I think you're "right on the money"!

(sorry about that ;)

Some people value money as if it were an end -- but it isn't. Money is simply a means -- it's a unit of exchange. I think to solve problems you need to focus on the problems you want to solve -- and not on money (because money really isn't the "culprit" some people make it out to be).

See also "Does the power to make good things happen depend on money?"

David

I hear you, although would counter that there appears to be a threshold of wealth beyond which, nowadays, the trend is for people to want to give back, to contribute, to help solve.

At least that's the way I see it.

I also see the huge environmental problems that poverty causes, through necessity. Whilst I would be a very harsh critic of a logging company destroying old-growth forests, if one were to examine the deforestation problems in, say, Mozambique, you can see that the main cause is poor people making charcoal for personal fuel consumption or resale. The people's demand for energy & income is driving over 90% of the deforestation.

I was in a pub in London the other day, having a heated and enjoyable discussion with my older brother, about all sorts of things, including the environmental imperatives that face us. He is a successful investment banker, and it is fair so say that we have different outlooks on life.

He referred to a recent event that I was unaware of - the commencement of a partnership between Goldman Sachs and the Wildlife Conservation Society to protect in perpetuity a huge tract of wilderness in Tierra Del Fuego, Chile, on the southernmost tip of South America.

More here - http://www.wcs.org/353624/455620 3

I've trekked around Tierra Del Fuego, and got stuck hitchhiking down there once (bloody argentinian truck drivers thought I was British and are still annoyed by the invasion of Las Islas Malvinas). The place is awe-inspiring, and like many wilderness areas, was under threat.

This kind of initiative is simply not possible without serious amounts of capital, and serious amounts of good intentions.

I'm not going to argue that greed and wealth are good things in their own right, but am quite convinced that, in the possession of the right minds and hearts, big money can drive change in so many beautiful ways.

My vote is still in the "fight poverty, educate the wealthy" basket.

I have to agree with Greg. I don't believe that money in itself is the issue. It is certain that in develped countries, we've done a rather poor job in terms of managing our impact on the environment, or even eliminating poverty completely in our own areas, which confirms the argument of money as a destructive force. However, solving these issues requires money in turn, supported by a sense of social responsibility.

Money allows projects to be created (such as the one mentionned by Greg) and developed. Money allows schools to be built, in which a solid education can be provided, allowing the errors of the past to be avoided in the future. If used properly, money is a solution, not a problem.

I'm currently working with a group that has a project in Madagascar. This is a country in which deforestation has been a major problem, to the point where the endemic eco-systems have been consdierably destroyed. However, through education, the destructive process, although not reversed, has at least been halted. Without money, this would not have happened.

I'm not saying that money automatically means hapiness. However, it is a tool that, when used properly, can change lives in a constructive way. It's not about having a better colour TV, a bigger car or a more glamourous wardrobe, but simply having something to eat, having a roof over one's head, and receiving a decent education.

The underlying question seems to me to be whether one should favour protecting the environment or promoting human dignity and social justice. At the end of the day, shouldn't the answer be both?

Is Poverty A Problem That Needs To Be Solved? !!!!!

well, I would think that that depends on whether or not you are an "arm chair philosopher" sitting back sipping your what-ever and contemplating your involvements in the the woes of the world!

or whether you are a struggling single mom crying because your children are hungry!!!

I hope you all see truth at some point

Speaking of philosophy (and please note that some "philosophers" have to struggle, too):

Steiner [...] point[s] out that in order to achieve this level of freedom, we must lift ourselves out of our group-existence: out of the prejudices we receive from our family, nation, ethnic group and religion, out of all that we inherit from the past that limits our creative and imaginative freedom to meet the world directly. Only when we realize our potential to be a unique individual are we free. Again, it lies in our freedom to achieve freedom; only when we actively strive towards freedom do we have some chance of attaining it.

This kind of initiative is simply not possible without serious amounts of capital, and serious amounts of good intentions.

Perhaps. Money may be good, and rich people may be good and do wonderful things with money. My question is more along the lines of Brad's response. If you are poor, of course you want money. Once you get money, what do you do then?

We do have the power to end poverty. We also have the power to end our dependence on petroleum. But then what? Usually when we want something, it's of the form, "I want this, so I can have/do/be that".

So what's our motivation for ending poverty?

"I want to end poverty, so I can have ___________ and do ___________ and be ___________ ." <fill in the blanks>.

David, Poverty is not about 'money'

firstmost it is about 'food'

then 'shelter'

then 'healthcare'

etc.

money is nothing but an accounting system of those that have

People want money to:

1. Move away from suffering (hunger, cold, thirst, illness)
2. Move toward joy (surf board, music, delicious food, education, something pretty, security for loved ones)

Who am I to judge these basic motivations?

History has shown that socialism and communism counter these motivations in ways that are overall less effective for creating net sum gains for individuals and society than capitalism.

Capitalism, for the most part, is self-organizing and self-perpetuating. We can't control what people want to do once they have money, but I don't see it as my place to judge everyone's choices as I would not want others to judge mine.

People may mistake money for happiness along the way, but that is a personal journey.

Yesterday I ate a twinkie covered in fudge. It cost a little bit of money. I could have donated that money to any number of causes or even re-invested it back in my own. I certainly didn't need that lucious twinkie treat that reminded me of being a kid. I kind of regretted eating it anyway. But I am sure happy I had the choice. And I may do it again.

I want to end poverty so I can live in a world of less suffering and more joy.

Cindy, thanks for filling in the blanks.

Another way of phrasing my question is

Does poverty cause suffering? Is joy more present where there is less poverty?

Another question: If poverty is not about money, then why does everyone talk as if it were? One of the UN's millenium development goals is to eliminate extreme poverty, which is defined as living on less than $1/day. (Btw, When the US dollar falls against the Euro, does that eliminate some extreme poverty? People who were making 90 cents a day when the MDGs were written are now making $1.20/day, as long as they weren't being paid in currency tied to the dollar.)

What if you could live in a world of less suffering and more joy without ending poverty? Would you still want to end poverty? If so, why then?

David, :)

It appears that what you are reaching for is not really a poverty issue but more a "lifestyle" or "way of life" issue,

I spent a couple of weeks in Thailand, and 3 days in Lupini Park, in the center of Bangkok, and this park was a place that anyone could go a pitch a tent or cardboard palace :) and have free access to electricity & water, and these people who might see $5 a week, were extremely! Happy, they always were joking and playing and generally having a very fun life!

but, is was a 'lifestyle' thing, no one really cared that they were poor, they had thier neccessities, they also felt that they offered a 'value or contribution to thier society" , because Buddhism preached that everyone, reguardless of how poor they were owed something to society, if only to help keep the streets clean, and these people made a contribution of some sort everyday, and so they felt that they belonged and they recieved pride and integrity!

it worked! and, we see the same type of living style here in the Appellation's

I think poverty is a state of mind. If you want to spend a lot of money that you don't have or ever will have, you can feel poor. But that does not mean you are living in poverty. If you are living in a country that is torn by Natural disasters, you may not have any property or may not be able to farm for food, but that does not mean you live in poverty. I don't think people in New Orleans who lost everything could say they are living in poverty, for instance.

Poverty is how other people, who are living in a different "world”, perceive other parts of the world that don't meet their criteria of being wealthy. Who are we to say when other people are living in poverty and who will say when people are having enough to live?

Not living in poverty to me means: Having a normal daily water ration, having no problem getting enough to eat, having a roof over my head, knowing my children and I will get healthcare when we need it, and having a prospect of a job. And when one of those things is not there, knowing that my government will do what it can to provide me with these basic needs.

What makes this: A country that is not in conflict with itself or other countries. Therefore I say, as soon as people stop making war, and start helping other countries when they suffer a Natural disaster, I think there will be a beginning to get rid of poverty all over the planet. And as soon as these New Times start spreading all over the world, people will be able to work together on what is most important, creating a world where all our children can live and have a future in peace.

AJVandeAak said:

snip:

Therefore I say, as soon as people stop making war, and start helping other countries when they suffer a Natural disaster, I think there will be a beginning to get rid of poverty all over the planet. And as soon as these New Times start spreading all over the world, people will be able to work together on what is most important, creating a world where all our children can live and have a future in peace.

and it's really that simple!!!

yea, kind of like bulk love -- or free happiness, or a interreliance flatrate [1]

;D nmw

Perhaps there is an other way: I found this on the O net today, perhaps it is worth a look?

http://www.omidyar.net/group/com munity-general/news/270/