4 ms·

Why? Our resources aren't infinite. Why is there any should about who gets to live and who gets to die? We can't help everyone live without eventually hitting r

Why? Our resources aren't infinite. Why is there any should about who gets to live and who gets to die? We can't help everyone live without eventually hitting resource constraints, can we?

rifung 11y ago
Our resources aren't infinite, but certain people have more than they need while others don't have enough to survive. I don't know if we could, even theoretically, let everyone in the US live a decent life. But, that doesn't mean we just don't do anything though, we can still do as much as possible given what we have. Not only that but if we helped those who are down get new skills to be productive, wouldn't that only be better for our economy and thus for everyone?
- wang_li 11y ago
  >I don't know if we could, even theoretically, let everyone in the US live a decent life. In theory, yes. There are enough resources that people would live free of want and hunger. But, we can't because there is some portion of the populace that consistently exhibits zero self control. If given the self-control/candy test, they'd eat the candy and then fifteen minutes later tell you what a horrible person you are for not giving them the other piece. You could go out and top off everyone so that they have $50,000 liquid cash, find housing, explain how rent works, etc. and within three months there will be people being evicted and homeless with no money to their name. So you repeat. And three months later you have to repeat again. And again. And again. And after loading and reloading people with money, now you're poor and have nothing to give. It's basic reality that there are people we are told we need to have compassion and empathy for, yet they have none for us. This is exhibited by the fact that if they did they would make a realistic effort to not be a burden on others. And for many of these people there is no amount of money and resources they can be given that will cause them to say "enough, stop, i don't need any more."
  - proksoup 11y ago
    > It's basic reality that there are people we are told we need to have compassion and empathy for, yet they have none for us Even if you succeed, and you provide enough for an abundant lifestyle ... perhaps they then have many children. Perhaps they raise those children with the same values. It's just not a bright vision of the future in my head if just because you were born a human you get the special privilege to live and multiply. How could it possibly be sustainable?
  - rifung 11y ago
    I completely agree with you. It seems to me that we should be giving people the tools they need to better their lives, and if they muck it up, our conscience can remain clear. Of course, there is something to be said about mental issues people have too. I feel like even those who "lack self control" can be helped, but they need to be helped in a similar way to how we try to help drug addicts.
apsurd 11y ago
One selfish, and therefore easily understandable reason for helping those less fortunate is because, left unchecked, there might be some tipping point for these less-fortunate to rebel in the societal sense, out of necessity for _their survival_. That's a problem for all of us.
- rqebmm 11y ago
  This is the counterbalance I find free-market enthusiasts forget about. Rich people need the state, too, once the angry mob starts looking around for torches and pitchforks.
- atomic77 11y ago
  An even easier argument to make for the selfish and empathy-challenged is the link between inequality and violent crime [1]. The more money and resources you have to spend on walls and security guards the less you have for investment and consumption on useful things. [1] http://web.worldbank.org/archive/website01241/WEB/IMAGES/INEQUALI.PDF http://web.worldbank.org/archive/website01241/WEB/IMAGES/INE...
analyst74 11y ago
Giving everyone a mansion and steak/salmon for food is not possible. But giving everyone basic shelter/food/clothing is well within our abilities today.
TeMPOraL 11y ago
> We can't help everyone live without eventually hitting resource constraints, can we? I think it's better to phrase it as a problem statement: how can we help everyone live without eventually hitting resource constraints? Humans are good at figuring out solutions to problems. Don't give up!

Why? Our resources aren't infinite. Why is there any should about who gets to live and who gets to die? We can't help everyone live without eventually hitting resource constraints, can we?

rifung 11y ago

Our resources aren't infinite, but certain people have more than they need while others don't have enough to survive. I don't know if we could, even theoretically, let everyone in the US live a decent life. But, that doesn't mean we just don't do anything though, we can still do as much as possible given what we have. Not only that but if we helped those who are down get new skills to be productive, wouldn't that only be better for our economy and thus for everyone?

wang_li 11y ago
>I don't know if we could, even theoretically, let everyone in the US live a decent life. In theory, yes. There are enough resources that people would live free of want and hunger. But, we can't because there is some portion of the populace that consistently exhibits zero self control. If given the self-control/candy test, they'd eat the candy and then fifteen minutes later tell you what a horrible person you are for not giving them the other piece. You could go out and top off everyone so that they have $50,000 liquid cash, find housing, explain how rent works, etc. and within three months there will be people being evicted and homeless with no money to their name. So you repeat. And three months later you have to repeat again. And again. And again. And after loading and reloading people with money, now you're poor and have nothing to give. It's basic reality that there are people we are told we need to have compassion and empathy for, yet they have none for us. This is exhibited by the fact that if they did they would make a realistic effort to not be a burden on others. And for many of these people there is no amount of money and resources they can be given that will cause them to say "enough, stop, i don't need any more."
- proksoup 11y ago
  > It's basic reality that there are people we are told we need to have compassion and empathy for, yet they have none for us Even if you succeed, and you provide enough for an abundant lifestyle ... perhaps they then have many children. Perhaps they raise those children with the same values. It's just not a bright vision of the future in my head if just because you were born a human you get the special privilege to live and multiply. How could it possibly be sustainable?
- rifung 11y ago
  I completely agree with you. It seems to me that we should be giving people the tools they need to better their lives, and if they muck it up, our conscience can remain clear. Of course, there is something to be said about mental issues people have too. I feel like even those who "lack self control" can be helped, but they need to be helped in a similar way to how we try to help drug addicts.

apsurd 11y ago

One selfish, and therefore easily understandable reason for helping those less fortunate is because, left unchecked, there might be some tipping point for these less-fortunate to rebel in the societal sense, out of necessity for _their survival_. That's a problem for all of us.

rqebmm 11y ago
This is the counterbalance I find free-market enthusiasts forget about. Rich people need the state, too, once the angry mob starts looking around for torches and pitchforks.
atomic77 11y ago
An even easier argument to make for the selfish and empathy-challenged is the link between inequality and violent crime [1]. The more money and resources you have to spend on walls and security guards the less you have for investment and consumption on useful things. [1] http://web.worldbank.org/archive/website01241/WEB/IMAGES/INEQUALI.PDF http://web.worldbank.org/archive/website01241/WEB/IMAGES/INE...

analyst74 11y ago

Giving everyone a mansion and steak/salmon for food is not possible. But giving everyone basic shelter/food/clothing is well within our abilities today.

TeMPOraL 11y ago

> We can't help everyone live without eventually hitting resource constraints, can we? I think it's better to phrase it as a problem statement: how can we help everyone live without eventually hitting resource constraints? Humans are good at figuring out solutions to problems. Don't give up!