4 ms·
I agree with your statements when applied to situations that extend beyond the short-term. I was referring to the immediate threat of deaths resulting from pres
by clawedjird 6y ago
I agree with your statements when applied to situations that extend beyond the short-term. I was referring to the immediate threat of deaths resulting from present or nearly-present economic circumstances.
My point was simply that we have more than enough resources, even at our worst, to keep people's basic needs met. I'm not saying that keeping people alive will prevent economic devastation, just that preventing economic devastation is not a necessary precondition for keeping people alive.
- dgzl 6y ago>I was referring to the immediate threat of deaths resulting from present or nearly-present economic circumstances. Are the hospitals not treating people in immediate threat of dying? Is California not housing the homeless in hotels? Is there not an extensive support network? I don't think this virus and "short term" work together. > My point was simply that we have more than enough resources Who is "we" in this case? Because the State of California is in massive debt as far as I can tell, and they're still drowning in problems.
- clawedjird 6y agoI guess I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. What are you suggesting?