Why do we not end poverty? Why the inaction?

[Scott]

If you have not already, check out my blog post Ignorance Causes Inaction on Poverty. Please post a comment on that blog post in this thread.

You can provide your own answers to the questions asked in the blog post: How do we inspire people to take action against poverty? Why the inaction? Why do we not end poverty? Why does the average person not do more to help eradicate poverty?

Do you agree with me that ignorance causes the inaction?

If you have not already, check out my blog post Ignorance Causes Inaction on Poverty. Please post a comment on that blog post in this thread.

You can provide your own answers to the questions asked in the blog post: How do we inspire people to take action against poverty?

By inspiring them to love themselves as rich and as poor so that they become Love-rich or rich with the riches of Love and Respect of itself.

This L&R-riches empowers them to see:

that the first poverty is lack of Love for self as poor;

that with that lack of Love, being rich with money will still not bring happiness or contentment or peace of mind.

that with that lack of Love, to be poor is to doubly poor.

that the real poverty that really hurts is having the Poverty of Hatred for the poor or the rich.

frees them up to then go for riches in education or money or etc, OR to remain relatively poor in the physical while being permanently Love-rich.

Why the inaction?

Because in general, no one wants to help who they hate:themselves nor others.
And specifically, any help given in Hate of self as helpless or unhelpful or poor is over-given and over-helpful and dependency-inducing and counterproductive and self-defeating since those who have to be helpful to love themselves are helpful more to love themselves than to help the helpless, and so are easily offended when their help is declined: they are made to feel helpless,
and people who are helped but who still hate themselves as poor will soon lose any money or riches or help they might have gained, and they and their help/money/etc soon part company---again.

This reference is about those who Hate selves as helpless or as unhelpful and so overhelp:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/jour ... 5/abstract

Why do we not end poverty?

Um, because we can't ever end poverty, nor is it necessary.
It really is impossible to physically end poverty since we can't be poor without being rich in poverty,
nor be rich without being poor of poverty.

When I am less poor than you, I am rich tho' poor: so poorer people who hate being poor rob those less poor who are rich to those more poor robbers.
When I am less rich than you, I am poor tho rich.

In effect, with $50 billion, I am still poor when compared to the man with $50 and $1.00.

This is what I think was meant by 'the poor you always have with you.'

But by teaching me to be a Love-zillionaire, which I become when I love myself as rich and as poor,
I am Love-rich even when poor,
and
I am doubly rich when rich: Love-rich and money rich.
Please see 2 Corinthians 12:9-10.

Those who hate themselves as poor and only love themselves as rich are poor even when money-rich, and doubly poor when poor.

Notice too that poverty applies to all other words:
I am Love-poor when hateful,
I am knowledge-poor when ignorant,
health-poor when sick, strength-poor when weak, beauty-poor when ugly, wisdom poor when dumb, etc-poor when non-etc.

Why does the average person not do more to help eradicate poverty?

Because when I hate myself as poor,
I must also hate other poor people as myself,
and must also hate rich people or those who are less poor than myself since they make me feel poor, and rather than changing my attitude, I blame them.

And no one wants to help who they first hate: themselves and or others.

Do you agree with me that ignorance causes the inaction?

Yes, but in this way: The Ignorance of Love, being ignorant of Love, not knowing about Love or not wanting to know about Love is what causes the chief poverty: psycho-spiritual poverty, which then leads to physical poverty.

No, in this way: ignorance of education, not having education, or ignorance of ignorance, not knowing what they don't know, or etc does not cause the inaction.

There are many ignorant people who are rich because they were born rich or who are still rich because they JUST won the lottery or etc.

There are many educated people who are or were poor: those who lost all their monies in the recent financial melt-down: the world has lost 45% of its wealth in the last 18 months.

I read your blog.
Thanx.

If you have not already, check out my blog post Ignorance Causes Inaction on Poverty. Please post a comment on that blog post in this thread.

You can provide your own answers to the questions asked in the blog post: How do we inspire people to take action against poverty? Why the inaction? Why do we not end poverty? Why does the average person not do more to help eradicate poverty?

Do you agree with me that ignorance causes the inaction?

Yes, ignorance of our relationship with others and the universe in general.
'Charity' is not taking more than your share (of resources).
If people behaved thus, charitably, the problems of poverty will be greatly reduced or eliminated.
Capitalism and ego make this simple solution rather difficult.

End Hunger and Poverty; Eat the Rich!
(But just your share! *__- )

Something wonderful happened in the year 2000 -- something we, the people of the world, did – something of which we can be very proud.

Through our leaders and the United Nations, we came together and pledged to “spare no effort to free our fellow men, women and children from the abject and dehumanizing conditions of extreme poverty.” We set goals and targets including that of halving between 1990 and 2015 the proportion of people who suffer from hunger.

Now, more than halfway towards the target date, we see we have made some, but not nearly enough, progress. Assuming that poverty is having to live on less than two dollars a day per person, only about 200 million people, 7% of the world’s population, were lifted out of poverty between 1990 and 2005 (Souce: World Bank) . One person dies every second as a result of hunger. One child dies every five seconds as a result of hunger.

But we can still be proud of our efforts. The billions of dollars that we contribute each year have, among many other things:
Put several million Africans on life-saving AIDS medication,
Immunized 26 million children against life-threatening diseases.
Put 29 million children in school for the first time.
Distributed 59 million bed nets, helping to dramatically reduce malaria rates.

Ending poverty is not a simple, easy matter. Events come along that further complicate and hamper our eradication attempts. Now we are facing a global economic slowdown, a food security crisis, and a global warming danger. Nevertheless, we can, and I see signs that we will, increase our efforts to achieve the Millenium Development Goals .

I respect and generally admire the exhortations that Scott makes to support and further our anti-poverty efforts. Perhaps more could be accomplished by dropping the “Why the inaction?” implication and giving full credit to the actions being taken. My reason is that many of us tend to support projects only so long as we think progress is being made. Otherwise we become discouraged and dubious. We drop out. We listen to the chronic pessimists among us. We ignore or distance ourselves even further from all exhortations. Why not build on accomplishment? It’s much more likely to work.

I also wonder about the implication that the people are ignorant about poverty. Every year about 60 or 70 million people around the globe participate in the annual Stand Up Take Action Against Poverty program sponsored by the UN Millennium Campaign. That doesn't fit the idea we are generally ignorant.

Is it something to do with the perceived need for economic growth?

Depends which poverty. All this "Make Poverty History" guff is risible, 'poverty' being so extremely relative.

The more laudable aims are a distribution of the means to wealth-production, and work to eradicate the ills (physical and social) which prevent progress being made.

Why do we not end poverty? Why the inaction?

Because it's not my problem. I "act" every day to feed myself and my family. In fact, I "act" every day to feed others around me, sometimes including friends.

If I feel the desire, I sometimes even give a few dollars to bums on the streets, as long as they're not begging and have no signs demanding that I give them something.

Bottom line is, it's not my responsibility to live for any other man. I may choose to help whomever I wish, but beyond that, I bear no responsibility whatsoever.

The question may be why is there poverty? If it were, I'd respond:

Because international Nations irresponsibly come together and form organizations that take money from citizens immorally under the guise of "solving the problem of global poverty". Then they use that money to fund their meetings on "how they're going to fix the problem". A few of the more corrupt politicians take the money (such as Kofi Annan and his son) and embezzle it for their own ends, leaving the tax payers less able to generously donate according to their own desires.

If we had no coerced efforts in the first place, individuals may be more able to assist on their own. And if we had no international organizations wasting efforts, manpower, minds, and talent, some of these well-educated people could be running companies to employ the poverty-stricken individuals we're speaking about.

The true problem is people who feel, for whatever reason, some deep moral obligation to FORCE assistance on these "helpless" people in the first place.

Let them figure out their own problems. It's none of our business.

Yes, Belinda, reducing poverty has a lot to do with the perceived need for economic growth. Reduction is easier when there is growth. Some of the added wealth gets to the poor. Theoretically, at least, poverty reduction can occur without economic growth. The existing wealth can be redistributed from the rich to the poor. Our human nature regretably make that hard to do.

I think invictus_88 makes a good point about the merits of going the redistribution route. I don’t however share his apparent scorn of the UN Millenium Campaign. Poverty is relative, as he says. But I see nothing laughable about the efforts to abolish unmistakable, extreme poverty.

Yes, Belinda, reducing poverty has a lot to do with the perceived need for economic growth. Reduction is easier when there is growth. Some of the added wealth gets to the poor. Theoretically, at least, poverty reduction can occur without economic growth. The existing wealth can be redistributed from the rich to the poor. Our human nature regretably make that hard to do.

I think invictus_88 makes a good point about the merits of going the redistribution route. I don’t however share his apparent scorn of the UN Millenium Campaign. Poverty is relative, as he says. But I see nothing laughable about the efforts to abolish unmistakable, extreme poverty.

I share with your distaste, Dewey, but mine's for your comment about re-distribution of wealth. How can you regret the fact that our human nature makes it difficult for us to place a band-aid on a bullet wound?

Poverty cannot be cured by re-distributing wealth already created. What must be done is, as invictus indictated, re-distributing the means by which the wealth is earned. As I said in my earlier post, if we focused less on giving products and more on granting opportunities, we would have permanent solutions.

It might not be your desired solution since it wouldn't render you their permanent Santa Claus, but it would fix the problem.

Depends which poverty. All this "Make Poverty History" guff is risible, 'poverty' being so extremely relative.

(Invictus)

So, since poverty is relative is this a reason,an excuse or a rationalisation for not stopping people starving to death?I don't think so.

Dewey, I obviously did not express myself properly about economic growth. It is the perceived need for economic growth that has impoverished sub-Saharan Africa, caused the American Dust Bowl, wasted the Aral Sea, drained the Dead Sea, poisoned some magificent rivers and lakes in North America.I could go on, as most are now aware; even exPresident Bush was anxious about polar bears.My hope is that the economic downturn will show once and for all that gigantic economic growth is not what is going to feed and water the world.

Thanks, Invictus_88 and whitetrshsoldier. You’re right. I gave the impression that all we had to do to reduce or end poverty was to redistribute the wealth. I knew better than that, but didn’t say enough.

My description of the Millennium Campaign should have made it clear that it covers the vital need for “distribution of the means to wealth production”. There are detailed goals and targets for business and agricultural development, jobs, education, technology, health, environment, etc.

And Belinda, of course you have every reason to worry about the effect of additional economic development on our environment. All I can say is that it is possible to grow the economy without further damaging the environment. Environmental protection is stressed in the Millinnium goals.

Why do we not end poverty? Why the inaction?

Because you're greedy with your money, time and things.

How much did YOU give 'directly into the hands of the poor'* and needy in, say, the last twelve months?

Is this because of your ignorance, you didn't know that people were hungry, sick...?

earned. As I said in my earlier post, if we focused less on giving products and more on granting opportunities, we would have permanent solutions.

I suggest, if we focus less on we and more on I....


*Qur'an

Vlad, let's say 'God please do not forgive us because we know exactly what we do.'

But this philosophyclub is just a talking shop. All the talk and all the prayers may influence some people, and the influences will filter through to politicians, once they clear the Sargasso Sea of party politics.

I think that your uncompromising message to ordinary people of <get acting now> cannot be said too often.

How much did YOU give 'directly into the hands of the poor'* and needy in, say, the last twelve months?

Is this because of your ignorance, you didn't know that people were hungry, sick...?

I didn't give DIRECTLY to more than a few. And I have absolutely no shame in that, because there I have no obligation to give.

I know people are hungry and sick. I get hungry and sick sometimes, so I feed and seek comfort for myself.

I have yet to see a compelling argument that explains why I should be obligated to fulfill anybody else's needs.

I have yet to see a compelling argument that explains why I should be obligated to fulfill anybody else's needs.

Then I guess you are not a parent, teacher or medic.Or civil engineer, poet or military officer.Or political representative, fireman or policeman etc.........

shop assistant
farmer
cook
dock worker
ship's captain
sewage worker
barman or barmaid
sound technician
counsellor
actor
website designer
plumber

This is fun for me I like lists