Eradicating Global Poverty

January is being celebrated as Poverty Awareness Month. Several articles on the state of poverty have been written, but two of the more interesting ones I've read come from two very different viewpoints. The first is Bill Gates' annual letter, outlinging his concern and attempt to update "3 myths that block progress for the poor." The second is an article by Dale Hanson Bourke, "Why Am I Not Poor?", on Christianity Today where she reflects and contrasts her context and experiences with individuals living in poverty who she has met around the world.Gates' article is very informative of the influence foreign aid has had to reduce the number of poverty stricken countries and individuals around the world. He goes on record predicting:By 2035, there will be almost no poor countries left in the world.He does this with a caveat that "almost no country in the world will be as poor as any of the 35 countries that the World Bank classifies as low-income today..." Two weeks ago, I wrote about my view of how economic warfare drives ecological destruction. My conclusion is that, to eradicate or even slow ecological destruction, we need to limit the need for economic warfare and, by extension, violent conflict. I believe we get there by raising the quality of life for as many of the planet's residents as possible, to the point they can experience each level of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. By dealing with the basics and providing living conditions where a majority of any group can obtain the basics, I believe there would be less stress leading to less conflict.In Gates' report, three myths are:Poor countries are doomed to stay poor.Foreign aid is a big waste.Saving lives leads to overpopulation.The article provides some great details on how these three viewpoints keep countries from getting significant aid. Even better, it provides numbers and trends on how aid does help these countries and what is holding the poorest countries from developing to the point of self sufficiency - which he also identifies as consistent trends from receiving aid. It's an interesting read with an eye clearly on the future.In the second article, Bourke presents eight reasons she has been successful in a first world economy. it's an interesting list and one that highlights the benefits many of us enjoy from our living context and what they provide for our development - or at least don't negatively impact us if they were not available.Even if you don't share her Christian worldview, I think her points help highlight ideas we should consider when we look to identify how current trends might change our world over the next few decades. One way I'm planning to reflect on both articles is how the removal of the aid helping nations overcome the three myths or if any of the points Bourke's list were to disappear from a nation, culture, family or individual's context might affect their growth and opportunities.I can think of a few examples fairly quickly:Losing access to good education/As a woman, I am protected by the law and society: Malala Yousafzai is a great example of a young woman who, under the Miangul Jahan Zeb government from 1948 to 1969, would have had one of 1500 schools. Since 2007, the Taliban has destroyed 400 schools with 280 of those being girls' schools. At 15 years of age, the Taliban attempted to assassinate this young activitst who only wished for girls to have access to an education.I am healthy: Early last year, Chinese researchers claim to have combined the bird-flu virus and human influenza, creating what could be a dangerous pandemic. Not only did they manage to combine these two potent viruses, they also wished to publish their research. Putting this research in the hands of a rogue nation could interrupt every economy in the world.I live in a stable country: politics can wreak havoc on stability. Given the continued economic trends with ever increasing shifts towards the rich, many first world nations could be primed for a loss of economic and possibly cultural instability.I am tied to a growing economy: Tied to the previous point, any economy is fragile. Maybe those with a continual monetary intake from oil exporting are the most stable, but stability can end with a bubble burst. It's a scary notion, but failing economies can fall into massive inflation where the currency loses value daily.I was born into middle-class suburbia: Not the best title for her point. I would look more at a stable and safe environment and household. But she makes a point. Growing up in a poor and/or dangerous community introduces a range of stressors on an individual.If you have a thought on the articles or points, please share them below.