are you saying that there is simply no way to improve the circumstances of these people, or that they're just not worth the effort because they refuse to help themselves?
I'm not saying that either is always the case, but that I have seen example of both. I also wouldn't want to agree with the phrase "not worth the effort". It's not that I think anyone's "not worth it" - it's that current methods simply aren't going to work all the time, no matter how much people's attitudes or resources change. The GP comment pointed out personality issues and upbringing, and I think that's spot-on - I don't think we yet understanding issues like that to really be effective at helping people overcome them, and there's certainly work to be done in that area. As I said - I continue my own charitable efforts, and I'm only saying that it's not just an issue of "boo, Silicon Valley, how could you let this happen?"
There is a part of the homeless population that will not stay in free housing, damages it when it's given to them, or is severely disruptive to neighbors, and refuses addiction treatment or returns to drugs immediately after leaving treatment. Improving the circumstances of these people is an unsolved problem, and one many consider not worth solving when these people actively resist all "solutions" offered to them.
> are you saying that there is simply no way to improve the circumstances of these people, or that they're just not worth the effort because they refuse to help themselves?
The issue is deeper than you're acknowledging. Evolution by natural selection works only because of perpetual shortage, and because nature doesn't waste anything. If we artificially remove any appearance of shortage, of a need to struggle, we remove the incentive to work. So we need to imitate nature at least in some respects. But that goal cannot be achieved if we "improve the circumstances" of everyone in need.
In short, if we try to fix the problem of poverty, we will make everyone poor. That's history's lesson.
> Congratulations, you've reinvented the eugenics movement.
Locate your evidence for this claim. I never suggested that there is a solution to poverty, in fact I clearly said the opposite. Eugenics is on the roster of ideas that society rightly rejects as a failed non-solution and a disaster, along with communism, socialism and a dozen others.
> I would have thought it was a little out of fashion in 2013, but I guess not.
Misrepresenting the views of others? No, you've proved that idea false.
Evolution of major behavioural features such as addiction is unlikely to happen in less than millions of years (some monkeys, millions of years of evolution away from us, demonstrate addiction to alcohol for example).
So your idea that we can make things harsh enough to kill off all the addicts / "defunct" people isn't actually going to work in any sane span of time.
It may be that through science we will understand what combinations of genes cause different behaviours, and select those at birth, but even that's not easy. Genes have incredibly complex expressions, with multiple genes responsible for one feature, and "good" and "bad" features interacting.
In short your solution is brutish and doesn't stand up to reason.
> So your idea that we can make things harsh enough to kill off all the addicts ...
You locate where I said or implied any such thing. If you can't locate the words you believe you are quoting, post your apology.
> It may be that through science we will understand what combinations of genes cause different behaviours, and select those at birth ...
Study history alongside science. What you have just suggested is called "eugenics" and it has a perfectly terrible history, one society doesn't want to see repeated.
> In short your solution is brutish ...
What solution are you dreaming about? I suggested no solution because there isn't one. Prove me wrong -- locate the words you believe you are addressing. And when you discover that you're posting a personal fantasy, apologize.
I love threads like this because it brings people like you out of the woodwork. It's like gazing into the abyss.
An appeal to nature (an untenable one at that) and a lack of understanding of scope on how natural selection works is just the beginning.
>If we artificially remove any appearance of shortage, of a need to struggle, we remove the incentive to work.So we need to imitate nature at least in some respects. But that goal cannot be achieved if we "improve the circumstances" of everyone in need.
Approaching this from a different perspective, it removes the need to do the bidding of others for sustenance. People don't, in general, want to fall to idlery. It opens an opportunity for organizations not solely fueled by the profit motive. The thing about society is that it doesn't necessarily have to model a romanticized return to natural order, especially when we have the ability to overcome obstacles like 'worrying about where next meal will come from' or 'having no clean water'. I will argue that today, we have the ability to eradicate the circumstances in which poverty develops either through minimum income initiatives or a more drastic change to how society is structured.
>In short, if we try to fix the problem of poverty, we will make everyone poor. That's history's lesson.
> I love threads like this because it brings people like you out of the woodwork. It's like gazing into the abyss.
No, it's like examining reality, something people do what they can to avoid. But don't take my word for it -- try to erase poverty. Tell me how it works out.
But you know what? It's been tried. The experiment failed. You need to study history as much as the idealistic outlook of some political scientists.
> I'd absolutely love for you to provide some examples from history.
No, you certainly wouldn't. The histories of communism and socialism will do, but you have to read them with an open mind, and avoid saying "but the circumstances weren't right," or "the right idea but the wrong people," and similar explanations.
If you argue in favor of equality of opportunity and the eradication of sexism and racism, you will find me alongside at the barricades in common cause. But if you argue in favor of equality of outcome, that's where we differ -- and history favors my outlook, not yours.
> An appeal to nature (an untenable one at that) and a lack of understanding of scope on how natural selection works is just the beginning.
You may know 10% of what I know about evolution by natural selection, unless I'm being generous. And no, we can't contradict nature in human society and get away with it.
> I will argue that today, we have the ability to eradicate the circumstances in which poverty develops ...
This is quite false, and your inexperience is showing. Clearly you have never sat down with a woman and said, "you really, really don't want to have this next child. -- you can't afford it, and society can't afford it." Also, who would want to be placed in such a position? Based on the sentence I quoted above, apparently you do.
If we can't control population, we can't control poverty. It's as simple as that, and no amount of pontificating will modify that statement about reality. But the population problem is easy to state but impossible to address in anything resembling a fair way, and governments are the least qualified candidates to be in charge of it, as history shows.
You need to face the fact that, barring unacceptable measures, measures no civilized people would accept, the problem of poverty is insoluble because the problem of population is insoluble. You don't seem to realize that to "eradicate the circumstances in which poverty develops", as you put it, one would have to abandon any pretense of civilized behavior. That means you haven't thought through your position.
“Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains.” -- Anonymous
Britain had no prominent Liberal Party in the Churchill days, so thanks for making your ignorance of history doubly (misquote and misspoken misquote) and triply (Malthusianism) obvious.
There ARE people who refuse to help themselves. They do exist. The only way you can believe to the contrary is because you haven't worked with the homeless. No amount of money can currently cure mental illness or drug addiction, or make people work if they don't want to work.
If someone chooses to be homeless (e.g. lower their responsibility until they are homeless), you can't really help that person stop being homeless until they decide that they no longer want to be homeless.
