7 ms·

That's because it is absolutely foolish to think that this problem is purely economical. There are much deeper and more complex problems PER INDIVIDUAL that yo

That's because it is absolutely foolish to think that this problem is purely economical. There are much deeper and more complex problems PER INDIVIDUAL that you don't know about. Personality traits, undiagnosed mental disorders, a horrible upbringing, etc., etc., etc. To summarize all these people's problems as stemming from a singular cause does nothing for anyone. I think we can show that helping a particular individual does way more good than trying to solve a whole "group of people's" "problems". That's why when you read stories about a single guy helping a single homeless person/person in straits it truly does mean more for us as individuals than just a charity wanting us to throw money at them. Case in point: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/york-city-programmer-homeless-man-software-coding-classes/story?id=20042021 http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/york-city-programmer-homele...

TallGuyShort 13y ago
I did not mean to suggest the problem was purely economical - the individuals I'm referring to have also been receiving professional help for, when necessary, prior addictions, career training and mental health problems (although such cases happen to have been the minority in my specific experience). I understand there's always more that can be done, but I do believe there exist people (in a tiny minority) who do want to lower the amount of responsibility in their life to the point that they are homeless, and that there's nothing that can be done to actually help said individuals, and I also believe that it's pointless to criticize society at large for not doing enough unless you can suggest specific, actionable things we could all do better. I don't say that with a defiant attitude - honestly, if you think I'm missing some action I can personally take to improve things, I'm all ears.
- milkshakes 13y ago
  are you saying that there is simply no way to improve the circumstances of these people, or that they're just not worth the effort because they refuse to help themselves?
  - TallGuyShort 13y ago
    I'm not saying that either is always the case, but that I have seen example of both. I also wouldn't want to agree with the phrase "not worth the effort". It's not that I think anyone's "not worth it" - it's that current methods simply aren't going to work all the time, no matter how much people's attitudes or resources change. The GP comment pointed out personality issues and upbringing, and I think that's spot-on - I don't think we yet understanding issues like that to really be effective at helping people overcome them, and there's certainly work to be done in that area. As I said - I continue my own charitable efforts, and I'm only saying that it's not just an issue of "boo, Silicon Valley, how could you let this happen?"
  - asdfdsa1234 13y ago
    There is a part of the homeless population that will not stay in free housing, damages it when it's given to them, or is severely disruptive to neighbors, and refuses addiction treatment or returns to drugs immediately after leaving treatment. Improving the circumstances of these people is an unsolved problem, and one many consider not worth solving when these people actively resist all "solutions" offered to them.
  - lutusp 13y ago
    > are you saying that there is simply no way to improve the circumstances of these people, or that they're just not worth the effort because they refuse to help themselves? The issue is deeper than you're acknowledging. Evolution by natural selection works only because of perpetual shortage, and because nature doesn't waste anything. If we artificially remove any appearance of shortage, of a need to struggle, we remove the incentive to work. So we need to imitate nature at least in some respects. But that goal cannot be achieved if we "improve the circumstances" of everyone in need. In short, if we try to fix the problem of poverty, we will make everyone poor. That's history's lesson.
    - jellicle 13y ago
      Congratulations, you've reinvented the eugenics movement. I would have thought it was a little out of fashion in 2013, but I guess not.

TallGuyShort 13y ago

I did not mean to suggest the problem was purely economical - the individuals I'm referring to have also been receiving professional help for, when necessary, prior addictions, career training and mental health problems (although such cases happen to have been the minority in my specific experience). I understand there's always more that can be done, but I do believe there exist people (in a tiny minority) who do want to lower the amount of responsibility in their life to the point that they are homeless, and that there's nothing that can be done to actually help said individuals, and I also believe that it's pointless to criticize society at large for not doing enough unless you can suggest specific, actionable things we could all do better. I don't say that with a defiant attitude - honestly, if you think I'm missing some action I can personally take to improve things, I'm all ears.

milkshakes 13y ago
are you saying that there is simply no way to improve the circumstances of these people, or that they're just not worth the effort because they refuse to help themselves?
- TallGuyShort 13y ago
  I'm not saying that either is always the case, but that I have seen example of both. I also wouldn't want to agree with the phrase "not worth the effort". It's not that I think anyone's "not worth it" - it's that current methods simply aren't going to work all the time, no matter how much people's attitudes or resources change. The GP comment pointed out personality issues and upbringing, and I think that's spot-on - I don't think we yet understanding issues like that to really be effective at helping people overcome them, and there's certainly work to be done in that area. As I said - I continue my own charitable efforts, and I'm only saying that it's not just an issue of "boo, Silicon Valley, how could you let this happen?"
- asdfdsa1234 13y ago
  There is a part of the homeless population that will not stay in free housing, damages it when it's given to them, or is severely disruptive to neighbors, and refuses addiction treatment or returns to drugs immediately after leaving treatment. Improving the circumstances of these people is an unsolved problem, and one many consider not worth solving when these people actively resist all "solutions" offered to them.
- lutusp 13y ago
  > are you saying that there is simply no way to improve the circumstances of these people, or that they're just not worth the effort because they refuse to help themselves? The issue is deeper than you're acknowledging. Evolution by natural selection works only because of perpetual shortage, and because nature doesn't waste anything. If we artificially remove any appearance of shortage, of a need to struggle, we remove the incentive to work. So we need to imitate nature at least in some respects. But that goal cannot be achieved if we "improve the circumstances" of everyone in need. In short, if we try to fix the problem of poverty, we will make everyone poor. That's history's lesson.
  - jellicle 13y ago
    Congratulations, you've reinvented the eugenics movement. I would have thought it was a little out of fashion in 2013, but I guess not.