World Poverty,

 

We humans are basically social animals, with our main social institutions often including forms of religion and government. Hence human behaviour is rarely entirely individual but is affected by our social setting, and our wealth or poverty is generally affected by these social influences also.

On population, both many religions and some governments have favoured and promoted population growth strongly at times - go forth and multiply to strengthen our religion or our country ! But in some other times or places social pressures have favoured lower birth rates as 'responsible parenthood' and limiting population growth. Clearly limiting populations may help to reduce the extent of poverty with less mouths to feed, and expanding populations may increase poverty though maybe not always.

In some societies these social pressures may center on 'big families are good' or 'big families are bad' social admonitions. But social pressures can in some cases include much tougher measures such as contraceptive aids being banned or taxed - or being issued free or made compulsory. Of course not every individual will follow prevailing social pressures, but the majority generally will. Churches may even encourage their preachers to grow the church by making lots of their parishioners pregnant, and may be unconcerned if that is with parishioner wives or with parishioner children. Of course they will normally keep such a church policy secret and keep preachers names off birth certificates, but some church rules can include banning preacher marriage and/or banning contraception.

Various types of punishment measures can also be used by some churches and governments to enforce subjugation, and government collusion with some church can often involve secrecy on the part of both. Hence the Republic of Ireland government has in the past taken 'legal' action (and may still now) against residents claimed to have been baptised Catholic, while allowing its Catholic Church to keep all its baptism records secret. There are other governments undoubtedly acting on similar unspoken arrangements with other churches, often unconstitutionally. But it may be only a bigger or smaller part of church and government that goes evil and takes their parishioners or citizens as subjects of no value.

The various countries that now exist have been created historically often somewhat accidentally based maybe on particular races, religions or languages. But modern governments need to equitably handle our whole world and so should not discriminate in relation to race, religion or language. And whether religion or politics are dominant in a government today, it will of course generally be the non-poor who control the chief social institutions and decide the prevailing social pressures - mainly as whatever they see as being in their own interests. And part of that may be controlling and exploiting a poor they think needs to be kept poor. However having a poor does not promote wealth growth, but instead chiefly encourages exploiter inefficiency that retards wealth growth.

Now it can be that the only substantial business is government business, and then the chief issue is how well or badly that is run. But where there is substantial non-government business, the chief issue can be how well or badly government handles that. In either case the main business aim may be either an easy life with no change and steady profit, or increasing profit with growth and innovation progress. A range of different government policies to help business may encourage one business option or encourage the other business option. The easy-life business option is generally encouraged by cheap-labour poverty and also by closed-shop discouragement of new or non-mainstream science progress thinking. And sometimes it is easier to keep things as they are, while other times may see stronger pressures favouring progress.

If businesses tend to prioritize profit and religions prioritize God then governments maybe should prioritize maximising the welfare of the governed. This would require that governments should resist being unduely influenced by business or religion and should resist calls to war unless absolutely unavoidable. Of course most businesses, churches and governments tend to really prioritize themselves.

Religions and governments may or may not economically exploit workers less than rich businessmen employers, but they may generally tend to be less efficient at running business than the average businessman. Since business is less of a priority to them, where society is more dominated by religion or government it may tend to more inefficiency poverty. This form of social poverty generation some call central planning poverty, but such economic inefficiency often also results in societies with business monopoly which removes the efficiency spur of competition from business. Of course competition encourages efficiency in business due to competition being an often fatal threat to a business, and so survival of the fittest can give a Darwinian business evolution.

World poverty reduction basically requires inquisitive and experimenting science and well managed global competition, both of which involve problems with the latter certainly the more problematic, and may mean that different policies may be needed for different countries. Successful wealth-creating business needs to really be centered on competing for profits, but this needs some real social anti-poverty regulation also - such as minimum wage law and minimum social welfare - to really encourage social wealth instead of social poverty. Otherwise science-based progress will benefit chiefly the rich and the powerful only.

 

To quote Confucius,
In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of.
In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of.

However countries are rarely well governed since poverty can be strongly boosted by just one or two particular needs that those running countries should safeguard but often fail to do so. Hence,

1. In many poor countries the poor are very dependent on having a good water supply, but in many cases it either does not exist or is controlled by a monopoly that makes excessive charges for it.
2. In some richer countries the poor are very dependent on having a good electricity supply, but in many cases that either does not exist or is controlled by a monopoly or a cartel that makes excessive charges for it.
3. Governments or religions running countries clearly have a duty to protect the poor in these cases, but some make little or no real attempt to do that.

In richer countries especially, trying to target poor people can create too many problems so that often poor people can be helped more by targeting them less. Hence the UK Child Benefit for everyone with children (rich, poor, unemployed or working) did almost certainly do more good for UK poverty than some of the more costly targeted benefits. However, having a national welfare payment level may suit some part of a country better than other maybe poorer parts of the country. January 2010 UK news headlines included a government minister publicly admitting for the first time that UK middle-class governments have not understood the UK poor. But of course the UK is not alone in having that widespread problem.

 

Richer countries like the USA and UK have also over recent years been building up a new real poverty and exclusion problem that can be called 'imagined poverty' or 'virtual poverty'. This largely involves children being given an incorrect view of the average family as being significantly richer than the average family really is, so that many from average families now think they are poor. Hence a substantial number of 'virtual poor' can be created by modern advertising, TV and film especially in richer countries or developing countries.

1. Advertising. Those selling more expensive products at higher profit margins have more money to spend on advertising than those selling cheaper goods at lower profit margins. So advertising does tend to present average people as buying more expensive goods than the majority of people actually buy. The advertising 'virtual average person' is richer than the average person actually is.

2. TV and film. Those making TV programs and films targeted at the young commonly present 'virtual average families' as richer than the average family actually is. Hence the Disney TV show 'Hannah Montana' basically presents a multi-millionaire family as 'typical' to the young people that it successfully targets. The TV and film 'virtual average family' is richer than the average family actually is.

Hence the UK today may have only 10% who are actual relative poor, but may have another 20% who are actually in the average majority but have been made 'virtual poor' by exposure to modern advertising, TV and film. And these 'virtual poor' will feel that they suffer 'virtual exclusion' in not being able to buy what they wrongly believe that the majority can buy. There is a real problem for some countries where this 'virtual poverty' problem, added to some real poverty problems, may have in part contributed to events like the 2011 street riots in the UK. And current UK 'virtual poverty' and 'virtual exclusion' creation shows in a recent Children’s Society and University of York study of children aged 8 to 15 giving their views on social exclusion. UK 21st century children feel 'deprived' if their family does not have most of the popular 'normal possessions' including in importance order 'some pocket money', 'some family holidays', 'some iPods', 'some good clothes', 'a family car' and 'good TV'. It may need some more regulation of advertising, TV and film that is targeted at the young - and the problem may be less in the currently censored '18' films and adult TV area than in the 'PG' films and kids TV area !? For the sale of a more expensive product to work needs more advertising time for that product, so governments should maybe set a cap on advertising time for any product in any location ? That should somewhat encourage cheaper products more and help reduce virtual poverty.

The real impact problem of Virtual Poverty was lamented by Eddy Grant's 1982 song 'Electric Avenue' with its words "Can't afford the things on T.V." His song dismisses the trite claim that poverty violence is just due to warm weather, though that can be when it more often happens. The full song lyric is at Social Government, or listen below ;

A modern society will generally have four main types of social institutions, namely ;

1. Businesses, for trading or producing for sale products or services, which government may regulate or tax.
2. Political parties or movements, seeking to influence a government or to form a government, which government may regulate or tax.
3. Religious churches or movements, seeking to influence how people relate to a god or to gods, which government may regulate or tax.
4. Charities, seeking to materially or financially aid people having incomes or savings that are lower than average, which government may regulate or financially aid.

Modern governments may register their social institutions into one of these four types, and may require that none of the first three perform the functions of another of the first three but allow any of the first three to perform some charity and get an appropriate amount of income taken as tax-exempt for that. There will of course also be a range of lesser social institutions as relating to art, to science etcetera and these may have various connections to the above.

Good government should help its population be well educated, with suitable schools and reasonable media. A reasonable government should also ensure that using mild drugs is legal, and that using more dangerous drugs is either illegal or appropriately controlled. And likewise a reasonable government should ensure that mild religions or churches are legal and that more dangerous religions or churches are either illegal or are appropriately controlled. But often religions especially may strongly oppose both and maybe also undermine education.

Statistics indicate Christianity in 2002 having the world's largest number of supporters, at around 33%, and as concentrated somewhat more in richer countries. Islam seemed to be a close second on number of supporters, about 22%, with Hinduism in third place at around 15%. Buddhist supporters seem to follow on about 6%, with Chinese Traditionalism around 4% and Judaism only about 0.2%. However, these 2002 numbers do not fully take account of the fact that most religions are divided between often many different competing churches. And these numbers do not take account of strength of support - for some religions including many more nominal or marginal supporters than for other religions. Also some religions may help or encourage business or political action more by its members, than other religions do. And among religions with different churches some of them may be more extreme than others and some of them may be better at hiding their extremism. There can be plenty of lying in religions as in political movements, though some of it may be unintentional lying by people themselves believing the lies to be true. Maybe the claimed key Jesus Christ saying 'It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God' was just a trick to get the rich to give money to the church or to give some to the poor ?

The above 2002 religions data indicates Protestant Christian countries especially as then being dominant in the most advanced and richer countries. But it seems likely that in richer countries especially there may be a substantial under-reporting of 'no religion' that may also have been increasing over time and the size of this group may have affected some of those countries. Generally it seems that the social impact of religions is tending to fall as countries get richer, but much of the world does still remain in poverty with religions having much influence. Yet 2022 did maybe see a real final end to the long-running religious wars between a Catholic Europe and a Protestant England, with Queen Elizabeth the Second seemingly as her last official act before her death approving without fuss a Catholic Deputy Prime Minister authorised to run England which soon after also had its first Hindu Prime Minister. Perhaps the UK government should now cut its connection to a protestant church, and then maybe the catholic Republic of Ireland could apply to rejoin the UK with a united Ireland having its government in Dundalk ? And maybe the EU and Italy should require the Vatican to accept being subject to Italian and EU law, and so accept being more law abiding and more modern ?

In the feudal times preceding the development of science and industry many societies were controlled by a few feudal lords ruling by force who often became supported by some religious church. But when industry developed many societies were soon controlled by a few capitalists as Karl Marx noted to support some worker revolutions. And in a some of these societies where religion weakened a few capitalists that were Jewish did gain some significance as Adolf Hitler noted to support his dictatorship coup, though nobody reacted much when a few runners who were Kenyans gained some significance in running. Some revolutionary or other government changes had a degree of significant success while some were big failures. But in many cases progressive societies have showed a weakening in religion and growing reform pressures that saw reformed governments moderate capitalists power more in favour of citizen power.

Technological and economic progress can commonly rest on basic physics and other science experiment. The greatest advance for medicine was basic physics experiment producing the microscope, and medicine most probably still needs such basic physics experiment though nobody is funding that now with physics dominated by thought-experiment and particle-colliding experiment and medical research funding is not helping that. Climate science probably also needs such basic physics experiment as is not being done. Of course political parties rarely seriously discuss science policies and unfortunately neither do most scientists, so in the 1960s I planned some basic physics experiments when I was expecting to do a physics degree at Imperial College London and now in 2024 those basic physics experiments have still not been done by anyone. Science experiment now is very restricted and so can now produce only limited small advances. (see the bottom of New Science.)

Religion basically seems to be a social construct that helped maintain social order in feudal-style societies, but politics and science seem in more recent times to gradually replace religion not as being better but as being better suited to maintaining more modern societies.

While many charities certainly do some good, there are some charities unintentionally doing bad as for example maybe ;
1. helping people involved in wars, which can chiefly help prolong wars.
2. helping people live in inhospitable places, who could do better living elsewhere.
3. helping people have babies, when it could be better not to have more babies.

And of course charities are also like all other social institutions in also tending to prioritise their own interests. But charities are certainly not alone in sometimes unintentionally doing bad, and both churches and governments can also do bad at times often unintentionally in similar ways.

 

# Or for more on social poverty, see Revolution and Reform 

 

   A doll to encourage girls to have babies ?