Bad Arguments About Global Poverty

I agree with some of what Jared Diamond has to say here but simply because it's imperative for the rich world to adopt more ecologically sustainable practices and it's also imperative for us to do what we can to help ameliorate extreme poverty in the non-rich world is no reason to just throw any old argument into the mix. For example:

People in the third world are aware of this difference in per capita consumption, although most of them couldn’t specify that it’s by a factor of 32. When they believe their chances of catching up to be hopeless, they sometimes get frustrated and angry, and some become terrorists, or tolerate or support terrorists. Since Sept. 11, 2001, it has become clear that the oceans that once protected the United States no longer do so. There will be more terrorist attacks against us and Europe, and perhaps against Japan and Australia, as long as that factorial difference of 32 in consumption rates persists.

There's just no evidence of this. You don't see people growing up in Congo and launching terrorist attacks on Switzerland. Terrorists don't come indiscriminately from the poorest countries, and they don't seek to target the wealthiest countries. After all, terrorism's not a good way of making money it's an act of political violence and it's mainly perpetrated by people who think they have very serious political grievances. Israel's not richer than Norway, but it sure gets attacked by a lot more terrorists -- ideology and grievance are the key, and opposition to foreign occupiers is almost always the issue. Curbing global poverty is a good cause, but so is developing a more sensible foreign policy and we're not going to get that done unless we're clear on the actual sources of terrorist violence.