Poverty in a civilized world 11

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   mtneuman Posted 12:46 pm
   13 Feb 2006

   Reducing Poverty by Curbing ConsumptionIf we are going to have a sustainable society, we better start to reward less consumption.  The reason we have such a wasteful society in the U.S. today is because productivity is rewarded with increased money for consumption.  The more productive people are, the more money they earn for consumption.
   We need to have a system that rewards those who consume the least.  
   It is often said that one of the most consumptive behaviors of American's is their overuse of automobiles.  So why not pay those who choose not to use automobiles so much?  The poor would make out quite well under this strategy.  Many of the poor cannot afford to buy automobiles, let alone afford to drive them or get insurance.  So under a system that rewards families who don't drive, the poor would be benefit because they drive less and therefore they would "earn" higher rebates at the end of the year.
   People of more moderate incomes would benefit as as well, provided the rewards offered enough of an incentive.
   This strategy could be used to conserve on energy as well.  A family that uses less energy per capita in the household than average would be eligible for a rebate just for conserving energy.  That would help the poor pay for their heating bills, and give them an incentive to control their energy use more.
   For more details on this concept, see the file document "Conserve, NOW!..." at:
   
   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ConserveNOW/

   Permalink

2. 

   caniscandida Posted 6:11 pm
   13 Feb 2006

   humanity, the world, the fools in chargeThere is an impressive article by James T. Joyce, "Labor's Future: Can Unions Restore the Dignity of Work?," in the Catholic opinion magazine Commonweal, 2/10/06.  It includes these sentences: "The implications of failing to create a more humane society are grave, and only arrogant fools would be willing to risk it.Unfortunately we are caught in the grip of highly competent and very arrogant fools, both in government and in the dominant segment of the business community."
   This is a frightening truth.  But inasmuch as it is true, it need not overwhelm us.  Neighbor by neighbor, home by home, street by street, we need to find the people we love, and establish the world once more on sound foundations.
   And God bless the animals!

   Permalink

3. 

   redjenny Posted 3:48 am
   14 Feb 2006

   Interesting, but...Keep in mind many poor people also do not own their own homes. More often than not they do not live in energy-efficient homes, because their slumlords just don't care. They have much less control over how much energy they use for home heating and electricity. The poor have to choose between "eating or heating" - they need an alternative not just economic incentives (although those should be part of the mix).
   Rewarding people for NOT using cars is a great idea, but also there is a need to create an alternative here too. Broad-based public transportation, for instance, should be free, high quality, and accessible. It should be the standard. Cars could be some sort of luxury perhaps, heavily taxed to pay for public transportation.
   
   

   Permalink

4. 

   Biodiversivist Posted 10:41 am
   14 Feb 2006

   Wise words JohnThe best we can hope for is to decrease and possibly try to hold steady the slope of the wealth disparity gradient. The urges to form status hierarchies are part of our genetic heritage. The book "The Status Syndrome" shows that the steeper the gradient, the worse the health of the people on the loosing end of the stick.
   
   In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com

   Permalink

5. 

   PovertyAction Posted 5:12 am
   15 Feb 2006

   Poverty is Uncivilized!Poverty is not a function of human nature or a by-product of civilization.  It is a system of power that allows a privileged class of people to live in comfort, while others toil, struggle and scrape for their existence. The idea that poverty is a by-product of civilization merely allows educated, privileged, "civilized" people to rest comfortably while they benefit from an abhorent social system. This is the same mentality that apologizes for racism, sexism or the denial of human rights to any class of people.
   This bias is at the heart of why the environmental movement "is dismissed as the pet cause of white, well-off Americans -- people who can afford to buy organic arugula, vacation in Lake Tahoe, and worry about the fate of the Pacific pocket mouse."  All too often, environmentalists live up to the characterization.
   I'm glad that Grist is taking up this issue, if for no other reason than to expose this pervasive bias held by many in the environmental community.    It is an important conversation and environmentalists willingness to have it and BE CHANGED BY IT will determine whether or not the environmental movement is a movement for the priviledged or for everyone.

   Permalink

6. 

   redjenny Posted 7:05 am
   15 Feb 2006

   Poverty & Environmental Degradation LinkedIt isn't so apparent here, but in developing countries much more so. If someone farms, and the messed up environment reduces their ability to do that, all of a sudden a hard working self-sufficient family joins the ranks of the poor. For example, the reduction of the water table in India, or climate change in Africa (see: http://redjenny.blogspot.com/2005/06/aid-to-africa-and-climate-change.html)
   Wrecking the environment makes it harder for people to support themselves. Directly impoverishing real people shouldn't be dismissed as a natural byproduct of civilization.

   Permalink

7. 

   John2045 Posted 7:38 am
   15 Feb 2006

   A few more wordsBecause I think poverty is a by-product of civilization does not mean that I condone either poverty or civilization.
   What are the options?
   Raise the standard of living for all impoverished people? The earth cannot sustain the 6.5 billion people as it is.  In 20 years, 9.6 billion. Even if we try to live a green eco-friendly life it will not be sustainable.
   Revert to a hunter-gatherer existence for all of us?
   Eliminate warfare that feeds on and creates poverty?
   Start a cultural revolution that will transform society? Should we use Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Marxism, Indian independence movement,or American civil rights movement as examples of successful revolutions?
   There are precious few options for fixing things.
   That does not mean that we should be complacent with the status quo. On the contrary,  the approach is much more difficult than fixing other peoples' problems.
   Use Ghandi as an example. He did not preach at people about what they ought to do.  He changed his life and asked people to follow him. To protest the British control and taxation of salt, he gathered his own salt.  To protest the importation of British cloth made from Indian raw materials, he spun his own cloth.  
   So, if we complain about the economic system, pollution, poverty then we have to be willing to live outside of the systems that maintain it.  But, how many of us are willing to give up the car, the petro-chemicals, the TV, the lattes, the jobs?  I don't know if I am.  Until then things may be different but they will never change.  That is why environmentalism and social activism is a rich, white person's luxury.
   We are chasing our tails.

   Permalink

8. 

   PovertyAction Posted 10:03 am
   15 Feb 2006

   Rich, white person's luxury?I think Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Rosa Parks, Cesar Chavez, Oscar Romero and Ghandi would all be simply stunned to learn that social activism is a rich, white person's luxury... (As would the community activists featured in Grist's virtual tour.)
   They were not concerned about their TV's, cars and lattes and didn't ask whether or not they would be willing to give them up.  Marginalized communities have done more for social justice than any rich, white activist I know of.  They have the most on the line and the least to lose.  Its the priviledged world's addiction to luxury that is standing in their way.
   I think we are in basic agreement that we need to be willing to live outside the systems that maintain poverty and environmental degradation.  But in order to do this we need to do more than nibble around the edges and only make limited, short-term improvements.  We need to set our eyes on an end to poverty and environmental degradation and healthy, living sustainable communities.  I think this is what Gandhi really stood for.

   Permalink

9. 

   John2045 Posted 10:29 pm
   15 Feb 2006

   To ClarifyThe disturbing aspect of social movements is that the original message becomes corrupted as the movement becomes popular or even mainstream. If you look at the original message of Jesus, Ghandi, MLK Jr., et al. and then at their legacy there is a major disconnect. I find it ironic that the US recognizes Martin Luther King Day when his objective was to overthrow the estabished order that sanctioned injustice and continues to. Nor do I think his intention was to create the opportunity for the disenfranchized to participate in the middle class American dream. What better way is there to kill the dream than to make it the establishment's own.
   What I understand as the heart of the message is not to allow equal access to the debased power structure of the time but to create something different. It seems that human nature takes over and the goal of the followers becomes personal or group power, comfort, and possession. So in the end it becomes more of the same. I question the effectiveness of a movement beyond the individual.
   My remark that activism is a rich, white person's luxury refers to those who are in the "haves" camp, myself included, who out of guilt or sympathy or good intentions want to bring the disenfranchized in.  I think it is we who should go to them. (Recognizing that making the distinction between us and them being part of the problem in the first place.)
    

   Permalink

10. 

    bookerly Posted 10:50 am
    16 Feb 2006

    Why the well off need to include the poor   The basic reason for the middle class white environmental movement to include the poor is not guilt or sympathy, it is self-interest.  No offense, but in the last 30 years the environmental movement in the United States has largely gotten nowhere.  It is too small and isolated.  If people really care about the environment, and not just about their own backyards, they must realized that to be successful, the movement must be broader.
    
        Reaching beyond the white middle class is a matter of self-interest, because the only chance of really succeeding in saving the environment requires allies.  The environmental movement NEEDS poor people and minorities if it is to succeed.  It needs allies that it respects and treats as equals (or they will not ally with you).  
    
        Unless folks come to realize this, then attempts to broaden the movement will fail.  It is nice to see that individuals and small groups can "live green", but it is the nature of society that needs to change.  And that requires real inclusion.
    
         Anything else is futile.  IMHO.

    Permalink

11. 

    Tom Philpott Posted 3:49 am
    21 Feb 2006

    Poverty/environment discussion on gristmillOver on Gristmill, under David Roberts' post on creating a green "index card manifesto," there's been some interesting talk on poverty, the environment and politics. Ya'll go check it out. Scroll toward the bottom.
    
    http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/2/16/235442/579/#28
    
    

    Permalink