Solutions to World-Wide Poverty?

[Vendetta21]

Re: Solutions to World-Wide Poverty?

Vendetta: Ever study the social effects of the industrial revolution? Suicide rates soared, at least in England. And yet job prospects of working in a factory within countries undergoing industrialization were what drew people to live in ****-holes of cities. My own romantic view of the past, perhaps, but I've learned facts to back this up. But again, I don't even need this. People like nature. People vacation in the wilderness, along beaches, and take pictures of sunsets because they like them and are drawn to them. Oh, there's also the suspiciousness of current staggering rates of depression in the developed world too. Don't get me wrong though, I'm no luddite. I wouldn't be sitting here, talking on the internet from my home computer if I were. I do imagine how nice it'd be to be able to own a small farm and actually make enough money to not live in poverty. That's the extent of it.

When I've written my posts, I've generally been thinking of poverty within North America, and I doubt that you can say that our lifestyle has been fully embraced by everyone. And what I was trying to say is that rich people DO force certain life choices on those who aren't rich enough to resist, and make other choices an impossibility. You laugh that no one forces jungle-faring tribes to work in factories only because the possibility to have such a lifestyle in North America is so far gone you failed to even think (probably) about it.

I understand that generally people will plop down jobs where they're wanted, but that in no way fixes or helps poverty when those are dead-end jobs.

So it's that you want things to be your way based on your belief that people like nature, and you would prefer to not use industrialization so people can get real food instead of sifting through garbage? What about the fact that people living in poverty overwhelming want the crap lifestyle of America? You may want people to live in some romantic naturalistic culture, but unfortunately most of the world wants American garbage, and I'm about free-choice over forced individual Platonism, and I'm not trying to judge American garbage, I'm just trying to give people who are struggling a choice between two alternatives. Do you believe people choose things within their best interests?

I understand the effects of industrialization, sir, but I also know that industrialization is a stepping-stone for cultures. China went through and is going through huge industrialization, but they are trying to move forward from that. They implemented a universal health care system last week. People are willing to submit to industrialization, by their own choice, because they are willing to sacrifice for what they believe is a better future, and because life with food and water is better than life without, whichever way you slice it.

I honestly think you're arguing from some Platonic seperation of reality in your head, sir. And I'm not trying to be mean, I'm just trying to be honest. I would wholeheartedly suggest you watch some documentaries about what it's like to live in other places in the world, and maybe take some classes on other cultures, or maybe read or listen to a world news service. When you understand what goes on in the developing world, everything in your heart and mind can't help but be wrenched into a horrible knot as you sit there on the couch and tears well up in your eyes from the portrayal that has been given you from Anderson Cooper or Ken Burns or some other person. And it's not as important how these situations arose in the world as it is important that you get rid of them. It's about real, plausible solutions, not about getting angry at the ways of the world but having empathy for your fellow human.

I have thought about this. I think about this a lot. I'm going into development and foreign aid as a career (which is why this is such a pet subject for me), and one thing I know for sure is that wherever I will go in the world, my skills will be in demand, because most people in the world want better things, they want the 21st century, they want a better life by their own terms.

[Cavernio]

Re: Solutions to World-Wide Poverty?

Ok...
I clearly don't want what's best for people. Also, I specifically implied and stated that "I want everyone to live 'naturalistically', and that this is best for everyone". This was made clear in my post when I said that the extent of what I'd like to be able to do is be able to own a farm and not live in poverty. I also have never taken an anthropolgy class, or have read, watched or heard any media that talks about people in third world countries. When I say that I was thinking about modern day North America and developed nations, I was actually talking about the third world countries, obviously. I also said that I'm against any industrialization or development, particularly for starving people, all because industrialization isn't perfect.

Unsarcastically now though, you said yourself that you thought you were getting a hint of a 'romantic view of the past'. My following post to that statement merely addressed something that you brought up. You railroaded yourself into into seeing what you think to be my philosophy.
You say "it's not as important how these situations arose in the world as it is important that you get rid of them." Solving solutions almost always involves understanding how they come to be. Otherwise the solution is usually just be a bandaid.
As long as when you develop and give foreign aid in your career you make sure you're not forcing yourself on others, all the power to you.

[Vendetta21]

Re: Solutions to World-Wide Poverty?

Ok... I clearly don't want what's best for people. Also, I specifically implied and stated that "I want everyone to live 'naturalistically', and that this is best for everyone". This was made clear in my post when I said that the extent of what I'd like to be able to do is be able to own a farm and not live in poverty. I also have never taken an anthropolgy class, or have read, watched or heard any media that talks about people in third world countries. When I say that I was thinking about modern day North America and developed nations, I was actually talking about the third world countries, obviously. I also said that I'm against any industrialization or development, particularly for starving people, all because industrialization isn't perfect.

I didn't say that you didn't want what's best for people, it's not a boolean operation. It's not black and white. It's not strictly positive and strictly negative. But you seem to have a set of terminal goals that are in conflict with each other, and while you think you know what's best for people, I think they know what's best for themselves better than I do, and that's why the core of my philosophy is choice. I cannot offer them unfettered existence in a naturalistic subsistence environment, and neither can the world. But what we can offer them is a job, and gradual improvements.

There are some tenets of the interventionist philosophy that are not based on choice, such as tyrannies, dictatorships, and insurgents that are ruthlessly killing others. We assume that the abuses of those in power are not the will of the people, even if the group has popular support, and we intervene. Now you can argue that this can been done well or it can be done poorly, and that is true. Our intervention in Iraq was a poor idea from a stability and well-being standpoint. Our intervention in other countries, such as Czechoslovakia, was a good idea.

Unsarcastically now though, you said yourself that you thought you were getting a hint of a 'romantic view of the past'. My following post to that statement merely addressed something that you brought up. You railroaded yourself into into seeing what you think to be my philosophy. You say "it's not as important how these situations arose in the world as it is important that you get rid of them."

My belief here is purely philosophical and evidence neither supports nor denies this belief, but I personally believe that history blackmails us. It tends to lead us to bad decisions because we act in a way that is "trying to make sure we don't repeat the mistakes of the past."

Using History as a standard is weak because our understanding of history is often not empirical but anecdotal. We have historical records of things from the 70s forward in businesses, who keep long backlogs of information to act on and analysis of that information, and I would call that empirical history: it's worth using because it's based on verifiable true evidence, and the contingents in the decisions in the past closely resemble the contingents now.

We also have a wealth of information on the Great Depression which is not evidential but anecdotal. We like to use the Great Depression as a model for understanding the pitfalls of every financial crisis and how to act in response to the crisis, but the problem is that our knowledge of the great depression is still limited in terms of the pertinent financial information, and it does not help us in solving our current financial crisis; it is anecdotal history. This is the problem with using anecdotal history to try to understand things. It's a straw man argument. The two cases often superficially resemble each other but the pertinent contingencies are completely different.

There are different ways to view the past, but I treat history as a potential data set, just like I treat conversation like a potential data set, and I treat the internet as a potential data set. Each of these sources has a chance of giving me good information and bad information, and all that is important is good information towards making the best decision. And where that information comes from doesn't matter, all that matters is that it is verifiable true information or that it is verifiable efficacious philosophy.

Solving solutions almost always involves understanding how they come to be. Otherwise the solution is usually just be a bandaid.

Solving problems is not about how they came to be but where the problem's root causes are. These two things superficially resemble each other but are entirely different. I don't need to know the History of the Congo to solve the problems in the Congo, I just need to know the pertinent social, economic, and political information and the root causes of the problems.

As long as when you develop and give foreign aid in your career you make sure you're not forcing yourself on others, all the power to you.

I'm not giving my services away, they are going to be bought. So you can be sure that this will never happen simply because of the way I do business.

I urge you to thumb through http://www.devex.com

It's Monster.com for development and foreign aid professionals. This is how most of the world's foreign aid is done: by professionals who are hired by the country or by firms in the country. Charity does not even come close to doing what development does. Charity is an issue of band-aids, not surgery. Development is not. I do not like charity because I think charity can make things worse, but I do like development and foreign aid, and the distinction here is the goals of the two things. Charity often solves a surface problem, like hunger or sickness, but often tends to feed into the causal problem. Development offers things that are not directly useful in solving the surface problem, like roads. People are more willing to give to something that solves hunger or sickness, which is why charity exists. Not many people are willing to give to road-builing, bank formation, police force stabilization, agriculture experts, and investors because they don't think this will solve the problem, but it seems to be the only way to solve it for good.

[Millerhead]

Re: Solutions to World-Wide Poverty?

It all has to start with the little ones. Teach the younger children if they want a change they need to use there voice. Their voice is very strong. As a little child I was thought to help anything and everything from a bug to a crying elder. I wanted a change and still do. See when you want to change something and tell someone about that change it is like a pandemic, it spreads so rapidly. But in this case of poverty in 3rd world countries or poverty period, people really don't get the full picture. I donate every chance i get. I don't like to see poor people on the streets or on the television. It hurts and i don't take things for granted.

[Shaydow]

Re: Solutions to World-Wide Poverty?

http://www.thevenusproject.com/resource_eco.htm

You can read about a recource based econemy, as well as many other wonderfull and inovative ideas presented in the Venus Project here.

There is more then enough food, and other needed resources needed for EVERYONE on this planet to be fed and housed. There are enough resources for everyone to have a computer, a phone, a car, an Iphone. I could go on, but this subject bothers me. Its is only the greed and ignorance of men that stops our society from leaving a monetary system based on scarcity, when there is in fact, thanks to modern technology THAT EXISTS TODAY, no scarcity left, but still the barter ( or money system ) still holds on as " needed ", just becuase one wants more then another, when there is more then enough for all.

[somethingillremember]

Re: Solutions to World-Wide Poverty?

This may be kind of a short answer, in my opinion, as a Christian, eradicating poverty is impossible. Jesus said in the bible "The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want." Mark 14:7 (there is also another part of this verse that will cause many arguments, but that's for another time)

Does this mean that we shouldn't try? No. Jesus does say that we can help them, and says that we should (see Luke 12:33).

[devonin]

Re: Solutions to World-Wide Poverty?

So what you're saying is that God has made "Keeping part of the population in abject poverty" part of His divine plan? For what purpose? To give the wealthy a chance to engage in some good acts? To give the poor a chance to suffer quietly?

It really sounds to me like you're saying "God has MADE it so there will ALWAYS be poor people" Pardon me if that sounds like a pretty crappy plan.

[Shaydow]

Re: Solutions to World-Wide Poverty?

This may be kind of a short answer, in my opinion, as a Christian, eradicating poverty is impossible. Jesus said in the bible "The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want." Mark 14:7 (there is also another part of this verse that will cause many arguments, but that's for another time)

Does this mean that we shouldn't try? No. Jesus does say that we can help them, and says that we should (see Luke 12:33).

So is it " God did it " or " Man did it " ?

I personally lean more towards man when presented with it like that.

Just a thought.

[somethingillremember]

Re: Solutions to World-Wide Poverty?

So what you're saying is that God has made "Keeping part of the population in abject poverty" part of His divine plan? For what purpose? To give the wealthy a chance to engage in some good acts? To give the poor a chance to suffer quietly?

It really sounds to me like you're saying "God has MADE it so there will ALWAYS be poor people" Pardon me if that sounds like a pretty crappy plan.

In Christian religion, God is all-knowing (I mean, come on, wouldn't it be kinda weird if God didn't know something?). It's more of a prophesy thing than a condemning thing. Like shaydow said, it's more of a "man did it" kinda thing, like, we brought this upon our own kind.

There was actually a debate on this that I saw. If I find it, I'll link it, but I'm not sure where I could find it.