The article headlined 'World losing battle against poverty' (June 17) brought to mind 19th-century political economist Thomas Malthus, who believed that war, famine and disease are nature's ways to control unrestrained population growth.
Are most of the main problems we witness around the world, such as the Israel-Palestine conflict, Iraq war, or Sino-American trade disputes just modern manifestations of Malthusian cycles? Are we barking up the wrong tree when we think the answers can be found by resolving these problems' apparent underlying - but false - reasons of religious, ideological and trade conflicts?
Perhaps we should treat these problems as arising from unfair and uneven distribution of natural resources - land and oil, for example. At the very least, this would allow a more quantitative approach, and therefore, a more objective mindset, now often made impossible by subjective religious or ideological prejudices. The new approach may turn these problems into areas of possible co-operation and sharing.
It seems to cost a lot more to build than to destroy. But at present the imbalance appears to be the other way around: the US has spent hundreds of billions to destroy a country, whereas it would only take tens of billions to alleviate world poverty substantially each year, according to the UN.
The biggest irony is, as the article suggests, that the small investments made now to build up the global community in the long run may help reduce the huge costs of destruction that would be brought about by terrorism, which poverty helps to nurture. The choice is ours: all it may take is the willingness to share.
JERRY PANG, Happy Valley
Prosecute polluters