Count me in on the list of people wondering where this information is coming from, and just what "$ 135 BILLION TO TOTALLY ERADICATE WORLD POVERTY" is asserting, because you claim there IS a solution for that little, but you don't exactly tell us what that solution is or how it would be implemented (instead seeming to focus on complaining that we haven't implemented this mystery solution yet, in favor of waging war on each-other which, ok, sure, war is terrible, but you still have to put your money where your mouth is, proverbially speaking XD).
And I really DO mean that! If somebody knows of some miracle solution to all the world's woes that can easily be covered with a mere 12 digit annual contribution, that's astronomical! (In the famous lines of Dr. Strangelove: ) "SO WHY DON'T YA TELL THE WORLD, HUH?!?
I briefly thought that maybe it was based on some overly simplistic criteria... specifically I thought it might be based on the World Bank's definition of "absolute poverty"... but then I realized that even if it was 135,000,000,000 per MONTH, it still wouldn't be nearly enough to eradicate world poverty that way.
... So count me in on the list of people wondering what this is asserting.
Your intention is good but I'm not so sure about the train of thought you're going with there. How exactly would those billions eradicate poverty? --- Giving them food and shelter? Which is only going to last for a few months before they start descending again into a poverty state again because they basically have no means to sustain a balanced life? --- Or are you talking about giving the means to be able to sustain themselves in a medium-long term? Because that sounds like something that would take more than a few hundred billions to give EVERYONE in this planet that kind of treatment.
Poverty isn't about money. It's about resources. We have one planet Earth, and it has a finite amount of stuff in it.
We simply have too many people. That's why there is poverty to the degree that there is. We hit the Earth's sustainable carrying capacity at 4 billion people; we're now at almost double that number. We're spending natural capital (i.e. resources) at a frightening rate to try and support our growing population. We've stretched our resources too thin, like butter spread over too much bread.
The Earth is 4.6 billion years old. Let’s scale that to 46 years. We have been here for 4 hours. Our industrial revolution began 1 minute ago. In that time, we have destroyed more than 50% of the world’s forests.
And that's just one facet of the problem we face. There's CO2 levels, oil reserves, drinkable water, endangered species...the list goes on.
There has always been poverty though since the start of civilization. Rome had a 50% unemployment rate (in Rome... in the Roman empire) Poverty was worse in Europe and the US in the 19th century than it is now (look at life expectancy and standard of living).
Because you are saying there is poverty because there are limited resources for human consumption and too many people to share them. There has been poverty even when the total human population was less than 200,000,000
"We hit the Earth's sustainable carrying capacity at 4 billion people;"
Actually, the notion that there's a single sustainable carrying capacity is somewhat flawed: www.youtube.com/watch?v=dD-yN2… (Hank Green talks about overpopulation).
So it's not that our total population has somehow crossed some all-important threshold... it's that 1: It's continuing to rise too fast, 2: Our resources aren't being handled very efficiently, and 3: A LOT of the above mentioned population growth is happening where even fewer of the resources are going to get to them.
You are right, however, that saying we can just throw money at the problem and fix it is a somewhat overly-simplistic viewpoint XD.
The more people we have, the more we will have to lower the average standard of living for each person alive, because we will have to allocate resources to sustain that person.
So we can have a standard of living, or we can have 10 billion people. We cannot have both. We just can't. The "stuff" is simply not there to be had. Until we can directly manipulate energy into matter, until we can turn sunlight into something we can hold and touch in our hands, we have to control the population and put a cap on it at some point.
Only when the last fish is caught, the last tree cut down, and the last drinkable river polluted will we realize: we can't eat money.
Eradicating world poverty would be amazing. It'd be inspiration and beautiful to see the worlds people stop suffering. But how long would it last? Poverty can't be eradicated just by money. The resources it would take in order to solve poverty is more than even those of us who do not live in poverty can truly "afford". Poverty's money is the world's resources. There isn't enough clean water and air on the planet to support the worlds poverty. There isn't enough land to house them all, there's barely enough food to support the people that aren't living in poverty. To fix poverty we must first fix our own problems. Poverty is proof that we don't truly know how to take care of ourselves. Human beings are ignorant to what stands right in front of them. The world it self is dying. Fix the planet before you fix something as insignificant as poverty.
This is extremely interesting and powerful. You should definitely tag this a long many parts of a city. The color scheme is simple yet loud enough to grab someone's attention and the words are scarce enough for someone who is driving by to read it.
That would end world poverty for maybe a day. There is only one way to end things like terrorism, hunger, poverty, or any other social injustice you can think of: make the human race extinct. As long as human beings exist, everything you hate will continue to exist. So if you want to save the human race, destroy it. I wont let you, of course, because that's just what I do.
And under communists it'd be worse. NO government in the history of man has ever served it's people. For that only law can lead without a ruler. And that is never going to happen no nation would ever allow it.
It doesnt matter if the numbers can be wrong or from which country he is talking about. The point is, humanity does not help each other, but wastes money (Yeah.. sometimes army to defend, but if everybody would have a heart we wouldnt even need weapons) We shouldnt complain what the government does or the rich people next to you. It starts with us. With You! Touch ur own Nose. Why dont you help the people around you? Why dont you plant a tree? If EVERYBODY cares a little little little bit more, it wouldnt matter if any government (you cant probably reach) spends too much money on army instead of helping.
Because keeping people enslaved by foisting a victim mentality on them is the answer to everything.
It's a nice, works-on-paper theory you are advocating here, but the truth is that it's never that simple. What truly raises people out of poverty is removing the shackles that most governments impose upon their citizenry.