Can We really get rid of poverty?

Apr 2015
1,705
Italy
#1
Lets say We sincerely embrace this goal as humans. Can it be obtained? Not saying we Will all end up living in mansions with an iPhone and a 50 inches tv for anyone but talking about guaranteeing rights like fresh water, a decent amount of food, healthcare able to deal with things that in the developed world are not even a problem anymore.

Would we be able to get rid of poverty and slavery or would it be a problem we Will always have to deal with?
Can our society and our economy work or can We fix it in order to work without exploitation of poor people?

Can we have an economy that brings all country up or close to todays First world standards or in order to have such standards we absolutely Need countries to exploit?

Would it be useful to go After the super rich the banks and corporation that are pushing for a determinate kind of economy and the speculative economy in General like We did with the Kings and the nobles in the past or would it be useless?

Will mechanization of the works and developments in technology in the future reduce the Need of hard work and therefore the Need of slaves ( like for example the fact that today We have electricity, Washing machines, fridges and Cars while elite ancient romans needed slaves in their homes for that ) ?



Inviato dal mio Redmi Note 3 utilizzando Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

Asherman

Forum Staff
May 2013
3,279
Albuquerque, NM
#2
Poverty, like Wealth is a subjective term. As long as one has the least degree more/less than the other, both poverty and wealth exist. In short, poverty will exist until there is no more than one human left alive.

It seems the best society can aim for is the "Greatest Good, for the Greatest Number". Thank you, Jeremy. How we govern ourselves to achieve that worthy goal is still in dispute. Personally, I'm for a representational Republic with constraints on those who lead. I'm also a big fan of the Common Law that is flexible enough to remain relevant over many years and different problems.
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,251
#3
Poverty and Wealth are more than just some minor difference, Poverty is a lack of the basics , while wealth is such excess that any form off work is not required. Sure slippery definitions and in different places and times different levels standards can be be described.

Poverty can be eliminated, there is no particularly reason for it in much of the world.

Of course people being people and the history of human governance tells us it will be with us most likely permanently.

The Greatest Good for the Greatest number I have a problem as it has no problem with screwing some people absolutely.
 

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
6,113
US
#4
It is highly unlikely. Providing even the basics for everybody in the world is daunting, providing several overwhelming challenges. Firstly, assuming those with excess will share what are limited resources, secondly, there needs to be the logistics to ship, warehouse and distribute the resources. Recall how many times those responsible for overseeing things - from high dictators to lowly petty government officials have sold, traded or hoarded resources that are meant for the needy. Finally, even if you could distribute the resources, will they be used by the family for its intended purpose? We all have heard stories of families selling food stamps for contraband. I once knew a man with a drinking problem who inherited $20,000. Within a year he had wasted all the money on wine, women and song.
 
Last edited:
Mar 2012
18,030
In the bag of ecstatic squirt
#5
I'm also a big fan of the Common Law that is flexible enough to remain relevant over many years and different problems.
I have an impression that you do not like Constitutionalism, this matter is a bit off topic here but, I am interested to know your perspective on this. At any rate laws and government are factors of poverty and perspective by the people of it.
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,251
#6
It is highly unlikely. Providing even the basics for everybody in the world is daunting, providing several overwhelming challenges. Firstly, assuming those with excess will share what are limited resources, secondly, there needs to be the logistics to ship, warehouse and distribute the resources. Recall how many times those responsible for overseeing things - from high dictators to lowly petty government officials have sold, traded or hoarded resources that are meant for the needy. Finally, even if you could distribute the resources, will they be used by the family for its intended purpose? We all have heard stories of families selling food stamps for contraband. I once knew a man with a drinking problem who inherited $20,000. Within a year he had wasted all the money on wine, women and song.
we have enough resources. there is enough food it's just wasted or badly distributed. If we could channel all the resources wasted on the military there would be plenty to go around. Not saying it's practical , but it's not really a resources problem. There is plenty of resources wide wide.
 
Apr 2015
1,705
Italy
#7
we have enough resources. there is enough food it's just wasted or badly distributed. If we could channel all the resources wasted on the military there would be plenty to go around. Not saying it's practical , but it's not really a resources problem. There is plenty of resources wide wide.
In our economy farmers are given money to destroy part of the food they produce in order to reduce the offering and keep the prices of the food stable. That feels schizophrenic to me. Destroying oranges, apples, milk when people are starving.

Or destroying perfectly good food because expiring dates are expired, not even charities are allowed to take that food.

Or they destroy perfectly good fruits cause they're not beautiful enough to be sold in the markets

That is all food that could end up on peoples table at the same cost it takes to get rid of it. Yet We chose to get rid of it.

Or also switching to food cultures to fuel cultures cause you can profit more on that i think a priority should be to have your belly full not the car tank full. But if We blindly follow capitalistic principles thats exactly what we re supposed to do




Inviato dal mio Redmi Note 3 utilizzando Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
6,113
US
#8
we have enough resources. there is enough food it's just wasted or badly distributed. If we could channel all the resources wasted on the military there would be plenty to go around. Not saying it's practical , but it's not really a resources problem. There is plenty of resources wide wide.
All resources are limited. If you are speaking of food, could we distribute and dispense every foodstuff in the world right now to feed everybody tomorrow? Maybe. Who's paying for it? For example, I have 100 head of cattle or 100 bushels of wheat. Am I giving it away? Probably not, lest i have nothing for my family. So, who is paying me? Some first world nation? Well, that is taxpayers then. This is a constant debate in the U.S. How much do you redistribute to others. Now, what happens the following day? Who feeds everybody? Do we have enough to feed everybody, everyday for a year? I doubt it. For the rest of eternity? I don't think so. Then, as I mentioned there is waste. Bureaucracies are notorious for this. When food has been donated to the nation of Somalia in the past, little to none got to the needy. Say what you want about churches, but freewill giving and charity is more efficient and effective than the U.N. or one of its corrupt organizations. They can't even keep women and children safe from their predatory soldiers. It really is not so simple. If it was, wouldn't we have perfected the process by now and have eliminated hunger? Now, go to the next level, clothing, then housing, medical care and on and on.
 
Last edited:
Aug 2015
870
wish it was Constantinople
#9
no. there will always be a class difference. However, the term 'poverty' may be different in the future. in our current day poverty may be having no food and shelter. However in the future, poverty may be owning a house the size of a city while wealthy people would own entire planets. the world is constantly developing and so is the perspective on such matters/
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,251
#10
All resources are limited. If you are speaking of food, could we distribute and dispense every foodstuff in the world right now to feed everybody tomorrow? Maybe. Who's paying for it? For example, I have 100 head of cattle or 100 bushels of wheat. Am I giving it away? Probably not, lest i have nothing for my family. So, who is paying me? Some first world nation? Well, that is taxpayers then. This is a constant debate in the U.S. How much do you redistribute to others. Now, what happens the following day? Who feeds everybody? Do we have enough to feed everybody, everyday for a year? I doubt it. For the rest of eternity? I don't think so. Then, as I mentioned there is waste. Bureaucracies are notorious for this. When food has been donated to the nation of Somalia in the past, little to none got to the needy. Say what you want about churches, but freewill giving and charity is more efficient and effective than the U.N. or one of its corrupt organizations. They can't even keep women and children safe from their predatory soldiers. It really is not so simple. If it was, wouldn't we have perfected the process by now and have eliminated hunger? Now, go to the next level, clothing, then housing, medical care and on and on.
there's easily enough resources to feed everyone, the amount of food wasted world wide, a lot for comical reasons like not looking right etc. World wide there is not a shortage of food.

Yes the organisational problems are huge, much more so then the resources.