"Eradicating" poverty (or basically redistributing wealth), is not the sole responsibility of those that have wealth (nor should it be). Those that do have wealth, should help some, but helping too much just teaches the impoverished the wrong lesson. That is: that don't do anything and wealth will be given to you. The onus and blame should not 100% fall on those with wealth, but also those who allow themselves to be impoverished. Take Mogadishu for example: very poor. We have been giving them billions of dollars in food and other resources for years (too much). Has any progress been made? No. These gifts have only created warlords that use the gifts as their source of power.
Wealthy countries should stop giving large sums of money (like Bono wants us to do), but rather share their education and technologies (and yes, a LITTLE funding) so that the impoverished can learn to provide for themselves and build their own successful economy.
2006-08-26 04:45:00
·
answer #1
·
answered by Patrick G 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
As far as technology goes, One trip to the moon could feed millions of homeless, hungry people. To eradicate poverty, All people would have to be limited to a basic income. And not be allowed to hoard money for themselves. Theres plenty of money, I'ts just all in the wrong places. If people are able to work, they should. If they aren't, they should be helped by fellow Americans. Look at Bill Gates, Hes the richest dude around. But he does the right thing, He gives his money away to help others. He will probably be the one responsible for finding a vaccine for AIDS. If all the rich were as generous as he is, The world would be a better place to live.
2006-08-26 12:20:48
·
answer #2
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
This is an easy one to answer, it is because when the UN helps poorer countries with donations some of the money is used for weapons and other corrupting things, instead of food. When the UN give food, the local soldiers open fire on them or make it really difficult to get the food through. However I do believe that we should still help, Bob Geldolf had the right idea by sending them not only food but seeds and equipment to become self sufficient.
As for technology what use is it without electricity?
2006-08-28 13:07:33
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I don't know about the world, but we can't eradicate it in this country, because there is not the political will.
We keep letting in more and more immigrants, into an ever over populated country, so unemployment rises, and the indigenous population ( of all races ) suffer because of it.
Jobs are now in short supply, or rather that there are record numbers in work, but people looking for work are rising.
The only reason for that, is an increase in the population.
Can anyone see a correlation?
2006-08-26 11:34:25
·
answer #4
·
answered by steve b 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
How does technology eliminate poverty? If anything technology would promote poverty, machines taking over jobs of real people. People being left with work = poverty.
Also, we tend to hold peoples hands here. But only poor people, we keep them down by telling they need help and they cant make in on their own. Which of course, they start believe and begin to expect to be taken care of.
It should be "sink or swim", stop coddling the poor and they will HAVE to either make it or not. You would be suprised at what someone can do when they are forced to.
2006-08-26 11:28:25
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
I think the main reason is that we can't get everybody on the same page. The people "in power" are either extreme left or extreme right. Neither side will bend enough to encompass any idea from the other side. The world isn't "black and white" as they see it.....there is lots of gray. I think if we took some ideas from the left and some ideas from the right we COULD accomplish LOTS of things. I think all the fighting, all the hate, and all the intolerance for others views are only holding us back. We all need to realize we are all ONE race -- the Human Race. And we need to work together, not AGAINST each other. We need to bend and compromise, and GET ALONG.
2006-08-26 11:33:06
·
answer #6
·
answered by kj 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Good question.
One that has been and always will be asked a lot.
I am so sorry about the people who die of starvation,war,thirst, etc.
But what can we do?
It's a political thing, we all need natural resources and understandably countries look after their own people.
A world government is what is needed, along with the help and cooperation of global and local business.
We need to stop feathering our own nests, and feather the big nest which is our World.
I can't see any of this happening in my life time, or that of my children, or my children's children.
It's very sad, and so easily could be changed.
Give us time, that's all we have.
2006-08-26 11:36:11
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
It's a question of economic, not technology.
We could have been asteroid mining 10 years ago, providing virtually unlimited minerals. Solar, wind and nuclear technology could have provided unlimited energy. Given unlimited minerals and unlimited electricity, food production could drastically increase.
But most of the world lives in a capitalist society, and there is no financial incentive to help other people. Sad but true.
2006-08-26 11:34:31
·
answer #8
·
answered by coragryph 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
If you didn't know, the US is made up of social class. The Upper Class (1%), The Middle Class (About 9%), And the Poor (90%). We as Americans want more and we fail to give more to the less forunate. We are losing Middle Class people because it's harder to move up the social ladder. To live the American Dream is very hard to live these days. And the US and United Nations would like to end poverty, but we are just too inconsiderate of the lower class and the very poor.
2006-08-26 11:29:30
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
All the world's 'billionaires' should be forced to pay a 'Poverty Tax' of 10%. This money must be used to educate, erradicate disease and create infrastructure in Third World countries.
This will be true 'Globalisation'.
2006-08-26 12:01:57
·
answer #10
·
answered by Tokoloshimani 5
·
0⤊
0⤋