Poverty can and should be eradicated

Hello, I respectfully disagree that I focused on reducing it instead of eradication. I made the specific point that the fact we have reduced it puts us in a better position to be able to eradicate the remaining poverty. There is a relatively small number left to help (in some countries) making it more manageable hopefully and we have a successful foundation to build on. (Being the lessons learnt about what works). I apologize for only referencing the organizations that I got my information from instead of specific links to each fact. (I have included them this time} I did mention the sources of information though in my last post and searching their sites will produce the info for those interested). I would also say the rebuttal to my statement that just because it has not been eradicated yet is not a strong one. Every invention and medical breakthrough in the 20th century could have easily been dismissed as not possible because it had not happened in the thousands of years before the 20th century. Corruption is responsible for a relatively small share of the illicit money flow from developing countries. It also does not account for most of the poverty in rich countries. Unemployment, underemployment and low pay play much bigger roles there. There are also mechanisms to reduce corruption like Partnership in Transparency Fund {a charity}. Corruption itself does not mean the money that does make it can not work. Foreign aid still has plenty of success stories. The varying corruption rates across the globe and the changing list of most corrupt countries indicates that corruption is not some unchangeable part of nature but changes based on changeable factors Blaming global warning and natural disasters for poverty is unfair. No doubt it makes things worse for farmers but there is a reason why Australia had the worse drought in 100 years and it did not result in mass starvation and death. It is not just about nature. The world can counter the negative impacts of nature. GMO crops are one way to partly protect against nature. Drought-resistant crops for example. The Commission for Africa although noting global warning is a problem for development pointed out many more man made issues like the need for storage facilities. Irrigation of land and the like. Professor Steve Pinker notes that wars are becoming less frequent and deadly. We have also had times of relative peace like Pax Romana. Historians have also noted that war has not always occurred since the start of history. And countries like Switzerland and the pacifism movement demonstrates to me that war is not some inherent part of human nature that can't ever be changed. I argue that no strong case has been made that, "inunshakeable physical and mental realities.." mean that we can't see the end to poverty. Con makes a good point that just because something is possible now does not mean that might be the case in the future. I would argue there are already countries that have had decades of relatively low poverty and if Con's argument is that the past is a good indicator of the future {aka because we have not ended poverty in the past means...} then those countries are looking good for the future. Full-time employment {that pays well} is one of the best ways to keep people out of poverty and as long as the government {or international community} can afford to pay for full-employment public works programs then there is a strong case that poverty could always stay gone. Mechanisms already exist to ensure long-term funding for programs. Sovereign wealth funds and compulsory superannuation funds as some examples. Thanks for the debate. http://www.aljazeera.com... Corruption_Perceptions_Index Foreign-aid-works-saves-lives {The Guardian} http://en.wikipedia.org...