For many of us, when asked to think of a basic, bare-bones diet, we may immediately imagine that of a student’s. Beans on toast, pasta, rooting around in the kitchen cupboard for that last tin of chopped tomatoes or 10p noodles. To most this is a common state of being poor that we have experienced first hand, or are at least very familiar with. Now, if I asked you to go back and live that way out of choice, except to strip it back further, to live on a budget of £5 to feed yourself for 5 days. Would you?
My interest in humanitarianism was sparked a few years ago whilst watching the documentary “Examined Life”[1], a film in which modern day philosophers each spend 10 minutes briefly summarising their work. One section in particular by Peter Singer, Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, was a real eye opener. He led me to consider how issues I hadn’t previously thought to be my personal responsibility might be just that. It made me take a more critical look at the choices I was making in my own small world, realising the way my actions might be resonating, echoing out into the worlds of others.
“Ethics is not just about what I actually do and the impact of that, but it’s also about what I omit to do, what I decide not to do. And that’s why, given that we all have a limited amount of money, questions about what you spend your money on are also questions about what you don’t spend you money on; what you don’t use your money to achieve.”
Having seeded this interest in personal ethical responsibilities I continued reading about the subject. A few weeks ago I came across the Live Below the Line challenge.
Live Below the Line is an annual anti-poverty campaign in which participants are challenged to feed themselves for 5 days on the equivalent of the global poverty line. It can be thought of as "exercise in participatory empathy" in order to give participants a small insight into the hardships faced by those living in extreme poverty, and to raise money through sponsorship for the challenge. Overall the campaign’s main goal is to raise awareness, and participants are invited to create personal donation pages with a blog they can share with friends and family.
|
The idea appealed to me. Not only because of Singer's influence but also because, like everyone, I have grown up knowing that poverty exists, yet instead of feeling an urge to do anything about it, I have simply taken it as a fact of life. It was always somewhere in the back of my mind but it took an external influence to kickstart me into action.
It’s a subject most people naturally prefer to avoid but, as we all know, it is still prevalent across the world, The World Bank defines the state of poverty as being:
|
There are an estimated 1.2 billion people in the world living below the poverty line. As would be expected, many of these people are reported to feel a state of powerlessness, humiliation, vulnerability, and a deep sense of shame.[2]
It’s not a fun topic to consider, it’s certainly not something you can just drop into a conversation but perhaps we should be talking about it - perhaps we really should be thinking about it more often. What if we allowed it to affect the tiny choices we make in our everyday lives?
Everyone I know - probably everyone I’ve ever met - can be described as being “absolutely affluent”. They have money to meet their basic needs, and then still extra to spend on luxuries. In his book, Practical Ethics, Singer does a wonderful job of highlighting the contrast between the two financial states:
“The absolutely affluent choose their food for the pleasures of the palate, not to stop hunger; they buy new clothes to look good, not to keep warm; they move house to be in a better neighbourhood or have more space for the children to play, not to keep out the rain; and after all this, there is still money to spend on home entertainment centres and exotic holidays.” [2]
I grasped the LBTL challenge as a talking point to draw focus to the matter. I felt that sharing the experience in conversation, and through social media, would be a great way to highlight the comfort that having excess money provides, and the difficulties faced by those less fortunate. If nothing more it might make people more appreciative of what they do have. I wanted to make people think. I also wanted to see what it would be like.
* * *
Choosing items for my shopping list was the first challenge and highlighted a mental barrier I previously wouldn’t have considered. I had £5 in my budget! I generally try to maintain a healthy lifestyle and struggled with the idea that I wouldn’t be able to make choices in the way that I usually would. I thought the challenge would be a more basic version of how I normally live, simply cutting out what I consider luxuries.
At first I rejected the idea of white rice as it is simply not as healthy as brown, and I checked to see which fresh fruits and vegetables I could afford. Embarrassingly, I had assumed I’d be living on lentil dhals and simple bean chillis, but even these meals that are my usual budget basics were far too expensive. There was a delay before the extremity of the task at hand became clear. But even then, it was a struggle to get past my normal day-to-day mindset. After several trips to three different supermarkets, I ended up with the following set of ingredients for the week:
The Experience:
Day1
Nausea, headaches and a cavernous energy slump from low blood sugar levels. I managed to eat only half my dinner due to feeling unwell. These symptoms were likely due to the shock of a sudden reduction in calorie intake.
Day2
I was unusually tired and cold for most of the day. In bed by 8pm that evening ready to sleep. Again, likely due to the adjustments in my diet, perhaps caused by caffeine withdrawals or a reliance on sugar.
Day3
I was no longer experiencing hunger or tiredness. Instead I’d become a bit absent minded and forgetful.
That evening I started to feel apathetic. I was questioning my reasons for participating in the challenge. Having lost my feelings of enthusiasm and inspiration it dawned on me that it didn’t make any difference whether I ate only £5 worth of food over a 5 day period. I began to believe that my efforts were futile and I wondered if others were growing tired of me repeatedly raising this subject. Perhaps people were laughing at me for being so naive to think I could make a difference. I began to believe that no one really cared about this and they likely just want to get on with their lives. It truly dawned on me that nothing’s going to change.
That evening I started to feel apathetic. I was questioning my reasons for participating in the challenge. Having lost my feelings of enthusiasm and inspiration it dawned on me that it didn’t make any difference whether I ate only £5 worth of food over a 5 day period. I began to believe that my efforts were futile and I wondered if others were growing tired of me repeatedly raising this subject. Perhaps people were laughing at me for being so naive to think I could make a difference. I began to believe that no one really cared about this and they likely just want to get on with their lives. It truly dawned on me that nothing’s going to change.
Above all else, the whole challenge felt fraudulent. I knew what I was doing was in no way comparable to the way that people in extreme poverty live. It was just a silly task. It was nonsense.
Day4
I was tired, increasingly disoriented and confused across the day. By evening I could barely cook dinner. Despite being vegetarian, I heavily craved meat. I felt hugely apathetic and was ready to quit.
Day5
I began to experience a strange state of confusion. The smallest task seemed complex and overwhelming. I felt light-headed. Due to concerns over my health I seriously considered quitting the challenge. I no longer cared for food, it felt more like a chore. But I persevered.
I never knew poor quality food would have this effect, the confusion and apathy that came with the diet came as a surprise. I understand that every one of the 25,000 people taking part in the challenge this year had their own experiences; some were hungry throughout the week, some said they found it easier than they expected. The five days were increasingly tough for me and on the last day I found it hard to conceive that there are so many people in the world for whom this was an ongoing state that was unlikely to end.
* * *
People showed a great deal compassion for me over the course of the week, many asked to help, wishing to give donations of food. People really do want to help those in need. Our greatest barrier seems to be that we are biased only to think to help those we can see, speak to, shake hands with. We find it harder to feel the significance of helping those whose names we don’t even know, who we can’t be face to face with. This is a trick of our ancestral wiring, as we evolved living in small communities, but in our modern day global community it can be argued that there is little to no difference in our moral obligations to those that live next door to us, or to those on the other side of the world.
In developed countries, affluence gives us a great deal of power that we don't often consider in our day to day lives. As consumers we are able to group together to create huge demand and focus it on whatever products or services we choose. We are able to use this demand to tell both small companies and major corporations what we want, what we think is right and, what we think is wrong. Buying something can be thought of as ‘voting’ for a product. Many complain of being overwhelmed by choice, but what we are overlooking is the power we have in choice. You buy organic food, you’re placing your vote that food should be organic. Enough people vote and the demand is significant enough to shape the consumer landscape.
You don’t just have to be a consumer to have power. As an affluent person in many cases you are actually able to determine whether a person lives or dies. This is a huge responsibility. Without even threatening your own basic welfare you can literally save lives, simply by using you wealth in a constructive way.
When framed this way you have to wonder, what is the moral significance of this? Is it wrong to buy an ipod knowing that money could help someone who without it is likely to suffer greatly or even die? This is a big question to tangle with. No one is perfect, few of us are saints. There is a balance to be had between living a happy and fulfilled life, and doing what you can to help meet the needs of others. As a consumer it may be a better stance simply to think before you buy, to consider ‘What will I actually gain from this item/service/experience? Does the impact or happiness it brings me match or exceed the cost, not only the financial cost, but the repercussions for others outside of my visible world?’. Some things just make you happy. Some things when considered in this light might be worth passing up.
I know people who are hesitant to give money to charities due to the -- sometimes large -- portion of donation that is spent on the charity running costs. They imagine their money lining the pockets of those managing the charities rather than reaching the people who need it the most. In some cases this may be true but it doesn’t negate the need to donate to those less fortunate. It simply highlights the importance of taking the time to consider where your money is invested. The organisation GiveWell helps with this decision. They perform in-depth analysis of charities to assess their cost-effectiveness by looking at how the donations are spent and the measurable impact that the charities have on the communities they help.
Currently in GiveWell’s top 3 charities, GiveDirectly transfers 90% of it’s donations directly into the hands of the people that need it most. For some it is a worry that just handing over cash to individuals will result in the money being spent irresponsibly. However, a survey on people in Kenya who received money from GiveDirectly showed that this money was not spent on alcohol or tobacco. Instead it was invested into childrens’ education, healthcare, and buying more and better food. A similar study was also made in Uganda where the government gave people money. It was seen that people's incomes went up and stayed up, even years later. The recipients had used the money to start small businesses, like metal working or tailoring clothes.
Recipients of aid from GiveDirectly live on an average of around $0.65 per day, about half the value of the estimated international poverty line (which currently stands at around $1.25). Often this value is confused with the nominal cost - the $1.25 that when translated into the currency of the developing country is something of much greater value. This is not the case, The World Bank calculates the poverty line cost as the real cost - the equivalent value from which you can buy goods and services.
Since 1990 proportions of hungry people in developing countries have fallen from 23% to 15% due to the efforts and sacrifices of those all over the world. Researchers at Oxfam have estimated that the annual income of the worlds richest 100 people is enough to end world poverty four times over! It is truly conceivable that with the focus and attention of enough people, by making small and considered choices and using our wealth as power - in a similar way in which we create consumer demand - we could shape our cultural landscape. We could refuse to accept poverty as a fact of life. We could dispel the phenomenon within a generation.
“Let’s make ending the injustice of extreme poverty our generations greatest legacy.”
- Live Below The Line
To donate to GiveDirectly from the UK you can transfer money to the Giving What We Can Trust who will claim gift aid for you before sending the donation on to the charity itself. Follow the instructions on the link below:
|
References
[1] Astra Taylor (Director). (2008), Examined Life [Motion Picture]. Canada: Sphinx Productions.
[2] Peter Singer (2011), Practical Ethics. Cambridge University Press; 3rd edition.
No comments:
Post a Comment