Poverty

World Poverty is obviously a huge issue in the world. Chitra Divakaruni, author of Live Free and Starve, writes from the perspective that sometimes things that appear to right are not always for the best. For example, the bill no longer permitting “the import of goods from factories where forced or indentured child labor was used,” seems to be the right thing to do. However, when looking at it in broad perspective, it would actually cause the situation in third world countries to become worse. Divakaruni states, “If the children themselves were asked whether they would rather work under such harsh conditions or enjoy a leisure that comes without the benefit of food or clothing or shelter, I wonder what their response would be.” Divakaruni uses the example of Nimai, a boy that came to work in her household when she grew up in Calcutta.  On the surface, it might seem wrong that a child would be exploited in this manner; however, she described Nimai as feeling pride in the fact that he was a responsible member of his family.

However, Peter Singer, author of The Singer Solution to World Poverty, looks at it from a different angle. He believes giving as much as possible to support and save lives of children is the right thing to do. “An American household with an income of $50,000 spends around $30,000 annually on necessities…Therefore, for a household bringing in $50,000 a year, donations to help the world’s poor should be as close as possible to $20,000.” He uses the example of “Bob” to describe how, to put it bluntly, selfish we Americans are. He uses Bob to show how he is confronted with the dilemma of whether to save an unknown homeless child or his uninsured vintage car, representing his life’s savings, as a runaway train races out of control. He then goes on to explain how if we were to give up dining out for a month, we could save enough to save a child. However true this may be, we also must look at how realistic it is- not very. While some may give already a lot of money to organizations like UNICEF, there are so many more that don’t.

Though Divakaruni’s article isn’t ending world poverty, it is more realistic. I agree that the conditions in which the children in third world countries is awful and should not be accepted. However, Divakaruni makes a valid point and a good argument that by taking away the children’s employment, it would leave them without money to support their family and they would most likely die of starvation. Possible bias may come from the fact that I happened to read Live Free and Starve first; therefore, I may have already had an opinion about it. However, I do somewhat agree with Singer with the fact that we as Americans should give more to stop world poverty. It’s just difficult to concur with his argument due to the extreme measures he goes to and the fact that it, all in all, is just completely unrealistic.

I do agree that world poverty is an issue that needs to be addressed, but not in such a forceful and extreme manner to where it is almost impossible. We must all be aware of what decisions we make that could affect other people, like Divakaruni states, but also aware of what harsh conditions others are living in and how we are able to help.