Blog Action Day: Poverty

I signed up with Blog Action Day, committing myself to writing about a given topic today: poverty. And here I sit with the day passing quickly, and I can't think of anything brilliant to contribute. I read a great, tear-jerking post linked to from Lori's blog (see the menu on the right). It wasn't made of new ideas and I didn't hear anything that I hadn't heard before, but it still got me.
I started thinking about how to end poverty. A lot of the posts at the Blog Action Day site had to do with that topic. I can't but wonder if that is indeed possible. I have to think it is. I have a newspaper clipping from the Globe and Mail, that I laminated and posted on my whiteboard in my class. It says,

In the next 30 seconds, 8 people will die of hunger,

and 92000 tons of food will go to waste."

It blows my mind every time I read it. What are we doing wrong in this world that that is happening? I often worry about the exponentially-increasing world population. I wonder how many this planet can sustain before it starts fighting back. Al Gore said that the increasing frequency and severity of storms in the world can be attributed to global warming, and while industrialization and pollution are related to the increasing world population (in that an industrialized world, with it's increasing efficiency can sustain more people, who then create more pollution through vehicle usage, etc.), it is not because of the population.
That was off-topic, but the point I was trying to (eventually) make was simply that with the population going up so quick, I wonder not only if the world can counter-balance human environmental abuses, but also if the world is physically capable of producing enough to meet our basic needs and sustain the population. While I do believe that at some point, the world will not be able to, right now, I think we are definitely able to support the present population.
So then why do people in developing nations starve, while North Americans and other over-indulgent nations spend millions of dollars on diet books, programs, exercise plans and specialty foods? Why do we have so much? Of course, the answer is obvious: uneven distribution of resources in the world, and democracy. Okay, the former is a given, but certainly the latter can be debated.
The simplest reason for poverty is uneven distribution of resources. Some countries have them, and others just don't. Those that do benefit and reap the rewards of having these valuables, and it allows them to get money which then pays for any and all basic needs not already met by the immediate environment. You don't have manufactured goods, but you have oil? Just sell some of that and spend part of the profits on what you want. The problem with uneven resource distribution, especially in our times, is that we "have" nations are continually developing new ways to efficiently harvest resources, at the same time exploiting the "have-not" nations by engaging in unfair trading practices, underpaying laborers, and so on. Related to this is the problem of brain drain, in which the few (as a percentage of the population) who manage to get an advanced education end up moving away from their home country in search of better prospects for themselves and their families. The result of these things: an ever-widening gap between the rich and poor nations of the world. I can't help but think that the wider the gap gets, the harder the problem will be to remedy.
The other reason for the poverty of some nations can unequivocally be tied to a country's government. There is undoubtedly a correlation between a country's government and their economic stability and citizen well-being. And while I concede that there may be some benefit to a dictatorship in that the leader has a long-term investment in the people, and decisions can be made quicker than with a system requiring even the slightest degree of consensus (e.g. democracy), it cannot be ignored that democratic systems take care of the people. How can they not? We in Canada may gripe about the government (and the fact that Harper has just been re-elected -- sigh), but the fact remains: if we don't like them, in four years maximum (five if we are at war), we can eject them and replace the leaders of our country with people we believe will be better suited and more willing to meet our wants and needs. But in non-democratic nations, the people do not have the power. In a democracy, if the government does not take care of its citizens, they will not remain the government. Simple as that. So regardless of your political leanings, you have to acknowledge the value of democracy in citizens' well-being.
Anyway, I don't know how to fix it. I think that if citizens of the rich countries make a collective choice based on our own consciences and sense of what is right, if we can somehow avoid living as human nature dictates -- with our own well-being in mind -- even then, without the people of the world having a say in their governments, I doubt we will see an end to poverty, because in countries like that, surely the foreign aid and domestic resources will end up in the hands of those with the power. Those with the power must be the people in order to start spreading the wealth and closing the gap. I wanted to end this post on a high, but I can't. Sorry. I got nothing.