Total Posts:57|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is it possible to end hunger?

Lickdafoot
Posts: 5,599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 1:20:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Is it possible to live in a world, or even a country, where no one went homeless or hungry?

What would it take? What societal and economical laws would need to be in place?

Can you conceive of any governmental system which would be so infallible as to not be penetrated by the corruption of human kind? One that could prioritize food and shelter to the masses? Or would there have to be a radical change in the nature of human kind for this issue to ever be resolved?

Do you feel as though every person has a RIGHT to food and shelter, or is this something that has to be earned? If it is a right, why did you grow up in a house and the kid down the street did not?

Let's hear your ideas. GO!
WAKE UP AND READ THIS: http://www.debate.org...
imabench
Posts: 21,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 1:27:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/21/2012 1:20:20 PM, Lickdafoot wrote:
Is it possible to live in a world, or even a country, where no one went homeless or hungry?

What would it take? What societal and economical laws would need to be in place?

Can you conceive of any governmental system which would be so infallible as to not be penetrated by the corruption of human kind? One that could prioritize food and shelter to the masses? Or would there have to be a radical change in the nature of human kind for this issue to ever be resolved?

Do you feel as though every person has a RIGHT to food and shelter, or is this something that has to be earned? If it is a right, why did you grow up in a house and the kid down the street did not?

Let's hear your ideas. GO!

Remove homeless and hunger from the dictionary, along with all other similar words. Then technically we would end hunger

I win
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 1:36:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
No special government system is necessary.

We currently produce much more food than is needed to feed the world. We just happen to throw it all away.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 1:39:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/21/2012 1:20:20 PM, Lickdafoot wrote:
Is it possible to live in a world, or even a country, where no one went homeless or hungry?

What would it take? What societal and economical laws would need to be in place?

Can you conceive of any governmental system which would be so infallible as to not be penetrated by the corruption of human kind? One that could prioritize food and shelter to the masses? Or would there have to be a radical change in the nature of human kind for this issue to ever be resolved?

Do you feel as though every person has a RIGHT to food and shelter, or is this something that has to be earned? If it is a right, why did you grow up in a house and the kid down the street did not?

Let's hear your ideas. GO!

More seriously though, the answer is no. If we have sufficient food (and water) then the human population will grow. It will continue to grow until there is no longer sufficient food (and water) to sustain it.

Consider: we already don't have sufficient food (or water) or, at least, sufficient access to food (or water) on a universal level, but that doesn't stop there from being positive population growth.

The only way to combat this would to, somehow, ensure that our growth rate doesn't exceed that of our food (and water) source. But we can't ensure that because you eventually run into an issue of there not being enough physical space to provide both: A) a space for people to exist AND B) a space for food to grow.
Lickdafoot
Posts: 5,599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 1:48:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/21/2012 1:39:08 PM, drafterman wrote:

More seriously though, the answer is no. If we have sufficient food (and water) then the human population will grow. It will continue to grow until there is no longer sufficient food (and water) to sustain it.

Consider: we already don't have sufficient food (or water) or, at least, sufficient access to food (or water) on a universal level, but that doesn't stop there from being positive population growth.

The only way to combat this would to, somehow, ensure that our growth rate doesn't exceed that of our food (and water) source. But we can't ensure that because you eventually run into an issue of there not being enough physical space to provide both: A) a space for people to exist AND B) a space for food to grow.

enter natural catastrophes and plagues.

I don't believe population control is a sufficient answer to starving people. The two are not mutually exclusive. Our population continues to grow and we have wars. That doesn't make war the answer to population control. Hitler :P
WAKE UP AND READ THIS: http://www.debate.org...
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 1:50:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/21/2012 1:48:51 PM, Lickdafoot wrote:
At 3/21/2012 1:39:08 PM, drafterman wrote:

More seriously though, the answer is no. If we have sufficient food (and water) then the human population will grow. It will continue to grow until there is no longer sufficient food (and water) to sustain it.

Consider: we already don't have sufficient food (or water) or, at least, sufficient access to food (or water) on a universal level, but that doesn't stop there from being positive population growth.

The only way to combat this would to, somehow, ensure that our growth rate doesn't exceed that of our food (and water) source. But we can't ensure that because you eventually run into an issue of there not being enough physical space to provide both: A) a space for people to exist AND B) a space for food to grow.

enter natural catastrophes and plagues.

I don't believe population control is a sufficient answer to starving people. The two are not mutually exclusive. Our population continues to grow and we have wars. That doesn't make war the answer to population control. Hitler :P

I agree that it is not a sufficient answer. It is, however, a necessary answer.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Lickdafoot
Posts: 5,599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 1:53:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/21/2012 1:36:34 PM, FREEDO wrote:
No special government system is necessary.

We currently produce much more food than is needed to feed the world. We just happen to throw it all away.

And this is where societal laws could spark some fire under our @sses.

what is more important - our individual right to buy food or the universal right for food to be spread to those who need it? USA is a very individualistic country and much of that does fall back on our governmental system.
WAKE UP AND READ THIS: http://www.debate.org...
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 2:12:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Inequality in a market society is natural.

World poverty as we understand see it is a result of some parts of the world never undergoing the neolithic agricultural revolution. They're starving because they never learned to farm right, something I believe they probably never will learn if left to their own devices. As a classical liberal I'm compelled to be opposed to interventionism but I find that poverty is areas which are before civilisation, before contemporary economics, require forced civilisation. I'm talking large government land nationalisation and mass industry and construction for a great leap forward. This is the only feasible way you can modernise countries where the typical citizen lived as his ancestor did in 1200 AD. I say this because as they are now they live in a anarchy (no government buildings for miles, no taxes, no formal property), it doesn't get any free-er than that. Even if property was defended by rule of law (libertarian minarchy) these areas wouldn't develop because they are pre-civilisation.

Poverty in wealthy countries is the result of being an inefficient individual. You are either unwilling or willing to work. If you are unwilling you're are lazy, if you're willing you have no skills anyone wants. It's that simple, both are problems of the individual.

Then we have the problem of those unable to work, the disabled, whose who cannot cater to their own welfare.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 2:20:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/21/2012 1:53:40 PM, Lickdafoot wrote:
At 3/21/2012 1:36:34 PM, FREEDO wrote:
No special government system is necessary.

We currently produce much more food than is needed to feed the world. We just happen to throw it all away.

And this is where societal laws could spark some fire under our @sses.

what is more important - our individual right to buy food or the universal right for food to be spread to those who need it? USA is a very individualistic country and much of that does fall back on our governmental system.
There is no such thing as a right to someone else's property. If it begins to caste humans into sets (the owning, the unowning) it ceases to be a right; rights must be universally applicable in nature. If you want to enforce income redistribution with central government, try communism but even then it would an entitlement not a right.

---------------
from Ronald Reagan, A Time for Choosing -- 27 October 1964

We have so many people who can't see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. So they're going to solve all the problems of human misery through government and government planning. Well, now, if government planning and welfare had the answer -- and they've had almost 30 years of it -- shouldn't we expect government to read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn't they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? The reduction in the need for public housing?

But the reverse is true. Each year the need grows greater; the program grows greater. We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry each night. Well that was probably true. They were all on a diet. But now we're told that 9.3 million families in this country are poverty-stricken on the basis of earning less than 3,000 dollars a year. Welfare spending [is] 10 times greater than in the dark depths of the Depression. We're spending 45 billion dollars on welfare. Now do a little arithmetic, and you'll find that if we divided the 45 billion dollars up equally among those 9 million poor families, we'd be able to give each family 4,600 dollars a year. And this added to their present income should eliminate poverty. Direct aid to the poor, however, is only running only about 600 dollars per family. It would seem that someplace there must be some overhead.

Now -- so now we declare "war on poverty," or "You, too, can be a Bobby Baker." Now do they honestly expect us to believe that if we add 1 billion dollars to the 45 billion we're spending, one more program to the 30-odd we have -- and remember, this new program doesn't replace any, it just duplicates existing programs -- do they believe that poverty is suddenly going to disappear by magic?
'sup DDO -- july 2013
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 2:22:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/21/2012 1:50:44 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 3/21/2012 1:48:51 PM, Lickdafoot wrote:
At 3/21/2012 1:39:08 PM, drafterman wrote:

More seriously though, the answer is no. If we have sufficient food (and water) then the human population will grow. It will continue to grow until there is no longer sufficient food (and water) to sustain it.

Consider: we already don't have sufficient food (or water) or, at least, sufficient access to food (or water) on a universal level, but that doesn't stop there from being positive population growth.

The only way to combat this would to, somehow, ensure that our growth rate doesn't exceed that of our food (and water) source. But we can't ensure that because you eventually run into an issue of there not being enough physical space to provide both: A) a space for people to exist AND B) a space for food to grow.

enter natural catastrophes and plagues.

I don't believe population control is a sufficient answer to starving people. The two are not mutually exclusive. Our population continues to grow and we have wars. That doesn't make war the answer to population control. Hitler :P

I agree that it is not a sufficient answer. It is, however, a necessary answer.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

were not even overpopulated....
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 2:23:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/21/2012 2:22:03 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 3/21/2012 1:50:44 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 3/21/2012 1:48:51 PM, Lickdafoot wrote:
At 3/21/2012 1:39:08 PM, drafterman wrote:

More seriously though, the answer is no. If we have sufficient food (and water) then the human population will grow. It will continue to grow until there is no longer sufficient food (and water) to sustain it.

Consider: we already don't have sufficient food (or water) or, at least, sufficient access to food (or water) on a universal level, but that doesn't stop there from being positive population growth.

The only way to combat this would to, somehow, ensure that our growth rate doesn't exceed that of our food (and water) source. But we can't ensure that because you eventually run into an issue of there not being enough physical space to provide both: A) a space for people to exist AND B) a space for food to grow.

enter natural catastrophes and plagues.

I don't believe population control is a sufficient answer to starving people. The two are not mutually exclusive. Our population continues to grow and we have wars. That doesn't make war the answer to population control. Hitler :P

I agree that it is not a sufficient answer. It is, however, a necessary answer.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

we're not even overpopulated....
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 2:36:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/21/2012 1:20:20 PM, Lickdafoot wrote:
Is it possible to live in a world, or even a country, where no one went homeless or hungry?

What would it take? What societal and economical laws would need to be in place?

Can you conceive of any governmental system which would be so infallible as to not be penetrated by the corruption of human kind? One that could prioritize food and shelter to the masses? Or would there have to be a radical change in the nature of human kind for this issue to ever be resolved?

Do you feel as though every person has a RIGHT to food and shelter, or is this something that has to be earned? If it is a right, why did you grow up in a house and the kid down the street did not?

Let's hear your ideas. GO!

Mirza literally said in the country in which he lives (I think it's Denmark), which happens to socialist, poverty doesn't exist.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 2:39:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
We are not overpopulated, some poorer countries are. Take the Somali famine for instance, there's not enough food to go round but if you took a but a fraction of the USA's surplus consumption there would be no problem.

Of course redistribution is an absurdity that just makes problems worse (even more people); this is why Oxfam doesn't do food aid any more.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 2:43:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
"Overpopulation" is a matter of perspective. The question is whether society would be better off with more or less people from wherever we are at. And the answer is that less people always equals less points of wealth division.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 2:47:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/21/2012 1:20:20 PM, Lickdafoot wrote:
Is it possible to live in a world, or even a country, where no one went homeless or hungry?

What would it take? What societal and economical laws would need to be in place?

Can you conceive of any governmental system which would be so infallible as to not be penetrated by the corruption of human kind? One that could prioritize food and shelter to the masses? Or would there have to be a radical change in the nature of human kind for this issue to ever be resolved?

Do you feel as though every person has a RIGHT to food and shelter, or is this something that has to be earned? If it is a right, why did you grow up in a house and the kid down the street did not?

Let's hear your ideas. GO!

It's impossible because some people will always be lazy. And I'm NOT beating on laziness. Laziness is a virtue and one should aspire to it.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 3:06:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/21/2012 1:20:20 PM, Lickdafoot wrote:
Is it possible to live in a world, or even a country, where no one went homeless or hungry?:

Nope.

Can you conceive of any governmental system which would be so infallible as to not be penetrated by the corruption of human kind? One that could prioritize food and shelter to the masses? Or would there have to be a radical change in the nature of human kind for this issue to ever be resolved?:

If it could be done, it would be done. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

Do you feel as though every person has a RIGHT to food and shelter, or is this something that has to be earned?:

Is there a single animal on planet earth that had a "right" to anything? You either survive or you don't, and to think that humans would be the sole exception would be silly and illogical.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 3:07:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Remove homeless and hunger from the dictionary, along with all other similar words. Then technically we would end hunger

I win:

You have just earned 10 internetz
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Lickdafoot
Posts: 5,599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 3:07:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/21/2012 2:47:02 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/21/2012 1:20:20 PM, Lickdafoot wrote:
Is it possible to live in a world, or even a country, where no one went homeless or hungry?

What would it take? What societal and economical laws would need to be in place?

Can you conceive of any governmental system which would be so infallible as to not be penetrated by the corruption of human kind? One that could prioritize food and shelter to the masses? Or would there have to be a radical change in the nature of human kind for this issue to ever be resolved?

Do you feel as though every person has a RIGHT to food and shelter, or is this something that has to be earned? If it is a right, why did you grow up in a house and the kid down the street did not?

Let's hear your ideas. GO!

It's impossible because some people will always be lazy. And I'm NOT beating on laziness. Laziness is a virtue and one should aspire to it.

whaaaa? Laziness is NOT a virtue. lol. I battle with laziness all the time. It's an inhibitor. It's a comfort zone. Why should someone strive towards that?
WAKE UP AND READ THIS: http://www.debate.org...
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 3:13:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/21/2012 3:07:50 PM, Lickdafoot wrote:
At 3/21/2012 2:47:02 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/21/2012 1:20:20 PM, Lickdafoot wrote:
Is it possible to live in a world, or even a country, where no one went homeless or hungry?

What would it take? What societal and economical laws would need to be in place?

Can you conceive of any governmental system which would be so infallible as to not be penetrated by the corruption of human kind? One that could prioritize food and shelter to the masses? Or would there have to be a radical change in the nature of human kind for this issue to ever be resolved?

Do you feel as though every person has a RIGHT to food and shelter, or is this something that has to be earned? If it is a right, why did you grow up in a house and the kid down the street did not?

Let's hear your ideas. GO!

It's impossible because some people will always be lazy. And I'm NOT beating on laziness. Laziness is a virtue and one should aspire to it.

whaaaa? Laziness is NOT a virtue. lol. I battle with laziness all the time. It's an inhibitor. It's a comfort zone. Why should someone strive towards that?

Give it some thought :)
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 3:14:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/21/2012 1:36:34 PM, FREEDO wrote:
No special government system is necessary.

We currently produce much more food than is needed to feed the world. We just happen to throw it all away.:

Costs vasts sums of money, time, and personnel to transport goods to every corner of the globe and to coordinate couriers that could dispense it equally, would be epic. And by epic, I mean, implausible to the point of being nearly impossible.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 3:16:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/21/2012 3:14:00 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 3/21/2012 1:36:34 PM, FREEDO wrote:
No special government system is necessary.

We currently produce much more food than is needed to feed the world. We just happen to throw it all away.:

Costs vasts sums of money, time, and personnel to transport goods to every corner of the globe and to coordinate couriers that could dispense it equally, would be epic. And by epic, I mean, implausible to the point of being nearly impossible.

Well, frankly, I don't see how that makes any sense in the slightest.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Lickdafoot
Posts: 5,599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 3:17:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/21/2012 2:36:37 PM, Ren wrote:
At 3/21/2012 1:20:20 PM, Lickdafoot wrote:
Is it possible to live in a world, or even a country, where no one went homeless or hungry?

What would it take? What societal and economical laws would need to be in place?

Can you conceive of any governmental system which would be so infallible as to not be penetrated by the corruption of human kind? One that could prioritize food and shelter to the masses? Or would there have to be a radical change in the nature of human kind for this issue to ever be resolved?

Do you feel as though every person has a RIGHT to food and shelter, or is this something that has to be earned? If it is a right, why did you grow up in a house and the kid down the street did not?

Let's hear your ideas. GO!

Mirza literally said in the country in which he lives (I think it's Denmark), which happens to socialist, poverty doesn't exist.

interesting.

Roosevelt wanted to pass a 2nd bill of rights that allowed everyone to have free health care, food supply, and affordable homes. Wonder what usa would be like if it had passed before he died....
WAKE UP AND READ THIS: http://www.debate.org...
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 3:17:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
what is more important - our individual right to buy food or the universal right for food to be spread to those who need it?:
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Lickdafoot
Posts: 5,599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 3:19:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/21/2012 2:12:23 PM, Zetsubou wrote:


Poverty in wealthy countries is the result of being an inefficient individual. You are either unwilling or willing to work. If you are unwilling you're are lazy, if you're willing you have no skills anyone wants. It's that simple, both are problems of the individual.

Then we have the problem of those unable to work, the disabled, whose who cannot cater to their own welfare.

That's not necessarily true :\ Some people are willing to work but don't have the opportunity to.
WAKE UP AND READ THIS: http://www.debate.org...
Lickdafoot
Posts: 5,599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 3:21:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/21/2012 3:13:10 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/21/2012 3:07:50 PM, Lickdafoot wrote:
At 3/21/2012 2:47:02 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/21/2012 1:20:20 PM, Lickdafoot wrote:
Is it possible to live in a world, or even a country, where no one went homeless or hungry?

What would it take? What societal and economical laws would need to be in place?

Can you conceive of any governmental system which would be so infallible as to not be penetrated by the corruption of human kind? One that could prioritize food and shelter to the masses? Or would there have to be a radical change in the nature of human kind for this issue to ever be resolved?

Do you feel as though every person has a RIGHT to food and shelter, or is this something that has to be earned? If it is a right, why did you grow up in a house and the kid down the street did not?

Let's hear your ideas. GO!

It's impossible because some people will always be lazy. And I'm NOT beating on laziness. Laziness is a virtue and one should aspire to it.

whaaaa? Laziness is NOT a virtue. lol. I battle with laziness all the time. It's an inhibitor. It's a comfort zone. Why should someone strive towards that?

Give it some thought :)

nice way to avoid the question. Why don't you give it some thought? I obviously already did, hence the response.
WAKE UP AND READ THIS: http://www.debate.org...
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 3:23:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Problems with such questions boils down to definitions. Is a homeless person someone who doesn't have shelter for an unpredictable period of time, or is one who has no shelter until he gets his job in say, 5 months, also a homeless person? If we go by the strict definition where homeless means you have no shelter and have no idea when/if you'll get it, then I'd say that it's impossible to end this phenomena - for many reasons.

I did say that Denmark has no poverty, and this is true. Every person here is offered a guarantee for shelter and other basic needs. However, there are about 5,000 homeless people in Denmark. This isn't because of any poverty problem. There are weird cases like a homeless man I met for a project interview. I asked why he didn't accept an apartment offered by the government (he accepted money). His answer was that his dog has become his best friend, and he cannot have a dog with him in an apartment that the government offers him. So he chose to remain homeless.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 3:24:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/21/2012 3:16:47 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/21/2012 3:14:00 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 3/21/2012 1:36:34 PM, FREEDO wrote:
No special government system is necessary.

We currently produce much more food than is needed to feed the world. We just happen to throw it all away.:

Costs vasts sums of money, time, and personnel to transport goods to every corner of the globe and to coordinate couriers that could dispense it equally, would be epic. And by epic, I mean, implausible to the point of being nearly impossible.

Well, frankly, I don't see how that makes any sense in the slightest.:

How does that not make any sense? How do you think imports and exports get to and from places? Magic? Through fiber optic cables at the speed of light?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 3:25:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/21/2012 3:19:01 PM, Lickdafoot wrote:
At 3/21/2012 2:12:23 PM, Zetsubou wrote:


Poverty in wealthy countries is the result of being an inefficient individual. You are either unwilling or willing to work. If you are unwilling you're are lazy, if you're willing you have no skills anyone wants. It's that simple, both are problems of the individual.

Then we have the problem of those unable to work, the disabled, whose who cannot cater to their own welfare.

That's not necessarily true :\ Some people are willing to work but don't have the opportunity to.

At such statements, I always think about Socrates and the story about the drowning student.

Also, assorted proverbs, like "Where there's a will, there's a way".
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 3:30:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I did say that Denmark has no poverty, and this is true. Every person here is offered a guarantee for shelter and other basic needs. However, there are about 5,000 homeless people in Denmark. This isn't because of any poverty problem. There are weird cases like a homeless man I met for a project interview. I asked why he didn't accept an apartment offered by the government (he accepted money).:

So the government gives him money simply for gracing Danes with his presence? Awesome. I love the thought of busting my @ss and giving it to a sloth who folds his hands. And this is some people's sense of "fairness?" Absolutely mindboggling.

His answer was that his dog has become his best friend, and he cannot have a dog with him in an apartment that the government offers him. So he chose to remain homeless.:

A lot of homeless people do it on purpose; it's a low stress lifestyle.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)