Peter Singer’s ‘The Life You Can Save’, is a fantastic read for those looking for a comprehensive road map on what you can be doing to help end global poverty. This book is available online for free at thelifeyoucansave.org. Below you will find a summation of some of the main points made by the author as well as some new information that has come to light since the book's original publication in 2009.
Understanding Poverty
In relative terms, poverty is characterised by 1 or more of the following statements:
Short on food for part or all of the year
1 meal a day
Choosing to feed your children over yourself
Inability to save money
Having to borrow money from lenders and pay interest and never be free of it
Unable to send children to school or must remove when the harvest takes place or is bad
Unstable housing which needs to be rebuilt every 2-3 years or after harsh weather.
Not close to safe drinking water - must carry it
Diet lacks basic nutrients
Emotionally degrading sense of powerlessness
Law will not necessarily protect you from rape or assault
Sense of shame and inescapable cycle with nothing to show for it except your survival.
The tools used to extract information about those living on or below the ‘poverty line’ are being reworked as ‘gaps’ in data collection have been discovered. The very definition of basic needs is in itself under review, with data collection now encompassing wider scope of circumstances, as can be noted here
In 2009 living on or below the poverty line inferred in monetary terms, was calculated at US $1.25/ Day. This was calculated by taking the poverty threshold from each country—given the value of the goods needed to sustain one adult—and converting it into dollars. It is widely accepted that the current international poverty line as of 2020 now stands at $1.90 or (£1.50) per day. The The World Bank currently estimates 736 million people still live in extreme poverty.
Philip Alston co-chair of the centre for Human Rights Global Justice and UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights from 2014 - 2020 highlights in his final report however that the World Bank’s international poverty line measure is widely misunderstood, flawed and therefore deeply problematic as “it has generated an undue sense of satisfaction and a dangerous complacency with the status quo.”
In using this problematic metric the number of people in “extreme poverty” has fallen from 1.9 billion in 1990 to 736 million in 2015. “But the dramatic drop is only possible with a scandalously unambitious benchmark, which aims to ensure a mere miserable subsistence.” More precise evidence has revealed that $1.90 or (£1.50) per day would not even cover the cost of food or housing in many countries “not to mention it obscures poverty among women and those often excluded from official surveys, including migrant workers and refugees. The main drop in the number of people living below the poverty line is actually due to rising incomes in China”. Unfortunately, The World Bank’s “most publicised poverty measure has encouraged complacency.” Billions of people remain too poor to enjoy basic human rights. It is estimated that 3.4 billion people, live on less than $5.50 a day, and that number has barely declined since 1990. Even within high-income countries their has been a systematic failure to reduce poverty rates.
This dangerously under quoted metric has been attached to the belief that the decline of poverty can be linked to a “pro-growth” agenda that has been characteristically by deregulation, increase in privatisation, lower taxes for corporations and excessive legal protections for capital. Alston’s role meant that for six years he investigated governments’ anti-poverty efforts for the UN, where he witnessed “ the convenient alibi time and time again. Everything from tax breaks for the super-rich to destructive mega-projects that extract wealth from the global south are lauded as efforts to reduce poverty, when they do no such thing”. In presenting the agenda of the wealthy as the best road to poverty alleviation has entirely upended the social contract and redefined the public good as helping the rich get richer.
This “pro-growth” agenda and the policies created as a result has birthed the “progress narrative” and this deception hides the appalling results. “Many of the countries that have achieved great growth in GDP have also experienced exploding inequality, rising hunger, unaffordable health and housing costs, persistent racial wealth gaps, the proliferation of jobs that don’t pay a living wage, the dismantling of social safety nets and ecological devastation”.
In light of this, the first step the individual must take to combat this dangerous complacency is to become more informed about the complex nature of poverty. The second step is to act and this is where Peter Singer’s ‘The Life You Can Save’ becomes such a important resource.
THE COMPREHENSIVE ROAD MAP YOU’VE BEEN LOOKING FOR
Sure, the very notion of ending global poverty is a daunting undertaking, but Singer succinctly outlines our moral imperative to try and asks us to engage in the following thought experiment:
1.) Challenge yourself to think about your obligation to those trapped in extreme poverty
2.) Highlight how easy it is to help people who are in poverty through no fault of their own and yet why we don’t
3.) Reflect on the money you spend on things that are not necessary and re-divert these funds to people in need
Asking the individual to adopt and practice ‘practical ethics’ is noble, but what Singer does is create a compelling series of arguments that are hard for the reader to refute.
For instance “one does not die of Measles - that is preventable, one dies of poverty. Choosing to spend money frivolously means condemning a child to death” - this is a tough reality to swallow, but once accepted as truth becomes a strong motivator for those seeking to create change both within themselves and in their society.
STEP #1- Challenging you to think about your obligation to those trapped in extreme poverty
A series of philosophical dilemmas are put to us to hammer the following point, How far does our obligation to the poor go?
For instance, to save a drowning child, most would argue they would attempt to do so at a considerable cost to themselves, and yet 1000’s of children die each day from preventable causes.
What of comparing the cost of a child's life to that of a valuable car - would you flick the switch so that the runaway train would take out the car instead of the child? This hypothesis also adds the element of uncertainty about the outcome of the sacrifice made.
The core question being asked here is how much do we think we should sacrifice in order to save a child's life? Answering this, challenges our very perception of ourselves as moral individuals.
It is universal across all faiths that we are obliged to lessen the suffering of others at some cost to ourselves.
The expression “think onto others as you yourself would like to be treated” exists in Buddhism, Confucius, Hindu, Christianity, Islam, Jainism and Judaism, even from a non-religious perspective the moral principle by which we conduct ourselves adheres to the following:
Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care is bad
If it is in your power to prevent something bad happening without sacrificing anything nearly as important - it is wrong not to do so
Donating to aid can prevent suffering without sacrificing anything nearly as important
Therefore the conclusion can only be that if you do not donate to lessen the suffering of another you are doing something morally wrong.
STEP #2 - Highlight how easy it is to help people who are in poverty through no fault of their own and yet why we don’t.
The most insightful chapter from this book is the justifications we, as both individuals and society use to not act or donate. Singer Outlines these arguments and then swiftly debunks them.
Argument 1#: “We as a society give a lot”
Response: We think we give more than we actually do. The issue for those living in extreme poverty is this ⅓ of donations made by the USA go to religious organisations of which less than 10% is given to foreign aid initiatives. The share of these donations go to building maintenance, clergy and educational programs like colleagues and international exchange.
Foreign aid amounts to 0.07% of the gross national income in America which is 7 cents to every $100.00.
The common belief is that Australia gives 5-10% of its gross national income and that this is enough, in truth the Public/Government sector gives 0.3%. The private (non government sector) gives just 7 cents to every $100.00, combined that we have a grant total of just 50 cents for every $100.00.
The other issue with the Public/Government sector is aid is often based on political defence priorities rather than humanitarian basis.
Argument 2#: “Moral relativism: each is entitled to our own beliefs”
Response: The right to spend what you have worked for is based on a principle of ‘fairness’, but if you are born into fortunate circumstances like:
Efficient bank system
Police force upholds the law
Courts are non bias
Sound infrastructure
The counter argument would be that your sense of what is fair is flawed. Most of the world's poor work at least as hard as you despite appalling working conditions. coupled with the fact that unemployment is also higher in poorer nations, simple as that.
Going a step further down this train of thought one might invoke the principle of libertarianism - (the duty to compensate those wronged but not those we have not). When applied to say the global depletion of fish due to over fishing would this therefore mean those in poorer nations should be compensated for the loss of income and sustainable livelihoods? Or the extraction of oil rich reserves in countries which experience political destabilisation due to company backed coups, arms circulation, and feeding cycle of corruption - such action would therefore also warrant compensation under the principles of libertarianism, would it not?
Argument 3#“Giving leads to dependency”
Response:This argument that aid saturates the local market by decreasing local suppliers incentive to produce and therefore leading to surplus to sell does in fact happen - but this can be easily corrected by ensuring what is been ‘given’ allows those ‘receiving’ to increase their capacity to make their ‘own’ money rather than crippling their local economy.
It should be noted we also tie calculation of aid given by ‘purchase of goods offered’ thus countries boost their our own economies but the aid given is far less effective. To supply context 2 billion of US aid is food which by law must be grown and then shipped by US vessels. It would be far cheaper to buy grain produced locally and save on shipping not to mention avoid a 4 month delay for supplies to actually arrive.
Whilst one can argue it is reasonable to supply aid with conditions, when these conditions placed on receiving aid benefits the wealthier nations economy, can it really be called aid?
ARGUMENT #4: “I’ll donate more later in life”
Response: The longer situations in which poverty is created and left, the worse it becomes.
ARGUMENT #5:“It's futile to think it can be changed”
Response: Mother Teresa once said “If I looked at the masses, I would never act”, futility is often aroused by a sense of overwhelming odds. This can also be referred to as the bystander effect, where in the presences of others refusing to engage diffuses the responsibility.
ARGUMENT #6:“I’m already doing my fair share”
Response: Research has shown we as a collective, would rather punish unfairness, then receive a reward. When primed to think about money we revert to self sufficiency mode and become less willing to offer help. This individualism diminishes communal motivations. One could therefore argue that the root cause of such an argument is that the individual places their own needs above others - which is an oxymoron.
Sense of fairness is a powerful motivator against doing more than others. However when it is all said and done, the affluent are obligated.
Is the fact that others are not doing their fair share a sufficient reason? Their inaction means nothing. To place more value on life enhancing experiences over death of another seems wrong.
ARGUMENT #7:“I have my own to take care of”
Response: The welfare of others is often limited to one's kin due to genetic patterning; it was essential for survival and as a trait was therefore been inherited and passed on.
Sacrosanct commitment to family is rationalisation for all manner of greed and selfishness. The notion of the ideal parent and acting on the idea all human life is of equal value is irresolvable. The 2 will always be in tension.
But this does not mean it justifies parents providing luxury for their children ahead of the basic needs of others.
Telecom, travel and widening the gap between rich and the poor means you actually have a greater capacity to help those far away.
ARGUMENT #8:“The Planet cannot hold us all”
Response: The notion that we have surpassed a sustainable population is often used, however we produce enough food to feed the planet, the production of food is not the issue here, the waste of it is.
Grain is placed in bio fuel (car gas), soybeans and corn is fed to animals and meat consumption has increased dramatically in the last 20 years. 685 million tonnes of grain and 204 million tonnes of soybeans crops are fed to factory produced animals annually.
That equates to:
1 kilo of beef costing 13 kilos of grain
1 kilo Pork costing 6 kilos of grain
If we calculate the amount of meat digested affluent nations consume 4-5 times as much food and this does not count the percentage of food waste.
Reducing poverty also reduces fertility numbers. Education has proven to aid in limiting population swell. For more information on this read my article on Equality for Women = Prosperity for all.
Step #3 - Reflect on the money you spend on things that are not necessary, and re-divert these funds to people in need
Singer points out that even at our worst times our lives are infinitely better than those living in extreme poverty, but acting contrary to self interest often makes people suspicious, even when an act is altruistic we provide or offer self interest explanations. This reluctance comes from being labelled, a bleeding heart. But if we believe no-one acts altruistically, we are less likely to do it ourselves. We are much more likely to do the right thing if we think others are doing it. Therefore it is time to create a culture of giving and be open about it.
Okay, but how much are we talking? - In 2018 crude math was done to calculate what it would take to get a population living in extreme poverty above this to have enough income for basic needs, the amount reached was 189 billion annually.
The gross income of the world's 20 most wealthiest nations is 20 Trillion. Calculating who is ‘rich’ would be those nations who have an income equal to or above that of Portugal (lowest income nation in ‘rich’ club). That's $200/ year annually by 855 million of the world's richest.
What can be expected from global campaign of this size:
500 million people would no longer be in extreme poverty
300 million would no longer suffer from hunger
350 million would have safe drinking water
650 million basic sanitation
39 million children would be saved
2 million women would survive pregnancy
Countless children would have access to education
Environmental degradation becomes higher priority as affected nations work to counteract the effects of Global Warming
It is one thing to motivate yourself, how do we motivate society? We start with incentivising Positive Change. For instance, policies within the private sector that ‘opt out’ rather than ‘opt in’ can play to our apathy. An example is making a certified ethical super fund your 1st designated choice for employees who have not yet launched Super accounts.
When corporations make giving normal behaviour and the generosity of people is brought into the open, it has an inevitable flow on effect.
But perhaps the best method to date is implementing differing rates of taxation for individuals and companies based on the accumulation of wealth. At present the political choice that has been made is this “legal and economic policies are designed to create and sustain wealth for the powerful, but not end poverty.” We have placed immense and mistaken faith in growth and the private sector, instead of envisioning states as the key agents of change and embracing policies that will redistribute wealth. Deeper social and economic transformation is imperative, providing universal social protection, achieve the redistribution through tax justice and ultimately to really get on track to ending poverty.
‘The Life You Can Save’ is about restoring the ethical importance of giving as an essential component of well-lived life. By engaging in the act of ‘doing’ by ‘giving’ we are less likely to feel helpless - conquering this complacency is crucial if we are to end world poverty. We are all on our own journey; those who seek out and read this book will find themselves in possession of a comprehensive road map that leads to a better understanding of ones own potential to be the change this world needs.
Philip Alston’s quotations have been cited from his article published in
The Guardian here.