-2

I was reading about some of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). While researching their goal to end poverty on this site, https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal1, I came across this odd graph. enter image description here

According to the graph, it appears that poverty is being beat. That means we are heading to a world with no poverty. We are on the tracks leading to a perfect world. So, I thought it was odd that they used the phrase "The world was OFF TRACK to end poverty by 2030". Doesn't that imply the opposite meaning? That we are FAILING to end poverty? The UN is an extremely respected world institution, so please tell me if I'm wrong about whether they made an error or not.

4
  • 2
    "According to the graph, it appears that poverty is being beat" Actually, according to the graph, poverty is still going to be at 6% in 2030. My guess is that the graph is trying to make the point that the reduction poverty level isn't going to reach the UNSDG's goal, which was apparently set lower than 6%. – user45266 May 13 at 3:32
  • The setup does look like good news, but it isn't. Maybe "The world was already missing Goal 1, to end poverty by 2030." Is the goal realistic, understandable, and good English? The UN is gonna end poverty? – Yosef Baskin May 13 at 14:09
  • 1
    The goal of "ending poverty" will be reached when the number of people living in poverty falls to 0%. Obviously we're not on track to do that if current projections suggest there will still be 6% living in poverty by 2030. Note that [to be] Off Track here is a deliberately non-standard / "quirky" attention-grabbing usage (idiomatically, the opposite of being on track to reach some goal is not being on track). – FumbleFingers May 13 at 14:59
  • "Off-Track" sounds like a betting parlor. – Cascabel May 13 at 15:29
2

I think the miscommunication lies with what is meant by beating poverty. According to the graph, 6% of the population would be living in poverty by 2030. That means poverty would still exist by then and it would not be beaten completely. Poverty would be eradicated or ended completely when 0% of the population lives in poverty.

This position is supported by the title in your link; it reads:

end poverty in all its forms everywhere

From that statement, it's clear that they aim to end poverty completely. That goal has not been met and it's not projected to be reached by 2030. As such, the world is not on track to end poverty by 2030. That position is correctly conveyed conveyed by the slogan.

The reason the slogan might seem odd is because on track is more commonly used than off track, according to Google ngram.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.