2006-12-30 06:34:58 · 12 answers · asked by Jake 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Other - Society & Culture
Not until humans find the will to limit their numbers
2006-12-30 06:50:23 · answer #1 · answered by . 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I don't think that it is possible to eradicate poverty altogether and the reason is that some people are just by nature lazy and don't want to work. People from many other countries think that there is no poverty in usa but we know the fact. There are plenty of job during the Christan time but you will long lines at the Charity organization doors. Why so? Many homeless people are that way by choice where I live. If i advocate that all these charity organizations should be closed then how heartless would i sound?
2006-12-30 06:43:49 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I don't see what technology has to do with poverty. The only thing that can help poverty is education and a willingness to work. There are a lot of people living in poverty simply because they are lazy.
2006-12-30 06:42:25 · answer #3 · answered by jim h 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. If people live in an area with few natural resources and a low socio-economic level, it is almost a given that there will be people below poverty level. It is vitually impossible to create high paying jobs in areas with no strong base of industrial or agricultural income. Short of just giving money to them, there is little way to resolve poverty in these areas.
2006-12-30 06:44:31 · answer #4 · answered by milf 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Because "poverty" will always be a relative term (one can only be "poor" relative to someone richer), and outcomes will never be exactly equal among all. Eradication of poverty is therefore a futile goal.
2006-12-30 06:37:13 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It may be possible however , Society would never allow that . It would mean that the ones who have the most might have to give some of what they have to provide for someone else . We as people in this world as it is , are too self centered for that . There are many many things that are possible , but that will never come to be for this same reason , GREED .
2006-12-30 06:49:44 · answer #6 · answered by Geedebb 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
if you mean like $2 per day or equivalent in food, then yup, just US GDP would do it I think
17,000,000,000,000
6, 000,000,000
almost 3000 a year each
as George Harrison said, if we cared we would share and not buy that new car
2006-12-30 06:39:06 · answer #7 · answered by kurticus1024 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Far from it actually. We want technology, but we want it cheap, so we buy everything from the sweatshops of China.
2006-12-30 06:37:23 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, because the more a country get, the more they spend or want to get, and for that they have to invade or attack another countries.
I think it's better work with what you have, and implement good policiy
2006-12-30 06:39:15 · answer #9 · answered by reikjavyk 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No. You could mail everyone $1000 a week, and some people would spend it on drugs or gambling, and they'd still be poor. IT'S THEIR CHOICE.
2006-12-30 06:37:13 · answer #10 · answered by kimmyisahotbabe 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋