Anthropologically, cultures reliably tend to converge on certain structures. These seem to be innate, but can be modified by tool-use and resource-use - less so by narratives, which are more likely to disguise them than truly change them.
Generally, the more abundant the environment, the less rigid and hierarchical the culture. (As a very over-simplified generalisation.)
I have a very simple definition of poverty, which is that it's the opposite of freedom. The US cant about individual freedom is exactly that, and confuses potential freedom of a rich minority with the much more limited freedom of the 99% of the population.
Freedom includes freedom from starvation, thirst, and so on. But it also includes freedom to educate yourself, and contribute socially.
Having to scramble for cash is not freedom. You could argue that from this point of view, poverty is much more widespread than is usually accepted.
This is essentially the point that Amartya Sen puts forward in Development as Freedom. I just got my copy back after leaving it in a friend's garage in California for 2 years, so maybe I should dust it off and write a review. Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
ie it cannot be defined except in relative terms.
For me, this is very simple, manichaean even.
And indeed, as you say, if poverty is the opposite of Freedom, then in many parts of the "West," we are as poverty-prone as you hint. "C'est un scandale !"
That sounds very right to me: I was going to say, Poverty is the inverse of choice.
Interesting. Can you provide some examples or pointers? Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.
