The report of Oxfam International emphasizes the importance of two conditions for leaving misery: active citizens and effective States. Thesis that refutes the idea that the development of the poorest countries depends only on what do rich countries. It is the absurd theory that developing countries are at a stage towards the development, when, in reality, underdevelopment is a byproduct of an unjust and inhumane development model. All of this in is there future in capitalism?, Dominican sociologist Frei Betto argues that modernity is in crisis because we live, not a time of changes but a change of era. According to FAO data, he says, we are 6.5 billion people on the planet, of which half live below the poverty line, and 854 million survive with chronic hunger. Nothing indicates that they will comply, until 2015, the Millennium goals of the United Nations, among which is the eradication of the misery. There are who asserts that the problem of hunger is caused by excess of mouths and he is supporter of family planning because it respects the freedom of the couple.
Before the thesis of lack of food, he argues that the world produces enough to feed 11 billion mouths. There is a lack of Justice, excessive concentration of wealth in few hands, and now ethanol to supply vehicles instead of food to feed people. But Frei Betto cannot ignore that the population explosion is a weapon of mass destruction, such as hunger. History shows that, in countries where women have access to education and jobs equal to those of men, there is danger of population explosion. On the contrary, countries rich, industrialized and educated sociological North, the problem of the increase in their aged populations has unleashed all its alarms, though they dare not to recognize that only with a proper immigration may face that threat. Do not dare to recognize that because they live obsessed with a pathological individualism. Hence, Frei Betto wondering if there is a future for humanity within the capitalist paradigm. The answer lies in the same question. Because the new paradigm consisted of falling into the account that there is no paradigm, but yes requirement of a fundamental social justice for all beings.