Is Financially Aiding Poor People The Best Solution For Poverty - Essay Example

Is Financially Aiding Poor People A Best Solution For Poverty? The topic on whether aiding poor people financially is the best solution to poverty or not has been a controversial subject that has raised heated debates in most of the developed countries like the USA. Some people strongly argue that giving financial aid to the poor is not the most appropriate way of ending the vicious circle of poverty the poor have been languishing in, while others believe that financial aid to the poor is among the best approaches to ending their poverty. This essay will explore the issue of donor countries giving financial aid to the poor states as a way of reducing poverty in them while considering the two sides of the argument. Persons advocating for financial aid to the poor countries as a solution to their poverty argue that the financial aid that these poor countries receive help in boosting their economies. Economic development is actually the primary reason why such countries or poor people seek financial aid. Poor countries use the financial aid they receive from donors in boosting their investment climate such as promoting entrepreneurship and by providing direct support to trade. The poor countries also use the funds received in settling debts especially after they are strike by disasters. For example, farmers in Bhatinda in India were in deep debts after their lands became water logged, thus needed financial aid to support them and settle their debts. Moreover, the obtained financial aid can be used in investing in other areas, thus offering them more talents to build and develop their respective countries. Persons supporting the idea of financial aid to the poor states also argue that if proper measures are put in place, the aid allocated can provide substantially sustainable solutions to poverty. Working towards a sustainable future is the most effective way through which donors can end poverty in the poor states. Natural resources are diminishing at a rampant rate as the demands of the population continue to increase and as the gap of income continue to widen as well. Subsequently, sustainability is the only viable solution that can help in curbing the rising demands of the population that are satisfied using the scarce and depleting resources. However, it is essential to note that the journey to a sustainable future should be done in a way that does not compromise the future generation’s needs. Thus, sustainable solutions must be done in a way that would get people out of poverty and at the same time protect the environment (Jones 39). Some of the aspects that should be considered while applying sustainable solutions to help the poor countries include providing access to agriculture technology that do not lead to climate change, and providing food and water. There is also a pressing need for applying solutions that provide nutrition for all needy people, shape cities in a way that encourages quality of life, as well as build effective infrastructure without causing pollution and congestion. There is also a need to take good care of the marine life and make sure that communities all over the world are resilient when faced by disasters. Contrarily to this argument, a significant percentage of people strongly believe that giving financial aid to the poor states is not an effective strategy of ending their poverty. They base their argument on Garrett Hardin philosophy, an American ecologist who warned of the dangers of overpopulation and who is remembered because of the Chinese story he could tell. In one of his articles entitled as “Lifeboat Ethics: the Case Against Helping the Poor”, Garrett opposed the idea of giving financial aid to the poor while basing his argument on the ancient Chinese proverb; “Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day; teach him how to fish and he will eat for the rest of his days (Hardin 22).” Application of this proverb in this contentious subject is that helping the poor by giving them financial aid is not a sustainable and a lasting solution to their vicious poverty. For a sustainable development to be achieved, the best approach to their challenges would be teaching them how to fight with the period of economic downturn instead of hand out useless helps. Moreover, consistent financial aids to these countries only make them over dependent on the developed nations, thus limiting their chances of making any progress. Therefore, supporting poor people financially is not a perfect solution to poverty because it does not lead them to a sustainable future. Another drawback of giving financial aid to the poor states as a way of ending poverty is that the aid given does not benefit every individual. This situation occurs due corruption, funding of large scale projects that do not benefit all people, and governance of some development projects by foreigners, which results to all benefits taken back to the rich countries. Moreover, some of the funded projects lead to pollution and degradation of the environment. Biotechnology is not a sustainable solution to poverty in the poor countries because most of it leads to soil degradation and pollution (Hardin 23). Instead, donor countries should fund biodiversity projects that lead to more food production than biotechnology (Shiva 67). For example, biotechnology has been linked to ecological poverty, especially in India. It is also unfortunate that donors often give financial aid to the poor while expecting the recipients to do something of greater benefit to them than to the recipient. This makes it difficult for the recipients to use the money as per their wish. As a result, the poor countries remain ever dependent on the powerful countries, leading to a position where their bargaining power becomes weak. In addition, financial aid is a not a lasting solution to the poverty many poor states have been facing because of not only providing a short term solution, but also promoting excessive population growth. Persons criticizing the idea of giving financial aid to the poor states argue that the aid donated to the poor countries results into an increase in population in the countries, thus leading to extreme pressure on limited resources. The scarcity or inadequacy in resources automatically translates to more challenges that result from needs of the population being ineffectively met. Although there are other ways of ending poverty, it is important for the rich countries to empower poor countries through technology and education for a sustainable future. The poverty-related challenges in these countries cannot be solved only through financial aid from the powerful and the rich countries. Empowering them with information could be among the best solutions to achieving a sustainable future. The poor countries can substantially improve the living standards of their citizens and reduce their living cost if only they acquire the necessary knowledge that has made developed countries such as the USA flourish. Giving the poor nations the necessary information as well as providing them with quality education can lead to sustainability in poor countries in various ways. For example, technological advancements can only be achieved as a result of being well-informed having a well-educated population. Educated people adapt well to changing technologies, hence easing the process of becoming a sustainable nation. It also plays a vital role in controlling population because educated people embrace the need for having a population that the economy can support. Therefore, education plays a vital role in the process of striving for a sustainable future. Lack of knowledge and modern education was the root cause of the Bhatinda farming disaster. Sources show that land became water logged because of reasons relating to application of unsustainable methods of farming. If farmers in India had not embraced agriculture technologies that pollute the environment, they might have not experienced such losses in food productivity. Therefore, sustainable solutions that will benefit every individual includes making sure that all individuals have access to information through education and technology knowledge. Communities must also collectively use sustainable farming technologies in order to completely eliminate challenges triggered by unfriendly farming technologies. Shiva suggests that communities must work in a collective and cohesive manner and not as an individual grower, to a sustainable future (Shiva 65). Population control should also be a priority for all poor countries since overpopulation and presence of a high number of unproductive citizens like children and the aged intensifies their level of poverty. By so doing, there would be no pressure on available resources, which means that the living standards of people would improve for a sustainable future. Application of these strategies would reduce dependency of the poor nations on finance aid. Solution to the poverty in the poor states lies on working ideologies such as adopting modern technology. Poor countries should embrace technological advancement such as the newly introduced concept of green energy, as a long lasting solution to end poverty. Advances in green technology leads to cost effective farming and medical discoveries, which results in food surplus and healthy people respectively. The technology also improves agriculture and supports numerous industries as it leads to construction of factories whereby products from the farms can easily be manufactured for local markets and export. The industry also creates employment opportunities, which translates to creation of job opportunities for the local communities, and hence improving their living standards. In conclusion, persons advocating for financial aid to the poor countries argue that this is the one of the ways through which the poor states can foster their economic development. The poor countries use the financial aid on funding local projects that not only provide jobs to the locals, but also improve their living standards. However, financial aid to the poor states/people has been viewed by many as a temporary solution and that continues to make the poor states more dependent on donors. It fails to provide a long-lasting solution to the poverty poor countries have been experiencing. This is because donor countries often give recipient countries conditions that hinder their intentions to use the aid on projects that would provide them with long lasting solutions. The financial aid given also benefits only a few selected because of the high levels of corruption in these poor states. In addition, critics suggest that financial aid given to the poor states lead to extreme growth of the population, thus leading to more poverty as demands of the population surpass the available resources. Therefore, it is fairly corrects to state that financial aid to the poor states is not the most effective solution to their poverty. Works Cited Hardin, Garret. “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case against Helping the Poor.” Sustainability. Ed. Robert Zandstra, Eugene, OR, Oregon; University of Oregon Composition Program. 2014. 18-24. Jones, Van. “Working together for a Green New Deal.” Sustainability. Ed. Robert Zandstra, Eugene, OR, Oregon; University of Oregon Composition Program. 2014. 37-41. Shiva, Vandana. “Poverty and Globalization.” Sustainability. Ed. Robert Zandstra, Eugene, OR, Oregon; University of Oregon Composition Program. 2014. 65-69. Read More