26 Nov 13
Originally posted by wolfgang59Just thinking out loud, but I’m wondering how much participation in a world war involves a complex of individual/national self interests? You have to sell sacrifice on the part of those in “first world” nations—at least the privileged among us, and this means privileged vis-à-vis those in other nations.
What would happen if humanity declared war on world poverty and
suffering and acted on this declaration with the same vigour and
mobilisation level that we would have happened had we declared world war
3 on each other?
In my limited experience, those of us who have been willing to so sacrifice in the past actually come from among the more modest income/wealth tiers in our nations, by and large. (That is, of course, rank casual empiricism.)
Bottom line here, Wolfie, I’m just cynical. And maybe that’s not excusable. (And I’m just thinking out loud, off the cuff.)
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
26 Nov 13
Originally posted by wolfgang59I suspect we would have no more poverty.
What would happen if humanity declared war on world poverty and
suffering and acted on this declaration with the same vigour and
mobilisation level that we would have happened had we declared world war
3 on each other?
We have more than enough food to feed everyone, and enough labour to build houses for
everyone, and so on.
It's just highly unequally distributed.
you could end poverty simply by relocating enough resources from those with excess
to those below the poverty line.
A worldwide minimum wage paid to all adults regardless of status would be one way to do it.
There are all kinds of methods we could use, with different effects and ideologies.
It's not actually a hard problem from a kind of engineering standpoint.
The hard part in your question is not solving poverty, It's getting humanity to get together
and agree to seriously commit to actually solving it, and then agreeing WHICH of the solutions
to implement.
27 Nov 13
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeWell, the problem with this in America is that we have an entire political party who has most of the 'stuff', and they never cease trying to make damned sure that they keep it, and make more off the backs of the rest of us, and have even convinced an appreciable number of 'the rest of us' to be their minions, and continue this work in their name.
I suspect we would have no more poverty.
We have more than enough food to feed everyone, and enough labour to build houses for
everyone, and so on.
It's just highly unequally distributed.
you could end poverty simply by relocating enough resources from those with excess
to those below the poverty line.
A worldwide minimum wage paid to a ...[text shortened]... eriously commit to actually solving it, and then agreeing WHICH of the solutions
to implement.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
27 Nov 13
Originally posted by SuzianneIt's not a problem unique to America...
Well, the problem with this in America is that we have an entire political party who has most of the 'stuff', and they never cease trying to make damned sure that they keep it, and make more off the backs of the rest of us, and have even convinced an appreciable number of 'the rest of us' to be their minions, and continue this work in their name.
You just seem to do everything bigger and more extreme.
27 Nov 13
Originally posted by wolfgang59Declare war on poverty? It sure worked well in America. Some $17 trillion in debt and poverty is worse than when the US started.
What would happen if humanity declared war on world poverty and
suffering and acted on this declaration with the same vigour and
mobilisation level that we would have happened had we declared world war
3 on each other?
Originally posted by SuziannePlease don't make me lose my lunch.
Well, the problem with this in America is that we have an entire political party who has most of the 'stuff', and they never cease trying to make damned sure that they keep it, and make more off the backs of the rest of us, and have even convinced an appreciable number of 'the rest of us' to be their minions, and continue this work in their name.
Obama and company are about as concerned abouit poverty as Hitler was with his massive nanny state. Hitler proved that the populace would sell their collective souls to anyone, so long as they are "cared for", so it's a proven formula for sucess. The basic premise is to feed off peoples greed making them no better than the "rich".
This whole notion of only one party caring about the poor is prettyfunny stuff. How about "W" caring about the elderly with his Drugs for Seniors Program? Short term memory perhaps?
The role of the nanny state is not to help people, it is only to control them. Do we really believe that Obama cares for those in Pakistan with all the billions he sends them in aid while he blows the rest to poo with his drones?
27 Nov 13
Originally posted by wolfgang59It seems to me that what you wish to do is declare war on humanity for not giving the way they should. Well that requires a world wide police state that is run by (wait for it)...................the same greed driven people.
What would happen if humanity declared war on world poverty and
suffering and acted on this declaration with the same vigour and
mobilisation level that we would have happened had we declared world war
3 on each other?
Not to worry though, Obama and company are creating your world. You may live long enough to see their utopia.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
27 Nov 13
Originally posted by whodeyWell not to let the facts get in the way of your delusions...
Please don't make me lose my lunch.
Obama and company are about as concerned abouit poverty as Hitler was with his massive nanny state. Hitler proved that the populace would sell their collective souls to anyone, so long as they are "cared for", so it's a proven formula for sucess. The basic premise is to feed off peoples greed making them no better than ...[text shortened]... istan with all the billions he sends them in aid while he blows the rest to poo with his drones?
The welfare state works perfectly well in many countries.
All those countries that outscore America in education, lifespan,
healthcare costs per person, well-being/happiness ...
And only one party in your country has consistently lied about
how well socialised healthcare works in other countries and
claimed that Steven Hawking would be dead if he lived in the
UK and had to rely on the NHS...
Now where is it that Hawking lives?
Also, I seem to remember many in that party talking about how
we had death panels for the elderly...
So um, yeah, go find some reality.
Originally posted by googlefudgeIt works perfectly well in other countries? Is that why you hear in the news how both the US and Europe are on the verge of economic collapse? Is that why you hear stories of people from Europe coming to the US so that they can get treatment quicker?
Well not to let the facts get in the way of your delusions...
The welfare state works perfectly well in many countries.
All those countries that outscore America in education, lifespan,
healthcare costs per person, well-being/happiness ...
And only one party in your country has consistently lied about
how well socialised healthcare works in ...[text shortened]... talking about how
we had death panels for the elderly...
So um, yeah, go find some reality.
I hate to burst your bubble, but your system is not a perfect system. Your way of thinking is not the only viable way of thinking.
In the US, I have no problem with small states like the one Romney was governor over, move to socialize medicine in their own state, much like a small country in Europe might do. But I do have a problem with imposing it on the entire country. Let other states come up with alternative plans. In this way, we can then compare them and see which ones work better. Then again, socialism dictates that they are right about everything, so how could there be anything better? Socialism is so wonderful, that it is mandated for everyone it seems.
Now Europe is walking in the same poo that the US is walking in when it comes to a massive nanny state, thanks to the EU. You then realize that the system does not work so well, yet you have no problem preaching to me how the entire US needs to adopt your own system.
Then again, this is the spirituality forum, so there is no reason to withhold your religious convictions about socialism.
28 Nov 13
Originally posted by whodeyI am only amused by the fact that you KNOW which party I'm talking about.
Please don't make me lose my lunch.
Obama and company are about as concerned abouit poverty as Hitler was with his massive nanny state. Hitler proved that the populace would sell their collective souls to anyone, so long as they are "cared for", so it's a proven formula for sucess. The basic premise is to feed off peoples greed making them no better than ...[text shortened]... istan with all the billions he sends them in aid while he blows the rest to poo with his drones?
BTW, how's that 'minion' thing working out for you? Are YOU 'rich' yet?
I didn't think so.
28 Nov 13
Originally posted by SuzianneThere is no difference between the two parites Susan, except for maybe the abortion issue.
I am only amused by the fact that you KNOW which party I'm talking about.
BTW, how's that 'minion' thing working out for you? Are YOU 'rich' yet?
I didn't think so.
Incidentally, do you view abortion as murder? If so, you are just voting for Nazis.