ANSWERS: 7
-
Poverty operates on many levels. We don't need an army of disenchant pensioners, but there are so many ethically poverty-stricken politicians and yuppies that this is unavoidable.
-
Since poverty is usually measured relatively, poverty is unavoidable. There will always be some people poorer than others. One definition is people living on less than half the median income. The poorest now are not as poor as the poorest 50 years ago; that is good. The poorest now could be richer in 50 years time, and how much richer depends upon decisions we make now.
-
Absolutely not; it neither helps anyone, nor serves a purpose that isn't woefully immoral. Poverty is by definition, suffering in many regards...
-
No, it is not. It is a result of greed and exploitation. The wealthy want their toys, and they expect someone to provide them. Their greed sucks up the incomes of those at the bottom. Why is it that in so many countries 80% of the wealth is held by 10% of the population? Do they need all those resources? No. Could they share even a little? They could, but rarely do. It is a well known fact that the lower middle class is much more generous with charity drives than the upper class.
-
The problem isn't quite as simple as redistributing wealth. There will always be a global North-South divide between the wealthy and the poor nations. The reason for this lies in the lasting vestiges of colonialism, wherein the countries of the Global North colonized the countries of the South, stripped them of their resources, and have since left, causing corrupt warlords to seize power in nations like Zimbabwe. Were we to try to give them humanitarian aid, one of two things would happen: 1.) The warlord would seize the assets, or (2) the people receiving the assets would have children who would depend on these assets. Since neither can be sustained, foreign aid is rendered useless and poverty would continue.
-
No.
-
Poverty is just an example of what the system produces. It could be you!
Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC

by 