Skip to main content

An Optimistic and Inspiring Look at Poverty


I have been thinking a lot about world poverty lately, and even more so since I started reading Jeffrey Sachs's truly wonderful book, The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Time. Sachs starts out by giving a general overview of the world's condition. He has some pretty heavy things to say about all of the needless dying from fully treatable diseases. Common themes throughout the book:

We can eliminate extreme poverty by 2025

Traditional arguments about why poor countries are poor (e.g. corrupt leadership) are too simplistic.

The UN programs are the means for achieving economic progress.

Poor countries are in a poverty trap that they cannot escape without foreign aid.

The health situations in sub-Saharan Africa and southern Asia are inexcusable and are keys to explaining why these areas cannot escape poverty.

The Bush administration, and the Western world, generally is neglecting it's responsibility and making terrible decisions.

A little under a third of the book is devoted to outlining the situation in 6 regions: Bolivia, Poland, Russia, China, India, and Africa. Honestly, I felt that these chapters could get a bit burdensome (he talks a lot of macroeconomics). The most meaningful thing to me was Sachs's discussion of Malaria and AIDS and the West's negligence in addressing these issues.

Despite outlining all of these problems, Sachs remains optimistic throughout, detailing how we can (and easily so) eliminate this poverty.

The author does mention the insanity of letting fundamentalist Christian end-of-the-world scares dictate our foreign policy. Besides this jab at Christianity - and I share his sentiments in this regard (he specifically mentions the Left Behind Series) - Sachs mentions the religious only to show how religious groups are the means for Conservative America to help contribute to poverty reduction.

I'm still not sure what to think of Sachs's idea that corruption in governments has little or nothing to do with why a country's citizens remain poor. At first I disagreed with the assertion, but once I read his more in-depth treatment of it, I couldn't really argue with him.

This book is definitely written by a man who is critical towards the Bush administration, the war in Iraq, and who is fully supportive of the United Nations. Thus, it may initially be off-putting to conservatives. But if you have a heart to care for the poor, and a brain to understand what it will take to help them, you will have to agree with most of what Jeffrey Sachs says.

Very enlightening.

The End of Poverty: A

Comments

Anonymous said…
I haven't read the book but I confess that I have serious doubts about any author who thinks that a humanist organisation such as the UN that imagines itself to be a global messiah can do anything useful. This is a job for the Church, not those who bear the sword. These people want the blessings that only the gospel can bring about. In other words, I think the answer to poverty must be Christendom, not Leviathan. Doug Wilson and Peter Leithart (among many others) have talked about many of these items (health, disease, cleanliness, poverty) and shown how only a full-orbed postmillenialism is equipped to handle these issues.
Anonymous said…
Please excuse my misspelling of "organization." Sheesh.

Popular posts from this blog

Jesus, Lover of my Soul

An old friend and spiritual mentor of mine left a comment on my last "Religious Conversation" Post . It provoked so much thought that I wanted to share it with everybody, because I know quite a few of my religious friends are reading this, and I know quite a few of you who would make a similar statement. Here it is: There is an element in this conversation that is being overlooked (at least, I presume). There is an aesthetic beauty and, more, an affection, which Steven appears to have for God. This is not illogical; in fact, all human beings exhibit it for something. It may be subjective, and it is not conclusive, but it is completely logical. And I can't imagine an argument that would refute it. It is something like a man saying, "I love my wife. I appreciate her many virtues and charms; I believe her to be the woman most worthy of my affection and lifelong commitment." If I say this and someone were to say to me, "But EVERY man says that of his bride!

How Many Will Enter Heaven?

Check out this quote I found online: "[C]onsider this fact: fewer than 20% of people actually think they are going to hell. And yet, in answering that question, Jesus says in Matthew 7 that FEW pass through the gate that leads to eternal life. 80% doesn't sound like few to me... do some of us have the wrong idea?" There are a number of problems with this quote. First of all, you it is assuming that "few" refers to the current ratio of professing Christians to non-Christians. What's to say that Jesus isn't referring to the entire population of all the earth over all time? In that case, it's entirely plausible that 80% of people now are really Christians, as long as there are still few total Christians when all is said and done. Maybe it applies only to the people in the crowd listening to Jesus. Or, it could refer to something else entirely (as I believe). Jesus was talking to a specific people living in a specific time. We cannot decontextualize his

After Summer Sosltice

my very first priority for the day was to sleep in as late as possible. when my foul roommate woke me up I had to shift to priority number two: be as comfortable as possible - normal routine be damned. Upon shuffling my way into the kitchen, I discovered a moth, wet-plastered to a dirty pan. "I feel your pain, buddy." Sitting on the couch next to a glass of water, I wish I could devise a way to get the water in me without having to move my arms or head. My vacant glazed gaze gathers itself toward a brochure on the coffee table:Tips 4 Teens - Alcohol Abuse I laugh (only mentally) and for a moment, the shaking stops. Jesus, it's good to be alive.