Global abundance is a radical vision because many people perceive that we’re falling into such a dark and deep hole that it’s impossible to see a way to get out of it.
The World Bank in 2008 defines absolute poverty as “those people who make less than $1.25 per day” or $390/year assuming those people work 6 days a week. The US government in that same year defined absolute poverty in the lower 48 states as “those people who make less than $10,400 per year.”
Obviously this is a pretty big gap. How do you rectify this disparity so as to have a uniform global target to shoot for in reducing global poverty? This is a “relative poverty” scenario. It doesn’t matter how much you earn in relation to others if you can’t buy what you need. Most poverty stricken people in North America have a TV, phone, indoor plumbing and electricity. Most Africans do not.
A More Pragmatic Definition
The resources of the world could not possibly allow for everyone on the planet to live in what most of the world would consider lavish prosperity of the North American lifestyle. For that to happen we would need 5 more “unpopulated” Earth like planets from which to draw resources from.
What if we defined abundance as providing all humanity with a life of possibility? This is opposed to a life of luxury. This means allowing all humanity to have all their basic needs cover and then some.
Food, clean water, clean indoor air and eradicating malaria would eliminate a huge number of deaths in the world. 7 people per minute die of hunger. 3 die from unclean water. 3 die from indoor air pollution and 2 die per minute from malaria.
What if abundance is the belief and reasonable expectation that all your basic needs will be met and the opportunity is present to have more and make more of your life? Norm Morrison