Poverty: Can this spectre be ended by man?

[SpyderEdgeForever]

Without getting into any political argument or bickering, can we discuss this topic? Poverty: What are its root causes? A faithful person could say the root cause of poverty is that man is at odds with his Creator. But in human terms, what are some of the notable causes of poverty and people being poor and how can it be solved?

A technology man told me poverty is simply material lack. Once we have self replicating autonomous machines and intelligent machines, says he, that can produce an over abundance of goods, there is no more poverty, says he. He said to me "Think about it man. How can you have poor people when anyone and everyone can have whatever material goods they desire, at the touch of a button, from an Armani suit, to an expensive sports car, from a brand new computer to a set of shoes and dinner plates?" That is his answer.

Others think the answer lays in redistribution of wealth but that leads to politics.

There are also different forms of poverty, material, education, etc.

What would a world look like where there was no lack of material, energy, or information, where every person born had the guarantee that they would have access to these, plus good physical health?

Someone else said that the problem with human beings is that even if everyone were "rich" like that, and if everyone had a comfortable shelter, humans would still fight over other things. Ofcourse that is another topic: war.

Some things have fundamental limits: Beachfront Los Angeles property, for example. The technology man's answer to lack of living space is for mankind to use those technologies to build massive super tower complexes, vertical instead of horizontal, across the Earth's surface, and house people in massive comfortable sky scrapers that are self maintaining. All they need is energy from the sun and water and chemicals and possibly nuclear power, and, atoms, and they keep themselves maintained with no need for human effort.

Here I will use Spyderco as an example:

Imagine that there are ten people and there are five Spyderco knives. All ten people want a Spyderco knife but there are only five to go around. It seems the most logical thing would be to make five more Spyderco knives for those other five people, and there is no more "Spyderco poverty" in that example.

[Bloke]

Imagine that there are ten people and there are five Spyderco knives. All ten people want a Spyderco knife

[tvenuto]

“It makes no difference what men think of war, said the judge. War endures. As well ask men what they think of stone. War was always here. Before man was, war waited for him. The ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner. That is the way it was and will be. That way and not some other way.”

-Cornac McCarthy, Blood Meridian

Man will always seek to impose his will upon the outside world, be that nature, or other men. This is the subject of the book Blood Meridian. The (much debated) judge is the physical embodiment of this will, in my analysis. It’s a great source of innovation and “progress” but its dark side is war, and the rapacious nature of those in power (greed). How this relates to your question is that no matter the abundance, we will not shed our nature.

[The Meat man]

Imagine that there are ten people and there are five Spyderco knives. All ten people want a Spyderco knife

Hitting the turps last night, eh Bloke? :p :D

[Dutchman]

The man is the richest, who's pleasures are the cheapest.

[James Y]

There are people who have 'poverty mentality', or a mentality of lack. With those types, even if you gave them millions of dollars, they would be broke again in short order. A lot has to do with not knowing how to handle money and stupidly wasting it, but deep down, it goes back to poverty mentality; thus the inability to hold on to abundance even if it's given to them.

I'm not saying that all poor people are like that, but a significant percentage or people are. That's one reason why so many people who win the lottery end up worse off within a few years than they were before winning it.

Jim

[MichaelScott]

Technology fueled by capitalism could. Ideology however, is a huge problem.

[Doc Dan]

"The natural state of Man is barbarism" (Robert E. Howard). This can be argued pro and con, but it is abundantly clear that humans are bent towards being at odds with others.

On another note, even if we leveled the playing field and gave everyone equal money and property, poverty would still resume, and we could stop famine and war and disease. Rich people think differently (scientifically shown) than other people. It does not matter the education level as much as people think. Rich people's minds work differently. The same is true for many poor people. Their minds, thinking patterns, the way they think about property, work, and money, is vastly different. Sure, some people, due to circumstances beyond their control (war, famine, etc.) are poor. But, in places that have little disease, no war, no famine, a lot of money making opportunities, etc. there are still many poor people. Some are poor because of laziness. But, many are poor simply because they think poor. And, there are some, through no fault of their own, that life has simply brought monumental circumstances that no one could control that makes them poor.

[ChrisinHove]

Absolute poverty, or the lack of life’s minimum essentials could surely be eradicated. Relative poverty, most certainly not.

[JD Spydo]

There are people who have 'poverty mentality', or a mentality of lack. With those types, even if you gave them millions of dollars, they would be broke again in short order. A lot has to do with not knowing how to handle money and stupidly wasting it, but deep down, it goes back to poverty mentality; thus the inability to hold on to abundance even if it's given to them.

I'm not saying that all poor people are like that, but a significant percentage or people are. That's one reason why so many people who win the lottery end up worse off within a few years than they were before winning it.

Not only what Jim just said which is all true>> but the Lord Jesus himself said "The Poor You Have With You Always". And that was a couple of thousand years ago when he said it.
I was trainwrecked financially a few years back myself and I'm here to tell you that with our system it can happen to anyone. Now that would be the "Bad Luck" road to poverty. But there is an old saying that my dear old, late dad used to say "Poor People Many Times Have Poor Ways". With that said some people just flat out shoot themselves in the foot with behaviors and endulgences that would eventually make virtually anyone poor.
There are also some relatively intelligent people who have the potential for greatness but due to a poor work ethic and flat out laziness they just kind of dig a hole for themselves.
Others unfortunately are truly borne into it >> and with no guidance or education they tend to stay in that rut

[SpyderEdgeForever]

Absolute poverty, or the lack of life’s minimum essentials could surely be eradicated. Relative poverty, most certainly not.

I think this is a very good point that people should think about and human beings, even with our flaws and sins and problems could achieve.

Doc and JD and others also made some very good points, and I appreciate your ideas and feedback and thoughts on this everyone.

Chris, let's explore this a little more in depth: I agree with Doc that different human beings think differently and some people have different drives than others. There are some who can take a few thousand dollars and invest it into millons and there are some who given millions would squander it in a few years or less.

While Star Trek is science fiction humanism I think the basic idea is that advanced machine technology could eliminate absolute poverty, by mass producing such an abundance of life's minimum essentials, that noone experiences that form of poverty, unless they are so desperately mentally ill as to be unable to care for themselves; in that case they could be placed within a controlled institution or the care of others, if there was no medical way to cure or repair the damage in their brains/minds.

Here is an example of such a world: Say we have replicators that produce an endless supply of all necessary goods and everyone has a minimum access to replicator technology from childhood on up. Housing would need to be provided, as well, some form of guaranteed housing and medical safety net. The costs traditionally associated with this are gone because the advanced machines with intelligence in them can provide all of these needs without needing to be paid: As long as they have energy and matter in the form of atoms and at first solar and water power and later on controlled fusion, then the only other cost would be programming.

There would still be what you call "relative poverty: Some people would be able to achieve greater things, perhaps not manifested in material riches anymore but in societal fame or something else, similiar to what we see in Star Trek. People would be freed to pursue those areas of their interest and desire.

The downsides to this are:

1 Dangerous intelligent machines would have to be prevented from turning on the humans.
2 Dangerous people who would then be freed to pursue their areas of endeavor such as enslavement and attacks on other humans.

[ChrisinHove]

I think the western world is turning in that direction - automation of processes and manufacturing etc. The trouble is, instead of just giving us more time, it’s giving us less money! Wealth is still generated by those processes and products, but benefits fewer people. This gets political, real quick!

[Evil D]

I work in some pretty poor neighborhoods everyday. One big problem seems to be that people just don't care. Some people's standards are so low they may desire more and hate being poor but they won't take the steps needed to improve their situation. Maybe it's laziness, but the same people living off the system are usually wearing new clothes and using expensive smart phones. I grew up dirt poor and I may not be wealthy now but I've made a better life for my kids than I had. One thing that baffles me is how some people just don't care about their community. When I drive through some parts of town there is literally garbage lining the streets. How does it get there? Nobody will lift a finger to clean it up even from their own front lawn so I have to assume the same people threw it on the ground, probably out of their car window. People who care so little about their own surroundings will never see it any better.

[SpyderEdgeForever]

I work in some pretty poor neighborhoods everyday. One big problem seems to be that people just don't care. Some people's standards are so low they may desire more and hate being poor but they won't take the steps needed to improve their situation. Maybe it's laziness, but the same people living off the system are usually wearing new clothes and using expensive smart phones. I grew up dirt poor and I may not be wealthy now but I've made a better life for my kids than I had. One thing that baffles me is how some people just don't care about their community. When I drive through some parts of town there is literally garbage lining the streets. How does it get there? Nobody will lift a finger to clean it up even from their own front lawn so I have to assume the same people threw it on the ground, probably out of their car window. People who care so little about their own surroundings will never see it any better.

David, this is a very good point and I have seen this, too. What are your comments on the following? I had a discussion with a man who is a nanotechnologist into robotics and AI and all of that, and, we were discussing poverty, and interestingly enough he hit on some of the same points you did, in your above post. I asked him what is his answer? He said the answer as he sees it, is to make automated systems so cheap and so common that aside from human programming, they are self-running and then it becomes cheap and easy for people to help each other, without much cost to themselves. In other words, he believes that when or if people could have all of the things they want without having to expend much effort at all to get it, they will be more charitable to each other and even if they don't care, the background enviroment they live in does the work for them. He also claimed that education should become so easy and available that even the least of people can have the education that now is in the hands of Ivy league schools. That is his opinion, ofcourse.

[Doc Dan]

Absolute poverty, or the lack of life’s minimum essentials could surely be eradicated. Relative poverty, most certainly not.

I think this is a very good point that people should think about and human beings, even with our flaws and sins and problems could achieve.

Doc and JD and others also made some very good points, and I appreciate your ideas and feedback and thoughts on this everyone.

Chris, let's explore this a little more in depth: I agree with Doc that different human beings think differently and some people have different drives than others. There are some who can take a few thousand dollars and invest it into millons and there are some who given millions would squander it in a few years or less.

While Star Trek is science fiction humanism I think the basic idea is that advanced machine technology could eliminate absolute poverty, by mass producing such an abundance of life's minimum essentials, that noone experiences that form of poverty, unless they are so desperately mentally ill as to be unable to care for themselves; in that case they could be placed within a controlled institution or the care of others, if there was no medical way to cure or repair the damage in their brains/minds.

Here is an example of such a world: Say we have replicators that produce an endless supply of all necessary goods and everyone has a minimum access to replicator technology from childhood on up. Housing would need to be provided, as well, some form of guaranteed housing and medical safety net. The costs traditionally associated with this are gone because the advanced machines with intelligence in them can provide all of these needs without needing to be paid: As long as they have energy and matter in the form of atoms and at first solar and water power and later on controlled fusion, then the only other cost would be programming.

There would still be what you call "relative poverty: Some people would be able to achieve greater things, perhaps not manifested in material riches anymore but in societal fame or something else, similiar to what we see in Star Trek. People would be freed to pursue those areas of their interest and desire.

The downsides to this are:

1 Dangerous intelligent machines would have to be prevented from turning on the humans.
2 Dangerous people who would then be freed to pursue their areas of endeavor such as enslavement and attacks on other humans.

In Star Trek there are always the Borg to assimilate us.

[James Y]

Even if education were easily accessible to everyone equally, everyone is not equal in ability or potential. I'm not talking about at the soul level, I'm talking about in potential abilities at various endeavors. For example, even if I was given access to elite training for the NBA or the NFL, I still wouldn't have had the unique qualities needed to excel in those particular sports. Likewise, people are NOT equal in intelligence levels, motivation, in their genetics, or the potential to excel in fields as diverse as medicine, law, technology, acting, singing, standup comedy, dancing, martial arts, painting, corporate leadership, etc.

Nowadays, it's the popular PC norm to say that everyone is equal (or potentially equal) at EVERYthing, but in reality that's not the case. And even if someone has the ideal physical genetics for a certain pursuit, such as a sport, for example, if they aren't motivated and lack the desire to achieve it, they won't. The same can be said about those who perpetually lack. No matter how many opportunities they're given, they always see themselves as the victim, always expecting handouts from everybody else. And yet, how many times have we heard about individuals who arrived here with only $50 in their pocket and little to no education, who couldn't even speak the language, who worked their way up and eventually became big successes? That type of ingenuity, motivation, and dogged determination cannot be bought; you either have it or you don't. In fact, motivation and persistence beats everything else.

Jim

[TomAiello]

Look at the dramatic reductions in poverty in the last 100 years. Poverty will be ended by human action, so long as we don't get in the way.

Free exchange of goods and services has lifted the vast majority of humanity from bare subsistence to plenty that their forefathers couldn't have dreamed of in less than 200 years. As long as we don't screw that up by trying to "regulate" or "protect" or "make fair" our descendants will remember poverty as ancient history.

https://fee.org/articles/were-seeing-ma ... l-poverty/

Most people are unaware that extreme poverty has been declining over time, despite its drastic reduction. In a recent survey, only 5 percent of Americans knew that the global extreme poverty had almost halved in the past 20 years. Two-thirds of respondents incorrectly thought it had doubled over that period.

Look at the numbers. To end poverty, all we really have to do is behave in our own self interest.

[TomAiello]

Absolute poverty, or the lack of life’s minimum essentials could surely be eradicated. Relative poverty, most certainly not.

Relative poverty is a misguided shell game.

Would you rather be someone making $100,000 per year in 1900 or today?

The "relative" answer would be 1900, for sure. That would put you in the very top echelons of the wealthy. It would also put you in a time when _no amount of money_ could buy a Paramilitary 2, or Manix 2, or internet access, or antibiotics, or an airline ticket--no amount of money.

People making $100,000 per year today are vastly better off than people making the same amount of money in 1900. That's despite the "feeling" that they aren't doing as well "comparatively."

Focusing on comparative poverty misses the big picture. We're all FAR better off than we would have been in 1900. People who are in the bottom 50% (worldwide--in the USA and europe it's more like the bottom 5%) are still much, much better off than even the most amazingly wealthy people were a century ago.

[ChrisinHove]

Absolute poverty, or the lack of life’s minimum essentials could surely be eradicated. Relative poverty, most certainly not.

Relative poverty is a misguided shell game.

Would you rather be someone making $100,000 per year in 1900 or today?

The "relative" answer would be 1900, for sure. That would put you in the very top echelons of the wealthy. It would also put you in a time when _no amount of money_ could buy a Paramilitary 2, or Manix 2, or internet access, or antibiotics, or an airline ticket--no amount of money.

People making $100,000 per year today are vastly better off than people making the same amount of money in 1900. That's despite the "feeling" that they aren't doing as well "comparatively."

Focusing on comparative poverty misses the big picture. We're all FAR better off than we would have been in 1900. People who are in the bottom 50% (worldwide--in the USA and europe it's more like the bottom 5%) are still much, much better off than even the most amazingly wealthy people were a century ago.

Fair points.

I was thinking more along the lines of when people consider themselves to be poor in relation to their neighbours. I would think that is the greater factor when it comes to lack of happiness or social cohesion in western countries, now that most of us are above the breadline, and so potentially a more divisive issue.

It depends whether you define poverty in absolute terms of square feet of living space, calories to eat, quantity of clean water to drink and bathe in, etc, but even that would vary across the globe.

On the other hand, I can see that defining poverty simply in terms of inequality is also problematic, despite that being how many will look at it for themselves.

[ChrisinHove]

This is an interesting talk. A bit much for me tbh, but interesting nonetheless.

https://youtu.be/ydKcaIE6O1k