THE IMAGE OF THE WORLD
Every nation of the world has each own people's suffering. They suffered because of poverty. The inconvenience in the life of men strikes to everyone. They are vulnerable to hardship in making a living. The faces of poverty changes the image of the world. There was no balance between rich and poor. Rich people have all the money in their position while the poor have all the suffering they encountered in their whole life. Why there's so much difference in their life's standing.
Poverty brings hunger, lack of shelter and less in education. They were living in the different world. The rich lived in extravagance while the poor lived a life of nothing. The poor was always craving for a change to let them have enough food to eat and better shelter. They don't ask for more: food, clothing and shelter were enough for them.
In urban areas, scavengers lived by the spoils of food and crumbs that fell to the ground, from garbage can to feed the family. They were looking for used materials like plastic, cartons, junk metals or whatever they can sell to have some coins in their hands to save for food. Its pitiful seeing their condition. They continued hanging to the rope of life. It's a miracle they survived.
The main cause to the core of their plight was lack of education. The higher the education, the higher the ambition. Due to poverty, they failed to take the chances of educating themselves more. If a person is well-equipped with knowledge, it makes a lot of difference. He can easily look for a better job in the city. Job opportunity was plenty. If hired, their life was secured. That is one of the advantage how education bring changes to the life of anyone. If his ambition is to be realized, he can begin looking for ways to earn more. This will be his leading opportunity to create something more challenging by having a business of his own. This is the foundation and this is the beginning of a change in the status of his life.
But for less in education especially those crossing in the poverty line, were already contented of what they have at present. They don't have much drive to improve their lives. They just lost interest for improvement and fulfillment of their dreams to remove poverty in their lives. They don't have that positive attitude to find ways for self-improvement. They don't have any ambition to ask more. They caught in family parenting unprepared because they don't care.
They hardly eat three times a day. The father has no good source of income. Instead of reducing the number of children in the family to conform to their present condition, the more they wanted to have an additional child putting pressure to the family and them blaming the government of their plight. To have many children can add to the burden of raising them properly. Raising but not educating them can only lead to further their suffering. Without proper education no matter what they will do to alleviate their hardship, there's no chance for a change.
The first role of the father is to secure the future of his family. He must find a way for their welfare. The father has to change ways in looking ahead for the betterment of their lives.
»
- cresastre's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 241 reads
The answer to poverty is not just in education
I agree with you to a certain extent, however, I have certain questions that arise from reading your blog. Do you think poverty would end if all the poor people dropped what they were doing and went to school? Do you beleive that class divisions exist? Do you beleive that all poor people that have the ambition to go to school, can just go to school if they want to? Do you beleive in the existance of greed and the relentless drive for power? Do you beleive in glass ceilings? I beleive in the power of education, but I do not entirely beleive it is the answer to solving poverty. Education does not erase greed, corruption, the lust for power, exploitation. It can not force someone into being honest, kind, or just to their fellow human being. If anything, I have witnessed education teaching people arrogance, pride, selfishness, and imbuing people with a false sense of superioty that has nothing to do with the ideas of benevolence, humility, or good will, qualities that would be needed in the fight to solve poverty. You are talking of solving a social issue on an individual level, which needs to happen first, but you are approaching it in a manner that does not change social consciousness, unleashing it from its social barriers and restraints that are put in place to maintain social hierarchies. It instead blames the victim by saying that being poor is just a choice, a condition that exists from being lazy, uneducated, foolish, unmotivated. It is quite a wide held beleive from people that exploit the poor for their labor. A beleif that masks another kind of poverty, a spiritual poverty, one that doesn't much exist among people with no money, but for some reason often conflicts the rich .
Poverty
The issue of education in the 'fight against poverty' is not simple, without education we don't know enough to move on, with a good education we also get the opportunity of being an asshole, alongside the opportunity of earnings and doing 'better' things like feeding our kids.
Poverty is a direct result and necessary element of greed. One dollar is worth ONE dollar because somebody wants it - it is a DOLLAR because somebody needs it; for every dollar there is an absent dollar or it would not be worth itself, poverty is simply that necessary absence of dollar.
So rich people are directly responsible for poverty, not because they are necessarily bad people but because rich is the absence of poverty. When the world stops being run by economics and starts to be run by people, power must then come from other things than material wealth, then maybe poverty would not be a life-taking problem just a way of ok simple life.
It all depends
on what is being taught.
And they want more...
than a dollar, they want blood!!
Rich is the absence of poverty?
The perhaps clean is the absence of dirty? Gluttony is the absence of starvation? Healthy is the absence of affliction? Inteligence is the absence of the decider guy? The problem I see is that no rich people are ever bad....especially when they talk about themselves, there are even different jails for white collar crime. I guess that's why they're not as bad or something like that. In fact, the old school beleif that good things happen to good people is still alive and well. That must mean, well...Donald Trump is a freakin saint, and well...Bill Gates, poor Bill is all shaken up about poverty man. It's all those needy gruby poor people that you got to put an eye on, their morals are just barbaric, just look and see what Jerry Springer says about them. Rich people would never fuck their cousin and.....well....rule a European nation, ok bad example...lol. I better stop while I'm ahead on that one. I'm also not so keen on economics, however, from what I've been told, the formulas work a whole lot better when the human element is left out.
Rich is the absence of poverty?
Then perhaps clean is the absence of dirty, gluttony is the absence of starvation, healthy is the absence of affliction, and compassion is the absence of the decider guy? The problem I see is that no rich people are ever bad....especially when they talk about themselves, there are even different jails for white collar crime. I guess that's why they're not as bad or something like that. I mean it's only someone's whole entire life savings he stole, he did't kill or even touch the guy. In fact, the old school beleif that good things happen to good people is still alive and well. That must mean, well...Donald Trump is a freakin saint, and well...Bill Gates, poor Bill is all shaken up about poverty man. It's all those needy gruby poor people that you got to put an eye on, their morals are just barbaric, just look and see what Jerry Springer says about them. Rich people would never fuck their first cousin and.....well....rule... a European nation, ok bad example...lol. I better stop while I'm ahead on that one. I'm also not so keen on economics, however, from what I've been told, the formulas work a whole lot better when the human element is left out.
absence?
Yes clean is the absence of dirty etc., the point is that poverty is caused by the absence of the dollar that is held by the wealth of others and not just the super-rich who are only the extreme of wealthy. The problem of rich bad people is not the same as just rich people and a rich person is only some degree richer than others. I am sure Bill Gates just set out to get richer to make a better life for himself and his family, but when we start to get richer where do we stop? It is WHEN we get rich that the wealth corrupts - the fear of losing it becomes a fear of losing any small part of it, I know a guy who is in terminal depression and become a recluse because he is down to his last million!
Economic models are mathematical and rely on human behaviour to be predictable, so the pressure is always on (from the imposition of those models on the people through financial institutions and government) to make us more predictable, more clockwork and more conforming. The models only shape making money, they never allow for the issues that the absence of that money causes; if they did they would stop talking about impossible expansion, with moronic phrases like 'negative growth', and start talking about economic balance and social harmony. I live in China where the rapid economic advance is accompanied by government messages that talk on one hand about growth and on the other 'harmonising' society to maintain economic balance. I do not understand economics so well and so I don't know what different uninteresting policies are doing, or say they are doing, but I do know language and the words they use around economics seem kinda sensible and more people friendly.
This blog started about education - the problem is that education is mostly provided by the wealthy and they teach what they want the rest of us to believe, and the base of it is that wealthy is good and poor is bad, but nobody seems to teach that poverty is necessary for the creation of wealth - so as ms zola says about education - it depends on what is being taught.
When you phrase it like
"proverty is necessary for the creation of wealth", it just fits better in my brain. It speaks more to greed when you phrase it that way. That is one of the points I was trying to get at, is that the education system is geared towards greed more so than social harmony, at least through my experience of knowing a California State University. However, the attitude of students I have met at more elitist schools such as the Claremont Colleges is much more disturbing. I guess what I'm trying to say is that class structures and attitudes about people are being taught alongside everything else. How can one truly acheive social harmony, which in my mind is fixing poverty, when there is a serious disconnect between the standards of living between the two different people and what they are experiencing.
Much like "negative growth", words such as "derivitives", are thrown around to confuse and befuddle the whole process of understanding how to improve things. When homeless people break the law in college areas by simply existing there, sitting, sleeping, how has education began to come close to solving this problem? In fact, it has exacerbated it, it has thrown up a wall of pretentious notions in order to cover the problem up. It is also sociallizing people into beleiving they are superior to homeless or poverty stricken people, without giving a second thought to who that person is. Compassion, human dignity, love, these notions are noncompliant to why people get a degree. Now I'm sure that I just made the whole 5 people reading this hopping mad by spouting that out and that they'd refer me to any old college website to read their cozy little fluffy mission statement, but give me a break. School is to conform people into social robots, I wish I could have got that upgrade, but my system seems incompatible. There are very few professors who tolerate disention or critical questions that defy or challenge the status quo. Academia is very much monitored and controled by the upperclass, not the lower class, there can be no harmony with this kind of inequality. Now, if they made all schools free, that would be something, although, it might be going about making an entirely different form of social robot.
As far as the great american dream goes, education solving poverty works perfectly for a minority of individuals. However, I agree that education should somehow be more than that, it should strive to create social harmony as you said. A harmony that still allows people to think freely, critically, and strive for their highest potential.
poverty phrases
There is an issue that we talk of them and us in everything, 'they' are rich bastards and 'we' are poor people. This focusses our thinking so that we see 'bad' in place of 'rich'. Rich people are not bad, they are no more more good or bad than we are, it is just that they just have more opportunity to misbehave; it is easier to be giving when you have nothing. Human nature is all of us, poor people who get rich are normally just as 'bad' as long term rich, we resolve to bring money into our poverty stricken houses when we go to work but leave for better things as soon as we get enough for the ticket; or enough education to 'rise' above it. Only very few exceptional and admirable people manage to bring everyone 'up' with themselves, and I do not mean stars who get suddenly-super-rich buying a house for dear 'ol Dad, I mean ordinary super-people who work all their life in ordinary lives.
If we focus on the wrong things then we are doing what 'they' want, thinking about the wrong things and running around in media circles. Even 'they' are only people with human natures and human strengths and weaknesses. Education just helps us to think better and gives us some kind of life skills.
Even Cresastre says opening this blog, they are ". . . unprepared because they don't care". If someone tries all their young life without success then by the time they have kids they will have stopped caring, of course! But why should living in poverty be such a big issue - having no money does not necessarily mean that you have no value for somebody, poor farmers still grow things that we cannot or will not grow for ourselves. If 'poor' is of value to society (especially 'valuable' to the rich whose dollars depend on poverty to have any value) then 'poor' should be encouraged and supported.
The key is word is supported, which means health, education, living conditions. There will always be people with more than others, which means there will always be people with less than others, it is time to start dealing with it in a balanced and reasoning way, governments to govern for the people and the planet, and for the rich to understand that they need poverty.
If we must have poverty then maybe the way to deal with it is to change it's nature from the debilitating and deadly 'lack of money' to a state of supported simple living with exit routes through education and attractions into it for people who do not want to live with stress and the harassment of economic living. A 'pastoral' life was considered attractive during the industrial revolution, maybe for the wrong reasons then, but the idea of a simple life is still sound.
Justification for exploitation
"If 'poor' is of value to society (especially 'valuable' to the rich whose dollars depend on poverty to have any value) then 'poor' should be encouraged and supported"
This is exactly why there is an us and them mentality. You have defined the justification of exploitation. Poor people should be poor because they of of value to the rich that way. Hmmmm.... How does harmony unfold from exploitation and the justification therefor of. You have helped me define why education is not working, and it is because it justifies the exploitation of other less unfortunate people. There is nothing you can say to me to justify this morally. You're basically telling people that it's alright to be exploited, that they should just be good with being exploited, that rich people aren't being greedy or bad or evil when they take more than their share for less work. I'm guessing it's the whole reason behind the start of socialism and communism, people eventually get fed up from being conned by other people. Unfortunately for communism, it was corrupted by those very same people, acting superior, thinking less of their fellow men and women. Its the same old shit here in the states though. An act of patriotism and the American way, but they're the first people to take away your rights, acting as the supreme parent figure, acting as if they know best the needs of millions of people.
No, it doesn't work, they need thugs to enforce their views, prisons to contain the free thinkers who oppose them, yes men to wipe their asses and sooth their egos. There is no justification for the pooled wealth of 1 percent of the population owning so much more than the rest. It is a lie and an illusion that has lasted for centuries upon centuries, but there always comes a breaking point. Where there are never enough jails, or laws, or police, or soldiers, or assasins, or thugs, or traitors, or yes men to maintain the inequality. It is a seemingling endless cycle that the prophets of old and from every religion in the world warn about, an illness in society that has no end, because there will always be those who will force their will upon others who will not allow it, who will not justify it, who will never give in to it.
Justification ?
You will never give in to it, and they will never stop doing it - hmmmmm. Isn't that the exact point? the way things are now does not work so it must be a new way that we don't have right now; by understanding the simple (or not so simple) fact that poverty exists because of wealth, and so poverty has a 'value' to the wealthy, then maybe economic models can be made that are balanced and that reflect wealth and the absence that makes it. Of course the system has always been a lie and an illusion because they are afraid you will take it from them and you fight as if you want to. But the reality is that we can't all have it because if we did it would cease to exist, and that may be a good thing also but I guess we would have to grow up a few more thousand years first. In the meantime if we understand that poverty CANNOT go away then changing its nature is enough. There is no reason why not having 'economic tokens' should deprive people of everything, the only real issues that we all have with poverty can be covered by ok living conditions, real health cover and education to provide a route out for those who want it; which brings us back to the start of this blog?
Socialism and Communism are just reactions to aggressive Capitalism and so cannot win in the end because however you change the people the wealth remains and someone has it and the old cycle starts again. I doubt that YOU would be any better than THEM if you had a couple of billion dollars in the bank and a couple of really profitable arms factories on the go.
Chinese philosophy was close to coming to terms with this just a couple of thousand years ago. I don't think the old answer that they came up with would work today, but the ideas are still good and clear. They seemed to understand that there must always be rich and poor and much of their philosophy is around this point. They came up with the new idea of their time - that it is the duty of the people to honour their rulers - but if the rulers were really bad then it is the duty of the people to have a revolution and throw them out. But then the honour system starts again with the new (maybe evolved) leadership. There is loads of interesting stuff on the relationship between state and citizen that recognises the balance that is needed.
And I am not saying that it is right to be exploited - just that it ain't gonna stop the way we have been fighting it so far, maybe it is time to invite them in for a little chat.