3 ms·

If you can't think of any, do you think that means that those who can't work (disability, illness, dependents) deserve to be poor forever?

by growse 5y ago

chii 5y ago
i'm not saying the deserve to be poor, but they cannot be rich - and at best, society can keep them alive and provide the minimal, necessary sustenance for survival. While they wait for technological improvements to cure them of their illness (if such tech comes to pass). What would be a viable alternative? If this had happened in the jungle pre-historic times, they'd just be dead. So is it not an improvement?
- mrow84 5y ago
  > at best, society can keep them alive and provide the minimal, necessary sustenance for survival There is no constraint on a society enforcing this level of support as an upper bound. A society can dedicate as much or as little of its resources as it chooses to supporting those unable to support themselves, each possible amount having a different set of consequences.
- alephu5 5y ago
  Some of the richest people in the world do no work at all. Their parents give them an immense fortune, which is moved around by employees in such a way that earns in a day what most people get in a year. They consume to their heart's content, without ever having to actually work. Breed, die, repeat.
  - bradlys 5y ago
    Indeed. The person above clearly doesn’t value the lives of the those who are unable to work like those who can. Thus, why they think giving them the littlest as they can is fine. After all, we as a society are only mildly capable of being better than a pack of wild animals. It says a lot about how this person views others, themselves, and humanity in general. Overall, they believe humanity has no hope or worthiness of existence.
- teachingassist 5y ago
  > If this had happened in the jungle pre-historic times, they'd just be dead. You're arguing for "The Protestant work ethic", which certainly isn't pre-historic. It's associated with the advancement of capitalism.

If you can't think of any, do you think that means that those who can't work (disability, illness, dependents) deserve to be poor forever?

by growse 5y ago

If you can't think of any, do you think that means that those who can't work (disability, illness, dependents) deserve to be poor forever?

chii 5y ago

i'm not saying the deserve to be poor, but they cannot be rich - and at best, society can keep them alive and provide the minimal, necessary sustenance for survival. While they wait for technological improvements to cure them of their illness (if such tech comes to pass). What would be a viable alternative? If this had happened in the jungle pre-historic times, they'd just be dead. So is it not an improvement?

mrow84 5y ago
> at best, society can keep them alive and provide the minimal, necessary sustenance for survival There is no constraint on a society enforcing this level of support as an upper bound. A society can dedicate as much or as little of its resources as it chooses to supporting those unable to support themselves, each possible amount having a different set of consequences.
alephu5 5y ago
Some of the richest people in the world do no work at all. Their parents give them an immense fortune, which is moved around by employees in such a way that earns in a day what most people get in a year. They consume to their heart's content, without ever having to actually work. Breed, die, repeat.
- bradlys 5y ago
  Indeed. The person above clearly doesn’t value the lives of the those who are unable to work like those who can. Thus, why they think giving them the littlest as they can is fine. After all, we as a society are only mildly capable of being better than a pack of wild animals. It says a lot about how this person views others, themselves, and humanity in general. Overall, they believe humanity has no hope or worthiness of existence.
teachingassist 5y ago
> If this had happened in the jungle pre-historic times, they'd just be dead. You're arguing for "The Protestant work ethic", which certainly isn't pre-historic. It's associated with the advancement of capitalism.