5 ms·

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 t

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.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - lutusp 13y ago
    > Congratulations, you've reinvented the eugenics movement. Locate your evidence for this claim. I never suggested that there is a solution to poverty, in fact I clearly said the opposite. Eugenics is on the roster of ideas that society rightly rejects as a failed non-solution and a disaster, along with communism, socialism and a dozen others. > I would have thought it was a little out of fashion in 2013, but I guess not. Misrepresenting the views of others? No, you've proved that idea false.
- rwmj 13y ago
  Evolution of major behavioural features such as addiction is unlikely to happen in less than millions of years (some monkeys, millions of years of evolution away from us, demonstrate addiction to alcohol for example). So your idea that we can make things harsh enough to kill off all the addicts / "defunct" people isn't actually going to work in any sane span of time. It may be that through science we will understand what combinations of genes cause different behaviours, and select those at birth, but even that's not easy. Genes have incredibly complex expressions, with multiple genes responsible for one feature, and "good" and "bad" features interacting. In short your solution is brutish and doesn't stand up to reason.
  - lutusp 13y ago
    > So your idea that we can make things harsh enough to kill off all the addicts ... You locate where I said or implied any such thing. If you can't locate the words you believe you are quoting, post your apology. > It may be that through science we will understand what combinations of genes cause different behaviours, and select those at birth ... Study history alongside science. What you have just suggested is called "eugenics" and it has a perfectly terrible history, one society doesn't want to see repeated. > In short your solution is brutish ... What solution are you dreaming about? I suggested no solution because there isn't one. Prove me wrong -- locate the words you believe you are addressing. And when you discover that you're posting a personal fantasy, apologize.
prewett 13y ago
If someone chooses to be homeless (e.g. lower their responsibility until they are homeless), you can't really help that person stop being homeless until they decide that they no longer want to be homeless.
temphn 13y ago
There ARE people who refuse to help themselves. They do exist. The only way you can believe to the contrary is because you haven't worked with the homeless. No amount of money can currently cure mental illness or drug addiction, or make people work if they don't want to work.
- milkshakes 13y ago
  please don't pretend you know me, whom i have worked with, or what i believe.

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.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- lutusp 13y ago
  > Congratulations, you've reinvented the eugenics movement. Locate your evidence for this claim. I never suggested that there is a solution to poverty, in fact I clearly said the opposite. Eugenics is on the roster of ideas that society rightly rejects as a failed non-solution and a disaster, along with communism, socialism and a dozen others. > I would have thought it was a little out of fashion in 2013, but I guess not. Misrepresenting the views of others? No, you've proved that idea false.
rwmj 13y ago
Evolution of major behavioural features such as addiction is unlikely to happen in less than millions of years (some monkeys, millions of years of evolution away from us, demonstrate addiction to alcohol for example). So your idea that we can make things harsh enough to kill off all the addicts / "defunct" people isn't actually going to work in any sane span of time. It may be that through science we will understand what combinations of genes cause different behaviours, and select those at birth, but even that's not easy. Genes have incredibly complex expressions, with multiple genes responsible for one feature, and "good" and "bad" features interacting. In short your solution is brutish and doesn't stand up to reason.
- lutusp 13y ago
  > So your idea that we can make things harsh enough to kill off all the addicts ... You locate where I said or implied any such thing. If you can't locate the words you believe you are quoting, post your apology. > It may be that through science we will understand what combinations of genes cause different behaviours, and select those at birth ... Study history alongside science. What you have just suggested is called "eugenics" and it has a perfectly terrible history, one society doesn't want to see repeated. > In short your solution is brutish ... What solution are you dreaming about? I suggested no solution because there isn't one. Prove me wrong -- locate the words you believe you are addressing. And when you discover that you're posting a personal fantasy, apologize.

prewett 13y ago

If someone chooses to be homeless (e.g. lower their responsibility until they are homeless), you can't really help that person stop being homeless until they decide that they no longer want to be homeless.

temphn 13y ago

There ARE people who refuse to help themselves. They do exist. The only way you can believe to the contrary is because you haven't worked with the homeless. No amount of money can currently cure mental illness or drug addiction, or make people work if they don't want to work.

milkshakes 13y ago
please don't pretend you know me, whom i have worked with, or what i believe.