Will financially aid helping poor people lead to a sustainable future - Essay Example

Bowen Chen Alison Lau Stephens WR 121e Nov. 24. Is financially aiding poor people a best solution for poverty? The gap between the rich and thepoor has always been sparks in economists gossip. However, the main point of this issue is that, whether the rich should give financial aid to the poor. Some believes that, poor countries can apply the funds to their basic construction. In addition, they can use this money to invest on every aspect, which they are lacking of, which could offer them more talents to build and develop the country.

Conversely, Garrett Hardin, an American ecologist who warned of the dangers of overpopulation, told a story of "Chinese Fishing" in his article "Lifeboat Ethics: the Case Against Helping the Poor" that, "As an ancient Chinese proverb goes: “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). To my point of view, helping the poor is not a good way for them. For a sustainable development, the best way is to teach them how to fight with the period of economic downturn instead of hand out useless helps.

Moreover, keep financially aiding the poor will cause them do not attempt to make progress. Therefore, financially aid to poor people is not a perfect solution for poverty because it is not leading them to a sustainable future. Aiding the poor will not offer solution to the poor countries and individuals around the world as the earth can only support limited number of people. Financial aid will lead to increase in population with adverse effect on sustainability of nature.For positive alternatives to ending poverty in poor countries, the world should work towards a sustainable future.

The natural resources are diminishing and peoples demands are increasing day by day, as well as the gaps of income are widening too. Therefore, sustainability is the way to go, where every individual will have a decent standard of living. 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).

Sustainability solutions should also consider such things like providing access to agriculture technology that doesn’t lead to climate change, providing food and water, and providing nutrition for all needy people, shaping cities in way that encourages quality of life that is decent, building effective infrastructure without causing pollution and congestion, making sure that the marine life is free from climate change and pollution, and making sure that communities all over the world are resilient when faced by disasters.

Although there are other ways of ending poverty, it is important for rich countries to empower poor countries through technology and education for a sustainable future. The challenges of poverty cannot be solved in poor countries by financial aid from powerful and rich countries only. The best solution to achieving a sustainable future for poor countries is to empower them with information. Most of the time, the donors of financial aid expect the recipients to do something that will benefit the donor more than the recipient, therefore making it difficult for the recipients to use the money as they please, due to pressure put by their donors.

As a result, the poor countries remain ever dependent on the powerful countries, leading to a position where their bargaining power becomes weak. Moreover, aid does not benefit every individual. This situation occurs due corruption, large scale projects that do not benefit all people, and some development projects are governed by foreigners, and the profits taken abroad. According to Hardin, the donor countries also face some advantages by giving financial aid to poor countries. He states that by allowing unrestricted immigration and giving food aid, the donor country is polluting the environment for the future generation.

He recommends that the solution to saving the future is by living by the ethics of a lifeboat (Hardin 23). Biotechnology is not a sustainable solution to poverty in poor countries because most of it leads to soil degradation and climate pollution. Vandana Shiva, an Indian environmental activist and anti-globalization author, suggests that sustainability is achieved by noting the roles played by people and species in the environment and hence need to offer them protection. (Shiva 67) Biodiversity according to her can lead to more food production than biotechnology that kills green fields with herbicides.

In addition, biotechnology leads to ecological poverty especially in India. A sustainable future for poor countries can be achieved by providing them with technology and giving them educational support, which is of minimal damage to their way of living and culture. 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.

Shiva suggests that communities must work in a collective and cohesive manner and not as an individual grower, to a sustainable future (Shiva 65). ‘The green new deal for everyone’ and ways of achieving should be done in a way that encourages collectivism. “For the sake of the ship--our planet--and all aboard it, the effort to go green must be all hands on deck” (Jones 37). Therefore, all individuals in the world should embrace green solutions. If poor countries gain the knowledge of green solutions, they will improve the living standards of people and reduce their living cost.

Economists usually spark debate about the gap between the poor and the rich is in their conversations. Mostly, they focus more on financial aid to the poor. Some people believe that the poor people and countries ought to be helped financially by the wealthy nations and people. This group of people believes that the poor can use the aid to acquire what they lack and also to develop and build their talents that can positively change their countries. In the "Lifeboat Ethics: the Case against Helping the Poor", Garret Hardin advises to against aiding the poor people because the earth can only support a definite number of people.

The earth cannot afford the world’s population beyond a certain point. Therefore, it has a certain way of controlling the number of people. For instance, famine and hunger reduce the population of a particular group of people. However, when the suffering people are helped, their population size increases instead of reducing. Later, the same problem would arise again in a bigger degree as the number of people needing help has increased (Hardin, 23). Like a lifeboat, wealthy nations and people have limited capacity to offer support to the poor.

Therefore, poor people should not help into the lifeboat as they would cause the boat to sink. In case they are given financial support, they instead remain dependent while increasing in number and thus require more financial help in the future. Financial aid is not sustainable as the people offering help have limited capacities while the poor continue to increase in size. Therefore, aiding the poor financially cannot solve the issue of poverty. Giving aid through industrial agriculture only destroys the sustainable mechanisms of food production and rich diversity of these poor countries.

Shiva suggests that industrial agriculture destroys diversity, therefore leading to disappearance of rich sources of nutrients. (Shiva 69) Therefore, he advises against giving aid to poor countries through genetic engineering, globalization of trade in agriculture, and industrialization as they lead to negative economy thus hindering the sustainability progress in these countries. Jones recommends that all people should be involved in ensuring a sustainable future through the green new deal. (Jones 38)In summary, financial aid cannot lead to a sustainable future for poor countries due to various reasons.

Financial aid for poor people might increase their population leading to extreme pressure on limited resources. Scarce resources means that the needs of people are not met appropriately. Therefore, their living standards are lowered. The things that can improve the living standards and reduce the cost of living for people in this countries is by providing them with technology knowledge and education that will improve their skills in science, agriculture, and business. All these knowledge should be instilled in a way that is environmentally friendly.

If environmentally friendly strategies are designed, they could improve the lives of people in poor countries. In addition, population should be controlled for a sustainable future generation. “Without a true world government to control reproduction and the use of available resources, the sharing ethic of the spaceship is impossible” (Hardin 24).CitationHardin, 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.