Do you believe the human-race deserves the use of the technology avalible to them?

[Bugz]

The world would be a very romantic place if it was THAT easy...
As long as the people in these countries don't change their (generally) fucked up mentality, there is no amount of money in the world that will rid them of their poverty...

Well, the idea wasn't to build up a discussion on poverty and where cash goes to. I just wanted to emphasis the point that luxuries, which are normally very up-to-date pieces of technology do have the ability to stop poverty in terms of cash flow.

@Amildin - I don't agree with that at all either. Money can solve poverty. Money is the bane of everything that we live and stand for. If we had no money, we'd be in poverty. Money can be used to fund services / buy items etc. Money, as the saying goes, makes the world go round.

 

[Thorwyn]

True. That's how it is, the question is: is this ethically correct?

I doubt that it´s useful to operate with ethics in this case. There are no fix rules for ethics and we must not make the same mistake as all those Knights of the Order of Political Correctness, who´re constantly losing their focus during their efforts to not make mistakes.

If it´s ethically incorrect to buy luxury goods instead of giving the money to the poor, then it´s ethically incorrect to produce luxury goods in the first place. Or maybe it´s not ethically incorrect, but redundant. And if that´s the case, then we have to accept, that a certain percentage of our society will never have the chance to make a living form their own productivity (aka work), and instead permanently rely on the humanity of those people, who´re in the lucky position to have a job that´s producing non-luxury or useful goods or attendance. We´re denying them the chance for a spot under the umbrella, not because the umbrella is too small, but because we think it´s ethically correct to do so. So we´d have an even smaller percentage or people supplying an even larger percentage of people than we actually have right now.
I doubt that this is ethically correct.

Of course, in an ideal world, we wouldn´t have poverty. But people are different. They´re taking care about their own families first, then about the people in their country and then mabye about people in some remote country in the corner of Africa. (Btw, you can see a scaled down version of this behaivour in DAoC... when you get a drop you don´t need and you have to decide whether to give it to a guildmate, or another guy, most people would prefer the guildmate. Just a tangent). I think the reason for this is, that both, humanity and ethics are also some form of inssurance. There´s a much higher chance of receiving something back from the people in my country than from complete foreigners. Just like someone who´s following Kants categoric imperative and refuses to kill other people ad lib. is expecting the same from in return. It all boils down to egoism and incrasing the chance to survive. Relics of the past that we can´t get rid of.

 

[Neffneff]

Bugz i think you're thinking too short term, yes a massive in-flux of cash from people NOT buying luxuries for themselves, in the short run would see some improvement in poverty ridden countries (once the currupt have had their massive cut ofc)

But in the long run, without a commercial market pushing the boundaries of technology advancement would be very VERY slow. IMO markets like the xbox, and computer game industry PUSH technologies that we're once un-thought of into an affordable range, once technologies reach an affordable level, they begin to be used by industries all over the world to make new and old products, at a much faster and CHEAPER rate, its this shit that lets us buy cans of beans for like 7pence in some places. new technology benefits us in the rich world, BUT

and this is a big BUT it means poorer countries can achieve MORE with less cash, money starts going further, developments to turn around a country , like say bringing tourism in, that we're once waaay too expensive to build, are all of a sudden able to be built, quicker, cheaper and better.

not quite sure where im going, but basically

Technology BENEFITS EVERYONE, even the poorer countries, ESPECIALLY in the long run. technology typically as far as im aware is driven by several markets, most noticably probably being military, commercial, and industrial. commercial technology plays a large part in coming up with new ways to make simple things AFFORDABLE.

 

[old.Tohtori]

If we talk about the thread title:

Yes, we've earned it by evolving. We deserve it by making it. Afterall it's not like it was an xmas present from some god.

If we're talking about solving poverty be cancelling xmas:

A wise man once waid; In order for all people to become rich, some individuals have to become rich first.

This in mind, if we cancelled xmas, and threw our xmas moneys at poor countries, the economical and financial effects in our "rich" countries would be so unpredictable that it might 'cause more harm.

The only way to destroy poverty in the world, is to become mighty/rich/powerful enough that it's no matter if we cure poverty or not. 'cause when it doesnt' matter, and humans are in need, we do things.

 

[Chronictank]

throwing money at poor countries solves nothing,
i will probably flamed for saying it, but i think the problem IS western counties throwing money at the problem.
People in countries such as Africa now are dependant on aid, simply because its always there.
If the aid was taken away, there would be no hand outs and people would be forced to do something for their food.
Maybe i'm naive but I personally believe a far more productive method of beating poverty would be a big bang approach and give these people a few months rations, tools to grow their own crops, register them and then send them on their way. No more aid for that region anymore. Those who want to work will get on with it, those who want hand outs will go to the neighbouring region and eventually find there are no more hand outs.

Just my 2 cents

 

[crispy]

Who's to decide what we deserve or not? It's not like someone or something came and gave the technology to us...

 

[Morchaoron]

Well, the idea wasn't to build up a discussion on poverty and where cash goes to. I just wanted to emphasis the point that luxuries, which are normally very up-to-date pieces of technology do have the ability to stop poverty in terms of cash flow.

but... how?? I don't understand what you have in mind to fix it, how would that cash flow fix poverty in these (almost hopeless) third-world countries?

 

[uron]

ofc we deserve the technology, if we didnt advance things just wouldnt b possible, cures for some of the worlds killer diseases wouldnt have been found, ok so we also caused the death of others because of technology, but we save just as many imo. so in an odd way they cancel each other out.
pouring money into a country far from solves poverty, ok so every1 has enough money, so ppl will put prices up as ppl have more money, and if you pour enough money in eventually money will be almost worthless.. short term this may work, but in the long term no.
the only real wy i think to stop poverty is to give ppl the means to make their own future, by giving them tools and seeds if thts wats needed, or build factories and help thm to get some sort of economy going.
but money is for sure not the way to sort things out, y do u think the world economic powers dont jus print £XXX and give it to the county? hasnt cost us anything

 

[noblok]

but money is for sure not the way to sort things out, y do u think the world economic powers dont jus print £XXX and give it to the county? hasnt cost us anything

I always read that this is what the econmic powers are doing, actually (mostly in the form of debt relief). Structural measures would be bad for the West, so they don't get approved. I've never studied econmics though, so I may be off.

 

[uron]

I always read that this is what the econmic powers are doing, actually (mostly in the form of debt relief). Structural measures would be bad for the West, so they don't get approved. I've never studied econmics though, so I may be off.

not the same thing though, im not sure if this is true either way. they are paying the debts but the people of the country dont see a penny of tht money, i spose the idea is tht the money will cancel the money needed to cancel the debt, then the money tht was being used to pay the debts can b put into the economy....but if they are doing this it has made sod all difference.

 

[Bugz]

but... how?? I don't understand what you have in mind to fix it, how would that cash flow fix poverty in these (almost hopeless) third-world countries?

Cash buys services.

Give a company £X amount of cash and say to them 'do so and so' and they will.

Tell that company 'go build us a school in so and so for £1000' they will if the money is enticing to them.

And so on.

 

[Zenith]

I just wanted to add something... As someone mentioned, humans have no rights at all. Its just some word someone once came up with. Humans is pretty much out of order, killing mostly everything on this planet, destroying the "circle of life".


BUT, then again. You could also think like this. We got our brain. And with the brain, we got to get alot more knowledge and the ability to create things nothing else on this planet even come close to. But do we have the "rights" to kill/destroy/burn/use everything on this planet?

I wouldnt think so. Sure, there is no such thing as "rights" ( other than the word us humans came up with ), but we are damaging the planet so much, that the planet eventually will die. The resources will be spent, and the growth of all animals( except humans ) or trees/bushes/grass will stop.

One can only wonder why we are doing this sadistic act on the planet, which is our only home ( at this state ).

And we dont just kill other animals, or even the planet itself, we kill eachother aswell. Overall, the state of the human kind is poor. I dont know exact numbers, but that doesnt matter, the number of people suffering in this world cant be counted.

My own theory, about why we are in the shape we are in today, consists of two keywords;

Greed
Ego

Ofcourse there is other aspects in the whole picture, but none as big as the Greed, and the Ego of most people.


Could write all night long, but I'll leave it at this.

 

[Amildin]

How exactly?

Pump a load of cash in, build the infrastructure for a whole country (costing hundreds of billions and taking about 10-20 years) leave the country as a developed country but with no one experienced to run it and with no real education system in place. The people in poverty still living in traditional ways having far too many children and over populating since now they have the medical services to reduce the death rate.

The people would not have the experience to sustain a developed country. There would be a serious lack of foreign investment imo due to the previous nature of the country.

Money is not the key at all. Experience and sorting them out a good political system is, unfortunately thats much easier said than done. Money can only ever help these people in the short run, even if we were to give each one £1,000,000 it would then jack up prices on every good to insane prices.

Just gotta leave the countries to develop like ours had to.

 

[Bugz]

Just gotta leave the countries to develop like ours had to.

You think those countries will come out of poverty any time soon?

Corruption, bullying by the more powerful countries and other such issues will make it so they never come out of poverty.

 

[haarewin]

You think those countries will come out of poverty any time soon?

Corruption, bullying by the more powerful countries and other such issues will make it so they never come out of poverty.

then go do something about it, Bugz Geldof.

 

[Bugz]

then go do something about it, Bugz Geldof.

If your inable to discuss, please keep away from this thread.

 

[Morchaoron]

Cash buys services.

Give a company £X amount of cash and say to them 'do so and so' and they will.

Tell that company 'go build us a school in so and so for £1000' they will if the money is enticing to them.

And so on.

...which brings me back to the subject of mentality, you can build all the schools, hospitals, police stations or whatever you want...

But who will teach those kids? who will bring order? who will run the hospitals? they are uneducated, their mentality, ethics and morals are completely different from ours, "fucked up", as most western people would say, and they wouldnt work in any modern society, and who will keep the corrupt governements and other malicious opportunists at bay?

It is a utopia to believe that giving them the same stuff you can buy with money that we have will actually give them a mentality with which they will be able to actually uphold the standards of life we are trying impose upon them...

 

[Bugz]

...which brings me back to the subject of mentality, you can build all the schools, hospitals, police stations or whatever you want...

But who will teach those kids? who will bring order? who will run the hospitals? they are uneducated, their mentality, ethics and morals are completely different from ours, "fucked up", as most western people would say, and they wouldnt work in any modern society, and who will keep the corrupt governements and other malicious opportunists at bay?

It is a utopia to believe that giving them the same stuff you can buy with money that we have will actually give them a mentality with which they will be able to actually uphold the standards of life we are trying impose upon them...

Money can buy everything and anything now-a-days (minus limited exceptions).

It can buy training, food, buildings, defense, offense, healthcare etc.

 

[Amildin]

You think those countries will come out of poverty any time soon?

Corruption, bullying by the more powerful countries and other such issues will make it so they never come out of poverty.

I dont think soon, but eventually they will. A strong smart leader can take a country out of poverty.

But at the moment i dont really care, it benefits me because i get cheap coffee and sugar.

 

[Morchaoron]

Money can buy everything and anything now-a-days (minus limited exceptions).

It can buy training, food, buildings, defense, offense, healthcare etc.

HOW are you planning to buy that in a population where no one has any real knowledge about any of these subjects?

 

[Amildin]

Money can buy everything and anything now-a-days (minus limited exceptions).

It can buy training, food, buildings, defense, offense, healthcare etc.

yea but it cant buy experience and people to run all those things. Training... goodluck trying to teach an adult 20 years worth of school. Thats before specialisation training. And your naive to think people will go and train these people for anything less than a fortune, unless they are a rare breed of good hearted people.

 

[noblok]

Money can buy everything and anything now-a-days (minus limited exceptions).

It can buy training, food, buildings, defense, offense, healthcare etc.

First of all those countries need a fair position in the global economic system. For this Europe will need to cut the subsidisation of it's farmers. This is unlikely to happen because of (at least) two factors: 1) votes: no further explanation needed, 2) war: in case of a war, being dependent on food from other nations is very bad.

However, getting back on topic and ignoring this sidetrack, there's still an issue when buying luxury goods. The price of your computer could probably feed a family in Africa for a few months (random numbers, might not be entirely accurate, but you catch my drift). This is more realistic than getting rid of poverty, but the issue is about the same.

Should people give their money to charity instead of luxury goods? It is without a doubt that it is morally admirable to do such a thing, but this doesn't mean that it's a moral command in the same way 'Thou shalt not kill' is (excluding self-defence, etc). If you think it is, I'd like to hear your reasoning behind it.

 

[- English -]

havent read the full post but ill enchant you will words of wisdom from jesus

'give a man a fish, and he can feed his family for a day. Teach a man how to fish and his family will never be hungry again '

 

[Morchaoron]

Should people give their money to charity instead of luxury goods? It is without a doubt that it is morally admirable to do such a thing, but this doesn't mean that it's a moral command in the same way 'Thou shalt not kill' is (excluding self-defence, etc). If you think it is, I'd like to hear your reasoning behind it.

Even if they should: WOULD it help those people in the long run? and with 'the long run' i dont mean keeping them fed for another few months....
Because if it does fuck all except creating some more hungry, suffering mouths, then giving your money away is not 'morally admirable' but just stupid (you created more suffering just to sooth your own moral conscious), and you are screwing over your own economy by forfeiting the (probably) millions of jobs and the circulation of money in the luxury industry/buisness...

 

[Thorwyn]

Just gotta leave the countries to develop like ours had to.

Now, THIS is cynical.
After centuries of us abusing those countries as colonies and exploiting their ressources, we can´t lean back and perform the "oh, just let them develop" stunt.
We wouldn´t be as far as we are today without those countries and without our shameless take-it-all mentality.

 

[kirennia]

Thorwyn - Thorwena - Sereish - Words - Bira

"I lived with my mother until I turned 12."
"But she died when you were 7."
"Yes"

You're 27?

 

[noblok]

Even if they should: WOULD it help those people in the long run? and with 'the long run' i dont mean keeping them fed for another few months....
Because if it does fuck all except creating some more hungry, suffering mouths, then giving your money away is not 'morally admirable' but just stupid (you created more suffering just to sooth your own moral conscious), and you are screwing over your own economy by forfeiting the (probably) millions of jobs and the circulation of money in the luxury industry/buisness...

It probably helps little in the long run, but does it matter that much if it can save someone's life now? You might as well not do anything, because in the long run all life on earth will die. Also: the feeding is just one example. The money could also go to charity organisations which give education or which remove mines from old battlefields.

About your other point: on your own, you won't screw over your own economy. It's unlikely that it will cost even one person his job. If you do it en masse, then yes, a lot of people will be fired. However, this would also be a strong signal to the world leaders to do something structural about the problem, because if they do, charity will need less money and people will buy more luxury goods again.

 

[Morchaoron]

It probably helps little in the long run, but does it matter that much if it can save someone's life now?

I don't consider delaying hunger saving you from it, in that case i'm more for the jezus quote.

You might as well not do anything, because in the long run all life on earth will die.

Well if we wouldnt do anything we would be sitting here suffering aswell now wouldnt we? that would be brilliant!

IAlso: the feeding is just one example. The money could also go to charity organisations which give education or which remove mines from old battlefields.

very nice and all, but will that fix poverty? (more or less what this thread was about )

....this would also be a strong signal to the world leaders to do something structural about the problem, because if they do, charity will need less money and people will buy more luxury goods again.

round 2: how would you want to do something 'structural' about it? something realistic to rid the world of poverty? and yes i believe the fair position in the global economic system is a good one, but there are more problems then just that, ones that cannot be solved with money or the rather limited (even with 10000 times the cash) 'charity' orginisations...

 

[noblok]

I don't consider delaying hunger saving you from it, in that case i'm more for the jezus quote.

Well, considering my yearly expenses on luxury goods, I could probably feed a family with that money year after year and thus delay their hunger till they die.

I could also fund their education and buy them a piece of land, so they can support themselves.

very nice and all, but will that fix poverty? (more or less what this thread was about )

And there I was trying to get a bit closer to the original point of the thread again . To answer your question though: it probably won't, but it will prevent and/or alleviate quite some suffering.

round 2: how would you want to do something 'structural' about it? something realistic to rid the world of poverty? and yes i believe the fair position in the global economic system is a good one, but there are more problems then just that, ones that cannot be solved with money or the rather limited (even with 10000 times the cash) 'charity' orginisations...

I think that giving the people of a country the possibility to economically compete would be a good start. Whoever has economic power, usually wants political power too. Thus, if everybody has an equal chance to step into the global econmic system, you might have a base for a government which doesn't screw over it's citizens. This government could then find a solution for the other problems the country's got (such as the ethnic conflicts e.g.). Oh, and you probably need some education too .

 

[Bugz]

yea but it cant buy experience and people to run all those things. Training... goodluck trying to teach an adult 20 years worth of school. Thats before specialisation training. And your naive to think people will go and train these people for anything less than a fortune, unless they are a rare breed of good hearted people.

But a huge fortune is spent on an American Christmas. Billions of $$$.

As for training, it comes with time yes, but if you can afford teaching, training and other such benefits, it will come around SO much faster than normal. Heck, without money from powerful countries, 'normal' may never happen.

But one thing I do understand is yes, corrupt governments will play a certain part, as unfair-trade etc.