradicate something we first need to define what that something (poverty) is.
And once we know what it is, we can them proceed to look at ideas for it's eradication.
And being the well recognized and highly acclaimed researcher that you undoubtedly are ... I sit back in anxious anticipation, waiting to be amazed by your answers concerning this subject.
But I don't wish to badger you. So this will be the last time I ask:
Please tell me who is in "poverty" and how do we know it?
and
How will YOU know when the world has eradicated this condition?
Mary-Helen Castanuela You asked for statistics and I gave you some - from very reputable and reliable sources to boot. Your response was, "I stand by what I say." This just confirms what the moral psychologist, Jonathan Haidt, argues - that people do not form their moral judgments on the basis of evidence (facts) and rational argument. Rather, their judgments are based on prior moral "intuitions" or feelings about what is right and what is wrong, and then they look for whatever evidence and arguments support those intuitions, and conveniently ignore whatever facts seem to contradict them.
Fritz pointed to the distinction between the notions of absolute poverty and relative poverty, which is a logical distinction that can be grasped by any rational person. But you choose to ignore this distinction. Perhaps it would make more sense to restrict the term "poverty" to its absolute sense, and use the term "disadvantaged" for its relative sense. Thus, while "poverty" has been virtually "eradicated" from the world, there remain many people who are "disadvantaged" insofar as they do not enjoy as many of the advantages that are available to the majority in their society. The debate then becomes one about "fairness" and what constitutes a "fair" distribution of resources.
The question of fairness, of course, is not a factual question, since fairness is a normative, not a descriptive concept. People will be divided about what constitutes fairness, along typical liberal vs. conservative lines, and according to the pattern identified by Haidt: the "emotional tail wagging the rational dog."
Poverty is poorly defined, complex, and multidimensional. Setting a goal of eradicating poverty ranges from working to help people who, by circumstance, decision or neglect, are in a group defined as "in poverty" to judging people's decisions, values, and communities.We might compare poverty to an illness, a disease, and a sickness.
An illness is what the patient has, what the patient perceives as having. Some people perceive themselves as "so poor" because they just lost ten million dollars that they commit suicide. Another person might live their entire lives as beggars and consider it their natural happy state. Many adults live their lives entirely dependent on the finances of another person or community - and are not considered poor unless that other person (perhaps a spouse or caretaker) is deficient. Many, perhaps most people switch between being dependent and independent on the sharing of others.
Do we want to eliminate people "feeling poor"?
A disease is what a doctor, or medical professional can diagnose. A professional with a specific definition of poverty might include all of the above, some of the above, but might judge some people to be "in poverty" when they do not perceive themselves as poor, and might refuse to judge someone who claims to be poor as "in poverty".
Do we want to create an all inclusive world-wide definition of poverty, and then work to eliminate poverty, or are we satisfied with local definitions, to match a smaller community?
A sickness is a judgement by another person or community, independent of what the individual or professional believes or perceives - overlapping in some cases, disagreeing in others. Was I living in poverty, when I left home - my fractured family was living on welfare - with $20 to seek my fame and fortune? I quickly found a job and financial success. Is the child of a wealthy family who decides to strike out on their own living in "poverty" until they "make it"? Are they crazy? Sick?
Do we want to eliminate the poverty of the Eastern Orthodox Church's monks, and similar individuals, who vow to live in chastity, poverty, obedience and stability?
Poverty exists on the boundaries between individuals and communities. Every individual lives their life in multiple communities and moves between communities as they live. Individuals change, and communities change over time.
Different individuals and different communities hold different standards of poverty. These standards change over time.
It is not possible to "eliminate" poverty.
to your health, tracy
Founder: Healthicine
first i did NOT ask for statistics, second ," then they look for whatever evidence and arguments support those intuitions, and conveniently ignore whatever facts seem to contradict them." is exactly what you have done. there is global poverty and hunger all over the worls and i am not going to be the one who finds the stats for u as u can do that yourself if u are so inbclined. last save your lectures for the classroom just because u do not like what i said. poverty had alwasy and will always be with us and will never be "eradicated."
Stephen Martin Fritz oh please! i do not beleive or accept how "YOU" or any individual defines a word or concept. there are many available definitions of poverty -do the research yourself and pick one thst u like and don't forget the dictionary
Mary-Helen Castanuela You say you did NOT ask for statistics??? Then please explain your comment above, "Stephen Martin Fritz--not studies sweetie, census, ststs government agencies, etc." (Am I wrongly assuming that "ststs" stands for "statistics"?) I cited the World Health Organization and the World Bank for starters. The burden of proof remains with you, sweetie, but all you keep doing is chanting the same old line, "there is global poverty and hunger all over the world."
"there is global poverty and hunger all over the world." and it will always be here, cookie.
read carefully and folllow- stats on this "Those with mental or physical problems will remain unable to get by without further and perpetual assistance. It is debatable what can be done for those who are poor through their assorted addictions and criminal behaviors.
"Cookie," ... "sweetie," -- you ladies are making me hungry.
But I don't wish to be counted as one of the starving masses.
However, I think I might qualify as one of the over-weight poor!
Mary-Helen Castanuela The question of poverty is worth addressing. The problem needs to be addressed from two angles, the problem of the individual poor person (what are his responsibilities in this matter) and the responsibilities of the group (what, if anything, should the non-poor do for the poor.) ?
Government has a crucial role to play in poverty eradication
Stephen Martin Fritz of course it does- i never said otherwise-- go ahead and addess it-- just have goals (and don't ask me-figute it out) other than "eradicate" it
Poverty may not be completely eradicated but can be greatly reduced
Proper planning, proper utilization of human resources and industriousness
1. Properly Identifying Issues
2. Allocating Proper Time and Resources
3 Creating organizations and communities to work locally
4 Creating Jobs
5 Providing Access to Healthcare
6 Empowering Women and supporting equal pay for men and women
7 Microfinancing
In Arabic :
لقد عالجت الشريعة الاسلامية وبكل بساطة موضوع الفقر، فقد شرع الدين الاسلامي وجوب اعطاع الزكاة عن الاموال التي تبلغ النصاب من ايرادات اعمال التجارة والصناعة والزراعة، وجعلها من اركان الفرائض الاسلامية اي ركن من اركان العبادة، كذلك شرعت انواع الصدقات التي يعطيها الاغنياء للفقراء كنوع اخر من انواع العبادات التي يتقرب بها المسلم الى الله زيادة على الفرائض، وهذه الاموال التي تدفع من الزكاة والصدقات توزع بالتساوي على عدة فئات من فقراء المجتمع وذلك حسب درجات فقرهم وبؤسهم، ويعطى جزء من هذه الاموال راتبا لمن يعمل على قسمة اموال الزكاة وتوزيعها، لانه سيكون منشغلا بهذا العمل عن الانفاق على زوجته واطفاله ، فلا بد من مكافاته بما يسد حاجته، هذه ببساطة الوصفة الحقيقية للقضاء على الفقر في العالم... تحياتي...
In Enghlish :
Islamic law simply addressed the issue of poverty. The Islamic religion prescribed that zakaah should be paid on the money that constitutes the quorum of the revenues of business, industry and agriculture, and made it one of the pillars of the Islamic obligation, any corner of worship, as well as the types of alms given by the rich to the poor as another kind of The types of worship that the Muslim approach to God in addition to the obligatory duties, and these money paid from zakat and charity are distributed equally to several categories of poor people of society, according to the degrees of poverty and misery, and part of these funds is given a salary to those who work to divide the Zakat money and distribution, because He will be preoccupied with this work from spending on his wife and children, it must be rewarded to meet his need, this is simply the real recipe for the eradication of poverty in the world ... Greetings ...
By supporting production, trade and commercial exchange.
The way to NOT eliminate poverty is to create intrusive government programs to eliminate poverty.
- Develop and implement rapid and sustained economic growth policies and programs,
- Improve management of water and other natural resources.
- Invest in and implement agricultural programs.
- Encourage countries to engage in trade as a path out of poverty.
- Create and improve access to jobs
- Providing all people with access to basic social services
- Progressively developing social protection systems
Kindly read the below link for detail:
https://borgenproject.org/10-ways-to-reduce-poverty-in-the-world/
Though this is not my field of specialty, this is an issue close to my heart. For thirty-five years i have worked to understand this issue.
Would we to recognize nature in one natural principle, where all things communicate, where nothing is seen to truly collide; we might understand energy itself, to form freely in our environments. Would we then to rid ourselves of the corporate form of business, with its' outside influence on local economies, schools, family and government; we might restore economies. It is here, in this environment, in a new era of plenty, of universal understanding that we eradicate all poverty and hunger and suffering.
Please find article below, describing a whole new paradigm in our physics; a world composed of robust entanglements, or RE; of four new forms of energy, formed freely.
Working Paper Summary of Physics & foundation for mathematics transpose
please find video demonstrations below, of what only RE can explain.
https://youtu.be/9-XUqwhvfCA
https://youtu.be/DZsJnCym_d4
https://youtu.be/A-p0XquJvig
https://youtu.be/xPhRcmbEL5k
https://youtu.be/X5hCOEauY0o
Kind regards,
Mark
I think, hard-working solidarity and unity supported by technology-based inquiry eradicate poverty. Moreover, the world great thinkers shift from Negativism world to positivism to get new insight.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Cognitive Science
- Thinking