Genetic illnesses.

A hundred years ago I would be dead from the appendicitis I had at the age of 12. But if I have children are they more likely to suffer from it because I did? I don't know that any study has ever been done on that particular ailment.

Portal Star,

I apologise for reversing your name. It was an error but star portal sounds good.

I agree slogans are useful promotional tools but they have no place in debate. They tend to beg questions rather than answer them. Some examples : Is this child well enough to fish? Does the child have access to a pond? Does the child have a fishing rod? Is the pond contaminated? These are matters with which aid agencies are concerned but Long term welfare is meaningless unless short term welfare is guaranteed.

It is difficult not to infer from your statements that you advocate neglect and starvation as a remedy for neglect and starvation. Let the ill and unproductive and the needy die from their condition to ease the burden; is that your position? Apart from the obvious immorality there are other objections which might be posited in the terms of economic rationalism which seems to be your gospel. That neglect and starvation is compounding not solving these problems is something you may wish to subject to a rational analysis.

Wilso - haven't gotten appendicitis, but I was from the womb untimely ripped!




I may be cruel in that I recognize some need to die. This is the way nature works. But don't get me wrong, I am also a social animal and part of a social community in which I care for the welfare of my fellow man. I want to do good, but also recognize the natural need for death. This is why I would not keep everyone alive, it would be disasterous. This is also why I place emphasis on the individual - it is the burden of the individual to survive and reproduce (and hopefully have a somewhat pleasant time inbetween birth and death!).

I basically agree with Thomas Chalmers, as stated before (you can look him up on the web.) He distinguished between the deserving and undeserving poor. He also took welfare out of the hands of the state (which, since it started giving handouts, caused numbers of the poor to increase dramatically) and he started a non-goverment system of charity which worked wonders.

I don't believe in ignoring poverty, but I don't believe it's the government's job - especially not in as large a nation as America (socialism seems to work better in smaller more personal communities.) If anything, social matters should be left up to the states, and they should have more funding for such things (because the federal gov't taxes way out of their boundaries anyway, based on the whole interstate commerce thing.) Non-government social programs are fabulous and I would have these take the place of the government ones any day, because they are out of good will and not obligation, and because the closer the decision making is to the people it effects, the better it will be.

My use of the teach a child to fish argument was a great summation of why you can't just throw money at people, or their government. If you want to make a postive lasting and corrective change in someone's life, you need to help them help themselves. By fixing their "rod" if this means overthrowing a tyrannical government, setting up a public education system, or cow leasing, etc. There are plenty of individual solutions to individual problems. You can't give everyone food and shelter because of the same reason that if you're someone's boss at a company you can't pay them no matter what. If you pay someone the same no matter how hard they work, they won't work as hard, or not at all. The same goes for most people in most situations. There must be motivation for self-sustinance. Let me quote a beloved american document: it is only fair to ask for "The pursuit of happiness." In other words, give them a chance in some way and let them do the rest. We don't have to garuntee life liberty and happiness, but the freedom to be able to pursue it.

And as for rationality, it is difficult to be rational in a subject so idealized and emotional, at the core of human feelings about community and social responsibility. That is why it is important to take a step back and look at what has worked and what hasn't, rather than impulsively do what feels good or the most idyllic.

Portal Star,

No matter how you attempt to rationalise mean spiritedness it remains mean spiritedness. I can see you have either no inclination or capacity to critically review you own statements. You demonstrate ignorance of the process and rationale of aid for the poor. You endeavour to justify your meanness by quoting economic theory which you clearly do not understand. You mistakenly believe that government welfare programs produce poverty but private programs "magically" alleviate it. You demonstrate unforgiveable ignorance of economic and social history.
You appear to have no ideas about the causes of poverty and consider it a blameworthy state. You are an ignorant bigot who passes off uninformed prejudice as fact.

Let me suggest you begin to read about poverty, about how colonialism and economic exploitation of developing economies have drained the resources of the third world and given little in return. Perhaps you will then come to an understanding of why we Westerners are so hated in the middle east. Read about the World Bank and the WTO, both euphemisms for US economic power, the tools of economic imperialism. Read about the conditions imposed which prevent national governments from spending on education, health, housing and childcare; the restrictions that result in millions of children dying each year from diseases we have forgotten about. Read about how loans to developing countries drain off surpluses and force the recipients to give away their resources in interest payments. Read about the the hideous medical trials conducted by the susidiaries of our Drug companies on citizens of the third world.

Perhaps you might also read how people in the third world work to produce cheap goods for us and receive insufficient to feed themselves in return.

Maybe you might consider how the US continually consumes much more than it produces and who goes without so that might happen.

Then perhaps you will consider the statistics which show the US to be the meanest of developed nations in the granting of economic aid.

To the vast majority of what you said: oy vey. Some things would take months to argue against, and you seem set in your views so I will not waste my fingers. For your information I am well read, and I reccomend you look at Thomas Chalmers, like I mentioned before, as his work is the basis for my argument. (http://www.libertyhaven.com/theoreticalorphilosophicalissues/economics/economicissues/thomas.shtml).
Of course the United States has done intolerable things, for example, look at Nicaragua and Cuba. But this is not the root of all poverty, as you make it sound, and you are talking about political causes of poverty, which would begin to be solved by fixing the government, as I mentioned above. Such a method would probably invoke war, which is a drain on our society - If I remember correctly that is called nation-building - getting involved in foreign affairs.

To the claim that we use the third world to produce cheap goods - that is true, and the places that we use to do so benefit from the income they would otherwise not get. Illegal immigrants flock to America and are willing to work for cheap labor because it is better than what they can get in their country. American companies aren't forcing people to work, they are giving them the opportunity to work and pumping money into their community by doing so. (note: there is a big distinction here between paid work and slave labor.) Don't forget that a dollar can buy you a lot more in 2nd and 3rd world countries than it can in America.

The view of the US being the benevolent protector of the world's downtrodden, is getting old, and is BULLSHIT.

I don't remember saying anything about the US being the world's benevolent protector, but it appears that you and Gozmo wish for it to be.

Not at all Portal, but I do think wealthy nations such as ours have a responsibility to the rest of the world. I am critical of the US because it's record in this regard is abysmal. Australia is also mean and deserves criticism. Interestingly the nations which have the more developed domestic social policy are the more generous in International aid.

Top 100 Economic aid - donor (per capita)

Map & Graph: Economy: Top 100 Economic aid - donor (per capita)
â Scroll down for more information â Show map full screen

Country Description Amount
1. Luxembourg $356.69 per person
2. Norway $309.38 per person
3. Denmark $303.6 per person
4. Netherlands $217.83 per person
5. Sweden $191.51 per person
6. Switzerland $150.64 per person
7. France $105.41 per person
8. United Kingdom $75.28 per person
9. Belgium $74.36 per person
10. Finland $73.12 per person
11. Ireland $72.88 per person
12. Japan $71.67 per person
13. Germany $67.27 per person
14. Austria $50.18 per person
15. Australia $45.74 per person
16. Canada $40.75 per person
17. Spain $33.19 per person
18. Portugal $26.87 per person
19. New Zealand $25.51 per person
20. United States $24.59 per person


I only raised this matter because you criticised efforts to aid the sick and poor in earlier posts.

As to your earlier post, I was not so much looking for an argument but wishing to provoke you to further enquiry. You have demonstrated interest in but ignorance of these matters. It occurred to me that information might free you from prejudicial thinking.

Blimey. We ARE mean...

Yes dlowan,

It is amazing how generous we feel and how little we give.

This is ridiculous. Economic aid is usually given to countries in exchange for some political benefit. It is not out of "Meanness" or "Goodness." You are full of goodwill but also foolhardy, and it is not the goodwill I was arguing against. I want people to be charitible wisely, and that will make all the difference. Throwing money at problems usually doesn't make them go away, politics and individuals are more complicated than the idealism you insist upon.

The questions you should be asking are not, "How much did they give," but "How effective was what they did?" and "How effective was it in the long-term?" "How effective is it compared to other types of social help?"

I've thought about this quite often with regards the current situation concerning refugees/asylum seekers. There's been a number who have been denied asylum on the grounds that they're economic refugees. And the policy is that this is not a reason to be granted asylum. What we're effectively saying is "it's not our problem". So who's problem is it? If the wealthy nations of the earth are not going to take any responsibility to assist those with less wealth, what is the future for these people? You're right Deb, we are mean. We are saying to these people "bad luck". If you're unfortunate enough to be born in a country without adequate food, housing, health, education etc, then you're gonna die young and that's your f**king problem.

Would you have an open immigration policy? Any one who wants to come live in America can? What about becoming a citizen?

Can you see any potential drain this would have on the United States?

Something has got to be better than the "let 'em all starve" policy pushed by conservatives. But it's not you, so don't go worrying about anyone else. Nobody, least of all me, expects it.

As to what Wilso points out, as an American who has lived in three states within the last year, and traveled throughout, I can verify his statement:


The US is a nation in which most folks consider themselves to be "middle class", even when they are clearly lower income. Middle class is currently defined as around $44,000 per year for a family of four. And the median income is going down rapidly for much of the citizenry due to loss of jobs, economic instability and lost benefits. Some say it is approaching 25% of a family income to deal with "average" medical bills and care. When you factor in any of the more severe genetic or congenital or even "modern" disease such as depression, CFS, and STD's, the situation becomes most precarious indeed.

It is often meaningless to many folks to discuss theorhetical (sp?) issues such as many responses have included. Maybe if the US could get a handle on the base of needs first, then there could be a good opportunity to deal with sadder and more destructive medical issues with prevention the highest priority. Ranks higher with me than sending space exploration to the moon and Mars. But heck, I must be a Commie or summat!

Something called Fragile X Syndrome has affected both my brothers and two of my cousins. It causes mental retardation sometimes including acting out behaviors and is hereditary.

Having done years of volunteer work with people with developmental disabilities, I feel very strongly that they have every right to be housed, fed and clothed in order to live as independently as possible.

I also have very strong opinions about teaching birth control and encouraging vasectomies or getting one's tubes tied if the cause of the disability is hereditary. Like Deb, I wouldn't wish the pain, the heartache and prejudice (which are beyond belief) on my worst enemy. The only reason that I wouldn't want automatic sterilization is the historic abuses that have occured with such programs.

As a fortunate human being who has seen the miraculous and beautiful human spirit in people with incredibly devastating disabilities, I think it is imperative for us to help those who are less fortunate.

I agree with both cobalt and diane. On Mars probing, really, back up and look around. Things are mean out there, and here, on this earth.

truth
The problem raised in this thead has no perfect resolution, but I can't accept any policy that would refuse to prolong the life and comfort of genetically damaged people just because it would be eugenically unprofitable. Who REALLY cares more about the future of "the species" than for suffering individuals?
Also, if you teach a child to fish, he may be able to feed himself--that is IF unregulated corporations do not pollute his waters.

JLN--YES! Or, what if he has no hands?

At least some people are addressing the subject of the thread. For that I thank you.