4 ms·

> Maybe you should take a look at the healthy San Francisco program, which basically arranges medical insurance for the indigent. Maybe that increases the numb

by defen 17y ago

> Maybe you should take a look at the healthy San Francisco program, which basically arranges medical insurance for the indigent. Maybe that increases the number of indigent? Why, in one of the richest, most beautiful cities in the wealthiest country in the history of the world, are there large numbers of feral humans roaming around? Why are entire neighborhoods off-limits to law-abiding citizens?

gnosis 17y ago
"Why, in one of the richest, most beautiful cities in the wealthiest country in the history of the world, are there large numbers of feral humans roaming around?" Maybe because in other cities in the country those "feral humans" would simply be allowed to die off (or even helped on their way to extinction). I've read that this is how NYC has "taken care of their homeless problem": they simply let the homeless die, which is quite easy to do in NYC during the winter by forcing the homeless to sleep outdoors, where the weather is much more deadly than it ever gets in San Francisco. Also, it's pretty clear that many (if not most) of the homeless people in San Francisco are mentally ill. During the Reagan era the mental institutions were emptied, and the mentally ill were basically thrown out on the street. It's possible that San Francisco just has more mentally ill people than your typical American city (maybe because of the prevalence of drugs in the city, I don't know). That's a lot of guess work on my part, but I've yet to hear a better explanation for why there are hordes of homeless in SF. Saying that these people are "just lazy" because of their dependence on handouts and would just "get over it" if the help was taken away is just the sound of resentment without an ounce of compassion or understanding of the people who are really suffering.
- natrius 17y ago
  Compassion doesn't mean you have to throw away buckets and buckets of money. You can't claim San Francisco is doing a good job of taking care of its less fortunate unless you can back that up with some data. Even the city can't.
- ryanwaggoner 17y ago
  That's a lot of guess work on my part, but I've yet to hear a better explanation for why there are hordes of homeless in SF. Translation: I like my guess better than the explanation I'm responding to, so I'm going to label it as "better", even though I've just admitted that I have no data or idea of what I'm talking about.
  - tolmasky 17y ago
    The original post had no more data than the response. This post simply demonstrated that you could draw the exact opposite conclusion given the same amount of data (or lack thereof). Thus, it serves to invalidate the original remark without necessarily itself being correct.
- idoh 17y ago
  There are lots of homeless people in San Francisco because San Francisco is a good place to be homeless.
  - prodigal_erik 17y ago
    Which makes it a popular target of Greyhound therapy, along with LA.
- hugh_ 17y ago
  I've read that this is how NYC has "taken care of their homeless problem": they simply let the homeless die, which is quite easy to do in NYC during the winter by forcing the homeless to sleep outdoors, where the weather is much more deadly than it ever gets in San Francisco. What is wrong with letting the homeless die, though? We don't have any problem with letting rats die, or pigeons, if they can't manage to support themselves. Why do I have an obligation to help another animal just cuz it happens to be the same species as me?
  - gnosis 17y ago
    Thank you for being honest. I only wish more advocates of cutting off aid to homeless people were even half as honest as you.
  - indrax 17y ago
    I also appreciate your honesty, and I'll try to address your points. Many people would save the life of a pigeon. They're just not very consistent about it. One issue is how we measure progress. We would generally think that a school program that increases the average performance of a school is a good thing. If it does this by expelling the low scoring students, then it is not an educational program. It does not make the school better, it just makes it look better. So having no homeless in a city doesn't necessarily make that city a nicer place to be. It can still have the same weak economy and bad infrastructure. It's the difference between rebuilding a wall and repainting it. A hypothetical city that achieves zero homeless with a great job market, low cost housing, and easy access to perfect psychological treatment is clearly better than a city that eats everyone making under 50k. I think a more realistic city that reduces some of the impact of homelessness by having adequate shelters is better than a city without that net. The first city solves the problems of the people in the city, while the second city does not. In the end, we have cities because they are tools. Better tools work more consistently. Your Species is Irrelevant. Personhood matters though, I think a person dying is a tragedy. I'm not sure 'obligation' is the right term, but I think if you were actually faced with the death of a person, you would value their life more. I'm not trying to make an 'I know better than you' argument here, just saying that a lot of our values are context sensitive and inconsistent. (as with pigeons)
  - 17y ago
bkudria 17y ago
Feral humans are people too. Can you explain to me why only rich people ought to live in cities?
- dryicerx 17y ago
  On a side note: Congrats for taking HN in to the 10^6
- steve___ 17y ago
  what!?! this! ;)
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- qeorge 17y ago
  2 minutes between bkudria's comment and pg's submission. Been watching the odometer? ;)
- dylanz 17y ago
  Ding!
  - Evgeny 17y ago
    Grats!
- dasht 17y ago
  I asked a feral human (which really, takes some doing) and he explained that by corralling the rich people into the cities, and getting them to help push out the feral -- well, it made the rich people easier to harvest or, more commonly, cull for meat. I offered that, well, if that is the motivation, then you can hardly call yourselves feral any longer for, clearly, you've developed animal husbandry. He conceded that I was probably right and that, for pointing out his error, I deserved some reward. So he gave me an approved lease on this apartment in the city! And I'm not even rich!
- Asa-Nisse 17y ago
anigbrowl 17y ago
Interesting line on non-sequiteurs you have there. I like how you seque from suggesting that providing health care to those without insurance makes poorer, to discussions of feral humans and crimes, as if these were all somehow caused by extending medical coverage to people.

by defen 17y ago

gnosis 17y ago

"Why, in one of the richest, most beautiful cities in the wealthiest country in the history of the world, are there large numbers of feral humans roaming around?" Maybe because in other cities in the country those "feral humans" would simply be allowed to die off (or even helped on their way to extinction). I've read that this is how NYC has "taken care of their homeless problem": they simply let the homeless die, which is quite easy to do in NYC during the winter by forcing the homeless to sleep outdoors, where the weather is much more deadly than it ever gets in San Francisco. Also, it's pretty clear that many (if not most) of the homeless people in San Francisco are mentally ill. During the Reagan era the mental institutions were emptied, and the mentally ill were basically thrown out on the street. It's possible that San Francisco just has more mentally ill people than your typical American city (maybe because of the prevalence of drugs in the city, I don't know). That's a lot of guess work on my part, but I've yet to hear a better explanation for why there are hordes of homeless in SF. Saying that these people are "just lazy" because of their dependence on handouts and would just "get over it" if the help was taken away is just the sound of resentment without an ounce of compassion or understanding of the people who are really suffering.

natrius 17y ago
Compassion doesn't mean you have to throw away buckets and buckets of money. You can't claim San Francisco is doing a good job of taking care of its less fortunate unless you can back that up with some data. Even the city can't.
ryanwaggoner 17y ago
That's a lot of guess work on my part, but I've yet to hear a better explanation for why there are hordes of homeless in SF. Translation: I like my guess better than the explanation I'm responding to, so I'm going to label it as "better", even though I've just admitted that I have no data or idea of what I'm talking about.
- tolmasky 17y ago
  The original post had no more data than the response. This post simply demonstrated that you could draw the exact opposite conclusion given the same amount of data (or lack thereof). Thus, it serves to invalidate the original remark without necessarily itself being correct.
idoh 17y ago
There are lots of homeless people in San Francisco because San Francisco is a good place to be homeless.
- prodigal_erik 17y ago
  Which makes it a popular target of Greyhound therapy, along with LA.
hugh_ 17y ago
I've read that this is how NYC has "taken care of their homeless problem": they simply let the homeless die, which is quite easy to do in NYC during the winter by forcing the homeless to sleep outdoors, where the weather is much more deadly than it ever gets in San Francisco. What is wrong with letting the homeless die, though? We don't have any problem with letting rats die, or pigeons, if they can't manage to support themselves. Why do I have an obligation to help another animal just cuz it happens to be the same species as me?
- gnosis 17y ago
  Thank you for being honest. I only wish more advocates of cutting off aid to homeless people were even half as honest as you.
- indrax 17y ago
  I also appreciate your honesty, and I'll try to address your points. Many people would save the life of a pigeon. They're just not very consistent about it. One issue is how we measure progress. We would generally think that a school program that increases the average performance of a school is a good thing. If it does this by expelling the low scoring students, then it is not an educational program. It does not make the school better, it just makes it look better. So having no homeless in a city doesn't necessarily make that city a nicer place to be. It can still have the same weak economy and bad infrastructure. It's the difference between rebuilding a wall and repainting it. A hypothetical city that achieves zero homeless with a great job market, low cost housing, and easy access to perfect psychological treatment is clearly better than a city that eats everyone making under 50k. I think a more realistic city that reduces some of the impact of homelessness by having adequate shelters is better than a city without that net. The first city solves the problems of the people in the city, while the second city does not. In the end, we have cities because they are tools. Better tools work more consistently. Your Species is Irrelevant. Personhood matters though, I think a person dying is a tragedy. I'm not sure 'obligation' is the right term, but I think if you were actually faced with the death of a person, you would value their life more. I'm not trying to make an 'I know better than you' argument here, just saying that a lot of our values are context sensitive and inconsistent. (as with pigeons)
- 17y ago

bkudria 17y ago

Feral humans are people too. Can you explain to me why only rich people ought to live in cities?

dryicerx 17y ago
On a side note: Congrats for taking HN in to the 10^6
steve___ 17y ago
what!?! this! ;)
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
qeorge 17y ago
2 minutes between bkudria's comment and pg's submission. Been watching the odometer? ;)
dylanz 17y ago
Ding!
- Evgeny 17y ago
  Grats!
dasht 17y ago
I asked a feral human (which really, takes some doing) and he explained that by corralling the rich people into the cities, and getting them to help push out the feral -- well, it made the rich people easier to harvest or, more commonly, cull for meat. I offered that, well, if that is the motivation, then you can hardly call yourselves feral any longer for, clearly, you've developed animal husbandry. He conceded that I was probably right and that, for pointing out his error, I deserved some reward. So he gave me an approved lease on this apartment in the city! And I'm not even rich!
Asa-Nisse 17y ago

anigbrowl 17y ago

Interesting line on non-sequiteurs you have there. I like how you seque from suggesting that providing health care to those without insurance makes poorer, to discussions of feral humans and crimes, as if these were all somehow caused by extending medical coverage to people.