the solution to poverty is only allowing those who can afford to, to reporduce. There are finite resources, people are living longer the population is growing. At some point there will be too many people. There's a reason deer herds are managed to control their population. Subsidizing people to live in the most inhospitable and almost lifeless places makes no sense.
The Solution To Poverty?
Posts
Total:
336
-->
@mustardness
All you are saying is socialism and wealth redistribution. Ya that just makes everyone poor.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Not to worry.
Mankind will probably be redundant soon.
In universal and evolutionary terms, the concept of poverty is meaningless.
All that matters is the fulfilment of our evolutionary purpose and it is only people with the ability to achieve this purpose that are important.
And we always make sure that these people are well looked after.
The actual question that people should be asking is whether the government has a duty to "solve" poverty. One could easily argue that the government has no obligation to the US people besides not violating their individual liberties. People will always fall into destitution regardless of government action through poor decisions, luck, or a mixture of both. The role of the government is to only promote the general welfare, not to provide every single person with help.
Also, what about population growth? Would every single person, regardless of age, be granted $1 million dollars? The World Population Clock estimates that every 8 seconds, someone is born (1). To me, this system does not seem sustainable. Moreover, the rising federal debt will only balloon further. This crowds out other public investment as interest becomes a large part of government spending (2).
I am not necessarily against an idea like this per se, but it needs to be well defined.
I am not necessarily against an idea like this per se, but it needs to be well defined.
-->
@sadolite
All you are saying is socialism and wealth redistribution. Ya that just makes everyone poor.
Ecology is social system of interelationships between biologicals/souls and the non-biological chemistry of environement.
All is connected and all has to be considered going forward.
Occupied space wealth is the finite set of resources of energy we have for Earth.
Ive been very clear what Ive beeen saying, yet like many others around here, you have difficulty addressing my comments as stated. Why is that?
Ego perhaps?
All-for-one and one-for-all or humanity is doomed and especially in a world where nukes, toxic chemical pollution and global warming is becoming more prevalent.
Sadolite, your and most others humans problems is they cannot see beyond the end of their nose i.e. so very narrow-minded aka closed-minded.
I understand this to some degree, as humans tend to hang-on to what they know via their culture teachings and those teachings come from past ways of living. Obviously to some, we cannot live the same ways we have in the past with this 7 billion people plus trying to have a grand cheorokee in a garage.
The american dream needs to evolve{ tranform } into the Earthian dream of sustainability on space-ship Earth.
If this does not happen then it is curtains for humanity. Did you live through the years of Mutually Assured Destruction{ MAD }?
Do you want to see and increase of nuclear weapons and nuclear plants? Bad combination in a world of increasing toxic pollutants and global warming.
-->
@mustardness
Maybe this will help. See, when you write three sentences that say nothing there is nothing to address. For instance "Ecology is social system of interelationships between biologicals/souls and the non-biological chemistry of environement.
All is connected and all has to be considered going forward.
Occupied space wealth is the finite set of resources of energy we have for Earth.
Ive been very clear what Ive beeen saying, yet like many others around here, you have difficulty addressing my comments as stated. Why is that?"
You think you are saying something insightful and intellectual. But you haven't said a damn word that even remotely could give cause to be addressed. It is blather. There is no cure for poverty, never has been never will be. Not being poor is a personal endeavor not a collective one. When one makes not being poor a collective endeavor it just makes everyone poor. I used to be dirt piss poor broke. I choose to endevor not to be poor, now I am not. I asked for no help and did it myself. I got rid of people of bad influence in my life and gave up what I thought were pleasures to not be poor. But in reality they were chains and shackles holding me down thus making me poor.
There are ways and paths that individuals can take for the individual to not be poor. There is no collective solution for everyone to not be poor. Poverty is an individual solution and can only work one person at a time and only works for those who endevor not to be poor.
-->
@sadolite
Worldwide poverty has already been solved because the population growth is rising.
When population flatlines or declines...then poverty will exist worldwide.
Localized poverty will always exist due to natural bell curves occurring everywhere in nature despite human involvement.
-->
@sadolite
Ive been very clear what Ive beeen saying, yet like many others around here, you have difficulty addressing my comments as stated. Why is that?"
So now you've reverted to repeating what Ive stated to you and many others around here. What is good for the goose is good for the gander also.
IVe been very clear what Ive been saying. So I repeat again, for the goose sadolite, please address the specifics of my comments as stated.
There is no cure for poverty, never has been never will be.
Huh? What have you been drinking. Non-deterministic quantum mechanical probabilities?
Poverty is an individual solution and can only work one person at a time and only works for those who endevor not to be poor.
Your confused dude. Most in poverty are born into poverty. Few choose to live and poverty. Try again.
Those who choose to get out of poverty have a frustrating pathway ahead of them. You want to believe it is a simple as get on a bus gus, no need to disscuss much, just step out the back Jack, and get yourself free --sung to Paul Simon song---.
Get real sadolite. As Ive stated in this thread and others, yes overall standard of living has risen world-wide relative to 100, 200, etc years ago.
Ex see people in jungles wearing synthetic Goodwill-type clothing, where 50 - 100 years ago most of these people would not have any clothes on much less those from a 1st world country.
What I consider rational, logical common sense you consider blather. This is an ego problem on your part, not mine.
Ecology is social system of interelationships between biologicals/souls and the non-biological chemistry of environment.
All is connected and all has to be considered going forward.
Occupied space wealth is the finite set of resources of energy we have for Earth.
When you want to have a rational, logical common sense disscussion with em, begin with addressing my comments as stated, not any false projections you or others may try and inject. Thx * i *
-->
@Greyparrot
Worldwide poverty has already been solved because the population growth is rising.
As you, I and others have been aware of stated previously. This is trickle-out effect of overall humanities burning of Earths occupied space resources.
Burning the humanities furniture to stay warm can only work so far,before we run out of furniture.
When population flatlines or declines...then poverty will exist worldwide.
Earth human population have never declined. At best we have rates of growth that have slowed. Higher standard of living generally has led to slower rates of growth, ---for differrent reasons-- but not always.
Localized poverty will always exist due to natural bell curves occurring everywhere in nature despite human involvement.
Is that a cosmic law/principle? You sound like Sadolite. Universe states clearly in the cosmic rule book that there must always exists poverty stricken people. Duhh, that sounds more like some kind of biblical non-sense.
Some people cannot see beyond their nose. Ex 200 - 400 years ago they could never envision there being a shortage of fish/whales in the huge oceans.
Some people cannot see beyond their armpit. Ex 150 years ago people who dreamed of going to the moon{ luna }
where called 'lunatics'.
where called 'lunatics'.
Some people have not faith in humanity to survive beyond another 500 - 1000 years. I fall into the catagory. Could I be in error?
Could humanity not only survive but continue to bring more of overall humanity into a higher standard of liviing? Yes that could happen.
Only time will tell.
-->
@mustardness
Is that a cosmic law/principle? You sound like Sadolite. Universe states clearly in the cosmic rule book that there must always exists poverty stricken people. Duhh, that sounds more like some kind of biblical non-sense.
Also, evolution would be impossible without variation and normal distributions. Hence, humans could not possibly exist without the bell curve.
You should study some basic math.
Normal distribution bad.
Math bad.
Orange man bad.
-->
@mustardness
Whatever you say. There are no poor people and they are not poor because of collectivism. You are the man. You should be master and ruler of the world. But with that said. Don't ever try and do anything to help me personally with your collective ideas, you will destroy my life.
-->
@Greyparrot
. Hence, humans could not possibly exist without the bell curve.
No one here denying bell curves. Since your confusion stems from ego --typical Trumpanzee ideolog-- blocgages to rational, logical common sense.
Have to repeat same stuff over and over. Please put aside your ego and read my lips/text as stated not as you and others so often like to misconstrue, obfusicate, etc.
>< = current dumb-bell/hour-clco growing differrentiation between rich and poor. Yes that is bad for humanity --irrespective of color your brain--. https://www.debate.org/Greyparrot/
<> = octahedral fat middle class with minimal poor and rich at each end.
Octahedron has 6 vetexial/nodal viewpoints * i *
.........* *........ 1 minimal rich standard of living viewpoint
* *--* *--* *--* * four mid-girth standard of living viewpoint
..........* *...... ..1 minimal poor standard of living viewpoint.
This simple visual { geometric } math, not complex formulae so if the ego is placed to the side even Orange-parrot { Super-Trumpanzee } should be able to grok it. I will put it in simple multiple choice for you and others.
[ No ]
[ Yes ]
One Heart { Earth }, One Love { fertilized egg }, Lets Get Together{ social network }, and Feel Alright { groovy }...Sung to Bob marley Song
We are never seperate { in isolation } from the ecological environment that sustains us.
Yes some biologicals/souls tend toward isolated living, ex. extra furry cats in high mountains if not most cats in general.
The exception is female lions. The males isolated.
This is another reason women will rule/manage the humanity otherwise humanity is doomed.
Fuller states in Critical Path that to see where we are headed, think of bow and arrow analogy or metaphor. The further back will pull the bow string of history, the further we can project the arrow forward into the future.
Of course the direction of the trajectory ---)-> is also one of the factors of this scenario.
Is our aim for all of humanity to make it, or just a few poor, middle or rich people to make it?
If we aim only vertical we will have the shortest distance and greatest chance of arrow hitting us in the head.
If aim towards the grown ---see M.A.Destruction--- sooner we end it all.
We want a nice{?} arc for longest distance forward.
-->
@sadolite
There are no poor people and they are not poor because of collectivism.
Flase projection. Please play fair.
You are the man.
Yes, Xy chromosomes with two external testes *Y*
Woman is internalized triangle with two ovaries /**\
Put these 2ndary symbolisms together we get a birds-eye-view of a tetra{4}hedron ergo man and woman together as the minimal structure of Universe \Y/
Reminds of cartoon once where we see two inuit indian eskimoes talking about how they are not a part of the rest of civilization and all their problems and then we see above them these little radio-active particles floating around.
We are all inherently part of a collective social system of biologicals/souls and the ecological environment that sustains them.
The problem arises in how do we manage the collective social network of relationships we find ourselves on Earth. We are in or entering the final test of human ability to survive on Earth because we entered a global phase some 300 or so years ago and the industrial age put that on age on steroids.
Now the digital age had put those global age into expoential drive. It is race to between;
1} our collective dumb, butt forward, into the future, or,
2} our collective mind forward into the future.
Within the collective whole set we have indidividuals who intentionally discover patterns and principles that they then apply techologically to helps us on our way. However, the chances of only one individual alone and independelty, to save humanity from doom is less likely to happen, then a collective group working toward the same goal.
It takes a village { community }. All for one and one for all is a must for humanity to survive. And that is spirtual/moral initiative to direct government.
-->
@mustardness
And finally it comes out "it takes a village" No it doesn't. It takes good parenting and the teaching of self reliance. Teaching children that village will take care of them breeds lazy complacency. Why work when you don't have to. The village will provide. And the village leader will carry a big stick and beat the shit out of anyone who complains about working their ass off and having his wealth confiscated by force while that guy sits on his ass.
-->
@sadolite
Wow, you have really gone off the deep end of "it takes a village". Historically what say is true, and Ive commented on that in this thread and many others over the years. Historically what unified a variouis tribes/nations/states/communitys of peoples occurred via strong hand violence.And the village leader will carry a big stick and beat the shit out of anyone who complains about working their ass off and having his wealth confiscated by force while that guy sits on his ass.
That is butt forward pathway into the future. Mind forward into the future will not use violence and will include the whole village aka Space-hsip Earth in its wholistic consideration.
You and others are so narrow minded you cannot think outside of the historical box of violence and see a brave new Space-ship Earth of all-for-one and one-for-all.
How to make the world work with least amount of human suffering and environmental degradation. Humanity has to more and more think this way or it is curtains for humanity.
Your suggestions of violence is historically stupid and more so in world with nuclear weapons. Duhh!
people are born into poverty and also escape it, but how and why are they able to do that when others can't? In the U.S. poverty doesn't have to be a permanent state otherwise there wouldn't be the success stories we hear about. There's numerous legal immigrants coming to the U.S. with nothing, working hard, starting a business, supporting their family and their children continue the success often going to college and doing well. There is no solution to poverty if people don't have the drive to not be poor. Entitlements and society has made being poor comfortable, no big deal. Without work ethic and self worth they are doomed to live that life. The family traits seen in other cultures help their children and generations to be successful. Asians and Indians out preform all others even when they start out with absolutely nothing. They have solved the problem for poverty for their own and others can as well, if they choose to.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Most Asian and Indian have not solved issues of poverty. You are in error/mistaken.Asians and Indians out preform all others even when they start out with absolutely nothing. They have solved the problem for poverty for their own and others can as well, if they choose to....
Those two groups alone represent fair amount of humanity.
Obviously your perception of poverty is not synonymous{sp?} with mine.
No surprises, there, as that is what philosophers debate over. Words/terms and their meanings.
Poverty relative our individual nation and poverty relative all of humanity is going to have fair amount of variance.
If water is bad,-ex flint Michigan, India, their town, the next town over--- then it will take effort make finances flow to finding good water.
Clean water is so basic and how much of humanity does not have access to clean water?
Regulation are those who supposed to be paying attention that. If government is not overseeing then yes corporate need to step, in assist, not say regulation toward clean water is bad.
We teach children how to read, we need to clean affordable water for them.
Education, higher standard of livings help moderate the rate of humanities growth. Higher standard helps to keep the lights on ergo out of bed getting stuff done --communicating on the net--- ergo education via the net.
Emapthy not entropy. Syntropy for all and all for syntropy. Divided we fall. Biodiversity is complex ergo we need fast computers and educated people to help solve and save humanity from ignorance and a doomed ecological environment.
Seems to me that the higher standard of living the more voluntarily those people should be to have less children and get then they get all that much more for themselves. Power to the person and their own individual position of power.
The less powerful will inherit the nooks, crannies and cracks that trickle out the water ergo biological wealth, since we are 75% water.
Saw like a ten year genious girl who saw article in Scientific American regarding molecules of hydrogen and carbon. After much trial and errrow she invented relatively simple hand held too to tell if drinking water is safe to drink.
-->
@mustardness
I basically agree with what you said. There was no real definition or starting point on the subject. Water is a great example in it's importance and in some places scarcity of potable water. So then i will go back to what I said before because your example really bolsters population control due to the limited resource, water.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
To which I replied specifically. The higher the standarfd of living for a person the less off-spring they should have.So then i will go back to what I said before because your example really bolsters population control due to the limited resource, water.
You have yet to see this rational, logical conclusion.
Give poor more lights and they will spend less time in the bed. Duhh!
The wind is always blowing somewhere on the planet. Connect day and night sides of the planet so those winds on night side of planet can be shipping the electric power to the active sunny side of planet. We double the amount available to sunny side.
People with higher standard of living have easier access to birth control. Duhh!
The country or leaders and enjoin the greatest community of such believers will inherit spiritual hope of all for one and one for all far beyond that every seen on Earth. Imagine. Is it hard to do? See Earth as spiritual hope of our galaxy for we do not know if will ever occur here again.
Better to die trying than to not have tried at all. Better to have loved and lived than to have not loved and not live at all.
Better to die for life than to kill for it. It is the highest path ergo the hardest of higher teachings to attain.
We loose a part of our biological/soul when we become fire, to fight fire. Someone is likely to get burned in both scenarios.
-->
@mustardness
how do you raise standard of living to those who don't even have water? while you try to remedy that situation they will continue to have children they can't support as well as the area that can't support the current population. Is it possible to raise the standard of living fast enough to outpace their birth rate? Realistically, I don't think so. Both population control and raising the standard need to be done at the same time, otherwise you are just chasing your tail.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
China did that. The 1960 projections of global population by such and such a year was lowered from 10 billion, because of two reasons{ this was 15 or so years ago info };Both population control and raising the standard need to be done at the same time, otherwise you are just chasing your tail.
1} Chinas one child policy - --not still as strict now-- and,
2} AIDS/HIV in Africa.
I'm not against population control. I'm for humanity becoming educated on the issue and propositions to deal with.
You gave one or more and I gave one or more.
These are factors that need to be fed into a computer, as we do with complex global climate scenarios in future.
Fuller started the world game back in 60's. How to make the world work. Energy resources >< people resources.
All in moderation. That is why M.A.D was addressed by the 1990s and reduction of hydrogen bombs on Earth and 24 hr bombers in the sky.
-->
@mustardness
humanity becoming educated
this is the very core imo, this is how people become sell sufficient and responsible, handouts and entitlements as the primary source of "help" keeps people poor and dependent, teaching a man to fish is really the only true way to help.
-->
@mustardness
History proves in no uncertain terms that your approach to poverty has been tried dozens and dozens of times in dozens and dozens of countries throughout the world over hundreds and hundreds of years. And they all without exception failed and made people poorer and striped them of their freedoms. Venezuela is the most recent. A once prosperous country and within 7 years turned into a poverty stricken shit hole using your exact approch to sloving poverty. Robbing Peter to pay Paul or if you like socialism or if you like wealth redistribution which always leads to communism. Socialism is just a precursor to communism and the total eradication of human individuality. You serve the village you owe the village and you will bow to the village leader.
-->
@sadolite
But each new generation, ignorant of history and human nature, will try again.
Right now, they are fighting to bring it to America. We won't allow them.
-->
@sadolite
Your confused as per your usual as Ive offered no "approach" other than a spiritual/moral basis of one-for-all and all-for-one.History proves in no uncertain terms that your approach to poverty has been tried dozens and dozens of times in dozens and dozens of countries throughout the world over hundreds and hundreds of years.
And this is the basis for global humanity and the ecological environment that sustains them.
Your conclusions are all based on state/countries that are not and cannot be isolated from outside influences.
>< = dumb-bell approach of greater divides between rich and poor will only lead to demise of humanity.
<> = octahedral based fat middle class with least amount of poor and rich at two ending points.
Comparing Argentina to a global solution is kinda of short sighted aka narrow minded. Global problems require global solutions and global ways of thinking. Sorry Sadolite, you just dont seem to grasp the evolution of humanity is headed.
-->
@mustardness
I've offered no "approach" other than a spiritual/moral basis of one-for-all and all-for-one. Ya that's called socialism, try to comprehend the words that come out of your own mouth. You are saying the individual doesn't matter, the individual's efforts are not for the individual they are for the state which will distribute the individual's wealth to other people who have done nothing "All for one"= wealth redistribution "one for all" = You work for the state not yourself.
Ignorant people who refuse to look at history and advocate for socialism are like a mouse and a mouse trap , the mouse doesn't understand why the cheese is free.
-->
@sadolite
I've offered no "approach" other than a spiritual/moral basis of one-for-all and all-for-one. Ya that's called socialism, try to comprehend the words that come out of your own mouth.
You confusing "spiritual/moral" with the some political parties. Ive yet to see any political party based on/in "spiritual/moral". Your confused.
You are saying the individual doesn't matter, the individual's efforts are not for the individual they are for the state which will distribute the individual's wealth to other people who have done nothing "All for one"= wealth redistribution "one for all" = You work for the state not yourself.
You continually/repeatedly make false projections of my spiritual/moral intentions. This is 3rd time Ive asked you to play fair and you never respond to that or certainly never play fair. Why is that?
Ghandi stated those who believe spiritual has nothing to do with politics, know nothing about spirituality. I think you fall into this catagory.
All-for-one and one-for-all is spiritual/moral viewpoint to start from. A political party one possible resultant of such spiritual morality.
Nationalism in USA = white nationalism ergo racist bigoted, and that is what incompotent idio-ump and his Super-Trumpanzees { https://www.debate.org/Greyparrot/ } represent. Sad :--(
The french president had some comments about nationalism today, in rebuking the narccisstic{ self only } idio-ump/Trumpanzees.
If you believe capatilism is the answer to all of humanities problems your sadly mistaken.
Fuller once said that if all the governments of the world stop functioning, that humanity would manage to flow along fine without them.
I disagree wit Fuller on this point and others he has made. Humanity and governance will always go hand-n-hand.
Government is on the tail of the dragon capatilism, trying to steer if from behind. Well, that is how fish and cetacceans partially steer themselves, from behind.
-->
@mustardness
"You confusing "spiritual/moral" with the some political parties." EH no, I never once mentioned politics. I have been citing history and the failed attempts at collectivism throughout history. Just because you say anything about how it will work it never has and never will. You are doomed to repeat history.
-->
@sadolite
"You confusing "spiritual/moral" with the some political parties." EH no, I never once mentioned politics.
All governments inherently have politics, unless there authoritarian but even authocrats/athuortarians need a govenment of cronies to process the dictatorships polices{?}.
You believe pure capitalism only is the way forward for humanity into the future for longest sustainable future.
I believe spiritual/moral based governance is the way for humanities ongest term sustainable future.
I have been citing history and the failed attempts at collectivism throughout history.
Learn from history is one thing. Apply only history to new set of globalism and environmental circumstances affects how we apply what we have learned from history.
Your stuck in nation/state only history and not current with a evolving globally community of Earths all-for-one and one-for-all spiritual/moral way forward.
Just because you say anything about how it will work it never has and never will. You are doomed to repeat history.
Same goes for your "you say anything" about how it work. Oppinions are like belly buttons/navals, every human and mammal has one.
Humanity is doomed to repeat history of they keep operating on a purely nation/state attitude that is exclusive of some humans and inclusive only those of a specific color, class and financial status etc.
World War 1`and 2 was a war/battle of who is going to control worlds minerals and other precious resources on land and at sea.
Soviet Union lost cold war to capitalism from day one when they installed the Berlin wall. It just took years of isolationism for that to be expressed on global scale.
Now we have a new war of global humanity fighting against global humanity vs each human for themself type narccisstic, white nationlist, idio-ump/Super-Trumpanzee attitudes.
One-for-all and all-for-one is pathway forward with least amount of suffering for humanity.