5 ms·
I find something quite difficult to answer. Imagine you have all the political power, and all the money in the world. You are tasked with creating as close to a
by indubitable 9y ago
I find something quite difficult to answer. Imagine you have all the political power, and all the money in the world. You are tasked with creating as close to a utopia as you can. Now let's consider a group. Think of those on the top of our society who have a seemingly insatiable drive towards indulgence of drug, drink, and other such harmful vices. In spite of access to the the world's best rehabilitation centers, counseling, and often wide social networks - we not infrequently see these people indulge themselves literally to death. On the bottom of society we also have the same sorts. The only difference is that in this case they tend to be unable to sustain their habit and end up on the streets instead of in a coffin.
How do deal with this problem? I suppose the 'safe' answer is to try to pretend that these people might not exist if we had an otherwise 'better' world, but I think that's improbable. This affliction is something that affects people of all classes in all societies, and has since the advent of civilization. And the reason I focused on the top of society first is that I think they're clear evidence that in some cases you simply cannot counsel or rehab the problem away. And it is those specific cases that a humane solution seems almost impossible to find.
- lostlogin 9y agoIf some are too far gone to save, how do you explain the fact that US poverty rates differ to other countries and between states? And if some can’t be saved, does that mean you don’t try to help anyone? The toxic open sewers and resurgent third world (what ever that term means) diseases seem like something even those at the top of society wouldn’t want in their country. Reduction in poverty has been achieved elsewhere and blaming the victim doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny.
- indubitable 9y agoThat is quite the bit of straw manning! I'm simply asking how anybody would propose to solve the problem even given the unreasonably simple scenario of absolute power and no economic considerations. Even in this 'toy scenario', nothing really seems particularly viable. One major problem you'll have with comparing other nations (or even states) is genetic issues. The exact heritability of addiction is not clear, but the fact that it has a heritability that ranges from significant to extremely significant [1] is clear. As always, not all people are the same. [1] - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2008.02213.x/abstract http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2008....
- lostlogin 9y agoAre you arguing the American type of poverty is unique and because of addiction it’s too hard to try? That linked article suggests that there may be a genetic component to addiction. So? There is a well established link between income and addiction too, between inequality and addiction as well as between education level and poverty, and between addiction and education. Things are connected. Is the American situation really so unique and special that nothing can be done? There are some pretty concrete examples in the article of things that would make a massive, positive change that would last generations (eg, build a sewer). It’s not all hard.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- indubitable 9y agoI'm not really arguing anything. As I said, I see no answer so I certainly don't have any side. I'm discussing homelessness more than poverty, though. The issues which leave one homeless and those which leave one in poverty, but still living under your own roof, are quite different. The former has a strong link to addiction and other such issues, not so much in the former.