Singer's Solution to Poverty

I really liked Singer's solution to world poverty, although it was quite provocative and blunt. Although the notion of Americans and the rest of the world giving up everything excessive except for the bare necessities in favor of money to charities is harsh advice, it does hold some merit in that it would most likely greatly reduce world poverty. However I have some concerns to this theory. This theory completely eliminates the idea of wealth or surplus besides food and shelter. This may seem melodramatic, but this could potentially slow down the evolution of society. If we applied this theory, we would eliminate technology which has helped civilization grow for centuries. Isn't part of evolving as a society finding things to do with our wealth and surplus other than living for basic survival? Although it does of course seem reasonable to donate money to children, I feel like donating until we all only survive with bare necessities is not a practical or ideal solution.