Raising the Bar on Povery

Right, because I totally want to try communism on everyone. No. Sure, there will always be people who have more than others; I'm cool with that. The important thing is raising the bottom line so that everything else is bloody great. As for what happens after me, I don't actually know. But unless you're saying that's a reason for me NOT to make the world better, I don't see how that argument really applies. It's a vague statement of something that could happen, although we don't know what. For all we know, when the world becomes as awesome as I'm going to make it, people will stop wanting to be corrupt.

I'm in debate mode, prepping for the first tournament of next year. Take nothing I say personally or seriously.

I'm not trying to insinuate that you would try communism, but there will be people who don't like the fact that you're trying to make the world better because your better is not their definition of better.

Wait.

What.

So...stopping disease and fighting poverty and pollution is not better?

Some people will argue that diseases are necessary for "Survival of the Fittest", others will say that some people living in poverty are doing so because of their own stupid decisions (ie. large drug abuse), and that there should be no reason to help people who squander their own money or don't apply themselves well enough to get a decent job or just choose not to get a job. Third, the large companies that are the main source of pollution won't want to take the necessary measures in order to reduce pollution because it would cost them too much money.

Alright; so perhaps some people might argue against the means I take. That's concedable. Which isn't a word. But will everybody argue the result?

My ideal world is one in which population is limited, pollution isn't a problem, and the small but healthy population thrives. Does anybody take a problem with that? My question is entirely isolated- grant my the hypothetical situation in which we can just get the result and nobody has an objection to the means we take to get there.

If we can find several values that all of humanity agrees upon, then the means to get there- means that cause the least objections- exist. I'm going to inflate myself for a moment and state that I'll be able to find those means.

The issue there is limiting the population. We have all seen how well the one child per family rule in China worked. It resulted in the murder/tossing out of many young children and now a shortage of young Chinese women. On the other hand, you couldn't require contraception because for many people, contraception is against their religious views.

Wait, hold on.

Can you answer my question?

Scroll up and read the post carefully.

No, not everybody will argue, the result, but there will be at least one who will. And yes, in your hypothetical situation in which everyone agrees, then it would be ok, but since this isn't a hypothetical world that we live in, people, in general, will not like the idea of limiting the population. There's also the language barrier, people are unlikely to follow someone who can't speak their language.

I think the language barrier is negligible. It's something called a translator. Especially in modern times.

Okay. Given the hypothetical situation in which the result is absolutely agreed on, then the means definitely exist to achieve that result. I fiat that I will be able to find that means. It was that general principle I was arguing, not the specific line-by-line of exactly what to do in every single situation we could think of.

But you're absolutely right, it will definitely be difficult to find a solution that everyone thinks is okay. We should start another thread and figure out if we can find an answer to that. Have you got an answer to the population problem?

Rin wrote:

Right, because I totally want to try communism on everyone. No. Sure, there will always be people who have more than others; I'm cool with that. The important thing is raising the bottom line so that everything else is bloody great. As for what happens after me, I don't actually know. But unless you're saying that's a reason for me NOT to make the world better, I don't see how that argument really applies. It's a vague statement of something that could happen, although we don't know what. For all we know, when the world becomes as awesome as I'm going to make it, people will stop wanting to be corrupt.

I'm in debate mode, prepping for the first tournament of next year. Take nothing I say personally or seriously.

You know, Americans believe there are some people who are in poverty in America, but if you compare them to other countries, they are really doing well. On the other hand, if you think about the past, some countries aren't doing to badly and were doing better before diamonds came in demand or some other resource like oil they had. So if you think about it, progress causes the bar to continuously raise, and sometimes, it's progress that causes some forms poverty and manmade disaster to happen.

What a wonderful way to kick down what I thought was a noble cause. Just kidding.

Are you saying that there's absolutely nothing we can do to help the world? Because that's pretty ridiculous, in my opinion.

No, I really think that a more internationally-based education system would be better. In the US, many people are very ignorant because the education system only covers the American perspective. That's why I believe that IB was one of the best decisions I ever made, because I don't want to be ignorant, I want to form my own global perspective. When one knows more about others, one is more likely to care about others.

My firm belief is that the only "perfect" world would be one in which everyone is homozygous and thought the same. But wouldn't that be absolutely boring?

Well there is never going to be a perfect world even if we were all homozygous because in the words of Forrest Gump: "__it happens".

Exactly my thoughts =)

For now, however, we must stick to the discussion of bettering the world as it is, for it is truly impossible to placate everyone in the world.

Technically this debate was only about poverty, so ideas for helping poverty:
1. Create more jobs.
2. Pay off national debt so that the US can afford to help our impoverished people
or... Sellout completely to China!

or just kill all the poor people..

a bit extreme but I'd do it to my country if I was President >
Then gradually raise the bar on poverty and kill everyone! Muahahaha xDDDD

Oh my. That's no President. That's a dictator. o.o

And not even a benevolent dictator...

He has his own sense of justice. He might not be benevolent to the poor in a humane sense, but maybe he plans on a humane death sentence, as in it won't hurt or freak them out. Maybe he'll take them out before they know what's happening?

That doesn't justify the killing of the impoverished.

We should use this at a TOK discussion!

LOL. We SHOULD!!!

Or we should get IB students here to join in outside-school discuss. That would be fun. After all, the teachers have their own schedules to follow...