I have found the solution to make poverty history

[Myuncle]

That's very simple. I am not looking for any recognition or patent. The poor countries are those affected by too hot weather. Too hot weather means too harsh conditions and no water. Harsh conditions and lack of water means poverty. So the solution is to cool down the hot areas with giant space mirrors. This will bring to them the same amount of water and richness you see in the western world. Yes, giant space mirrors is the solution, what are they waiting for??

[insane_alien]

for the moment, I will ignore the current impossibility of giant space mirrors.

 

Have you considered the effect this would have on the climates of other parts of the world?

 

making a massive change like that would have far reaching consequences, quite probably leading to the creation of new deserts.

[Mr Skeptic]

Your solution addresses temperature, not poverty. You can be poor and cold just fine.

[Marat]

How about this alternative solution for reducing world poverty? There are about a billion people in the developed world, and for each of them, losing $10 a year would make absolutely no difference in their wealth. So if we collected this money at no real pain from everyone in the developed world and distributed it among the poorest of the poor, whom UNICEF estimates could each be kept alive for just $300 a year, we could save about 33,333,333 people in the Third World from death through poverty. You would have to discount this a bit for administration and logistics costs.

[Myuncle]

I leave the job to the experts, but I don't see any side effects coming up with giant mirrors, only positive effects. I know there are other ways to make poverty history (good politics, free condoms like free newspapers). But in the long term harsh weather conditions will always be a pain in the neck, so the quickest way to make poverty history I think it's in these space mirrors.

[Mr Skeptic]

Well, how about you make it space solar panels instead? They'll still block the sunlight, and as a bonus can beam down power to provide electricity.

[Myuncle]

Well, how about you make it space solar panels instead? They'll still block the sunlight, and as a bonus can beam down power to provide electricity.

 

that would be a good idea.

[insane_alien]

I leave the job to the experts, but I don't see any side effects coming up with giant mirrors, only positive effects. I know there are other ways to make poverty history (good politics, free condoms like free newspapers). But in the long term harsh weather conditions will always be a pain in the neck, so the quickest way to make poverty history I think it's in these space mirrors.

 

do you know how long it would take to build these space mirrors? with current launch capacity, millenia.

 

and then there is the maintenance of those mirrors, lots of debris up in space, its going to get damaged pretty quick.

 

and then there is the problem of which orbit to put it in, you can put it just anywhere as there are likely satellites that go through that area of space already. and some will definitely broadcast through it.

 

and then you have to make sure it is always between the sun and the desired area(which will be quite a feat if you can have the orbit and not cause massive problems.

 

you'd be FAR better off using the money this would cost to or i don't know, make a few desalinization plants and build a water infrastructure over the affected area capable of supplying the needs of the populace and irrigation for farming.

 

and you can use whats left of the money your saving to build them some schools, power plants, houses, hospitals, roads, public transport system etc etc out of solid gold.

 

space mirrors are horribly unpractical.

 

why not just do it the realistic way and not the still a few hundred years beyond our abilities way?

[Myuncle]

do you know how long it would take to build these space mirrors? with current launch capacity, millenia.

 

and then there is the maintenance of those mirrors, lots of debris up in space, its going to get damaged pretty quick.

 

and then there is the problem of which orbit to put it in, you can put it just anywhere as there are likely satellites that go through that area of space already. and some will definitely broadcast through it.

 

and then you have to make sure it is always between the sun and the desired area(which will be quite a feat if you can have the orbit and not cause massive problems.

 

you'd be FAR better off using the money this would cost to or i don't know, make a few desalinization plants and build a water infrastructure over the affected area capable of supplying the needs of the populace and irrigation for farming.

 

and you can use whats left of the money your saving to build them some schools, power plants, houses, hospitals, roads, public transport system etc etc out of solid gold.

 

space mirrors are horribly unpractical.

 

why not just do it the realistic way and not the still a few hundred years beyond our abilities way?

 

 

They were planning them to fight global warming, I think space mirrors are much closer then we think.

[insane_alien]

look how long it has taken to assemble the ISS. it only has a mass of a few hundred tonnes.

 

a space mirror capable of shading the areas concerned would have a mass of millions of tonnes.

 

we simply aren't capable of launching that much mass in a reasonable period of time. not to mention the incredibly high cost.

[Bignose]

You can be poor and cold just fine.

 

for example, with the exception of this past summer's heat wave, Russia for most of its history. Mongolia is another example.

 

Giant mirrors that lower the temperature will surely only make these areas colder and even harder for them to grow the crops they can -- I don't see how it is a net benefit to increase ag capability in one area of the world at the cost of ag capability in another.

 

I'd much rather see the money go toward i_a's ideas of desalination plants AND money spent on the development of drought-resistant and heat-resistant crops.

[Externet]

Much cheaper would be to build condom factories all over those places, for free distribution...

[Leader Bee]

Forgive my following suggestion of being cold hearted and put it down to a lack of understanding how things work; but isn't the real obligation here on these 3rd world countries governments? Should they not be the ones reorganising their infastructure to produce a healthy economy that gives a reasaonable payout to everyone instead of making the rich richer and the poor poorer?

 

It's much bigger than that and know developed countries are taking advantage. Without exporting things to us at such a low cost they would be even worse off but if they don't refuse to sell so cheaply how are they ever going to expect we will pay a higher price when they are already so willing to sell? I would have assumed that if they were a large producer of a certain product, and certain product was no longer in supply we would be willing to pay more for said product?

 

I guess i'm saying that they set a mimimum export price for produce before they even agree to send it out of the country at all.

Edited September 14, 2010 by Leader Bee

[Pangloss]

How about this alternative solution for reducing world poverty? There are about a billion people in the developed world, and for each of them, losing $10 a year would make absolutely no difference in their wealth. So if we collected this money at no real pain from everyone in the developed world and distributed it among the poorest of the poor, whom UNICEF estimates could each be kept alive for just $300 a year, we could save about 33,333,333 people in the Third World from death through poverty. You would have to discount this a bit for administration and logistics costs.

 

That's only $10 billion. According to the Development Assistance Committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, together the top 24 contributing nations to international relief already spend $104.4 billion annually. (source)

 

And of course your idea would be a non-progressive tax, which of course would quickly be replaced by a progressive tax (because your idea hurts the 'working poor', and why shouldn't the rich pay more for this noble goal?), and the whole time it would still be just a money sink with no exit strategy.

 

How are we going to make those countries productive and self-sufficient so they can get off the dole? That's the real question.

[Zolar V]

I got a much better idea that will in fact stop poverty dead in its tracks:

Just kill the masses that are living in poverty.

 

there poverty is dead. pun intended.

[Serena2003]

I think spending money for 'space mirror' or panels would only add to the problem of poverty. We must reduce the greed of capitalists to restore the economy and agriculture(easier said than done).

Edited September 17, 2010 by Serena2003

[Moontanman]

Much cheaper would be to build condom factories all over those places, for free distribution...

 

 

YES! That is exactly what needs to be done, fewer people is the answer, absolutely amazing how few people seem to understand that...

 

That's only $10 billion. According to the Development Assistance Committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, together the top 24 contributing nations to international relief already spend $104.4 billion annually. (source)

 

And of course your idea would be a non-progressive tax, which of course would quickly be replaced by a progressive tax (because your idea hurts the 'working poor', and why shouldn't the rich pay more for this noble goal?), and the whole time it would still be just a money sink with no exit strategy.

 

How are we going to make those countries productive and self-sufficient so they can get off the dole? That's the real question.

 

 

No to mention that the people you give money to will just multiply even faster and soon there will be less money or you will have to take more from the "rich" birth control is the only real answer to the problem of poverty...

[random]

The money the U.S. spent on it's wars in recent years is said to have been enough to solve world hunger several times over. That tells me that the means to end poverty already exists.............We just don't want to, sorry......rather our politicians don't want to.

 

Also we haven't reached the point where we cannot produce enough food to feed the entire planet, however current agriculture like everything else is very reliant on fossil fuels to produce large amounts so........when we have a fuel shortage we're going to see huge increases in food cost and huge slumps in production, then we will not be able to feed everyone.

[CaptainPanic]

Poverty in poor countries is for a large part to be blamed on the rich countries.

 

All the agricultural products grown in poor countries (sugar cane, maize, coffee, tea, tropical fruits, soy, etc) are sold to us at a low price. Our own farmers would all be bankrupt if we paid them such low prices for their products... and we all refuse to allow prices to more than double.

The same goes for other bulk products, from mining, fishery, forestry. We buy stuff for low prices, and we like it.

 

Poverty would be partially solved if we would just pay a fair price for products... but the entire world economy is build on the inequality of income. We outsource work to poor countries because the people get paid much less... and that's considered a sane and smart way to run a business, rather than pure extortion or coercion on a continental scale!

 

If you want to solve poverty... then I completely agree (no sarcasm here) that space mirrors are probably the best option... because I cannot see humanity learning the lesson.

[Myuncle]

Poverty in poor countries is for a large part to be blamed on the rich countries.

 

All the agricultural products grown in poor countries (sugar cane, maize, coffee, tea, tropical fruits, soy, etc) are sold to us at a low price. Our own farmers would all be bankrupt if we paid them such low prices for their products... and we all refuse to allow prices to more than double.

The same goes for other bulk products, from mining, fishery, forestry. We buy stuff for low prices, and we like it.

 

Poverty would be partially solved if we would just pay a fair price for products... but the entire world economy is build on the inequality of income. We outsource work to poor countries because the people get paid much less... and that's considered a sane and smart way to run a business, rather than pure extortion or coercion on a continental scale!

 

If you want to solve poverty... then I completely agree (no sarcasm here) that space mirrors are probably the best option... because I cannot see humanity learning the lesson.

 

 

great posting!

[Pangloss]

The money the U.S. spent on it's wars in recent years is said to have been enough to solve world hunger several times over.

 

Anybody know if this is true or not?

 

It's certainly repeated often enough, and certainly some of the war estimates are pretty astronomical, but I can't help but wonder what the need estimate is based on.

 

 

Poverty in poor countries is for a large part to be blamed on the rich countries.

 

All the agricultural products grown in poor countries (sugar cane, maize, coffee, tea, tropical fruits, soy, etc) are sold to us at a low price.

 

Poverty would be partially solved if we would just pay a fair price for products

 

As far as I know the US grows all that stuff internally. So it's just your country's fault!

 

There's imported stuff too, of course. I'm already paying more for Juan Valdez's coffee than the stuff that's grown in California (by a different, less famous, Juan Valdez, I suppose).

 

 

Money always seems to come up as the root of all 3rd-world evils, but everyone seems to be too busy blaming the west to take a hard look at irresponsible behavior in teh 3rd-world countries themselves.

[cypress]

How about this alternative solution for reducing world poverty? There are about a billion people in the developed world, and for each of them, losing $10 a year would make absolutely no difference in their wealth. So if we collected this money at no real pain from everyone in the developed world and distributed it among the poorest of the poor, whom UNICEF estimates could each be kept alive for just $300 a year, we could save about 33,333,333 people in the Third World from death through poverty. You would have to discount this a bit for administration and logistics costs.

 

 

The root cause of poverty is inability for one reason or another to produce sufficient value to raise standard of living. Moving previously produced value around does not produce any new and unique value so it lacks sufficiency to eliminate poverty. For this reason, transfer of wealth can never solve production problems. It might make some of us feel good to think something is being done, but it is unworkable.

[CaptainPanic]

Anybody know if this is true or not?

 

It's certainly repeated often enough, and certainly some of the war estimates are pretty astronomical, but I can't help but wonder what the need estimate is based on.

This website gives an idea of the debt - the money owed by African countries, and the trend that can be observed in that debt.

I believe that the money spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan topped a trillion dollars? That would suggest that it's at least in the same order of magnitude as the total debt of a continent such as Africa.

As far as I know the US grows all that stuff internally. So it's just your country's fault!

 

There's imported stuff too, of course. I'm already paying more for Juan Valdez's coffee than the stuff that's grown in California (by a different, less famous, Juan Valdez, I suppose).

 

Money always seems to come up as the root of all 3rd-world evils, but everyone seems to be too busy blaming the west to take a hard look at irresponsible behavior in teh 3rd-world countries themselves.

I never said that there is no corruption in the 3rd world.

I also never said that Western countries aren't self-sustaining regarding food. At least I know that the Netherlands is self sufficient... but our climate, just like the USA, does not allow us to grow every type of crop on our own soil.

 

What I did claim is that we import many goods from poorer countries, and that we pay a price for those goods which would be considered unacceptable if it was produced within a Western country.

[Pangloss]

What I did claim is that we import many goods from poorer countries, and that we pay a price for those goods which would be considered unacceptable if it was produced within a Western country.

 

Yes, I agree with that. I've advocated raising prices on services in the US that are typically fulfilled by illegal immigrant labor. I could easily afford $200 for lawn care instead of $50.

[Mr Skeptic]

This website gives an idea of the debt - the money owed by African countries, and the trend that can be observed in that debt.

I believe that the money spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan topped a trillion dollars? That would suggest that it's at least in the same order of magnitude as the total debt of a continent such as Africa.

 

Wow, that is nasty. And I'm not talking about the debt, so much as the interest.