Biological poverty: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Biological poverty is the type of poverty that refers to malnutrition and starvation. It could also refer to housing and clothing so inadequate that people suffer from exposure. Homeless people endure biological poverty.<ref>{{cite web|title=Sociology Mid Term Essay|url=https://www.majortests.com/essay/Sociology-Mid-Term-590483.html|website=majortests.com|accessdate=15 May 2018}}</ref> | Biological poverty is the type of poverty that refers to malnutrition and starvation. It could also refer to housing and clothing so inadequate that people suffer from exposure. Homeless people endure biological poverty.<ref>{{cite web|title=Sociology Mid Term Essay|url=https://www.majortests.com/essay/Sociology-Mid-Term-590483.html|website=majortests.com|accessdate=15 May 2018}}</ref> | ||
English scholar {{w|Thomas Robert Malthus}} supported basically an eternal misery law of biological poverty, basically concluding that whatever human progress is made in producing more food and other goods will always give a matching increase in population, so holding poverty steady always. According to Malthus, if food production is steady then population will be steady - though progress may tend to increase food production and give a matching growth in population that holds poverty steady.<ref name="World Poverty,">{{cite web|title=World Poverty|url=http://world-poverty.org/economicpoverty.htm|website=world-poverty.org|accessdate=15 May 2018}}</ref> Malthus biological poverty is arguably right for primitive human societies, as it is for wild plants and animals. But certainly not for more modern human societies, nor for the domesticated plants and animals.<ref name="World Poverty,"/> | == Measurement == | ||
Even though there is no universally accepted deffinition for "basic needs"<ref>{{cite web|title=View: Why universal basic income isn't universal or basic Read more at: //economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/58993518.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst|url=https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/view-why-universal-basic-income-isnt-universal-or-basic/articleshow/58993518.cms|website=economictimes.indiatimes.com|accessdate=15 May 2018}}</ref>, the biological poverty line is generally determined on the basis of the expenses to obtain the necessary amount of calories for the survival of an individual, generally estimated at 2,400 calories. It could be objectively determined taking into account the food consumption of households.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Neiland|first1=Arthur E.|last2=Béné|first2=Christophe|title=Poverty and Small-scale Fisheries in West Africa|url=https://books.google.com.ar/books?id=0hjvCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA48&lpg=PA48&dq=%22biological+poverty%22&source=bl&ots=p3lR2wrC92&sig=FSV1ynTYa0y5Hm5NSE6_8X9I6EY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjniJPDvoTbAhUIkpAKHacVC0EQ6AEIczAO#v=onepage&q=%22biological%20poverty%22&f=false}}</ref> | |||
== Scholars' stances == | |||
English scholar {{w|Thomas Robert Malthus}} (1766–1834) supported basically an eternal misery law of biological poverty, basically concluding that whatever human progress is made in producing more food and other goods will always give a matching increase in population, so holding poverty steady always. According to Malthus, if food production is steady then population will be steady - though progress may tend to increase food production and give a matching growth in population that holds poverty steady.<ref name="World Poverty,">{{cite web|title=World Poverty|url=http://world-poverty.org/economicpoverty.htm|website=world-poverty.org|accessdate=15 May 2018}}</ref> Malthus biological poverty is arguably right for primitive human societies, as it is for wild plants and animals. But certainly not for more modern human societies, nor for the domesticated plants and animals.<ref name="World Poverty,"/> | |||
On the contrary, Israeli historian {{w|Yuval Noah Harari}} affirms that Humanity has finally achieved to pass the “biological poverty line”, meaning that, though famines still occur in some parts of the world, we are now able to feed an astonishingly large portion of the globe without putting a large amount of effort.<ref>{{cite web|title=DIGESTED READ - Homo Deus: A brief history of tomorrow by Yuval Noah Harari - Part 1|url=https://steemit.com/til/@herverisson/digested-read-homo-deus-a-brief-history-of-tomorrow-by-yuval-noah-harari-part-1|website=steemit.com|accessdate=15 May 2018}}</ref> | On the contrary, Israeli historian {{w|Yuval Noah Harari}} affirms that Humanity has finally achieved to pass the “biological poverty line”, meaning that, though famines still occur in some parts of the world, we are now able to feed an astonishingly large portion of the globe without putting a large amount of effort.<ref>{{cite web|title=DIGESTED READ - Homo Deus: A brief history of tomorrow by Yuval Noah Harari - Part 1|url=https://steemit.com/til/@herverisson/digested-read-homo-deus-a-brief-history-of-tomorrow-by-yuval-noah-harari-part-1|website=steemit.com|accessdate=15 May 2018}}</ref> | ||
== References == | == References == | ||
Revision as of 03:13, 15 May 2018
Biological poverty is the type of poverty that refers to malnutrition and starvation. It could also refer to housing and clothing so inadequate that people suffer from exposure. Homeless people endure biological poverty.[1]
Measurement
Even though there is no universally accepted deffinition for "basic needs"[2], the biological poverty line is generally determined on the basis of the expenses to obtain the necessary amount of calories for the survival of an individual, generally estimated at 2,400 calories. It could be objectively determined taking into account the food consumption of households.[3]
Scholars' stances
English scholar Thomas Robert Malthus (1766–1834) supported basically an eternal misery law of biological poverty, basically concluding that whatever human progress is made in producing more food and other goods will always give a matching increase in population, so holding poverty steady always. According to Malthus, if food production is steady then population will be steady - though progress may tend to increase food production and give a matching growth in population that holds poverty steady.[4] Malthus biological poverty is arguably right for primitive human societies, as it is for wild plants and animals. But certainly not for more modern human societies, nor for the domesticated plants and animals.[4] On the contrary, Israeli historian Yuval Noah Harari affirms that Humanity has finally achieved to pass the “biological poverty line”, meaning that, though famines still occur in some parts of the world, we are now able to feed an astonishingly large portion of the globe without putting a large amount of effort.[5]