There is enough food, water, and resources in the world for everyone to live comfortably. There is essentially no need for money, thus, no reason for poverty. People should be free to work an honest day and reap the benefits by living comfortably. Governments and economics based in socialist principles can achieve this.
If we are to attain the global elimination of poverty, then it must be made the goal of each person and politician on the planet. If we would truly make the sharing of wealth and the annihilation of impoverishment a shared human goal, then we could certainly see it ended. Are people too selfish to see this through? Perhaps that it is the case. But the question is not whether it will be achieved, but if it is, in fact, achievable. I believe it is. But all of our energy must be shifted in that direction. To do so would pull together all of humanity in such a way that we can only begin to imagine.
The percentage of the world population living on the equivalent of a dollar a day has been declining. This is partially due to globalization and world trade bringing work to these areas. It is partially due to the spread of education, which raises local wages, and health-care, which improves the productivity of those living in these areas. Technology plays a role, bringing information to those who did not know debt slavery is against their laws and fair prices for their crops. The trend is toward prosperity, and technology will only raise living standards higher. The only question is the definition of poverty. We can see a world with no one starving, dying for lack of water, and without education in our lifetime.
The reason for this is due to the overwhelming selfishness of the human race. We generally do not agree to do things that don't benefit us, and elimination of poverty is something that would benefit us, but that benefit would be difficult to achieve and too many people would fight against it for their own benefit. However, it can be done if we can change the minds of enough people to be unselfish toward the goal.
The "giving" countries need to open lines of communication and education with the countries in need. For example, in Haiti, goods were reported wasted because they were sent by donors but had no one to receive and distribute them. Political roadblocks between governments need to be addressed as well.
We work free and get everything free. We will have full democracy, with any lifestyle anyone wants. There will be no poverty, unemployment, wars, and pollution. We can run the existing economy in the same way without any kind of money. Check it out at https://createmoneylesseconomy.wordpress.com/
This money-less economy (MLE) obeys the laws of nature. This is not socialism. Socialism has money. Money is the root cause of all problems. Why do we need money? - You give me money so that I can work for you. Then I use that money to buy food and shelter for me. This is the only reason we need money for.
Then why not we tell our government that we will work free for every kind of jobs. And government will then be able to give us everything for free. If you want you can have a corporate jet also, because it will be free.
Money is false, because it is not an object of nature. It neither grows on a tree, nor it can be mined from underneath the earth. Therefore it must be false. Since money is false, it must be free and abundant at the source, which is the central bank. Using something false, you cannot create anything real. Therefore money cannot be necessary to run an economy. Get rid of money and remove poverty too, all over the world, within a year.
The problem with our society at the moment is poverty! 1.3 billion people live in extreme poverty. However there is enough food to go about. People in poorer countries are being ignored. Yes you can say there not but then you would be lying! The UK spends more money on weapons in a day than it does supporting these people. At the moment were pushing them away. The government are doing nothing! Its down to us to help
I'm a man but I know damn well that in general women are less violent, more caring, more responsible, can multi-task better and are more practical. But most of all, bringing children into the world is a far bigger deal than it is for men. They would not allow their children to live in poverty. Nor would they let it happen to anyone else. Matriarchal Society is the way to go.
I have no doubt in my mind that the total elimination of poverty is easy. However, there is enough space, housing, food, medical care to provide these basic needs to all who dwell on this earth. There may be those who refuse charity it is true, but to have available the needs: the BASIC needs of our people (mankind), and refuse to support, create massive global resource service centers is a crime against mankind.
Let's dare to end poverty.
Eliminating poverty is not an impossible task, maybe a difficult one. Basically, poverty arises when resources are allocated inefficiently due to various reasons. If we distribute the limited resources we have in an efficient manner then poverty can be eradicated from the earth. For this international community shall unite to take steps to address the issue and to solve it.
Absolute poverty is something we should all strive to eradicate, a fair and just society should ensure that nobody starves because they lack the economic clout to survive. However, relative poverty will always exists because, well, it is 'relative'.
While absolute poverty is our collective shame, relative poverty drives the betterment of society. Far from eradicating it, we should embrace it as serving a positive function in society.
Poverty will never be eliminated. People will not work as hard if the government redistributes their money. There is no incentive for them to work if they cannot reap the rewards of their labor. Government programs to eliminate poverty only hurt the poor and create more poverty. "The War on Poverty" has been the goal of the left since the sixties, yet poverty still and will always exist. It is not the role of government to ensure prosperity for the people. As a matter of fact, capitalism is the best solution to poverty because it raises the standard of living for all.
It is classic Malthusian theory. It could be done if all countries followed China's example and restricted human rights to the level where the human race doesn't have the right to reproduce. That isn't feasible however, so I think that it cannot happen. I think any given country can reduce poverty, as China did, but not world-wide
Acceptance. Human beings all over the world despise Americans as excessive and overly divulgent. It is true. The standard of poverty in this country is one of luxury in other countries. There are women working as PROSTITUTES for dollars a day. The world doesn't want to end up like America. Our idea of "poverty" is misconceived. We are not impoverished, we are indulgent beyond boundry. Without our complete indulgence we are lost to ourselves and the laughing stock of the world.
Wealth inequality is increasing in the world today as we see a small amount of people controlling more and more of the worlds wealth. It would be virtually impossible to end poverty but that should be the ideal reason for attempting to stop poverty. Just because perfection is unattainable does not mean we should stop trying to reach it and rather people do not stop striving for perfection. Essentially striving to end poverty in the world and yearning for perfection will produce results that none of us would expect.
Man has this greedy desire for things that are beyond our personal resources. We have the tendency of encroaching on the less advantage or suppressing others. We are flamboyant of things that we do not have. We care less about empowering others because our selfish-ego fears they may surpass us in material wealth. We are the only arguably the only animal this exploit its kind immorally. We have no respect for the moral laws that govern this world: one man to a woman, one originally father to a child, the love of humanity, opposite sex marriage, the ethics of reality and the inevitable interrelationship of our world, just to name a few. We spend a lot of our time and resources inventing weapons of mass destruction and spend billions and trillions of dollars on something [war] that can easily be substituted by morality and ethics. If a man is physically rich and has no ethical fear for human dignity, he is internally poor and vice versa. A wealthy man therefore must possess both physical and internal riches. Unless we do these things, no one country or a combination of countries with its technological or industrialize advancement can eradicate poverty in this generation and in succeeding generations. Poverty, as I see it is both internal and physical.
Man has this greedy desire for things that are beyond our personal resources. We have the tendency of encroaching on the less advantage or suppressing others. We are flamboyant of things that we do not have. We care less about empowering others because our selfish-ego fears they may surpass us in material wealth. We are the only arguably the only animal this exploit its kind immorally. We have no respect for the moral laws that govern this world: one man to a woman, one originally father to a child, the love of humanity, opposite sex marriage, the ethics of reality and the inevitable interrelationship of our world, just to name a few. We spend a lot of our time and resources inventing weapons of mass destruction and spend billions and trillions of dollars on something [war] that can easily be substituted by morality and ethics. If a man is physically rich and has no ethical fear for human dignity, he is internally poor and vice versa. A wealthy man therefor must possess both physical and internal riches. Unless we do these things, no one country or a combination of countries with its technological or industrialize advancement can eradicate poverty in this generation and in succeeding generations. Poverty, as I see it is both internal and physical.
Nowadays, poverty has become a serious and critical matter. Many people died from hunger and diseases, a result of an extended period of poverty. Everyday, 25,000 people are dying from hunger and 14 million people are dying from diseases, both caused by poverty. Poverty is the state of having a lack of money or materials that are necessary to sustain life. Eliminating poverty is worthless because it is a constant cycle that will never be fully reduced, it is unnecessary to help people who are not desperate, and people have to accept reality.
Elimination of poverty is not possible as long as globalisation continues to take the centre stage. Globalisation has accentuated the global disparities in development and income gap as developed nations race ahead in terms of growth with the poorer nations lagging behind. So, I believe that as long as making profit is the main priority, there will always be this gap between the rich and the poor. Poverty will thus persist.
After a brief respite from global warming-related news, climate change seems to be reappearing more frequently now that President Obama has won re-election.
The new president of the World Bank, it seems, is deeply troubled by the “unequivocal” science behind man-made global warming, and hopes that a recently-released World Bank report will “shock the world into action.”
All nations will suffer the effects of a warmer world, but it is the world’s poorest countries that will be hit hardest by food shortages, rising sea levels, cyclones and drought, the World Bank said in a report on climate change.
Under new World Bank President Jim Yong Kim, the global development lender has launched a more aggressive stance to integrate climate change into development.
“We will never end poverty if we don’t tackle climate change. It is one of the single biggest challenges to social justice today,” Kim told reporters on a conference call on Friday.
The report, called “Turn Down the Heat,” highlights the devastating impact of a world hotter by 4 degrees Celsius (7.2 Fahrenheit) by the end of the century, a likely scenario under current policies, according to the report.
Highlighting the possibility of melting ice caps, rising sea levels, drought, etc. The report says the World Bank will try to strike a balance between limiting emissions and accommodating the energy needs of the poor.
Last year, the Bank doubled its funding for countries seeking to adapt to climate change, and now operates $7.2 billion in climate investment funds in 48 countries.
The World Bank study comes as almost 200 nations will meet in Doha, Qatar, from Nov. 26 to Dec. 7 to try to extend the Kyoto Protocol, the existing plan for curbing greenhouse gas emissions by developed nations that runs to the end of the year.
“There really is no alternative to urgent action given the devastating consequences of climate change,” global development group Oxfam said in a statement. “Now the question for the World Bank is how it will ensure that all of its investments respond to the imperatives of the report.”