World poverty is only half the problem

Who do we think we are kidding? There is a deceit at the heart of third-world development.

When we see people starving on our TVs due to a drought in some part of the world, we may respond with compassion, send some immediate aid and perhaps consider longer-term strategies aimed at helping people to help themselves.

And when we see the economy of some developing country improving and making progress towards lifting their population out of poverty, we are thankful as we see living standards being raised. Along with any altruistic motives, our guilt is also assuaged and there is probably relief that a part of the world needs less of our money and aid.

But this is only half the development story, as it propagates the assumption that under-developed nations should aspire to Western standards of life. The other half of the needed change is carefully suppressed and rarely spoken.

We also need to address first-world over-consumption and greed. Unless the West reduces its consumption of raw materials all round, and until we live in a sustainable way – that is, not plundering the rest for the few in the West – then we are continuing to buy the lie that can we raise the standards of the poor, but not lower the living standards of us who are rich. We cannot round everyone up to the level of the West.

It cannot be done!

Moreover, keeping the focus on the developing nations is also a way of avoiding (or even acknowledging) our own need to change!

Real progress would be to greatly simplify our Western lifestyles whilst also addressing the abject poverty of the many.

Perhaps we can stop raging against the current economic downturn and 'austerity measures' in many Western nations, and see it as the beginning (just the beginning) of going in the right direction. This would also mean dropping the delusion that the current downwards direction of travel is temporary and soon we'll be back to 'business as usual' - which means more raping the planet and exploiting the poor.

Austerity sounds harsh, but it could offer a simpler life, with less clutter, more balance, less rush and more time - which sounds good to me! However, for this to be so, also means tackling the growing inequalities in our own Western countries. While we continue to tolerate great disparities of wealth within the West, we have no difficulty accepting such inequality between rich and poor nations. If we do not tackle our local wealth gap, austerity just means that the wealthy are protected while others, especially the young, are cast into unemployment. Moreover, the West will pay even less to our wage-slaves in developing countries, as we export our misery in order to protect ourselves. That doesn't sound good to me!

Andrew Carnegie, one of the richest men the world has ever known, said "The man who dies rich dies disgraced" and went on to give away most of his fortune through philanthropic enterprises. Jose Mujica, the current president of Uruguay, who has been described as 'the world's poorest president' (see: www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20243493) says, "Poor people are those who only work to try to keep an expensive lifestyle, and always want more and more".

Personally, I am for getting materially poorer in order to work towards greater equality and fair shares all round. Then we will all be richer!