Telehackathons, Bacteria, and Poverty: A Homeostatic Argument for Collaboration
According to the UN, just .7% of the global gross national product (GNP) is all it would take to eradicate extreme poverty, defined by the World Bank as living on less than $1.25 daily. Jeffrey Sachs, the former head economist for the Millennium Development Project and University Professor at Columbia, affirmed this finding in his bestseller “The End of Poverty”, arguing that these funds should be used to help communities create their own markets for necessary goods and services. Even Sachs’ staunchest critic, NYU economist William Easterly, agrees that a collaborative, holistic, and community-oriented approach is necessary to improve living standards and wellbeing for the world’s poor.
While significant progress has been made in reducing poverty through investment in sustainable community entrepreneurship and innovation, Sachs effectively argues that a lack of concentrated political will is the reason for the continued existence of widespread human suffering, which is exacerbated by new issues including climate change and tech-catalyzed authoritarianism. It’s not that people don’t want to donate time or money. Multiple surveys have shown that American citizens vastly overestimate the amount of foreign aid the US gives, and upon learning of the actual rate, tend to support giving more. While the gross amount of US foreign aid is relatively high, the US ranks near the bottom of all nations in the percentage of developmental assistance as a percentage of GNP donated. With this said, the Brookings Institute has found that the amount of foreign aid likely exceeds the amount of aid needed to eradicate extreme poverty in its entirety. Thus, there’s a gap between the public perception of aid, the amount actually given, and its impact./.../
No comments:
Post a Comment