On one hand, reducing poverty has become such an important priority for the developed nations. It has been a major issue in all of the recent World Economic Forum meetings. Global poverty is seen as a big threat to the economical, social and political stability of the wealthier nations. A staggering 4 billion out of total world population of 6 billion are below the poverty line. Poor are defined as those who do not have access to basic essentials of life - food, clothing, housing, clean drinking water, electricity etc.
On the other hand, the whole world is already experiencing a big environmental crisis and facing a question of survival, caused by the affluence of only 2 billion people (600 million rich defined as those earning more than US$20,000 and 1.4 billion medium rich defined as those earning between US$3,000 to US$20,000). Imagine what will happen when 4 billion people will come out of poverty as well?
One wonders if this world will ever be 100% free of poverty though. There are many people doing a lot of good work to achieve this goal. Millennium Development Goals (MDG) is the most important initiative of the UN and poverty alleviation is on topmost priority in that (http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals). Corporates such as Cisco and Google have teamed up with UNDP to monitor the progress of MDG (http://www.mdgmonitor.org/). Bono from U2 is throwing his weight around to make rich countries give more to the poor African countries. Management gurus such as C K Prahalad are advocating market based approach that will focus on poor people as consumers and producers and on solutions that can make the Bottom Of the Pyramid (BOP) market more efficient, competitive and inclusive - so that people in BOP segment can benefit from them and move above the poverty line (http://www.nextbillion.net/).
There are many reasons though to believe that we may never arrive at that goal, unless we change our approach drastically. Natural resources are getting depleted much faster than ever before. One wonders if there are enough left to sustain poverty alleviation of 4 billion people. The price of bringing people out of poverty is going to increase with every billion. Naturally one wonders if the commitment of rich nations is going to remain the same. Will the commitment shake up in dire situations such as recession, low or no growth in their own countries, high inflation, and record high unemployment? The impending recession in US and gloomy forecast for global economy is driving prices up, further making commodities dearer and hence putting basic necessities out of reach of poor people. Will MDG sustain such testing times? Only time will tell.
To me, it seems like poverty alleviation will need a multi-pronged approach. Just generating employment or building innovative products for poor people or donating billions of dollars of charity may not be enough. A major part of the strategy will have to be reduction in consumption of non-essentials by the 2 billion people at the top. That’s what will help slow down the depletion of natural resources and keep enough for the remaining 4 billion people. Top 2 billion will have to go back to practices of their grandparents or great grandparents, when people knew how to lead life with just enough resources. People didn't have aluminum foils, plastic bags, packaged foods, big wardrobes, dozens of shoes, electronic gadgets. Excess will have to stop. In Singapore, some buildings are brought down in 20 years and rebuild to increase property gains. That seems like a lot of wastage in bringing down something that is in good condition and building from scratch a new one that is even bigger. Such wastage and excess will have to cease to exist.
Will this population that has been materialistically pampered over the last 50 years be ready to lower its standard of living, learn to accept that "less is ok" and sustain such testing times? It sounds impossible and hence makes achieving poverty alleviation of 4 billion people look like a fantasy. Only time will tell.
2 comments:
Hi Ritesh,
Very well said. A thought that's been playing around in my mind, especially after things like poor man's car and stuff. I always have thought there's not enough space on the Earth for each person to possess a car, leave alone driving it on the road.
Reducing consumptions seems the only possibly route to take. However, I feel, one of the most important aspects of leading a high consumption life is vanity. And it's not just a social ill, but a deeper, biological characteristic of our species. Most of us are pretty much slaves to our vanity, and need to show off in some or the other way. If not our power, then riches. If not riches, then power. If not power, then knowledge. If not knowledge, then at least charity.
I think, fighting this 'vanity' is a lost battle with the given genes we carry. Social reformers must think out ways in which people can become rich and show that off to others in an eco-friendly way. I guess, no one wants to hurt the planet, but the instinct of vanity is so deep that their concern for the planet stands no chance in front of it.
The presence of vanity also makes the very nature of wealth creation today inherently atrocious. The way a couple of billion people become rich today requires a few billion to be on the brink of starvation. That's not my thought. It's said by big people. I strongly believe that the system of becoming rich and later on giving away wealth in charity is inherently vain, and in a sense broken. Its main purpose is a twin show-off of both wealth and philanthropy. I feel, no real good can come out of something that's fundamentally driven by so much vanity. It may make a person or his family famous for their riches and charity, but will never bring about long term changes to the rich-poor divide, at least in the positive direction.
Poverty alleviation has to happen bottom-up. My view of real poverty alleviation is this: Each person who considers himself responsible for anything must deeply connect with a few poor people at an early stage and kindle in them a belief that this life is worth something, and it makes sense to work hard and honestly for making it fulfilling. This belief can never be roused by a blanket distributing monarch doing a pompous show of his riches. It will be done by a person who 'chooses' to preserve his simplicity through thick and thin. Only then will a poor person know that he too has in his hands the essentials of a meaningful life. That will give him the first and crucial impetus to get up and greet life with open arms. A man who looks forward to life needs no riches to be happy.
May seem a bit theoretical. But that's my way. I am sure others have other ways to suggest. Let them suggest. That's the least we could do!
Thanks for bringing up the matter,
Sujit
Hi Sujit,
Thanks for your interesting comment. To me, vanity doesn't seem to be a DNA characteristic but its something we groom in ourselves as we grow up. And that growing up process can make a big difference. In Europe and US, you can see some affluent couples consciously deciding not to buy room full of gifts for their kids, which is what their parents did to them. They don't feel the need to show off. Its their environment of excess that taught them to like the opposite style of living. But in developing countries such as China and India, we sadly see many people adapting Western style of living, confusing it with progress. The faster West picks up the trend of living life with just enough things, the faster it becomes a fashion in developing countries too and thats the easiest way to avoid 'consumerism' taking off in a big way in our part of the world.
Post a Comment