Impoverished

The word 'poverty' means many different things to different people. The rich think it's preventable and the poor see no end in sight. Some feel that they are "poor" because they can't buy everything name-brand and others feel that they are poor because they struggle to feed themselves from day to day. Some come into poverty as the result of a bad drug habit, others loose their jobs as a result of the current economical situation and others are born into it. Upon hearing the word poverty, some think of the man from downtown that pushes around his worldly possessions in a shopping cart and others think of the commercials they see on T.V. about the malnourished children in Africa and other third-world countries. And then there are those that live in extreme poverty: those that every time it rains, have to rebuild their "house" because the rain washed the mud away; those who in order to survive must break every rule they've ever been taught and go against all of their morals and values on a daily basis; those that with jealously, watch their children die from curable or preventable diseases and wish that it was them instead because their physical pain is so unbearable.

When politicians and economists talk about poverty, who are they talking about? Solely the extreme cases or all levels of poverty? What is the standard that must be met in order to be considered one in poverty? Most importantly how do they plan to "solve" this problem?

All of these questions have been asked, discussed and debated time and time again, but the idea of poverty cannot be confined to such characteristics.

I have had the opportunity to interact with and live among people in extreme poverty in other countries and I have seen first hand the effects of poverty. In seeing and talking with these people face-to-face, it is difficult to judge them and put them into a category. Everyday more people die from lack of simple necessities such as food and clean water, two things that most people take for granted. In books such as Common Wealth where the "curing" of poverty is contemplated, I feel that the people themselves are forgotten. In order to save them from poverty, we must first know who they are. We as Americans or any other nationality, throw our money at them and expect it to all get better. We must interact with them, teach them, respect them and help them through the process side-by-side, "When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Leave them for the poor and the alien... If one of your countrymen becomes poor and is unable to support himself among you, help him as you would an alien or a temporary resident, so he can continue to live among you" (Leviticus 23:22; 25:35).

As Christians Christ has asked us to help the poor and serve others. While we should continue to work in this area until His coming, does that mean that one day the world will be rid of extreme poverty? Unfortunately, I do not think so. Is it possible? Yes. But is it probable? No. We may be able to help our national and international neighbors and lower the number of those plagued by poverty, but to completely eliminate it is not a likelihood. There are not enough people or local resources to be able to overcome such a thing. It is also the case that many people living in poverty, no matter how many times they are dug out of it, will stay consistent in their habits and not be able to be taught how to live otherwise.

From an economic point of view we also see that the time, people, resources and money that are available are not enough to make any significant difference. In order to have more resources available people around the world would have to get a lot more generous.

Mean while, we should not sit back and give up knowing that we can't singlehandedly save the world. We must continue to put forth effort and do what we can as individuals to fulfill the mandate of service set to us by Jesus Christ.

Convergence: More than Money

One of the articles I bookmarked discussed convergence in a broader scope than Sachs deals with in 'Common Wealth'. The study suggests that many developing countries borrow technologies and process that have been optimized by developed countries. These technologies do not necessarily fit into the culture and create discord. The discord can be solved in one of two ways, either the technology is changed, or the culture adapts to meet the demands of the technology. The study shows that by absorbing the technology of developed countries to achieve a better global economic position the culture of the developed country is also brought in. So rather than just the economic per capita income converging towards that of the developed country, the cultural values are also becoming that of the developed nations.

I wonder what the implications of convergence of both economics (i.e. per capital income, etc) and other facets of society will have as the convergence becomes more widespread. Much of the design and innovation is still done in the developed countries while the technology that comes out of this research makes it's way around the globe. Once enough countries reach a certain level of development, many of them will begin creating their own technologies. As their dependence for the innovative technology of the developed countries begins to wain they will begin competing globally on all new levels. This, I would think, will have a remarkable global impact. I would guess that developed countries will, in an attempt to stay 'on top', develop ways to keep the developing countries always under their influence as long as possible.

This bring me to what I think is the greatest hindrance to global cooperation in enacting global change, and that is the self-centered nature of human beings. People are always looking for ways to make their own lives 'better', even at the detriment to others. The first step towards creating change is to instill a sense of responsibility and care for things other than oneself. This can be difficult even for Christians who have the best example of this. Once people develop a genuine Christ-like attitude, changes will begin all over out of sheer good will and care for others and the planet. I do realize that this concept is nearly as much of a pie-in-the-sky as all the other 'grand plans for global change' are, but I believe that the environmental or change for global sustainment are only a very small part of the benefits that sharing Christ will bring. If only we had a global convergence in attitude towards that of Christ.

Sachs, Ch. 1 & 2

I don't know about you guys, but I found these first couple of chapters hard to read. I love the concepts about ending global poverty and sharing the wealth, I just couldn't get into his style of writing. Maybe it was the lack of sleep...
That being said, I still found some things that stood out to me. It was interesting how optimistic Sachs is about stopping the overpopulation of the world. At 6.6 billion in 2007, his suggestion to stabilize the world's population at 8 billion by 2050 seemed like a stretch. The concept of governments mandating the number of children parents are allowed to have seems like a civil rights law suit ready to happen. I mean, I know we have to regulate the world's population somehow, but where do we draw the line on what can be regulated and what can not?
Because I have a love for literature, quotes stick out to me. I really liked it when Sachs included an excerpt from John Kennedy's Peace Address of 1963. "So let us not be blind to our differences - but let us also direct attention to our common interests and to means by which those differences can be resolved," Kennedy had said. "And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal," he concluded his speech. I felt this was a very poignant call to world peace. I think this speech also touches on why we need to help out our fellow brothers and sisters who are in poverty. We may not know them, we might never meet them, but we should feel the need to help them out just because it's the right thing to do. We strive to elevate their living conditions not because we might get something in return. We may may never get a reward for what we do. No, instead we help them out because they, like us, are human, and need help from time to time.

Uniformity for Peace?

While reading Jeffrey Sachs's book Common Wealth, I couldn't help be feel he was being a little presumptuous. I'm not talking about his humanist worldview (though it is thrust upon the reader), his belief that the governments of the world need to work together (which I agree is necessary, but unlikely on the scale he gives), or even his perky optimism (which I happen to share). By presumptuous, I am referring to his assumption that the current Western style of living, thinking, working, etc. is the best to be had anywhere, and that every single other country should follow our example. For instance, Sachs speaks of an economic theory called convergence where countries below the United States's per capita income (taken as the ideal) experience higher growth in proportion to that difference. Over time, this means that all countries will eventually achieve a uniform growth rate and per capita income.

However, I wonder what type of world Earth converges to in that scenario. While Sachs portrays it as a world of peace and understanding, I think it will also feature a uniform global culture where everyone eats, dresses, and thinks in fundamentally the same way: the Western way. Cultural heritage based on "archaic" traditions and beliefs is dropped to grab onto the modern worldview.

Is standardizing humanity an acceptable price for a peaceful world? Personally, I don't think it is. Such a lack of diversity in Sach's "utopia" seems terrible compared to our present world. After traveling to Egypt and England over the summer, I learned to appreciate the different ways people view the world. Thus, I find Sachs's assumption that every country wants to become just like the US, and his plans to eventually minimize diversity to be rather presumptuous. Hasn't the United States forced its values on people of other cultures often enough?

(Before you think I hated Sachs's book, I should say that there are many parts of it that I liked and think are absolutely true. However a discussion of those bits will have to wait until another blog post!)

Common Wealth: Attainable or Impeded by Selfishness?

Jeffrey Sachs’ book felt like a coded message to solve the world’s problems with one missing component: the correct key. Not that I mind his book, I actually believe that he summarized the world’s problems up in a more succinct and clear way than I have ever experienced. Mr. Sachs has done an excellent job in researching and identifying all that is amiss with our world, but I find his solutions very unsatisfactory.
Mr. Sachs focuses a great deal of attention on the government’s role in kick-starting the eradication of poverty, the leveling off of world population, and conservation of natural resources. While this is all well and good, to which governments is he referring? There are few countries in the world (especially in today’s current economic slump) that either have the ability or the desire to spread that kind of wealth around.
I agree that most people don’t mean to be selfish or uninvolved with those suffering in other regions, but it is also true that we spend very little of our time researching the socioeconomic and political climates of our neighbors near and far. I know that I am guilty of not being well enough informed and don’t help out those in bloody coups or civil wars as I ought. I am simply wondering what it will take for upper class people to give up their daily coffee, or doughnut, or their yearly vacations in order to give that money to others. I wonder what it will take for the leading, non third world governments to stop trying to give their citizens everything they want, to stop worrying about reelections and instead concentrate on policies that will radically change not only their nation, but the world.
It’s going to take a lot more than a few activists that really believe in change, it’s going to take a lot more than everyone thinking that it’s a good idea. Some of the best and wisest are known for their ideas, but those ideas didn’t accomplish anything by just being in the minds of scholars. Those ideas only led to change when they became burning, living & breathing convictions in the hearts and souls of the people. As of yet, I don’t see that happening. I see a lot of people going about life not thinking about anything outside of their tiny microcosm. That may be cynical, but that’s what I see (for the most part). I believe it’s going to take something big to happen before people are ready and willing to change and improve upon the points Mr. Sachs mentioned in his book. But when people are willing to lay self aside to change (if that’s even completely possible in a suffering, sinful world), they will make the change happen and the government will follow suit, not the other way around.