The Fight Against Global Poverty.

[green-man-2010.livejournal.com]

I want to you to take a look at these maps. They show the state of the world and show that in spite of what we see in the media , the fight against endemic world poverty is being won.

The images are big, so behind an LJ cut to save your bandwidth.

First , lets understand IMR - it stands for Infant Mortality Rate.
If you were to look at Britain since the year 2000, you would find that for every 1,000 live births, less than 10 children died before their 1st birthday. Britain has an IMR of under 10.

Now in some countries, the IMR is 50, or even higher. This means that at least 1 child in 20 will die before it's a year old. Worse still, in some countries, the IMR iis 100 or over - in some cases IMrs top 200 - I child in 5 dying before it's first birthday.

Now, this IMR thing is not some random event. it is closely linked to what we call 'endemic poverty'. In the UK, it may be possible to see some homeless people sleeping rough on the streets of London. There are isolated incidents of people falling into poverty. However, for the bigger percentage of the population, things are different. most people have houses. Most, if not all children have shoes, go to school, and eat enough to stay alive.

In other countries, however, most children do not simply lack shoes, they lack homes wiith running water, proper sanitation, the means to go to school- and whole villages are like this. this is what we mean by 'endemic poverrty' poverty being widespread - it's the norm and out of control. In such countries, diseases like malaria are also wide spread, endemic and are delibitating the efforts people make to rise up out of poverty.

So- now we know this, let's take a look at the maps.
the world in 1960 - you can click the image for more detail, but basically, purple = high IMR and green = below 50.

look at how widespread endemic poverty is.
note that Europe and North America are relatively prosperous, but namy areas suffer IMRs well over 50.

1980

more green areas showing up - but still lots of places where work needs doing.
some counties are a darker shade of green - places like this have very low IMRs.

2000

The world seems to be winning the war against endemic poverty.
Any country that goes below 50 tends to stay there - only North Korea, with a communist Military dictatorship seems to have fallen back to being above IMR 50.
most places that have democratic, stable governments are making vast strides. I hope in my lifetime to see the whole world go below IMR 50.

If we change the way that international trade is conducted, if we back the initiatives of the World Health Organiisation, if we can persuade our own politicians to sponsor world health programmes instead of more expensive weapon systems, if we support democratic movements like those in burma and elsewhere against tyrannical regimes, if we educate ourselves on what's happening and how we can get involved - then that is perfectly possible.

Comments

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

1. The Green Revolution.

2. The lack of conflict.

3. Advancements in medical and environmental technology.

[sgiffy.livejournal.com]

The green revolution is an interesting one. One of the greater tragedies of the 20th century was misguided environmentalists convincing many countries in Africa to fight against it.

[confliction.livejournal.com]

Misguided?

Short term gain has resulted in an increasing loss of arable land globally.

Monoculture techniques are literally raping the planet, and now we're going to see a GM/GE 'revolution'.

Joy :|

[sgiffy.livejournal.com]

I have no problem with GM and the fact remains that I have plenty of food to eat while places that did not advance don't.

[confliction.livejournal.com]

So the idea of a vastly reducing area within which to grow crops does not bother you?

And in relation to 'GM' crops - the idea that a company can own the copyright to any genetic material doesn't make you cringe?

Or that they can create 'activator' genes, that produce either unfruiting or unseeding plants unless 'treated' with an additional activator chemical that can only be bought from Monsanto et al?

Or terminator seeds?

Or cross-pollination? Or genetic contamination?

Or people making mistakes with the genetics and harming thousands if not millions of people?

Or reducing the genetic diversity of our crops making them vulnerable to disease and therefore making us vulnerable to famine?

What is the benefit? That we create plants that rape the soil for twice as many minerals and create deserts twice as fast? Soon they'll be selling trademarked mineral fertilizer. Or soil, even. Where is all of this energy and resource going to come from?

What ever happened to the idea that we have enough food in the world, it's just not distributed fairly? And much of it is wasted.

[torpidai.livejournal.com]

I have no problem with GM and the fact remains that I have plenty of food to eat while places that did not advance don't.

I don't see GM as an advancement, Though it may well be sold as such, and GM can quickly manupulate a plant to it's final hybrid quicker (If for that matter it was naturaly possible in the first place), don't you think that certain genetic mutations happen naturaly and for a reason? (Gd Dammit I'm starting to sound religious)

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

Ok, stop eating food. These techniques have literally saved over a billion... a BILLION people from starvation. It's allowed the average food footprint per person to drop drastically.

Short term? As if making people suffer today and for the next 50 years with no increase in food production ever so some Malthus worshiper can smugly sit back and proclaim to be right is twisted.

So if you don't like it, then stop eating and we can reallocate your footprint to someone who doesn't want to starve.

[green-man-2010.livejournal.com]

congratulations, you have pointed out a few reasons why these things happened.
however, you forgot to explain why advances also occured in the intervening dacades , the ones I have but ommited to show.

taking your data , and mine , we get the idea that poverty is slowly being eliminated. Now, what I'm saying is - if we focussed on the things that make it happen - industrial developement, bettr education , immunisation , etc, we can get there faster.

You also omit to say why the UKk was already Green before the survey started, but never mind. Perhaps you can tell us what the next step will be or ought to be...

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

'... industrial developement[sic]'

But it doesn't. You're just tacking it on there.

If someone is living in a hut in the middle of a rain forest whilst living on a subsistence diet and dying at the old age of 40 we're happy but if they're living in a shack next to a factory whilst living on a subsistence diet and dying at the old age of 50 we're outraged.

Hell, you want to know how many lives are saved with industrial advances like electrical power, plumbing, and transportation? We can deify agrarian subsistence living all we want but it'd only drag down poverty and lifestyle.

[green-man-2010.livejournal.com]

You misunderstand.
my point is that britain began to improve after we invented seed drills, started using the Norfolk 4 course rotation plan , and improved agriculture considerably.

And yet, whenyou consider the work that was done through vaccines, antiseptics, food storage and distribution - this could not be managed on an industrial scale without industry.

as a Green , I would say that a key plank in the platform is to have industrial production of lifes neccessities, but done using renewable energy and sustainable resources.

the plan is not to have someone living in a shack next to a factory, but to have people living in decent homes in villages. Also for them to be reliant on sustainable industries, instead of logging/slash and burn agriculture/ anything else that degrades the environment and leaves the place unfit for habitation and force the population on to move elsewhere and repeat the cycle.
land management is the next question , and yes ,i will come to that in a future OP.

[sgiffy.livejournal.com]

The dark side of this is that we are winning the fight against child poverty, but not enough attention is paid to making sure these kids grow up with say the chance to get a job and feed themselves as adults. I see plenty of adds on tv to "Save the Children", but none to "Employ the Adults". I think you can make the case that doing the former without the latter is a recipe for unstable societies as the overall result is more population than the economy can handle.

Things like microcredit, fair trade based outsourcing, and training can go a long way, but they tend to get much less funding as adults are not as cute.

Please don't think I am saying that reducing infant mortality is a bad thing. I am only saying that we need to keep that up, and also make sure we engage in aid that helps develop functioning economies that can care for these individuals as adults and provide them with gainful employment (or the ability to form their own businesses).

[torpidai.livejournal.com]

Please don't think I am saying that reducing infant mortality is a bad thing. I am only saying that we need to keep that up, and also make sure we engage in aid that helps develop functioning economies that can care for these individuals as adults and provide them with gainful employment (or the ability to form their own businesses).

May I suggest that someone goes out there and asks them exactly what THEY want, instead of treating them like helpless children who haave no say in what is done to "Help" them?

[sgiffy.livejournal.com]

Thats why I think microcredit is such a great idea. People come in with ideas which are then supported and funded. People in an area often know what their area needs in terms of new business but generally lack even very small amounts of capital.

[torpidai.livejournal.com]

I can't be the only one with the belief microcredit will only encourage capitalist tendencies, this leads to the raping of all known rescourses, government corruption (Of which I feel pretty sure they need no more encouragement)

Me, I say ask them what they need, then send the tools, education (Non-religious), and materials for them to build their own required tools to do whatever they like.

Hell even micro-credit makes a profit (Small though it may be) ad I believe Muslims therefore cannot make good use of that w/o upsetting one of their gods/prophets(I'm not overly well read on the Muslim faith)

Tools, Food, manpower (Plenty of that there already I'd guess, just needs a little organisation.) and materials, when money, arms, even foodstuffs on occasions are sent, it seems to me that corrupt governments (and in a multi-faith country I think some will do badly out of the deal) will deal these out as they see fit and that's not always according to need. It's my opinion you cannot help those who won't help themselves.

I'll guess you live in a pseudo-democratic, capitalist society?, by the time FRB kicks in (Which always does in any capitalist state) do you really think the workers will be any better off in retirement?

[green-man-2010.livejournal.com]

You mean like fair Trade, the Grameen Bank and other ventures?
As someone who is an active campaigner in the World Development Movement, I would agree that a lot of money goes into stuff like UNICEF because of the cuteness factor.

however, I also support Traidcraft, and would say that Fair trade, Trade Justice and Social empowerment are the next logical steps. I will argue for those here in coming posts, but lets do IMRs first , before we talk about the other issues like Amnesty international , the Grameen Bank , and others, yeah?

[sgiffy.livejournal.com]

I think we need to do both at the same time. Entering a country and dramatically increasing infant survival without corresponding investments in broader issues causes a tremendous amount of suffering.

[green-man-2010.livejournal.com]

let me assure you that agencies that I worked for as a volunteer were doing all those things , and have been at it for decades.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Well there's certainly less infants dying in places that were formerly high risk for that, but how does that equate to lack of poverty?

[green-man-2010.livejournal.com]

well, IMR 50+ is linked to poverty.

You cannot get below 50 while people are desperately poor.
You can't go below 50 and still stay endemically poor.

50 seems to generate a critical mass - only 1 country has gone below 50 and returned. that was North Korea, that fell into the hands of a Communist military dictatorship.

People seem to get fixated on famines. Famines don't kill as many people as poverty does. people who are poor live in slums, with open sewers running past their doors. their kids will get dysentry, and die of it. They will be undernourished, prone to infections. they will have to go work the fields or the factoriesor on the strets instead of going to school. And if they survive into adulthood, these kids wiill have a big family. because if they don't have several children, nobody will be there to look after them when they get old.have 6 kids , and maybe one or two might make it.

Poverty does not keep population down , it drives it up.
Look at the Greenest countries on the map. Check their population growth, and their GNP per capita.
One or two kids max, in every family. Kids who are immunised, in school, and have access to clean water and sanitation. that is the way to go - that is what we need to aim for, world wide.

[mikeyxw.livejournal.com]

The changes to international trade that started in the early 80's seem to have brought about a good chunk of the drop in global poverty. Those countries which integrated were the ones that saw large decreases in poverty, those who didn't saw no decreases.

Why would you want to change this? The percentage of people earning less than a dollar a day in 2000ish terms, or about $1.25 today, stayed constant for at least the last two centuries until about 30 years ago. In short, globalization's record for reducing poverty is much better than the record for foreign aid... and is more sustainable.

There's plenty of evidence for this;
http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/162/27754.html
http://global-ejournal.org/2009/03/09/globalization-poverty-reduction-and-economic-rights/

[green-man-2010.livejournal.com]

Foriegn Aid?
that is such a lousy idea that I can't believe anyone is using it as a comparison.

you do realise that for every pound the UK sends out in foriegn aid, it gets at least 5 back in the long term?

Old freind of mine was an engineer - went to Malawi.She told me that when they build a hospital using UK aid, it gets written into the contract that they have got to use British cement,and British steel. All tje equipment that goes into it has got to be british , so who do they come to for spares and repairs?
like i said, one pound in , five pounds back.

now look at he Fair trrade Movement. we send in a team to set up a workers co - operative. they grow stuff and sell it to an organisation like Traidcraft. Traidcraft will sell the produce on the market in the UK, and give them a better price for their coffee or whatever than Nestle does.
Now how does your system stack up against that? don't forget that once these people are making decent money, Traidcraft will allow them to decide how they want the extra money spent. if the community votes for a clinic, or a school, or for more investment to grow the business, Traidcraft will see to it that they get put in touch with people who will deliver the goods needed at the best price, no strings attached. frankly, I don't see any international corporation that'snon Fair Trade that can match that. I note that Coca Cola has had trouble with its operations being protested against in the 3rd world.And Nestle has gone for it's own FT certificate on certain lines, but not all. So it's over to you...

Did you know that the Uk will not let Ghana make it's own chocolate bars? They grow the cocoa beans, we make the chocolate and the UK will get the profits for the finished article. Is that fair? That is what I want to change.

Go google 'Trade Justice' for more examples of the way that the developing world is being screwed by the system when it trades with richer countries.

But thanks for the link, I will go take a look and be back to you.

[green-man-2010.livejournal.com]

Right - i'm back. missing from the figures is the fact that global business does not elcome Unions, and is responsible for things like Bhopal.
You seriously think that they would get away with runniing a chemical plant like that in the UK or USA? Why do you think they go to the 3rd world/ lack of regulations, maybe?

lookiit, i am not for abolishing capitalism , i am for doing away with sweatshop labour.
I want to see the USA subsidising their own cotton industry and then dumping subsidised goods on the world market that kills smaller counties industries stone dead.

Show me big multinationals getting keen on sustainable eco freindly operations, and welcoming unions to discuss workers pay and conditions and i will send all the evidence to Amnesty International and a lot of other interested parties. but right now, I am writing to officials in Brazil and other South American counties b/coz local people are under thrreat from the multinats and their goons trying to kill and intimidate local union and communit leaders who are trying to stop the loggers from just tearing up the rainforest and leaving a desert behind.

Markets are regulated in Europe and N. America - you can't just dump your effluent into local waters, or use dangerous chemicals , or do things that endanger the health of the work force. They should face the same restrictions every where else. And they don't. that is what i want to change , and the health and safety of local people and their environment is why.

Tyranny as divine will

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

If you oppose tyranny, you will butt heads with the Rednecki doctrine that despotism is divine will. Addressing the ignorance and viciousness that exists in affluent countries will go a long way to assisting people elsewhere.

Re: Tyranny as divine will

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

Oh you and your racist tirades...

Re: Tyranny as divine will

[green-man-2010.livejournal.com]

That is what I am here for.
Haing done it for 30 yrs or so in the UK, ii am now trying to reach a wider audience on the interwebs.

Yeah, I am having the same convo as I used to have with some people, but it is encouraging that some people are saying things like "saving the kids is fine - what about jobs for the adults?"

it does show that people are thinking about the issues, and up till now, Ii can not only provide solutions , but show that these solutions were put in place years ago and are working.

My posts get more up to date with what is going down in the developing world ( we don't use the phrase '3rd world' since the collapse of the Communist bloc, but it is a phrase that people are familiar with). When that happens, there is less data to go on. but hopefully, we will soon see the critical phase over. This will develop a momentum of its own , hopefully.