Would practicing poverty really help the world’s poor? Photo: Let Ideas Compete
Writer Tom Hodgkinson thinks the privileged should practice being poor.
Over on the Guardian’s environmental blog, a debate is raging.
On one side–and he’s pretty much a one-man team–is writer Tom Hodgkinson, who argues that “far more sensible than a ‘make poverty history’ campaign would be a ‘make wealth history’ campaign. “It is, after all,” he says, “the wealthy people who do all the damage.”
In his rather convoluted defense of this somewhat interesting, albeit totally unlikely to ever be realized idea, Hodgkinson grumbles that we’re all too divorced from the land, ourselves, and each other. We’re too tech dependent– “addicted” is the word he uses (though, curiously, he’s sharing his thoughts on a blog… I’ll leave you to ponder that one)– too consumerist.
We’re destroying the planet, he suggests, though we could save it, maybe, “[i]f we lived poor for just one day of the week….” In addition to “instantly reduc[ing] pollution by a seventh,” we–the world’s wealthy– “would rediscover the simple pleasures, such as cards, chess, backgammon, draughts, talking, dancing and playing music.”
I’m all for reducing consumption, unplugging more frequently, and spending quality time with the people I love. But I’m not sure I buy Hodgkinson’s argument that a “make wealth history” campaign would solve the world’s problems or make the world any more just for the poor, especially when he doesn’t really describe what such a campaign might entail besides harking back to the supposed “good ole’ days” before Blackberrys and iPhones.
I’m not the only one at odds with Hodgkinson–check out the comments section of his post.
What do YOU think? Share your thoughts in our comments section below.
Community Connection:
“Does traveling abroad = less conspicuous consumption at home?” asks Matador Abroad editor Sarah Menkedick.
About the Author
Related Posts
8 Comments... join the discussion!
-
-
Yeah, Eva– that’s one of many points he overlooks in his article. I think the main problem is he’s conflating way too many ideas and trying to distill them into a single argument. Doesn’t work for me, though.
↵ -
Agree. Obviously, connoting poverty with a “solution” to anything is all kinds of wrong.
I’m sure those who have *lived* poverty have some interesting and potentially revolutionary perspectives on modern consumerist culture. But you can’t “weekend warrior” your way into that.
↵ -
Whether you agree or disagree with him, I think the one thing we can all agree on is that reducing our consumption and impact could positively benefit everyone!
↵ -
“It makes perfect rational sense to argue that the planet could be healed if we all lived more modestly.”
I completely agree with the idea of that statement. Not to say that the world would become perfect, but certainly a lot of good would arise from people living within their means.
However, he mainly focuses on technology and current society. I’m not sure exactly what he’s getting at though. There has always been poverty and technology didn’t necessarily bring upon economical class distinctions.
I think Julie noted the complete irony of the entire anti-technology bit being written on a blog. The author even notes: “It is curious that the computer has become an almost indispensable piece of equipment, even for the most determined downshifter.”
oops. Technology is here to stay. Sure we can become addicted to it and live on facebook, but we can also use it to communicated effectively and collaborate to solve problems in a way no other generation has before. I’d rather do the second option.
↵ -
I think the poverty – technology correlation is a very simplistic way of looking at the problems of poverty. In many developing countries technology is being used as a tool for social and economic change. Yes, curbing excess is always a positive step but how you use the available technology and resources to facilitate change might, in my books, make for a better world than shunning a particular lifestyle.
↵ -
Agreed with everyone. His argument seems naive and hypocritical. Great point Neha that many developing countries are using technology for positive change. I’m not adverse to European socialism, but “Make Wealth History” seems an attention-grabbing tactic for, dare I say, more money. Being mindful of the choices we make with our wealth and lessening our impact is positive change.
↵ -
Hey, I’m actually running this exact campaign…
Yes, a Make Wealth History campaign does makes sense – with a couple of caveats. It really comes down to one thing: everyone wants to live like Americans or Europeans, but the earth isn’t big enough to support that level of consumption, even for us, let alone the whole world. For their to be any hope of solving poverty in developing countries, those of us who are richer need to reduce our consumption to ‘make room’.
The great thing is that our high consumption lifestyles don’t actually make us happy, so we can reduce our environmental impact without reducing our well being. We just need to redefine wealth beyond money and stuff, and remember that what really makes us happy is good relationships, community, and rewarding work.
↵
