Total Posts:151|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Sustaining the poor

innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2011 9:17:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I've been thinking about this a bit. I help out where i can in some very specific situations, that is i give money to some poor people. Recently i got a first hand look at where my money was going, and was a bit discouraged. It seems like i am just shoveling money into a black hole; there is never enough, and i don't know what good it does. We all give to some extent by our taxes, or by voluntary means, we give to those who need help. However, i wonder the ethics in sustaining, and possibly encouraging the expansion of the poor. If the end result of helping is greater dependence by more people, is that ethical?

In a report that i heard on the population of the world, (Geo wasn't my source), the report concluded that food production would need to grow to accommodate the increase in population (which by the way is expected to take place in some of the poorest areas of Africa and Asia). Think about that equation: elevating food production to the level of adequately feeding an increase of population of 9 billion people. There is a certain population snowball that is hard to imagine if they can be fed, and a world wide crisis if they cannot be fed.

Is it ethical to sustain and even provide certain expansive resources for the poor? Perhaps if there would be certain contingencies with the sustenance provided that might encourage a more prudent future for everyone, then the ethical dilemma would be lessened?
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2011 10:39:28 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
i wonder the ethics in sustaining, and possibly encouraging the expansion of the poor. If the end result of helping is greater dependence by more people, is that ethical?:

That's always the million dollar question. Is helping them in the short term enabling them in the long term? Unfortunately, that's an individual thing.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2011 10:44:03 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
As the world population grows so too will it's capacity to produce food. Famines are not caused by a particularly fertile generation, but by a sudden absence of food.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2011 11:26:17 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/21/2011 10:44:03 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
As the world population grows so too will it's capacity to produce food. Famines are not caused by a particularly fertile generation, but by a sudden absence of food.

Just think about it though. The jump from 3 billion to 4 billion people took about 30 years, then from 4-5 about 20 years then from 5-6 about 7 years. You don't see an expansion rate that's a bit concerning? They know what causes this by the way. Actually i think that increased homosexuality might help stem the rate a bit.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2011 11:56:30 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/21/2011 11:26:17 AM, innomen wrote:
At 2/21/2011 10:44:03 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
As the world population grows so too will it's capacity to produce food. Famines are not caused by a particularly fertile generation, but by a sudden absence of food.

Just think about it though. The jump from 3 billion to 4 billion people took about 30 years, then from 4-5 about 20 years then from 5-6 about 7 years. You don't see an expansion rate that's a bit concerning?

Not really no, the population is not expanding and causing a threat to the food supply, rather we are producing enough food to sustain growth at this level. The countries most responsible for this population growth are prone to famine, but they are just increasing the scale of the fail not the chance of it occuring. Malthus was almost entirely wrong.

They know what causes this by the way. Actually i think that increased homosexuality might help stem the rate a bit.

How much is it increasing by?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2011 9:03:45 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/21/2011 11:26:17 AM, innomen wrote:
At 2/21/2011 10:44:03 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
As the world population grows so too will it's capacity to produce food. Famines are not caused by a particularly fertile generation, but by a sudden absence of food.

Just think about it though. The jump from 3 billion to 4 billion people took about 30 years, then from 4-5 about 20 years then from 5-6 about 7 years. You don't see an expansion rate that's a bit concerning? They know what causes this by the way. Actually i think that increased homosexuality might help stem the rate a bit.

or as an alternative to the homosexuality... we could eat bugs!?

http://www.debate.org...
signature
gavin.ogden
Posts: 1,729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2011 11:26:46 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/21/2011 11:26:17 AM, innomen wrote:
At 2/21/2011 10:44:03 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
As the world population grows so too will it's capacity to produce food. Famines are not caused by a particularly fertile generation, but by a sudden absence of food.

Just think about it though. The jump from 3 billion to 4 billion people took about 30 years, then from 4-5 about 20 years then from 5-6 about 7 years. You don't see an expansion rate that's a bit concerning? They know what causes this by the way. Actually i think that increased homosexuality might help stem the rate a bit.

Hahahahaha!!!!!!!!!! I think it would. Wouldn't that be something... Homosexuality saving the world from universal famine.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2011 2:21:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
An increase in homosexuality? I really doubt that. It probably just seems like an increase since more homosexuals are becoming open about their sexual orientation, considering just a few decades ago it was a criminal offense.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2011 2:36:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I was actually thinking the same thing as innomen. I don't know how the literature reads, but it seems somewhat plausible that increased rates of homosexuality are one of the many ways in which nature controls population growth. The problem is that things like medicine and sanitation have allowed us to bypass some of the other mechanisms which would otherwise do away with significant segments of the population (reducing not only aggregate population size, but also density).
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2011 2:36:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/22/2011 2:21:39 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
An increase in homosexuality? I really doubt that. It probably just seems like an increase since more homosexuals are becoming open about their sexual orientation, considering just a few decades ago it was a criminal offense.

There are still far more gays in the closet than "out". And i wasn't really serious about it.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2011 2:38:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/22/2011 2:36:48 PM, innomen wrote:
At 2/22/2011 2:21:39 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
An increase in homosexuality? I really doubt that. It probably just seems like an increase since more homosexuals are becoming open about their sexual orientation, considering just a few decades ago it was a criminal offense.

There are still far more gays in the closet than "out". And i wasn't really serious about it.

I actually think it's an interesting theory nevertheless.
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2011 3:36:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/21/2011 10:39:28 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
i wonder the ethics in sustaining, and possibly encouraging the expansion of the poor. If the end result of helping is greater dependence by more people, is that ethical?:

That's always the million dollar question. Is helping them in the short term enabling them in the long term? Unfortunately, that's an individual thing.

It ultimately does not help them out in the long run, but if you feel the need to give than do so.

There are many reasons why someone can become homeless, or poor.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2011 8:51:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
It ultimately does not help them out in the long run, but if you feel the need to give than do so.:

I think helping people in need, if you are able to safely do so, is a wonderful thing. There are plenty of people who are just in tight spots and need a little assistance to get back on their feet. Then you have countless others who are like parasites, going from host to host. They have no sense of honor or pride in themselves, and they have no compunction with f*cking you over so long as it benefits them.

And sometimes it's difficult to know which type of person you're dealing with.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2011 12:35:43 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
The world population is expected to level off in between 9 and 14 billion, and the technology to produce enough food is already in existence.

As for the poor being viewed as lazy scumbags, keep in mind that 25% are veterans, while I believe another 25% suffer from mental illness.
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2011 12:37:13 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/22/2011 2:38:07 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Also, as far as the whole "sustaining the poor" thing goes, I obviously think that there isn't any justifiable reason for robbing some people of resources for the sake of providing the disadvantaged a social safety net. This, of course, says nothing about its economic impracticality.

So, if there is a guy with a buffet in a room, and another who is starving, you wouldn't feel justified in taking from the buffet-guy to sustain the other?
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2011 12:46:40 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
From the distribution of wealth article on wikipedia..

In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth and the top 1% owned 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth.

According to this 2006 study by the Federal Reserve System, from 1989 to 2004, the distribution in the United States had been changing with indications there was a greater concentration of wealth held by the top 10% and top 1% of the population.

Just because, you know, it's nice to put into perspective.

I'd say something else, but it likely to be a CharlesB-esque rant.. Except with a more liberal use of obscenities.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Atheism
Posts: 2,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2011 1:01:13 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/23/2011 12:37:13 AM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
At 2/22/2011 2:38:07 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Also, as far as the whole "sustaining the poor" thing goes, I obviously think that there isn't any justifiable reason for robbing some people of resources for the sake of providing the disadvantaged a social safety net. This, of course, says nothing about its economic impracticality.

So, if there is a guy with a buffet in a room, and another who is starving, you wouldn't feel justified in taking from the buffet-guy to sustain the other?

No. Why would it be justified?
I miss the old members.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2011 1:09:57 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
The fact that someone can have so much wealth and not feel obligated to elevate those around them infuriates me.

What infuriates me even more his how completely unsympathetic the middle and upper class is towards the poor man, sometimes to the point of mocking them.

They are over glorified slave owners.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2011 10:13:19 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/22/2011 8:51:31 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
It ultimately does not help them out in the long run, but if you feel the need to give than do so.:

I think helping people in need, if you are able to safely do so, is a wonderful thing. There are plenty of people who are just in tight spots and need a little assistance to get back on their feet. Then you have countless others who are like parasites, going from host to host. They have no sense of honor or pride in themselves, and they have no compunction with f*cking you over so long as it benefits them.

And sometimes it's difficult to know which type of person you're dealing with.

Thats wher I was saying give, and what they do with it is their concern. I mean, if there is a guy asking for money to eat in front of a liqour store, than I can understand, just use perspective.
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2011 3:09:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/23/2011 1:01:13 AM, Atheism wrote:

No. Why would it be justified?

The buffet-guy's marginal utility per loaf of bread or something is much less than the marginal utility gained by the starving man if he were to have one. By stealing from the one guy and giving to the other, the overall amount of utility is increased.

However, as a better way of putting it; it's justified simply because the one guy has more than enough F-ing food to eat, while the other guy is going to die if he doesn't get some.

Is there any legitimate counter to this contention?
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2011 3:51:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/23/2011 3:09:36 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
The buffet-guy's marginal utility per loaf of bread or something is much less than the marginal utility gained by the starving man if he were to have one. By stealing from the one guy and giving to the other, the overall amount of utility is increased.

inb4 "EBILLLLLLLLLLL INTERPERSONAL COMPARISONS OF UTILITY!!!" lol
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2011 3:54:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/23/2011 3:51:48 PM, belle wrote:
At 2/23/2011 3:09:36 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
The buffet-guy's marginal utility per loaf of bread or something is much less than the marginal utility gained by the starving man if he were to have one. By stealing from the one guy and giving to the other, the overall amount of utility is increased.

inb4 "EBILLLLLLLLLLL INTERPERSONAL COMPARISONS OF UTILITY!!!" lol

more like un-moving/useless interpersonal comparisons of utility ;)

why... are you a closet utilitarian? o.O
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2011 3:55:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/23/2011 3:54:11 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 2/23/2011 3:51:48 PM, belle wrote:
At 2/23/2011 3:09:36 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
The buffet-guy's marginal utility per loaf of bread or something is much less than the marginal utility gained by the starving man if he were to have one. By stealing from the one guy and giving to the other, the overall amount of utility is increased.

inb4 "EBILLLLLLLLLLL INTERPERSONAL COMPARISONS OF UTILITY!!!" lol

more like un-moving/useless interpersonal comparisons of utility ;)

why... are you a closet utilitarian? o.O

no, it just strikes me as a really weak pedantic argument that allows people to avoid dealing with the real issue. it ends the discussion without really adding anything to it.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2011 4:04:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/23/2011 3:55:53 PM, belle wrote:
no, it just strikes me as a really weak pedantic argument that allows people to avoid dealing with the real issue. it ends the discussion without really adding anything to it.

well... I would support the benefit of others because of My Own cares...

I realize that this is what compels me to do so.. But in talking with others where I simply would want to get something done.. I might sell them the idea that such General benefits for people are Objective goods.. Even if I don't believe it.. to try to get them to act as I would have them.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2011 4:11:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/23/2011 3:55:53 PM, belle wrote:
At 2/23/2011 3:54:11 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 2/23/2011 3:51:48 PM, belle wrote:
At 2/23/2011 3:09:36 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
The buffet-guy's marginal utility per loaf of bread or something is much less than the marginal utility gained by the starving man if he were to have one. By stealing from the one guy and giving to the other, the overall amount of utility is increased.

inb4 "EBILLLLLLLLLLL INTERPERSONAL COMPARISONS OF UTILITY!!!" lol

more like un-moving/useless interpersonal comparisons of utility ;)

why... are you a closet utilitarian? o.O

no, it just strikes me as a really weak pedantic argument that allows people to avoid dealing with the real issue. it ends the discussion without really adding anything to it.

also.. in dealmaking Interpersonal comparisons of utility can matter.

but if you're to say Good= most benefit for all...

then you're just wrong.

Good's are rooted in individuals... and are subjective.. as is "benefit".

something that's Most Beneficial for all is still Bad for the person who it's bad for.

and who's conception of what's beneficial should we use to discuss the benefit to each party discussed???? their own??

that's some tricky comparisons...
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2011 4:17:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/23/2011 4:11:10 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 2/23/2011 3:55:53 PM, belle wrote:
At 2/23/2011 3:54:11 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 2/23/2011 3:51:48 PM, belle wrote:
At 2/23/2011 3:09:36 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
The buffet-guy's marginal utility per loaf of bread or something is much less than the marginal utility gained by the starving man if he were to have one. By stealing from the one guy and giving to the other, the overall amount of utility is increased.

inb4 "EBILLLLLLLLLLL INTERPERSONAL COMPARISONS OF UTILITY!!!" lol

more like un-moving/useless interpersonal comparisons of utility ;)

why... are you a closet utilitarian? o.O

no, it just strikes me as a really weak pedantic argument that allows people to avoid dealing with the real issue. it ends the discussion without really adding anything to it.

also.. in dealmaking Interpersonal comparisons of utility can matter.

but if you're to say Good= most benefit for all...

then you're just wrong.

Good's are rooted in individuals... and are subjective.. as is "benefit".

something that's Most Beneficial for all is still Bad for the person who it's bad for.

and who's conception of what's beneficial should we use to discuss the benefit to each party discussed???? their own??

that's some tricky comparisons...

first of all... i already said i am not a utilitarian. so hush.

second... not dying will have a huge impact on the course of the starving man's life. having 9 loaves of bread instead of 10 is not likely to make much of a difference to the other guy. while there are certainly cases where interpersonal comparisons of utility are inappropriate, this is not one of those cases. generally the larger the disparity between the two individuals, the more appropriate the comparison is. this is NOT to say that the most moral thing is to give the bread to the guy who benefits most from it. completely seperate issue on which i have not taken a stand. just to say that you would have to be a braindead idiot not to agree that the dying guy would benefit from it more. or willfully ignorant because you've been brainwashed by rothbard et al :D
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2011 4:26:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Thats wher I was saying give, and what they do with it is their concern. I mean, if there is a guy asking for money to eat in front of a liqour store, than I can understand, just use perspective.:

Not all of them are stupid enough to ask for money right in front of a liquor store. I try to use little clues. A woman was panhandling on a Boston intersection about a week ago. I noticed her teeth were rotting out of her head. She had a sign talking about feeding babies and all that, but my first reaction was that she was full of sh*t and was a meth head. I gave her the benefit of the doubt despite it and handed her about $2 in change.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2011 4:30:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/23/2011 4:17:00 PM, belle wrote:
starving guy benefits from getting your bread

Ghandi!

I Win
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."