Poverty Is Not Starvation

Why should poverty be measured in economic terms?

thedailyblog.co.nz
The following is predominately a semantic argument, so I'll keep it brief as it only bares mentioning due to the complexity of the issue: Poverty is an economic term; that is not to say that it's unrelated to other issues like healthcare, education, starvation, etc,.

https://www.scape.sg/online/poverty-is-it-really-all-about-the-money/
The question remains; why should those connections change the particularized measurement of poverty into anything other than economic terms?

https://www.google.com/search?q=poverty&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj50Kmb2sDUAhXE4IMKHfUvDDYQ_AUIBygC&biw=1366&bih=635#imgdii=DyeN1KzyimGlYM:&imgrc=kC2BXnnIU8o6cM:
As with any complex deliberation, agreement upon common definitions is typically key to reaching a mutually-agreed-upon resolution. The fact that one defined term bares relation to another doesn't require that their definitions be merged and a new term be born. To be fair, this is not what is asked by everyone. However, the concern levied against overly confining the definition of poverty should be equally leveled against expanding the definition of poverty. Would it be more efficient to incorporate the current definition of poverty into a full-bodied analysis all welfare related to it? I would pose yes, and I will end my semantics here for the sake of brevity.

Causation, Consequence, or Both?
As poverty is an economic state of condition that typically results from other factors, the appearance of a consequence can be presumed.
How can we disprove that presumption?
Is there another socioeconomic condition that requires poverty to precede its own manifestation? No, though it can influence the overall impact of other areas of welfare, poverty is not necessary to sustain any other socioeconomic malady. It could very well be that I've merely provided an oversimplification(as I tend to do), however, that being true would only create an exception to the claim.

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/351562314640646717/
What a Holistic approach might look like?
What is Holistic?
As it pertains to the issue of poverty, "holistic" focuses on the comprehension of the interconnected nature between poverty and human rights. The very definition of holistic forewarns us of treating poverty as an underlying cause. Such treatment would not be comprehensive as it would clearly overlook the existence of impoverished individuals who's poverty is rooted in mental health, among other causal factors. For instance, a gambling addict who takes an "involuntary vow of poverty(the depiction of Geoffry Chaucer in Knight's Tale)." Treating such an individual as though poverty is a root cause of their debilitation overlooks the mental health issues that propagated the "involuntary vow of poverty" to begin with. Mental health issues are only one of many causal factors shriveling under the shadow of poverty.
How can a holistic approach be applied to poverty?

First, it should be inquired as to whether poverty is the cause of the issue to be addressed. As our current impetus rests on enforcing human rights, I would argue that poverty is not the cause. Further, I would argue that efforts to redefine the econometric model are likely to chew up time that could have been spent to greater effect had they been focused on causation particularly. Focusing on poverty causally creates a separate and exacerbating problem; it avoids the myriad of causes that we have already begun to clarify statistically.

http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/in-villages-one-in-three-households-in-poverty-over-a-fifth-scsts/
Poverty is not starvation; Poverty is not disease, though the latter can be treated under more beneficial circumstances in the absence of the former. So how should we ask a question of poverty that addresses the issues of starvation and/or disease? Does more income have the same impact on individuals who live outside of western norms? The simple answer is: No.

To holistically approach poverty, its separate nature as a relevant factor must be respected and utilized. Clearly the arbitrary amounts of $1 or $2 per day are far from being scientifically grounded, that doesn't mean that they don't provide the service of generating questions and data that could be used to address more causal issues of market competition and availability. A holistic treatment has to focus on the individual circumstances: creating a case-by-case analysis that is both time-consuming and potentially expensive BUT that is what's needed to facilitate the foundation of a more considerate era of trade policy. Increased production will only lead to just that, more production; that output is meaningless without the context of market incentives.