Helping Americans understand just how rich we are

I went out of my way, because I don't think your personal desire not to suffer high taxes is incompatible with your desire to feed the world's poor and open up the job and financial markets to the world as well - especially in our current fiscal climate.

I have never once expressed any disdain for the American poor.

Another straw man. I want a more level playing field. We can't raise the world up to our level, but we can stop kicking their fingers when they are clawing their way up on their own.

Well, I just read through twelve pages of opinions that kept me on an emotional rollercoaster, only to come to...

"...the foundation of economic development must come from the people themselves and their government. Other actions from external agencies appear to often breed as many adverse side effects as benefits. Graft and venality end up rewarding the wrong people and hindering the very process we may hope to ignite."

Well said, Georgeob1. It comes down to giving a man a fish, or teaching him to fish. Do we teach him to fish with a toy net from the shore (abusive, low paying and dangerous exported American jobs with no dignity or concern for their physical health) or give him a real pole and materials to build a good boat (industriousness, trade skills, how to change their own government) ??

The concept of allowing other countries to industrialize at the expense of the environment, as presented by Robert earlier, is ludicrous to me. When we know better, we do better. Just because we allowed companies to polute and poison our population and environment in order to become wealthy, doesn't mean we accept that as an option for populations in other countries, nor do we go backwards in our standards to allow pollution spewing, poorly maintained vehicles to come over the border. If we are truly compassionate, that isn't an option.

The world will always have poverty. I don't have to go to Africa or India to have compassion for their plight or to understand that my worry over paying the lectric bill is beyond ridiculous in comparison, which is why I don't worry about it.

I got the feeling early on in this thread, due to the mention of Mexican workers crossing the border to find work in the US, that THAT might have been what triggered this discussion.

Eventually, we may be "One World." I would love to see that in my lifetime, but probably won't. Open borders, no nationalities... Great! But, we will still have poverty somewhere, the wealthy will still set the rules to their advantage, and therefore the playing field will never be even.

Of course you did, several times, with your comments about how they have 3 cars and Plasma TVs.

You specifically disdain the concept that these people are 'poor' compared to actual poor folks.

This is the equivalent of the point I was making. Your 'more level playing field' comes directly at cost to our wealth and standard of living. And most Americans don't see the benefit in that at this time.

An example. I have to go to the dentist, because one of my teeth is hurting. I know that around the world people have MUCH worse dental problems than I do - ones which would make anyone cringe with empathy. But I have a limited amount of money, and I'm going to go to the dentist for myself before I spend my money helping others do so, because my goddamn tooth hurts.

The abstract notion of helping the poor in other countries is never going to supplant the desire to help the poor in one's own country, not until our world organization is drastically different then it is today.

I didn't say anything on this thread about giving money to others.

If the whole world thinks the world is flat, it doesn't make it flat.

Let me make what I think about that clear: keep your sore tooth money (or spend it on sore tooth alleviation). Change your attitude about prioritizing based on nationality lottery.

Of course you did, several times, with your comments about how they have 3 cars and Plasma TVs.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Of course you did, several times, with your comments about how they have 3 cars and Plasma TVs.

He did not say that. He said Americans are considered poor when they don't have 2 cars and 3 TVs. It's true that I misquoted that. (Sorry!) It's also true that even the correct quote is an exaggeration. But in spite of all that, the core of his message remains true: People who are poor as in "can't afford a car" have a weaker claim on our consciences than people who are poor as in "can't even afford tap water -- or any clean water for that matter".

Oh yes you have! Setting up our trade policies so as to benefit people in other countries, and not in order to benefit our country, is in in practice 'giving money to others.'

Yaknow, your argument has been kindof all over the place in this thread - as much as anyone else's has - and if you're just going to accuse everyone who talks to you of doing nothing but creating strawmen, it's pretty boring and I'm not going to continue.

The shape of the world is a provable, scientific fact. Opinions about what money should or should not be spent on are not provable facts.

If the majority of the world believes that their parochial interests are more important then that of those abroad, I'd say it's a pretty good indicator that - as I have maintained all along - what you are railing against is human nature. It doesn't have one thing to do with being American at all.

Protecting America's interests and the ability to continue to be a leader in terms of technological development are more important to me than solving the problems of the world.

I would add that I support having greatly increased immigration, and anyone who can make it here should be free to join our system.

Any country who wants to become an affiliate of the new American empire should be able to do so as well. But for those countries who want to zealously guard their independence and national/cultural identity, I cannot recommend policies which focus on improving the lives of their citizens at the cost of ours.

He did not say that. He said Americans are considered poor when they don't have 2 cars and 3 TVs.

Also, I think you addressed my typo. I was speaking about a room of people with two legs (us) discussing the merits of people with one leg (1st world poor) versus those with no legs (3rd world poor). I understand that there is a difference between the men with one and the men with no legs. I'm simply saying that both receive my compassion because I am so fortunate to have both my legs.

-I think you see me saying that the man with one leg is worth compassion, and you don't think I appreciate the life the man with no legs has.

-I think I see you focus so much on the man with no legs that I worry you're too dismissive of the man with one leg.

I guess I'm of the mindset that a people with two legs (us), are not the correct actors to be making judgement calls on one leg versus none. We simply need to appreciate our legs, and help those without.

I am a proponent of the ultimate survival of the human race as a whole over the longest time periods imaginable.

Our primary and overriding concern at this time should be the colonization of space and whatever moons, planets, planetoids, or other stars we possibly can.

In my opinion this dwarfs all other concerns as a question of what our national and species' priorities should be. I would rather see that 40 billion dollars spent on establishing a future for all of humanity, away of the confines of this planet, then see it be spent on feeding people.

It's just a question of which actions can do the most good in the long run for the most people. Spreading our biological base out to the farthest extent possible guarantees us a future. Feeding the poor does not. Ergo, the choice is easy to make regarding what actions we should take.

I don't mean to derail your thread, I just wanted to give you an example of the factors which underlie my thought process on this issue.

Thomas wrote:

He did not say that. He said Americans are considered poor when they don't have 2 cars and 3 TVs.

Unless there's some other post you are referring to that I've forgotten, I didn't say that either.

Americans are so spoiled that they consider themselves poor when they have 2 cars, 3 TVs and big credit card bills. It's ridiculous.

Poverty now comes with a color TV
Census data find an ever-growing material prosperity, with formerly high-dollar luxury items now commonplace in even poor households.

In case there was any doubt, a study has confirmed that Americans have a lot of what economists know, technically, as stuff.
The computer has surpassed the dishwasher as a standard household appliance. The poorest Americans have posted a sharp rise in access to air conditioning. The richest Americans still own the most cars, but they are choosing to own slightly fewer of them than they used to.

Poor, but more comfortable
The study doesn't explore the happiness factor -- whether the growing material prosperity is actually making people feel more satisfied with their lives. While economists tend to focus on things that can be measured in dollars and cents, the spiritual side of the economy has begun to garner more attention. That's partly because some research has found that once people gain a modest sufficiency in goods, further increases in income don't result in rising happiness. Census researchers don't have a happiness index, but they are exploring aspects of well-being that go beyond physical goods. For example, nearly 13% of Americans have incomes that place them below the official poverty line. But what does that mean in terms of their daily lives? The fact that 95% of them may have a refrigerator tells only part of the story.

The Census report also compares, from 1992 through 1998, people's perceptions of whether basic needs were being met. More than 92% of Americans below the poverty line said they had enough food, as of 1998. Some 86% said they had no unmet need for a doctor, 89% had no roof leaks, and 87% said they had no unpaid rent or mortgage.

Why? Why is propagation of the human race so important to you? Would you prefer to have more suffering now so that more future humans can be born?

If so, what is the reasoning you have behind it (if any)?

Why is colonizing space for the future more important than feeding starving people now?

How does your reasoning go about this? A space colonization daydream is more important than people dying here and now because...?

Why do you prioritize the "future" of non-existent people over the currently suffering ones?

What do you owe those non-existent people that you don't own your fellow man now?

Well you boggled my mind enough that I can't help but derail it too. I don't get why you prioritize the suffering of people who don't yet exist, through a means that may not even help them, more than people who do exist and suffer right now. So explain away, this is a very odd perspective to me and I'd like to hear how you justify it to yourself.

If you can't imagine a situation where there is a "right" solider to prioritize maybe you need a better moral compass. My moral compass works fine in such a situation.

1) If there are any soldiers who will simply not survive, efforts should prioritize those who will. As an example of how this fits my "suffering" criterion this reduces suffering of their loved ones immensely while you can not do so with the one who will not survive.

2) If there are any soldiers with more acute suffering, efforts should prioritize them. If one has a splinter, and the other a gaping wound it's clear that their care can be prioritized.

3) All other things being equal, the goal should be to minimize as much suffering as possible (spread out the care as well as you can).

The propagation of the human race is the ultimate message and mission of the only real piece of life on this planet - DNA. It is our duty to take all possible actions to continue the race in perpetuity.

Humans exist to provide meaning to the Universe, which - absent an outside observer - is like heaven's choir playing in an empty hall.

Quote:

Why is colonizing space for the future more important than feeding starving people now?

Is this a serious question? C'mon.

However, the survival of our entire race is not guaranteed.

Individual people's lives are not important when considered against the survival of the entire race.

Just because you haven't put any serious thought into the future of space travel and colonization, Robert, doesn't make it a 'daydream.' It is a reality and the reality we all must prepare for.

Because the current population of humanity is trivial compared to our eventual population - IF we can guarantee that they will have a chance to exist.

Maximum good is achieved by allowing our population base to expand maximally, not ensuring the best possible life for individual units.

I don't owe either of them anything, certainly not in the sense you mean it. Instead I owe it to myself to focus on a more optimum goal, instead of getting bogged down with minor ones.

I'm not prioritizing the 'suffering' of people who don't exist yet, I'm prioritizing the ability for them to exist.

Countless trillions of them, so many as to dwarf the current population as nothing.

To say that focusing on giving them the ability to live 'may not even help them' is indicative of a lack of understanding of what I'm talking about on your part.

The purpose of the organism is not to ensure the greatest life possible for each individual cell, but instead to continue the life of the organism.

This is essentially how I see Humanity and it's why I prioritize continuing the life of the organism over ensuring that each cell is given the best life possible.

I do not believe that the end of suffering or of hunger will come about through direct intervention. I believe this true because history has shown me every reason to believe that this is true.

You rail against Americans for showing the same characteristics that ALL Humans share, as if they(we) are specially guilty of these things.

I don't foresee either America or any other nation in the world changing to support the policies that you champion. I really don't.

Do you? I doubt you do.

This whole thread seems like mostly a place for you to vent about the fact that others don't share your moral conceptions.

But I must tell you that to date you have not really convinced me that I should work to change our policies in this area... and I must reiterate, that decisions on your part to condemn me for having different ideas about where our policies and priorities should be focused are not meaningful to me in the slightest.

Every time Okie or someone else here accuses me of being an ultra-liberal, I'm going to link to this series of posts just to show 'em that others make me look downright Conservative.