poveryt

[Alcofribas]

*produces summaries of enlightenment now book reviews*

[caze]

There are still a lot of people dying from hunger even though this could have been fixed decades ago

I don't think it's as easy as you think it is. Just because you can imagine something, that it might be theoretically possible, doesn't make it practically realisable.

 

...and inequality is increasing.

inequality is a poor measure of poverty, and in most of the world it's not actually increasing, it's decreasing. there's obviously such a thing as too much inequality, but there's not much reason to believe that eradicating it outright is actually a good idea, even if such a thing were possible, which it's not (any time soon at least).

 

The poorest of the poor are slowly coming to a standard where most of them don't die from hunger anymore (even though world hunger has increased a bit again since 2015)

Define 'slowly'? It took awhile for the massive poverty reduction seen in the industrialised west to spread to the rest of the world, but once it did (by the 70s/80s), it happened pretty quickly.

 

but the richest become so incredibly rich that only a small percentage of their wealth could fix a lot of problems and help building infrastructure that effectively fights poverty on long term. But this is not done.

Like I said before, this is highly debatable.

 

EDIT: also, it's not for want of trying, the amount of money in aid that gets wasted by corrupt governments for example.

 

Also ecosystems get screwed. Thousands of species die out every year, climate changes and the livelihood of billions of people is endangered.  I don't think that it's good if "we keep doing it"

This is a different argument, and there's no good reason to believe that other (probably worse) strategies to reducing global poverty would be any better in terms of climate change or other ecological damage.

[YangYing]

hear hear

[drome]

 

There are still a lot of people dying from hunger even though this could have been fixed decades ago

I don't think it's as easy as you think it is. Just because you can imagine something, that it might be theoretically possible, doesn't make it practically realisable.

 

...and inequality is increasing.

inequality is a poor measure of poverty, and in most of the world it's not actually increasing, it's decreasing. there's obviously such a thing as too much inequality, but there's not much reason to believe that eradicating it outright is actually a good idea, even if such a thing were possible, which it's not (any time soon at least).

 

The poorest of the poor are slowly coming to a standard where most of them don't die from hunger anymore (even though world hunger has increased a bit again since 2015)

Define 'slowly'? It took awhile for the massive poverty reduction seen in the industrialised west to spread to the rest of the world, but once it did (by the 70s/80s), it happened pretty quickly.

 

but the richest become so incredibly rich that only a small percentage of their wealth could fix a lot of problems and help building infrastructure that effectively fights poverty on long term. But this is not done.

Like I said before, this is highly debatable.

 

EDIT: also, it's not for want of trying, the amount of money in aid that gets wasted by corrupt governments for example.

 

Also ecosystems get screwed. Thousands of species die out every year, climate changes and the livelihood of billions of people is endangered. I don't think that it's good if "we keep doing it"

This is a different argument, and there's no good reason to believe that other (probably worse) strategies to reducing global poverty would be any better in terms of climate change or other ecological damage.

You’re just twisting things with words. Any idiot can see that our current global trajectory is headed toward annihilation.

[dingformung]

 

Also ecosystems get screwed. Thousands of species die out every year, climate changes and the livelihood of billions of people is endangered.  I don't think that it's good if "we keep doing it"

This is a different argument, and there's no good reason to believe that other (probably worse) strategies to reducing global poverty would be any better in terms of climate change or other ecological damage.

 

 A lot of economical growth comes at cost of ecosystems that get damaged or destroyed and climate change which on long term affects people that are dependent on ecosystems and climate, which leads to more poverty.

[dingformung]

 

There are still a lot of people dying from hunger even though this could have been fixed decades ago

I don't think it's as easy as you think it is. Just because you can imagine something, that it might be theoretically possible, doesn't make it practically realisable.

 

There are ideas for measures that could effectively help underdeveloped economies to grow for example international laws that fight exploitation or asymmetrical trading treaties between first world and third world countries where the third world countries are allowed to collect protective duties on all first world products whereas they can sell their products in first world countries without any duties. That way the destruction of local economies could be reduced and local businesses in economically weak countries could compete with huge international companies. That's just one example of ideas for effective and long-ranging development aid, there are experts that have more ideas but it seems not very lucrative for the EU to make fair-trade contracts. I'm not saying it's easy, I'm saying that economically interests are too often placed above humanitarian interests

[caze]

A lot of economical growth comes at cost of ecosystems that get damaged or destroyed and climate change which on long term affects people that are dependent on ecosystems and climate, which leads to more poverty.

 

Yep, and if economic growth is a prerequisite for poverty reduction (which it is almost certainly is), then it doesn't really matter what political policies are put in place to achieve it. Though obviously many of those policies wouldn't work, and so wouldn't actually reduce poverty at all, though that would be no guarantee you'd not still increase environmental damage anyway (as an ecosystem doesn't care whether the productive energy is going towards making some humans lives better, or is being wasted due to human idiocy). The only way to get the best of both worlds is to continue developing economies and also continue developing technological solutions to the problems of developing economies.

[caze]

There are ideas for measures that could effectively help underdeveloped economies to grow for example international laws that fight exploitation or asymmetrical trading treaties between first world and third world countries where the third world countries are allowed to collect protective duties on all first world products whereas they can sell their products in first world countries without any duties. 

 

I agree.

[drome]

Crony capitalism is screwing the plant. We need government control to stop these bastards screwing us (and the planet). Government control is inherently corrupt as it gets hijacked by corporate psychos. Can we find balance somehow? Legislature and whatnot?

[eugene]

maaan, this thread really makes me want to rationally analyze the current economical system and its trends, adapt to it by acquiring  desirable and flexible skills and qualifications and use those in combination with strong determination and competitive spirit to generate substantiate individual wealth for my individual benefit..

[drome]

maaan, this thread really makes me want to rationally analyze the current economical system and its trends, adapt to it by acquiring desirable and flexible skills and qualifications and use those in combination with strong determination and competitive spirit to generate substantiate individual wealth for my individual benefit..

Word

[caze]

Now we just need everyone else in the world to do the exact same.

[auxien]

Also ecosystems get screwed. Thousands of species die out every year, climate changes and the livelihood of billions of people is endangered.  I don't think that it's good if "we keep doing it"

 

You know who's poorer than poor people? Animals. My dog begs for food all the time tho and it works, and that tail-wagging son of a bitch is happier than any rich person I've met. Maybe we all need to be that poor, has anyone thought of that???

[Silent Member]

Jesus, get a better dog and send that one off.

[cwmbrancity]

[BCM]

wise words