To solve world problems

Moderator: Moderators

Posts: 233
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 6:57 pm


Post #1

Post by Wissing »

How can we alleviate poverty without causing harm in the process?

Posts: 233
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 6:57 pm

Post #41

Post by Wissing »

Frank (The Ethic of Nihilism. Section III. Prgph 2-3):
"If the universe is chaos and is determined only by blind material forces, then how is it possible to hope that historical development will inevitably lead to the reign of reason...?
... the roots of this "theory of progress" go back to Rousseau and the rationalistic optimism of the eighteenth century.... Contemporary social optimism... is convinced that.... the natural conditions for human happiness are always at hand; all that is needed to inaugurate the reign of earthly paradise is to do away with the injustice of the oppressors and the incomprehensible stupidity of the oppressed majority"

Frank goes to great length describing the roots of atheistic moralism, the reality of its practice, and the consequences when applied broadly. He witnessed the problem first hand because he was part of the movement. If you're interested in seeing how good people, with good intentions, but devoid of faith in God, can unwittingly harm the society they so passionately seek to improve, it's worth reading the rest of the article. It can be found in a collection called Vekhi.

But I ask again, what control does one have over the state of his own heart?

Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2014 7:46 am
Location: Malaysia

Re: Poverty

Post #42

Post by this-gospel »

[Replying to post 1 by Wissing]

Hi all! I am not an expert. Please bear with me.

What cause the population boom in India and China? Was it not the result of trying to eradicate poverty?
And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. (Matt 24:14)




Posts: 233
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 6:57 pm

Re: Poverty

Post #43

Post by Wissing »

[Replying to post 42 by this-gospel]

I am not an expert either. It is possible that the 'eradication of poverty' idea has caused some pretty bad stuff, but I doubt it's a significant player in the population growth of India or China. But who knows! Care to look into it?

Box Whatbox
Posts: 239
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2015 1:57 pm
Location: UK

Re: Poverty

Post #44

Post by Box Whatbox »

[Replying to post 42 by this-gospel]
Poverty, ignorance and over-population feed into each other, in a vicious circle.

Almost all modern sociological research indicates that populations slow their rate of growth if the following 3 conditions are present:
1: Increased survival rates for infants. (mainly achieved through vaccination, better medical support, clean water, sanitation.)
This seems at first glance counter-intuitive; if more babies survive into adulthood, wouldn't that increase the population? Yes, briefly, it does. And then that reverses. Here's how.
Children are costly to feed and care for. (In time and resources, not just money.) Most families do not want to have more children than they can feed, but often (in areas of particular deprivation) your children are the only ones who are going to look after you when you are old. Where there is an expectation that a lot of them will die before they are 5 years old, there is a motive to have more children than you can feed. Remove that danger, and one motive for having a lot of children is also removed.

2: Freely available education for girls as well as boys.
All evidence shows that girls who have had some education go on to have fewer children than uneducated girls in the same social group.

3: Empowerment of women
Women who are empowered to make their own reproductive choices (for example 'western', educated, middle-class women) tend to have about 2 or 3 children on average. This leads to a stable, or slowly falling, population. One factor severely limiting the power of women to make their own reproductive choices, world-wide, is religion.

Populations will fall if all three of the above conditions are present, but usually not otherwise.

User avatar
Posts: 616
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2015 4:56 am
Location: (nowhere you probaly heard of) Saskatchewan, Canada

Post #45

Post by Excubis »

Well in my own view being at one time a homeless drug addict , I feel there is too much enabling to many who are not put there by causes outside of themselves but a reaction to past trauma's. I am of course speaking from a Canadian perspective since I am Canadian. I myself went through abuse on a significant level, I left home when I was 14 and have been on my own since. One problem I encountered as a homeless youth was I could not stay at shelters cause of fear of being either sent home or put into the "system". Fear is a crippling way to live and us as a society seem to forget even a 14 year old may know what's best for him/herself. The view that age is relevant in understanding of one's self and what's best is very new within the timeline of human history.

I stayed in that life until I was 25, I have spent several years incarcerated in multiple institutions. I at one time in Calgary AB. Canada could eat a minimum of 4 meals a day, 8 on Sundays. Church, Sunday meals were the best yumm, yumm. I had access to free clothes, places to sleep, with out ever having to accept I was in control and my own choices kept me there. I was fortunate and developed facial hair at 14 and by 15 could easily pass my self off as 18, so my days sleeping on the street was short compared to others.

Now I am not against helping in any way but giving freely to individuals who have the capability to change but don't only enables many. After a strong desire to have a life beyond what I was living came accountability to myself, and therefore I changed. I took my full 12, went to University, and have become for myself successful. One thing most will not accept in that in order for have's to exist there has to be have not's. I am not saying this for the middle class but the rich. It is not mathematically possible for everyone to be rich there just isn't enough money in the world.

I feel so long as our social paradigms are based on a free market, capitalistic way poverty will not only occur but will grow. The idea that anyone can be rich is wrong, or you can become anything you want is wrong. Now many will say bull, look at yourself, well I am fortunate, I had the ability to do what I've done not all do. Yes it took work but when I was a crack dealer that was way more work, it honestly was. We need to be realistic and come together as a world species not separated by creed or religion and base our values of dignity and understanding, not personal gain or ideology. What is good for you is beneficial for me as well.

We have been driven to buy into a dream of wealth, yet the wealth gap grows every year, we give more power to corporations who are driven by profit, workers rights are being lessened everyday, to substantiate that it's non government involvement that drives progress. Yes in consumer goods ie. Iphone,T.V.'s, ect... but as far as social progress no. When did we forget WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT, not the government being this ruling body over us. We have a choice to accept what is told to us or openly question this.

Take Iceland, I am amazed at there system and what they have done, here is an article on such http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/08/ ... wrong.html. Then check the unemployment rate and welfare stats which are very high yet quality of life is ranked (9th in the world. According to a free market, competition based paradigm this should not be. Well I and many feel it is cause they understand giving up a little as an individuals helps their entire society. it amazes me that economist (mainly American) have said this is nothing short of communism bah I've been there nothing like that at all.

Also,most are totally unaware that ancient Greece and Rome were welfare states. Yes they had elites but shared food and housing, free of currency for these basic needs for survival. These cultures existed for 1000 + years. This was the basis of their success and our western way is only a drop in the bucket, in human history.

So it is in my view as long as we abide by the competition, capitalistic economy poverty will never cease, only grow until either people take back control based on higher social awareness than individual wealth, or once it gets bad enough for rebellion but then dictatorship/fascist regimens come in to power. How long before USA has to raise their borrowing level yet again. Think don't propagate passed down answers, ask the question and find your own. Economics isn't complicated, it's simple made to be complicated so we just tow the line.

Post Reply