Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    02 Oct '11 16:49
    Another topic resulting from some half-forgotten exposure to something or other.

    Are slums here forever? Or will there be none one day? Progress, modernization, human development, growth, increasing prosperity and all.
  2. 02 Oct '11 16:58
    Here in Helsinki you will be hard-pressed to find something resembling a "slum" according to any reasonable definition.
  3. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    02 Oct '11 16:59
    Seems to me that the poorest neighborhoods will always be called slums and so, given that there will always likely be some sort of wealth disparity, I'd say yes, there will always be slums.

    The slums of today would be the paradise of times past.
  4. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    02 Oct '11 21:41
    Slums are not necessary. They are a result of unregulated capitalism. They can be eliminated but there are powerful interests who do not want this to happen.
  5. Standard member yo its me
    watch the acid...
    02 Oct '11 22:02
    I hope not.
    But I can't see how they will end;
    From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibera
    'The project has also come under fire from urban planners who say that it risks repeating the mistakes of previous schemes, when poor families either shared two-room apartments with one or two other families in order to pay the rent, or sublet them to middle-class families and moved back into the slums.[18] Workers earning a minimum wage in Kenya make less than US$2 per day.[21] There is also controversy over the timing of the project, with the first phase, rehousing 7,500 people, being delayed by five years and one government official stating that if the project continues at the current pace it will take 1,178 years to complete.[19]'

    The rich love being rich, so the poor have to stay poor and it's all about money isn't it, it shouldn't be but it is.
  6. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    02 Oct '11 23:54
    Originally posted by sh76
    Seems to me that the poorest neighborhoods will always be called slums and so, given that there will always likely be some sort of wealth disparity, I'd say yes, there will always be slums.

    The slums of today would be the paradise of times past.
    Well, just to be clear, with the word "slums" I was not referring to "the poorest neighbourhoods", which has a much broader and relative meaning, and so when I alluded to the slums of the future in the OP I was not talking about a shift in the meaning or usage of the word "slums" but was talking about the kind of squalor and lack of amenities etc. etc. that we see in or on the outskirts of many major cities in the developing world.
  7. Subscriber kmax87
    You've got Kevin
    03 Oct '11 00:38
    Originally posted by FMF
    Well, just to be clear, with the word "slums" I was not referring to "the poorest neighbourhoods", which has a much broader and relative meaning, and so when I alluded to the slums of the future in the OP I was not talking about a shift in the meaning or usage of the word "slums" but was talking about the kind of squalor and lack of amenities etc. etc. that we see in or on the outskirts of many major cities in the developing world.
    In the countries that embrace a form of social democracy slums are rare. If the long term evolution of globalisation is a tendency towards normalised expectations of a world wide civil society that includes the rights, independence and well being of everyone under an internationally agreed charter of human rights and internationally recognised common law, then, I would give an unqualified no to your proposition. Slums will eventually go the way of the dodo, when the idea of human society eventually asserts itself over our current preoccupation with market performance and property rights. It may take another millennium, but I think we will eventually converge to a world somewhere between Australia and Scandanavia.
  8. Donation rwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    03 Oct '11 01:56
    Originally posted by FMF
    Another topic resulting from some half-forgotten exposure to something or other.

    Are slums here forever? Or will there be none one day? Progress, modernization, human development, growth, increasing prosperity and all.
    As long as what passes for a "free market" economy prevails, then slums will endure forever. The rich will get richer and the ranks of the poor will forever expand. The idea that "progress", "modernization", "growth" and "increasing prosperity" can alter that is farcical.
  9. Standard member bill718
    Enigma
    03 Oct '11 03:45
    Originally posted by FMF
    Another topic resulting from some half-forgotten exposure to something or other.

    Are slums here forever? Or will there be none one day? Progress, modernization, human development, growth, increasing prosperity and all.
    Slums will be with us always in America. The differences between rich and poor is massive in America. They always will be. In America it's OK to canibalize one's own citizens for profit, sorry to say Americans just don't give a damn. It's Ok for the boarderline mentally retarded to sleep in the streets, but ask a billionare to pay $2.00 more in taxes a year...never!!
  10. Standard member bill718
    Enigma
    03 Oct '11 03:48
    Originally posted by sh76
    Seems to me that the poorest neighborhoods will always be called slums and so, given that there will always likely be some sort of wealth disparity, I'd say yes, there will always be slums.

    The slums of today would be the paradise of times past.
    sh76- you wouldn't be calling our slums a paradise if you have to live in them.
  11. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    03 Oct '11 07:03
    Originally posted by rwingett
    As long as what passes for a "free market" economy prevails, then slums will endure forever. The rich will get richer and the ranks of the poor will forever expand. The idea that "progress", "modernization", "growth" and "increasing prosperity" can alter that is farcical.
    Jakarta's slums were worse and bigger 20 years ago than they are now. Is that what you mean by "farcical"?
  12. Donation rwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    03 Oct '11 11:17
    Originally posted by FMF
    Jakarta's slums were worse and bigger 20 years ago than they are now. Is that what you mean by "farcical"?
    There is some prosperity in certain locales as wealth is shifted around the world in our 'glorious' global economy. There are some winners amongst the rising tide of economic insecurity, but many more losers. So while Jakarta's slums may have contracted, you'd have to look at the worldwide slum situation to see the true picture. And I'm sure it isn't so rosy. The notion of perpetual growth for a perpetually growing population is a farcical one. It cannot be achieved and will ultimately end in failure.
  13. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    03 Oct '11 12:05
    Originally posted by rwingett
    ....you'd have to look at the worldwide slum situation to see the true picture. And I'm sure it isn't so rosy.
    Perhaps you're right. By all means tell us about it. I rather thought that you'd see "wealth being shifted around" to alleviate the plight of "losers" as better than nothing in the circumstances.
  14. Donation rwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    03 Oct '11 12:17
    Originally posted by FMF
    Perhaps you're right. By all means tell us about it. I rather thought that you'd see "wealth being shifted around" to alleviate the plight of "losers" as better than nothing in the circumstances.
    The wealth being shifted around is creating more losers than winners. It is not alleviating the plight of the losers (on the whole), but is increasing their ranks.
  15. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    03 Oct '11 12:23
    Originally posted by FMF
    Well, just to be clear, with the word "slums" I was not referring to "the poorest neighbourhoods", which has a much broader and relative meaning, and so when I alluded to the slums of the future in the OP I was not talking about a shift in the meaning or usage of the word "slums" but was talking about the kind of squalor and lack of amenities etc. etc. that we see in or on the outskirts of many major cities in the developing world.
    Ah; okay. I was thinking of western "inner cities." The squalor of slums of Mumbai of the world can probably be eliminated, yes.