3 ms·

This could be drastically reduced if the USA would implement proper social security. I hardly think that is is coincidental that the Scandinavian countries are

This could be drastically reduced if the USA would implement proper social security. I hardly think that is is coincidental that the Scandinavian countries are generally at the bottom of the list - or e.g. Germany. It is not really high level science, that if a person does not have income he still needs food. If he can't buy it, the government doesn't give it - he has to steal it.

whiddershins 13y ago
I don't think it is about food. I think it is about respect. People are violent most commonly where their dignity has been threatened. Although that is obviously true on a case by case basis, noone seems to see a correlation between the humiliation we make a person go through to get welfare vs. our crime rate. It isn't that they are poor, it is because we shame them for being poor. Just one man's opinion.
- waps 13y ago
  You might want to google "Maslow's hierarchy of needs" [1]. Basically, people will fight, kill and die immediately for physiological needs, for food, water, sex, sleep and a few other things. For safety, the average human being is still quite prepared to use lethal violence. Safety includes security, employment, resources, morality, and health. Then less violence is used up the pyramid. And so on you go to love/belonging, esteem (where the respect comes in), and lastly self-actualization. Of course this is only one theory. Other theories are based more on imitation (people will fight/use violence in a specific situation because they see others using violence in similar situations). That one is my personal favourite since it makes a whole lot more sense than the psychological theory. How would you store something as complex as Maslow's pyramid in genes ? There is no room for anything so complex. For that matter, employment exists maybe 5000 years, human race is at the very least 165000 years old. I have visited places where it doesn't seem to hold (villages in Africa, slums, where it seems people are more than content with just most physiological needs and some form of drug. Oh and they'll do a lot for different drugs, ie. for alcohol). Of course the first part of Maslow's theory is true, by definition, people will fight, kill and die for physiological needs. Not having them, after all, means dying yourself. The other levels, including respect and "good" food, I don't think work like that. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs
  - whiddershins 13y ago
    I think if people were willing to be violent within their in-group merely because of hunger, all of human history would have gone differently. I am not sure Maslow is saying what you think he is saying, since after all he grew up in Brooklyn. :-) I would suggest reading Meditations on Violence, which is a beautifully flawed book, including a great section outlining a theory of violence, and what precipitates different types of violent behavior. http://www.amazon.com/Meditations-Violence-Comparison-Martial-Training/dp/1594391181 http://www.amazon.com/Meditations-Violence-Comparison-Martia...

whiddershins 13y ago

I don't think it is about food. I think it is about respect. People are violent most commonly where their dignity has been threatened. Although that is obviously true on a case by case basis, noone seems to see a correlation between the humiliation we make a person go through to get welfare vs. our crime rate. It isn't that they are poor, it is because we shame them for being poor. Just one man's opinion.

waps 13y ago
You might want to google "Maslow's hierarchy of needs" [1]. Basically, people will fight, kill and die immediately for physiological needs, for food, water, sex, sleep and a few other things. For safety, the average human being is still quite prepared to use lethal violence. Safety includes security, employment, resources, morality, and health. Then less violence is used up the pyramid. And so on you go to love/belonging, esteem (where the respect comes in), and lastly self-actualization. Of course this is only one theory. Other theories are based more on imitation (people will fight/use violence in a specific situation because they see others using violence in similar situations). That one is my personal favourite since it makes a whole lot more sense than the psychological theory. How would you store something as complex as Maslow's pyramid in genes ? There is no room for anything so complex. For that matter, employment exists maybe 5000 years, human race is at the very least 165000 years old. I have visited places where it doesn't seem to hold (villages in Africa, slums, where it seems people are more than content with just most physiological needs and some form of drug. Oh and they'll do a lot for different drugs, ie. for alcohol). Of course the first part of Maslow's theory is true, by definition, people will fight, kill and die for physiological needs. Not having them, after all, means dying yourself. The other levels, including respect and "good" food, I don't think work like that. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs
- whiddershins 13y ago
  I think if people were willing to be violent within their in-group merely because of hunger, all of human history would have gone differently. I am not sure Maslow is saying what you think he is saying, since after all he grew up in Brooklyn. :-) I would suggest reading Meditations on Violence, which is a beautifully flawed book, including a great section outlining a theory of violence, and what precipitates different types of violent behavior. http://www.amazon.com/Meditations-Violence-Comparison-Martial-Training/dp/1594391181 http://www.amazon.com/Meditations-Violence-Comparison-Martia...