Welcome to Part 6 of The Poverty Story

Let’s jump back to your vision of ending poverty in one generation and cover some practical considerations.

For sure.

Will we see societal change as this work proceeds?

As we mentioned at the beginning of our chat, that change is inevitable and well underway.

Various aspects have already emerged. For example in the U.S. alone, there are more than 25,000 companies directly working towards positive societal change, these are likely included in the 100,000 plus certified B-Corps nationwide, and more than 250,000 companies explicitly committed to social responsibility and, lastly, well over 10 million people, like you and me, for whom societal transformation is a driving ambition and vision.

Can you give examples of achievements similar to eradicating poverty in one generation?

Yes.
Here is one relatable and comparable story. Littering. When I was growing up in Ireland in the 1960s and 1970s, littering was accepted and even expected behavior. Back then every car driver and every passenger saw the car window as a trash disposal. Litter was everywhere, in public buildings, on the streets, in the parks, and on the beaches. It was the same all over the world, some countries worse than others.

In Ireland, between 1990 and 2000, everything changed. Now almost nobody there consciously litters. It’s a social taboo. But this change started years before, way back in 1958 with the introduction of the Beautiful Ireland Tidy Towns Contest. It took 40 years of diligent behind-the-scenes work until, seemingly suddenly, we hit a tipping point where littering went from 90% of the population to 10% to 1%, and now virtually everyone finds littering unacceptable.

Isn’t poverty more intractable than littering?

I believe that people think this because of the perceived costs involved in eradicating poverty. But those costs won’t be a barrier to social change, and they are not a barrier to our strategies.

There will be more and more visible examples of poor people being included in (rather than excluded from) our economic systems. And, just as in the above story about Tidy Towns, seeing is believing.

You’re saying that we don’t need to spend trillions, or even billions, every year to end poverty and that you can achieve it starting with your company

That’s a great question or point – or both.

Let me attempt to clarify.

The billions spent each year, directly and indirectly, on poverty are, for the most part, providing support for people struggling to survive.

This is essential for millions of families. But this spending is not stopping, or even slowing poverty down.

So you’re saying that little of this annual spending addresses the systems that cause poverty.

Much of this spending is akin to cleaning a polluted river where it enters the sea while doing nothing about the growing pollution problems upstream.

And the upstream pollution is the systems creating more poverty?

Correct. Through blocking peoples’ opportunities and progress in employment, housing, finances, education, and healthcare, depriving them of asset ownership, and increasing their cost of living far beyond their income.

This is our target. Our approach takes on poverty at its source – the system that profits from poverty – and we do not require government spending or similar systems.

So, you can starve the system that creates poverty by helping people escape its grasp?

Yes - that’s the strategy.

The system profits from consuming people. The more people escape poverty, the less the system profits.

To achieve this our tools will help people make progress and step by step, they can create a more sustainable life.

In the process, partly by using our own tools and living by our own philosophy, we make our work and our company inclusive and welcoming to all.

People will find us and can jump in or support this “end poverty movement” in their own way.

Great – that’s a very helpful clarification.

I’ll add this important point - there is indeed a widespread belief that eradicating poverty will cost trillions.

In some respects, there is a big cost, but the spending is not coming from the government, it’s from industry, companies, and organizations who willingly spend these dollars. And for every dollar spent, they get multiple dollars back in profits, benefits, and longevity.

And to make matters even better, the overall economy grows.

Just like all infinite business models – this is a win-win-win-win.

It makes the future better for society, for regular people, for industry, and for the government.

Wow – if that can play out – then it’s exciting progress. Have you any examples of something like this happening?

I’d say there are many good examples in recent history – but I have one in my pocket.

Let me tell you about a similar “too-big problem” success story that faced and overcame the “too expensive” myth. This one is literally close to home, my family home.

My youngest sibling’s name is Mary Reynolds. And Mary, almost single-handedly, designed and launched a “technology” that brought about billions of dollars worth of social and environmental change. And that change continues on a steep growth curve.

In 2002 with virtually no financial resources and against strong mainstream opposition, she won a Gold Medal at the Chelsea Flower Show, which is the world’s prestigious gardening event. Her garden was entirely composed of weeds and trees transplanted from the sides of Irish roads. No monoculture grass, no flowers, nothing “garden-like”.

A consequence of this work over the following years was a dramatic uptick in the native plant movement, an acceleration in the trend toward holistic gardening, and a decline in the use of garden chemicals. And these trends emerged worldwide. Even in places where they were once actively opposed, they now are widely accepted as scientifically sound and central to ecological health.

More recently, in 2019, on her birthday, she launched a movement called “We are the ARK” (ARK stands for Acts of Restorative Kindness) to restore half of the world’s land (that we don’t use) back to nature. As a result, tens of thousands of people worldwide have converted all or part of their properties to healthy, chemical-free wildernesses; sanctuaries for native plants, insects, and animals. These ARKs can now be found in every country and range in size from a few square feet to thousands of acres.

The “Technology” she invented and launched was ARKs. This technology bypasses the engrained system that was and is still destroying our planet. But now, for the first time that entrenched system is losing power. That system includes industrial and chemical-driven agriculture, chemically managed gardens, parks and roadways, apathy regarding pollution, outdated water management processes, and other legacy planet exploiting systems. Thanks to enlightened self-interest their days are numbered.

I think you’d agree that giving half of our underused or abused property back to Mother Nature is a seemingly very expensive proposition. But yet it is underway, and not just because of one person but because of the work of tens of thousands of dedicated people over many decades.

And here’s the important point about the cost - it is shared by regular folk and companies driven by enlightened self-interest. In return, these people gained health and self-empowerment.

What a story.

Yes, I know. And the back story, the one behind the scenes, is added entertainment.

Funny!

That’s Mary Reynolds. There is a 2015 movie called “Dare to be Wild” made about her life. She is the bestselling author of ‘The Garden Awakening”, and "We are the ARK". And her movement can be tracked at www.wearetheark.org.

Mary and Level UP - we work together a lot. She’s amazing, and she is a founding member of our team – so you can find her bio on our website.

Indeed, Susanna, we’re all in this together.