I’m pretty hungry right now, so maybe that’s why I’m thinking about this topic. I ate from snack street on my way to Chinese class but apparently I didn’t get enough food. Then I got back to my apartment (which I don’t have to pay for) and got on my laptop (which I often complain about) to read the New York Times and read about how an estimated 22 more children will die per hour this year, due to the ‘global financial crisis.’
Suppose I hadn’t eaten any dinner tonight, and you were sitting next to me with a steak, mashed potatoes, bread, and salad. You would never finish all the food on your plate there is so much. If the only way I was going to get anything to eat for dinner is if you shared, would you? I like to assume the best in most people so I tend to think most of you would share.
These are some old statistics but I think they’re pretty relevant today, regardless of the exact number.
400 million people lack the calories, protein, vitamins and minerals needed to sustain their bodies and minds in a healthy state. Millions are constantly hungry; others suffer from deficiency diseases and from infections they would be able to resist on a better diet. 14 million children under five die every year from the combined effects of malnutrition and infection. As many as 1.2 billion people—or 23 percent of the world’s population—live in absolute poverty struggling to survive. This means they do not have sufficient income to meet the most basic biological needs for food, clothing, and shelter. Absolute poverty is probably the principal cause of human misery today. The problem is not that the world cannot produce enough to feed and shelter its people. People in the poor countries consume, on average, 180 kilos of grain a year, while North Americans average around 900 kilos. The problem is distribution. There is another picture to look at. The opposite of absolute poverty is Absolute Affluence. Absolute Affluence is defined by people who have more income than they need to provide themselves adequately with all the basic necessities of life. After buying food, shelter, clothing, health services, and education, they still have money to spend on luxuries. Instead of choosing food to stop hunger, we choose food based on what tastes good. Instead of buying clothes to keep warm, we buy them to look good. We buy houses to be in a better neighborhood or to have a playroom, not to keep out the rain. After all of this there is still money to spend on a stereo system, video-camera, and vacation. By this standard the majority of citizens in Western Europe, North American, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and the Middle Eastern states are all absolutely affluent. There are therefore, the people who could, without threatening their own basic welfare, transfer wealth to the absolutely poor. Americans give .15 per cent of the Gross National Product to poor nations, while spending 5.5 per cent on alcohol.
To give you an example from a philosophy book I had in college:
The path from the library at my university to the humanities lecture theatre passes a shallow ornamental pond. Suppose that on my way to give a lecture I notice that a small child has fallen in and is in danger of drowning. Would anyone deny that I ought to wade in and pull the child out? This will mean getting my clothes muddy and either cancelling my lecture or delaying it until I can find something dry to change into; but compared with the avoidable death of a child this is insignificant. It seems uncontroversial that if it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance, we ought to do it.
Would anyone disagree with this? I agree completely and yet I do not live as if I believe that. If I take this seriously and act upon it my life would look completely different. I probably will not see a child drowning in a pond but every day I can assist someone living in poverty. I know that it is a bad thing, and it is within my power to help at least one person if not more without sacrificing anything of comparable significance. I have an obligation to help, an obligation just as strong as the obligation to rescue a drowning child from a pond. Not to help would be wrong. Helping is not a charitable act that is praiseworthy to do, but it is something that everyone ought to do.
I am bringing this to your attention because I struggle with it. I find myself buying a cup of Starbucks coffee when I could EASILY go downtown, find someone who would not eat dinner that night, and spend that 3 bucks buying them food. Everything I own is just kindling for the end of the world barbecue anyway, so why am I trying so hard to hold onto it? I’m bringing this to your attention so that you will hold me accountable. What do we really NEED? Not very much. I’m not pointing the finger at anyone but myself. The Bible talks about money more than almost any other subject and I think there is a reason for that. I think Jesus meant what when he said in Matthew 19. How can I get rid of this poison in my mind that thinks I need so many things I do not actually need?
