"[Poverty can mean not having the minimum income level to afford the necessities of life]. Poverty can also mean the denial of opportunities and choices most basic to human development — to lead a long, healthy, creative life; to have a decent standard of living."
—The State of Human Development, UN 1998
"The true measure of humanity is essentially determined in relationship to suffering and to the sufferer. This holds true both for the individual and for society. A society unable to accept its suffering members and incapable of helping to share their suffering and to bear it inwardly through 'compassion' is a cruel and inhuman society."
Pope Benedict XVI in his second encyclical Spe salvi, "On Christian Hope", n.38.
The problem
There are too many people living in poverty.
Trends supporting this view
Poverty exists in developed nations
In developed nations, poverty is not an unknown feature of the economic landscape.
A report by welfare organisation The Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) has found one in eight Australians, or approximately 2.2 million people, is living in poverty and includes around half a million children. Furthermore, as the nation economically develops over the past 20 years the poverty has increased. ACOSS CEO Dr Cassandra Goldie summarised the report in her own words as follows:
"This is the first time this figure has been counted in six years and it is deeply concerning to us that there is no reduction in the rate of poverty in Australia. In fact it has slightly increased. In a wealthy country like Australia, this is simply inexcusable.
Two thirds of people on Newstart [Allowance] have been unemployed for more than a year and they clearly need more help than they are getting now from employment services,
There are almost 600,000 children living in families below the poverty line. About half of those children are in sole parent families, and one quarter of people in sole parent families are living below the poverty line. This makes the Federal Government's recent cuts to payments for sole parents all the more disturbing.
Under the changes passed in the Senate last week, over 100,000 sole parents on the parenting payment will be between $60 and $100 a week poorer from January 2013.
It is simply unacceptable that so many people are still going without the basics and the sorts of opportunities the rest of us take for granted. A wealthy country such as ours can and should do better to ensure that everyone is afforded an adequate standard of living. It is a fundamental human right." (ACOSS: One in eight people living in poverty in Australia: new report. 13 October 2012.)
The U.S. is not doing much better. A report from Oxfam titled Ignoring the nation's poor: A political peril in 2012? suggests one in four Americans and living at or below the poverty line, a number that has increased by 22.6 per cent since 2007 (partly due to the economic recession of 2008). By September 2011, poverty remains the highest in the past 52 years. Today, poverty remains an important social issue of the 21st century. In that nation, the poverty mark has been set at USD$23,500 for a family of four or less than $20,000 for an individual.
As look towards a developing nation like India, we find one in three people are at or below the poverty line. The problem only worsens when we look at the under-developed nations.
How people in developed nations view the poverty problem
Not unlike the human population debate and many other world problems, poverty seems to be another one of those issues that has divided humanity into roughly two main groups: R-wing, and L-wing people.
The left-wing (L-wing) view
These are people described as more R-brain, or creative, types. The view taken by these people is mainly one of acknowledgement of the issue including how widespread the problem is in the world today probably after either having direct experience at some point in their lives or have visited and seen places where poverty is prevalent. Then, when finding a solution, these people tend to argue that the problem lies in the current Western economic system where wealth and consequently power is distributed mainly to a minority and the rest of the population must "fight it out" so to speak for the remaining resources (food, jobs etc). There are many creative solutions on how to solve poverty, but finding the right solution is often difficult to implement in reality, mainly because other people who are happy with the current economic system want to complicate the issue in order to maintain the status quo.The right-wing (R-wing) view
These are people described as more L-brain in their thinking. The view taken by these people is one of either not seeing a problem, or believe it is insignificant. If arguing on the former, R-wing people will claim everything is fine and really it is a personal choice people make of whether they want to be in poverty or not. If the poor say they are not able to change themselves, it is because they are too lazy, don't have a hard working attitude, and therefore don't deserve to be helped or assisted in any way. If it is the latter, it is probably because they have insulated themselves in wealthy suburbs and have adequate security to be able to not see what's happening. Whichever view is taken, when these people have to face the issue head on, they believe the only solution is to rely on the economic system to provide any kind of job to help people in need.
Looking more closely at the suggested solutions
The L-wing view
It depends on whether people believe the current economic system is the solution or not.
Basically, if the current economic system is fundamentally okay and must be maintained, then the only solution would simply require people to give more money, free services, and be more creative and humane in one's approach to helping the poor until such time as enough of the poor can somehow have the confidence and be able to achieve something on their own. For example, L-wing people propose we should constantly have advertisements and programs emphasising the importance of giving to charities that do work for the poor, followed by access to free education, low-cost or free public housing, regular encouragement to try something they can do and build up from this position where they can develop increasingly more useful skills, give the poor more confidence in themselves and make them believe society is supporting them in their endeavour to achieve whatever they wish. If, on the other hand, money is scarce (unlikely in a wealthy developed nation), the only other alternative is for people to simply provide free or very low-cost assistance.
Advantage: Less people will turn to crime as they would have money and/or assistance and the things they need to survive. More people will be happy and will tend to co-operate and work with others to achieve something together.
Disadvantage: If poor people are not encouraged to try something (e.g. make some money as a reward for working and helping society in what is termed earning a living), it can potentially make them lazy by not setting goals and working towards them (i.e. contributing to society in some way). If everything is provided on a platter, there is no incentive to find work. Also there is no clear vision as to how the money should be spent to be most effective to solving the poverty issue. And it assumes enough money, if this is the only solution, is available to help people.
The R-wing view
The solution, according to R-wing types, is essentially to spend no money on social support or put a high enough cost on everything so that hopefully it will force people to find work in order to help pay for the support they need. And if that doesn't work, R-wing people think the poor are probably more useful as human fodder for the military engaged in overseas conflicts. For example, R-wing people have proposed the tough American-style of welfare and social support system where the absolute minimum money is provided for survival before it is cut-off altogether after 6 months. The aim in taking this tough social stance is primarily to force people into survival mode after 6 months so that hopefully they will do the right thing and find a job (irrespective of population levels, limited training and resources, and the number and type of jobs available).
A supporter of this hardline view is Associate Professor Peter Saunders at Macquarie University's Department of Sociology.
Working with Kayoko Tsumori—a PhD student in political science and international relations from the Australian National University (ANU)—Saunders said in his one-sided report issued by the R-wing think-tank of the Centre for Independent Studies on 27 November 2002 titled Poverty in Australia - Beyond the Rhetoric:
"The American system has time limits for eligibility to welfare and in some sense is more stick than carrot...but it has had some amazing successes [and amazing failures too].
'If giving people more money were the solution to poverty, poverty would have disappeared by now, yet the number of people requiring support has been growing not shrinking." (1)
Advantage: People in poverty may be forced to accept any kind of job when pushed to the survival extreme of not having money.
Disadvantage: There is a big risk people placed in survival mode may choose negative goal(s) to deal with a harsh and incompassionate R-wing society leading to higher levels of crime such as terrorism and a greater cost to the community through law enforcement and military spending. Jobs chosen or created in such a harsh system will include a range of immoral or controversial areas such as child pornography — hence the reason for having increased law enforcement. In the final analysis, poor people driven to this extreme may eventually maintain and support the current system, but no one would be obliged to do the right thing for the environment and other people. People will even be clever enough to find ways to get around legislation if they are forced to survive.
How each group will try to argue their point
L-wing people (mainly living in average middle-income areas of society) are acutely aware of various social problems of the day, including poverty. In fact, so much so that sometimes it is possible for L-wing people to exaggerate the numbers of people in poverty as a way of highlighting the problem. They may also try to simplify the definition of poverty to one based on income only so as to emphasise the importance of giving more money to the poor, or spending more money on providing social services to support everyone. Whatever creative and clever methods are used to highlight the point and later the range of explanations found and presented to others to get people to do something, there are L-wing people wanting to see some kind of change in the current Western economic system as if the problem lies with society, and not the individual.
On the other hand, R-wing people (generally the richer and more powerful types who tend to have control of key positions of power and monetary areas of the current economic Western system and, therefore, believe the system is fine) may try to underestimate the number of people in poverty in order to make the problem seem insignificant and so justify maintaining the current Westernised and capitalist system. They will try methods of complicating the definition of poverty to cover a whole range of issues to the point where it is easier to ignore the problem instead of facing up to the reality of what must be done. Whatever the explanations given by R-wing people for poverty, these types of people are almost always expecting to see some kind of change in the individual, and not society.
In essence, R-wing types believe society has no problems and, consequently, the economic system should be maintained at all costs. This is most understandable as society has treated R-wing types well through the income they have earned from their businesses and leadership roles.
Whereas L-wing types believe there is an inherent problem with society and the economic system. There must be change. Totally understandable considering a number of L-wing types have struggled in the system to get to where they are, or who have reached a point in their lives after gaining experience and travelling the world of how disenchanted they are of the economic system and how they want to see change.
If, however, enough L-wing people believe the current economic system is flawed and need changing but cannot do anything to convince others in the system to change, these L-wing people tend to create their own independent societies in the bush or near the oceans living a more simpler lifestyle and ensuring everyone have what they need.
The problem with the R-wing solution
R-wing people have a particularly good understanding of the limited resources created by the current economic system. Even within the businesses they run, they know nothing is without limit. But for everyone else when it comes to the needy things, there has to be a reason. Whether it is because many R-wing people are wealthy and have hoarded many of the resources for their own purposes (e.g. make a profit, enjoy life's luxuries, win an election etc), or there are simply too many people in the world, is hard to tell at the moment. Maybe it is a combination of both. Or perhaps they have not understood the importance of recycling everything we produce.
It may also be because there is a need to maintain the "status quo" as a result of some great secret being kept by the US military and government (i.e. the "conspiracy theory") because they are scared of how the technology will radically transform society (probably for the better for everyone), and/or they simply want to be filthy rich and powerful. Too much to lose so why rock the boat?
Whatever the truth, if we implemented this purely R-wing solution to the problem of poverty to the extreme as population increases, more and more people will be pushed into survival mode. For R-wing people, the aim in being harsh to those in poverty is to exactly see this happen in the hope that everyone will do the right thing in the eyes of these R-wing people, such as getting a job, or create a business and make money that way. Unfortunately, the risks to society through this incompassionate approach are particularly great and likely to lead to other problems. This will include destruction of the environment, civil unrest and crime, and ultimately a collapse of society and the start of global wars as people fight back for what they believe they are entitled to have as a matter of survival.
The problem exacerbates even further with those other people who are kind of stuck in between these extremes (what we might call the middle to slightly lower class). Here, a growing number of people will try to cope with the situation in their own ways. The classic example is forcing people to try out illegal things just to be happy or "get back at society" (e.g. drugs, child pornography, terrorism, murder, theft etc.). It is true that a great effort will be made by R-wing people to minimise these problems. The classic approach is to get law enforcement agents to seek out and stop the wrong types of behaviour and actions. However, as we have seen in the most recent terrorist attack in London on 23 March 2017, police officers can only do so much. And even ordinary citizens cannot tell if someone is going to do something terrible to others. Bad enough that some people can still go behind closed doors as part of the underground approach to hide illegal activity. But if people are truly unhappy, there is very little if anything people can do to stop the situation until it happens and the person who commits the crime is stopped by some drastic means.
This is the problem with the R-wing approach. The risks to society can be great by taking on the incompassionate approach. Stopping illegal acts in a high population is going to cost society enormous amounts of money and time and will take greater effort to maintain social order through law enforcement, the legal system, extra military spending to handle terrorism and invading nations that may be thinking in a similar L-brain (or R-wing) manner as other countries, and building more and more prisons and mental institutions to keep the increasing numbers of people classified by R-wing people as misfits (i.e., the ones who refuse, or are unable, to find work or fit in with the current Western economic system and thus unable to earn enough money to survive properly). With further increases in population and fewer resources, of which most of the resources end up with those who can afford it, the social divide will be greater than ever. Then people start to fighter, quietly at first and and later in overt ways in an attempt to change society and the thinking of other people. Eventually it will lead to civil wars, if not wars with other nations whose people are thinking in a similar way and their chosen leader will find ways to get what he wants for himself and his people. Mind you, some R-wing people think wars are the answer. Wars can help to reduce human population levels. But the surprising thing is, after a war, and assuming R-wing people are still around to run the system, these same R-wing people will discover a lack of excuses in not supporting the remaining people with the proper social services that should have been there in the first place when the population was much higher. The difference is having enough resources to go around and properly helping everyone.
Does this mean R-wing people can suddenly become L-wing people in a land of plenty for everyone?
To put it in a nutshell, the issue of poverty is currently seen by R-wing people as either not a problem worth worrying about (and certainly not needing any kind of radical or unique solution), or make the problem seem intractably insoluble (just to maintain power). They will either reduce the size and extent of the problem through whatever means (e.g. selecting biased statistics from R-wing thinking sources). And if there is a problem to be confronted, R-wing people prefer to let people in poverty fight it out among themselves or train them to fight wars or lock them up in prisons as the only solution (certainly would be statistically speaking and after enough people have died fighting on the battlefield). Otherwise, that is why R-wing people pay law enforcement agents to keep the problem under control so R-wing people can't see a problem. All this is seen as normal for R-wing people, especially while they continue to maximise their own superannuation payouts, business profits, celebrity status, position of power, places where they live, and so on.
The problem with the L-wing solution
If we look at the L-wing solution to the problem, a considerably more compassionate and humane approach would be taken. And rightly too. However, given the difficulty and size of the problem and how entrenched it is in modern society within the current economic system, it will be necessary to pay for massive amounts of support, including the needy resources, to help the poor to survive and eventually do something great in their lives. No choice.
However the risk to society is that we may create a group of people who are neither willing to work for society nor do they care whether the environment and other people are being deprived of resources when helping them. Or it simply not economically feasible to support so many people and someone will have to go without. Not an acceptable approach to L-wing people, but if they don't have the money to help everyone, they have to face the reality that it will happen.
So while it is important to give people support, and assuming the money and other resources are there, constantly giving with no obvious signs of something in return could cause problems to a world that has finite resources and there is not enough recycling of those resources taking place.
Add to this the problem of how many poor people are deprived of love and encouragement, which is probably more fundamental than not having enough money to buy the things they need. The lack of love we provide to these people may end up being the key to their situation. We don't know how to love one another properly. So people lacking in love spend their time thinking no one loves them and so rely on drugs and drinking alcohol. At least this provides some positive emotional well-being for the short-term compared to the harsh reality of what other people do. And then when other people cannot understand why some resort to drugs and alcohol and only see this aspect, this is the sort of thing that will create a certain amount of resentment in society especially among those giving the support.
Only problem is that any resentment will only maintain the vicious cycle. You have to do the opposite.
So while we have a handful of L-wing people practising the principle of recycling in the bush on a limited scale (which in itself can form a potentially viable or permanent solution to the problem of poverty and all other world problems from a L-wing perspective) and other L-wing people living in the cities who are able to open their eyes and highlight the social problems and know there must be a positive and humane solution, there is not enough unity among all L-wing people in the cities to come up with a coherent and realistic solution to the serious issue of poverty.
Could this be because there is an expectation that whatever solution we come up with must have a dollar tag associated with it? Does everything have to cost money? Is there another solution?
The difference between the groups
To put it in a nutshell, the L-wing position is based on a belief that the current Western economic system probably needs to change in order for individuals to find balance again. However, the difficulty in changing the economic system seems a little too great. Thus finding the better balanced position for the current economic system while letting a minority continue to get rich and powerful is extremely difficult to visualise and reach for in the real world. So instead it is best to give to the poor enough money or other means and hope this is enough. Without getting to the fundamental issues of modern society such as the wealth accumulated by rich people and the way they control the available resources, and realising poor people need more love, we may never properly solve the problem of poverty.
On the opposite extreme, the R-wing's hardline stance is based on the belief that the current Western economic system is balanced and right and is going to remain this way forever. Only the individuals themselves have to change to fit the system or be forced to change by others. Of course, this is because R-wing people have benefited from this system in terms of gathering wealth and later power. Who lose something as great as this? Unfortunately, such an approach, and without a thorough understanding of the power of love to transform other people's lives, learning to properly recycle everything and choosing the right products to make, and keeping some control over how much profits are made in businesses, this world problem will only get worse until something unexpected happens.
What is the solution?
1. Acknowledge the problem
When it comes to an important world problem as poverty, the first thing to do is to acknowledge the problem, even if grudgingly from the R-wing people in society. By acknowledging the problem exists, you have effectively solved half the problem (i.e., you are aware and know you are part of the problem). We see this acknowledgement in statements such as the following from Professor Jake Najman of the University of Queensland's Schools of Social Sciences and Population Health in relation to the important landmark Australian study into the health of children based on the socio-economic status of Australian families:
"Our research shows that by age 14 some children from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds have already had the basis of their future health compromised.
Children from lower socio-economic backgrounds by 14 have poorer mental health and poorer abilities to learn, affecting them at school and later in work. And by the time they are 14 they are more likely to have adopted an unhealthy lifestyle such as taking up risky behaviours like smoking.
The research also suggests the health inequalities being seen in children are not only a consequence of their own economic circumstances but also that of their grandparents.
Intervening, even during pregnancy, can make a difference.
On one level it is a matter of simple social justice that we do something about this but, on the other hand, it just makes economic sense to target the problem at its source. The cost of targeting those at risk while they are young is considerably less than dealing with the problems that can develop later in their lives." (2)
This study was one of its kind in Australia and one of the few to be conducted anywhere in the world. It began in 1981 by the University of Queensland and Mater Hospital.
2. Control our desire to have what we want
The next thing to do is to act on the problem by being the solution. In other words, what can we do to solve the world problem. Well, the first thing is to control our desire to have what we want. As much as R-wing people may hate the idea (as they are the ones with businesses designed to encourage people to consume), this includes the thinking that continual growth in a materialistic sense is necessary. No it is not. There is only so much resources to go around. And with not enough recycling, the problem only gets worse. We must be sensible in what we take from the environment and from other people. This is crucial to helping solve poverty.
If there is to be growth, it must be more internally within ourselves. We must grow intellectually, emotionally, and spiritually.
For example, in the 2007 election year for Australia, we hear how the Federal (Howard) Government have approved all politicians to have a 6.7 per cent pay rise. It is not clear the reason for the increase, but one would believe it is because Federal Ministers have to be rewarded for creating a healthy economy and to prepare for their own future of pay higher costs in making the move to a renewable-energy-based and more environmentally-friendly economy.
As G. Chalmers or Jerrabomberra in NSW said:
"...there are at least 1200 homeless people sleeping out in the cold in Canberra.
While graduates of the Department of Education, Science and Training raised $700 from donations during their Happy Hour to give to St Vinnies, our politicians gave themselves a 6.7 per cent pay rise. John Howard is to benefit by an increase of $21,000 a year and Kevin Rudd by $15,000, which they don't need. To the graduates, very well done, and shame on you to the pollies." (The Canberra Times (Letters to the Editor): Indulgent pay rise. 23 June 2007, p.B6.)
Perhaps if the politicians had solved the problem of poverty, a 6.7 per cent pay rise would be in order and no one would complain. However, poverty still exists.
For more examples of the way some people do everything they can to have everything, read this section.
It is clear, to solve poverty, everyone must learn to be satisfied with what they already have and to focus more on being grateful for the things that help us to survive.
3. Recycle what we produce
The next solution is to find those things we can produce and need to have that can be recycled 100 per cent, and to focus on those things. For example, metals, glass and wood are fully recyclable. However, most plastics are not. So clearly avoid the latter. Or make them so durable and unbreakable and easy to clean (and looks good) that people will re-use them again and again for an extremely long time. By which time, hopefully a solution to recycling these tougher plastic products will be found. Among the list of recyclable products must obviously include the growing of food. Food is an essential aspect of solving poverty. Poor people need food to survive. And somehow the cost to produce essential and healthy foods must be reduced to make them affordable. If necessary, it must be provided for free in return for some kind of work that poor people can do. Or else a tax on junk food should help to subsidise the cost of healthy foods until it eventually is accessible to the poorest members of society.
4. Implement a new world order
This brings us to the biggest problem of all: the cost of obtaining certain things, even for the most basic items we need to survive. Leaving aside whether needy things should cost, there seems to be always a financial cost to almost everything that we do or try to obtain (Well, fortunately there is no business selling us air to breathe as yet). Why? Because R-wing people think everyone must pay, even right down to the things we need to survive. Hence we have created a system where shareholder companies control the production and distribution of food, forcing all the essential needy things to cost. That is the nature of the companies. You have shareholders investing in the company and in return they expect huge profits to be made where it can be divided up into dividends for each shareholder. Unfortunately this profit has to be paid for. Naturally, L-wing people may think this is wrong, but can't see a way out of the trap we have created if we are to maintain the current economic system. Someone has to pay, and often by way of a monetary amount. And R-wing people think this is normal. That is why we often hear many R-wing people say, "There is no such thing as a free lunch".
Yet we watch the birds and other animals wander around and find food and they don't need a wallet to pay R-wing people for the privilege. Humans may have the biggest brain in proportion to their body of any land-based animal, but they can be the dumbest. Because any animal that doesn't have to pay money for food are definitely the smartest creatures on the planet.
Yet here we are paying for just about everything.
When faced with this sort of attitude from R-wing people, what can we do in this situation?
At least the good thing about L-wing people is that they do believe in the need to help people in poverty no matter what. A rather good decision considering the truly knowledgeable religious and creative leaders in the world believe there is a possibility we will come back in our next life after death. And where we will be born and when is anybody's guess. Of course, R-wing people will say it is all bollocks, but they justify this by saying that we can't see after death and be able to come back to say what happens. The human brain and its senses cannot transcend beyond the material world to see the ultimate truth about this Universe. There are physical limits. That is the way the Universe works. All answers will not be served on a platter for any one single living creature, not even us. We have to work for it. And we have to take the middle ground in this debate of what happens after death. Which means that what we can see and not see needs to be balanced. We do this through our visualisation and imagination skills to help us sift out from what we can see those more hidden and directly unseen patterns in life and the universe. Then a greater insight will emerge that will likely paint the reality of what will happen to all of us in the end. And for many religious and creative people who have done this work for themselves, the law of recycling and the cyclic nature of the Universe will not only re-build our bodies, but our true selves will forever be bound to this Universe, for us to experience again and again the different lives that we must face as part of some kind of great learning experience. The Universe is our teacher and classroom, and we are the students. We must learn something great in it. And that is probably why we are here to live out our lives.
If this is true, it only makes sense to cover all our bets in case we do come back again. And who knows? We might discover what it is like to be poor. If we don't like this thought, then we must do something about it now. We have no choice.
Still costs too much? No worries. Then it is time a new world order commences where we help people in the way it should have been done before. If we weren't so profit-motivated and have this expectation that everyone must earn money to pay their way, then this world problem would have been solved long ago and this page would never have to be written.
The first step in solving this world problem will be to help those people in poverty who have been left unsupported for so long. The lack of love we have shown to these people for such a long time is deeply entrenched in their minds, and this has got to change straightaway. We have to give them hope and encouragement once again that they are worthy members of society and can contribute greatly to securing the future for everyone. Like the farmers, poor people need to be lifted onto a pedestal. They are important people in society, in some ways more so than business people. And they certainly should not be required to build the next Microsoft or Apple company in the new world order. We don't need to have more of these companies. Rather, it has to be much simpler and more essential to the survival of all species on this planet. Furthermore, the contribution given by these people to this new system must be seen as greater than how much money you can create in any legal sense.
We, therefore, propose that society creates a new "non-economic" society, and one designed to balance the economic system we already have. It should be a system where the currency is love, food and contribution of any kind to creating and supporting this new system. Forget money. Let us face it. We all need food, right? We can't eat money. And it just so happens the world is facing global warming because of humans' desire to burn fossil fuels and cut down trees for the sake of getting rich (and to survive where the population is getting higher). Global warming for the sake of making money is causing a world problem in itself, and it links in with poverty and every other world problem. When faced with this situation, what would you prefer? Getting rich quickly and destroying the natural mechanisms to balance world climate, or long-term global stability where climate is kept in check through a greater focus on our needs, including growing natural foods and re-building the environment? The answer should be clear. Furthermore, people must survive too. Therefore, there must be a way for these three areas of love, food and contributing something to come together under a new society, free from the expectations that you must make money all the time.
If such a system can be created, what would be the reward? Not surprisingly, in this new society, your contributions will be measured in terms of easy access to food and water, your own place to live (not a mansion, or skyrise building, just a small, modest home, easy to manage and in an area of natural environmental beauty because of your outstanding efforts to rebuild the environment and grow food). You will also have access to various communal technologies (donated by the people in the economic system or created by people in the new system), including computers to talk to people around the world (and even keep your own if your contributions go beyond looking after the environment), large-scale equipment to shape the land, create dams and places to hold water and prevent evaporation as much as possible. as well as tools to plant more trees and shrubs. This is all society (and certainly those living in the new system) should ever ask of people in poverty. In return for getting this food and water, and a roof over their heads, we only need to ask people to contribute something to the new society. It doesn't matter if people don't have high-level skills that people in economic systems come to expect when getting a well-paid job. The job for poor people must be of a different type that doesn't require considerable skills.
Well, what better why to contribute than to help rebuild the environment and bring it back to a level of pristine condition for nature to do its job of keeping our climate in check while ensuring people have what they need to survive. And for the length of time that people of the economic system have ignored or not done enough to help those others who have fallen through the cracks and become poor, we need to give back something to them as a form of compensation. It means that the economic system will have to pay or provide the technology and tools for the initial setup of the new non-economic system. This includes the initial food and water people will need. Next, housing the poor should initially be done in a communal-style approach, but with reasonable quality and opportunities for people to find places to reflect and have quiet time to think about things or talk about things with other people. Such an approach will be difficult for some people. It will force some people to go "cold turkey" so to speak as they are weaned off drugs and alcohol. But they must be supported during this transition to the new system. There should be absolutely no drugs or alcohol in the new non-economic system (or at least not until people are sensible before growing foods that may allow the fermentation process to create some alcohol for certain drinks). Certainly anyone who may have trouble with alcohol should not be exposed to this substance for a long time. And it should start far enough away from the economic system where people cannot sneak off and grab a bottle from someone living in the other system. If this is found to be the case, it is probably best for the other person to join the non-economic system in order to teach them a lesson about helping people and the environment.
Next, we may need to build a massive, and state-of-the-art desalination plant (where extra fresh water is needed), and massive bulldozers that can shape the land and channel freshwater inland, and store them underground and/or on dams surrounded by trees to reduce evaporation from the dry winds in the early stages. Then people along the water route and in certain water storage areas can direct some of the water to create new grasslands and begin the process of growing trees. Areas will be set aside to grow food for the people in those areas. And not everything has to be monoculture when growing the foods. More permaculture is what we need. Mix it up. Get the idea of companion planting going. Provide the necessary microclimates from bushes and trees to help protect the more delicate food producing plants. We only need to apply appropriate ideas and techniques of permaculture and self-sustainability to the production of food and maintaining a healthy ecological system. Then nature will do the rest for us. And when done over vast areas, other changes will be visible to the landscape and climate.
When doing the work of rebuilding the environment and growing food, we must remember that jobs are not meant to be hard labour under the sweltering sun, or in the snow as in some places in Siberia. People, rich or poor, deserve to be treated like human beings. Four to five hours per day, up to 4 days per week is fine. The priority is to get the water supplies properly established and start growing food and trees. In the meantime, reward people in the new non-economic system with not just fresh food and water, but also free time to think and play, and have fun with other people, or be curious and to learn something different. Enjoy nature for what it is (walk through the areas with new vegetation and paths for people to walk through, and enjoy the simple pleasures of clean air, the peaceful serenity of different plants and the useful products that can be made from them, places to provide shade in the summer to take in the scene, enjoy a drink or two from the fresh water in a nearby stream etc. Over time, the trees will provide more and more protection from the Sun, and there will be more food on the table (and less reliance of food from the people in the economic system — let them pay for food if that is what they believe is right by them — as they say, there is no such thing as a free lunch).
The aim here is to provide jobs that doesn't require a lot of thinking skills. And you don't have to look like Arnold Swarzanegger to get through the work. Be sensible. Show some common sense and be smart about how you work, which will come with experience and trying things out to see what works. For ways to make the work easier on yourself. A little physical activity is all that we ask of people, and that can only mean a good thing: we exercise and burn some energy off. We get thinner, fitter and stronger. Imagine the savings to the economic health care system just from this simple measure alone. Perhaps some of the savings could be redirected to build further infrastructure for the new non-economic system and/or buy extra things such as clothing and computers connected to the internet for all to share the knowledge with others around the world and to learn new ideas from them.
And once you have established the environment, why work harder? If you want, you can. If you enjoy the work. But remember, work to live (and enjoy life), not live to work. And let nature do most of the work for you. In the end, you should work less and less on your designated area.
The next crucial aspect to making the new system viable and successful is to establish effective and achievable goals with significant rewards attached to them for the people who participate. We have mentioned free food and water. Who would scoff at such a reward? A person who is hungry or thirsty will see this as the most important reward of all. Yet this is just the beginning. For example, make it five days per week in the early stages to do some physical work and when the poor people reach an important milestone and show a change in attitude and a new view to life, reward them with four days of work per week. Then give them more autonomy and let them choose the hours they wish to work. Start early? No problem. They can start at 4.00am in the morning and finish at 9.00am. The rest of the day, they can go to a communal education centre to learn new skills that could one day prove useful either to other people of the non-economic system, or those in the economic system. Or relax and make sure there is plenty of time to socialise with others, and get plenty of sleep if you want.
And why not teach people how to sell excess foods to the economic system where people are looking for organic foods and are willing to pay premium prices for the highest quality? Give these poor people the business skills to know how to sell and interact with customers.
Then, after 5 years or so, why not have a small house built in an area they have contributed significantly and let them manage the area with their skills and knowledge of the environment. They can live in the house for all their lives and society knows the area will be well maintained and kept to a high standard.
And as further rewards, let them become leaders and direct other people to jobs that can be done in the area or other areas. Show by example. And show what can be achieved when people apply themselves to the problem of rebuilding the environment.
But if we are to keep people in the same system, give them greater rewards for their efforts. And let these poor people choose the system they wish to work in. Either no pay but everything they need to survive catered for by the non-economic system in return for looking after the environment and growing food, or to return to the economic system to try out their new skills and confidence and see if employers will want to employ them in paying jobs. Let them make the choice.
Whatever decision is made to solve the problem of poverty, this is the time for society to show how smart it is to solve world problems. In terms of poverty, show how valuable these people are by giving them their own roof to live. Let them choose the system (they will know which one is better). If it was you, do you want to be paying rent or a mortgage for a long time and have little time for anything else other than being employed by someone else? Or do you want to learn the skills of building the environment and perhaps even build your own small and modest house in the non-economic system for you to live for the rest of your life in a location where you can continue applying your skills while all your essential needs are catered for? Spend less time working on the land as food becomes plentiful and the environment is able to recycle and take care of itself. Let it provide greater protection to the water supplies by minimising evaporation as the trees, shrubs and grasses grow. And over a wide enough area, watch the climate start to change. No longer will it feel like things are drying up and getting hotter. The reverse will happen. It will feel cooler and more moist. The likelihood of rain developing will increase. Soon a time will come when the desalination plant can be decommissioned as nature takes over the work of supplying fresh water to all the areas. When we reach that point, we will have succeeded in creating a society that truly understands the power of love in supporting all living things. And people will have a new understanding of where the balance of life should be. For greater balance in society will come when people do the following things:
- Learn to recycle all essential items needed for human survival. In particular, food, water and shelter.
- The production of essential items for survival must involve a reduction in the cost of those items to the point where they become easily affordable and virtually free to anyone who needs them.
- We must all live within our means.
- We must encourage and give plenty of opportunities for people to find any worthwhile and positive goal to work towards of benefit or potential benefit to society.
This approach will solve all poverty so long as everyone has the same things as everyone else has, which will be the case in the new non-economic system.
5. Create a proper Bill of Rights
And finally, when R-wing people realise the importance of giving people what they need in return for amazing contributions and why people should be treated well, to ensure people never fall back into poverty and get treated badly again by others, people must be loved and reinforced through legislation the minimum form of love we all deserve. Some form of a Bill of Rights must be developed and enshrined in national legislation for a truly socially-advanced nation of people and their governments and institutions to see and follow for all eternity.
Then, at last, humans will have learned something about the power of love in solving this world problem permanently.