49 replies to this topic

[forever freedom]

Do you think that bill and warren donate everything they have? Of course not. Neither would I, that's never what i said. But if i get rich i will definitely donate a lot of money to life extension researches instead of donating to charity, you can count on that.

Yes, I am quite aware you would, unfortunately. You missed the gist of what I was getting at--it's always people living comfortably in the Western world who make such statements, especially in the name of logic. Every niche cause, idea, movement, etc finds its position to be the most "logical" for society/humanity. My point was: If you're so dedicated to the cause, give up everything, see how it is to live in real poverty and then decide whether you'd still think it was a "pain killer" mindset to give to charity. Your statement is just the next step in a long and sordid line of flawed reasoning that has dominated societies in power when speaking about the rest of the world--pure self-interest disguised as "for the good of humanity".

So put your money where your mouth is: donate all your cash to life extension, then live in utter poverty for a few years and come back and tell us if you still find that the most "logical" decision is for those with wealth to turn their back on charity as "pain killer" ideology and simply donate to...life extension. You'd be giving to your "cause", which you've already said was *worth the lives of hundreds of millions of people*(by implication), so step up!

I think this is short-term thinking and an instant pain reliever as i said before.

I think investing in technology is far more important than saving lives now. May seem cruel and too cold blooded, but in the long term many more lives are going to be saved by the technological advances created by billions of investment than by spending these billions in charity to save some lives now.

The problem is that people think this is a cold hearted approach, but i cant see a more logic approach than this one. Maybe thats the problem; its too logic for most people to understand and rationalize.

Yes, I saw this grossly monstrous, not to mention arrogant(ooh, you're just sooooo much more "logical" than all of us, including Bill Gates and Warren Buffet--those guys are just so stupid and illogical!) statement before and that was what I was getting at in my prior jibe. This "logical" thinking is reminiscent of Pol Pot and Mao Zedong and their "logical" conclusions for their societies. While you are not advocating proactive genocide, your callous indifference is its philosophical next door neighbor.

Beyond this, you also seem to have no grasp of history--that simply turning your back on the poor--especially when you are talking about 1 to 2 billion people--may lead to the destruction of entire societies, revolutions, international terrorism, and socio-economic upheavals that will have global impact. The resulting chaos will have unpredictable results, many of which will probably have a detrimental impact on life-extension technology, at the least. While I know all those hundreds of millions of people are nameless and faceless to you and separated, in all probability by tons of land and water, and therefore you believe their plight does not impact nor endanger your safe, comfortable environment, in this technologically advanced world, it has become more, not less imperative that we make an effort to help humanity as a whole and not simply people with the luxury to enjoy life extension.

This is just the tip of the iceberg of why there are massive logic holes in your position. You need to really push yourself to see beyond your own four walls before you make such radically rash statements.

suspire, why do you throw so much hatred against life-extension and cryonics? Why are you in these forums in the first place? Just to flame people that don't share your "absolute all-wise" point of view? Don't you have anything better to do?


I understand your point of view, but do you understand mine? I still believe mine makes more sense, but i agree with you, some people (you included) will think it's a cold hearted approach (i prefer to call it logical) since we're denying help for those in need now in order to help much more people in the future.


And yes you're right when you say that i hold interest in the approach i defend. Obviously i do, and i never tried to hide it. So the fact that i hold interest in my approach of where we should invest doesn't mean that it should be discredited, or that it's wrong.



You said about all those poor people that are suffering. But do you realize the amount of old sick people that are also suffering? From all the people that die on earth, 2/3 die of old age, which is 100,000. How many die of hunger? It's definitely far less. So i could argue that you don't care about old people and that you're very cold-hearted because you let them all die and suffer in old-age sicknesses. The only reason why the majority of people don't see it this way is because death and aging has been around for a long time so we got used to it. So you see, it's all a matter of perspective.

[Shannon Vyff]

Hey I agree with Suspire! It is selfish to put money only into life extension --there has to be a balance. Plus Suspire is quite busy and works with a non-profit, and will probably not have much time here anyway. The young that are dying now, also logically deserve more help than the old who have lived a 'normal' life span. Suspire cares about old people, as do I--as well as our own not wanting to age--because we can give back less to society. It will be a very long time (hundred or so) years till the first real improvements in extreme life extension. (Sam989 you can learn a lot more about the current science by reading 'Ending Aging' Dr. Aubrey de Grey and Michael Rae's book that was just published) When these first therapies are available they will most likely only be available for the very wealthy. I can't speak for Suspire of course, but I know I'm not 'used' to aging and death --and I fight against it. I'm a 300 member, yet I donate to and volunteer for many non-profits to help with vast disparities of equality around the world. I also wrote the book "21st Century Kids" to help teach kids about Transhumanism and Social Action--I'm working on two more books right now. People can't tell other people how to spend their money or live, they can only educate and rely on other's levels of empathy or responsibility.

The future is coming, and it is my opinion that we all must justify our existence now--to help shape it, and have a place in it.

[forever freedom]

It is selfish to put money only into life extension --there has to be a balance. 

I agree. So to preserve our "morals" we can give some money to charity.. ok. But do you call "balance" the amount of money that bill and warren put into charity in comparison with the amount (if any) of money they put into life extension/technology researches?

It will be a very long time (hundred or so) years till the first real improvements in extreme life extension.  (Sam989 you can learn a lot more about the current science by reading 'Ending Aging' Dr. Aubrey de Grey and Michael Rae's book that was just published)  When these first therapies are available they will most likely only be available for the very wealthy.

It will only take this long because there's not enough investment in this area yet. And the more money is invested, the less it would take for the poor to have access to it.

Plus Suspire is quite busy and works with a non-profit

Ahh now everything is explained. No wonder he defends his "give all money to charity" point of view so fiercely. Not that i'm calling him selfish and that he's acting only on his own interest, i know he really believes in his cause and wants to help the poor. But still, i can see now why he is so partial about where money should be invested.

[Shannon Vyff]

Oh no, most do not contribute to what Suspire works in--or do not give to many period.

Who do you contribute to Sam988?

I have a long list, and give at least twice as much to other non-profits than I do to Mprize.

Also, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are putting their money into places where the government does not. The government currently gives money to anti-aging.

But no-- you are wrong about Suspire-- Suspire sees suffering and empathizes with it, and very much does not understand how some people at ImmInst can feel so entitled just because of where they were fortunate to be born.

[forever freedom]

Oh no, most do not contribute to what Suspire works in--or do not give to many period.

Not knowing where Suspire works in, i will not say anything else, since i thought he worked in a charity org.

Who do you contribute to Sam988?

I don't contribute to anything; i'm still a college student. But i certainly will donate when i am able to.

Also, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are putting their money into places where the government does not.  The government currently gives money to anti-aging.

The government gives money to anti-aging? Could you give me some examples?

But no-- you are wrong about Suspire-- Suspire sees suffering and empathizes with it, and very much does not understand how some people at ImmInst can feel so entitled just because of where they were fortunate to be born.

It's not a matter of feeling entitled or not. As i said before, the urgency of investments is a matter of perspective. Much more people suffer from old age debilitations and death than poor people suffer from lack of food. I thought i had already made my point clear by now.

Edited by sam988, 14 September 2007 - 07:31 PM.

[Neurosail]

You still need to be careful who you donate money to...

In the case of food aid, cheap food purchased from often-struggling U.S. farmers is dumped at below market costs in hunger-stricken countries, driving local farmers off the land and out of work. The only ones this program really aids are the giant agribusinesses that serve as middle men for the deals.

Real aid builds local communities up, it doesn't weaken them. That's why we're so excited about food sovereignty, which focuses on the needs of the producers and consumers of food instead of the needs of the market, and brings hope that we can fix the broken food system.

The way the system works now we should probably call food aid "agribusiness aid" or "Exxon aid." Under the current law, the U.S. government purchases from large crop distributors and puts the grains on gas guzzling tankers to places like Darfur. Wouldn't it make more sense to help local economies by buying the food close to where it's most needed?

Our international development colleague, CARE, recently took a brave step. They turned down $45 million in U.S. government funding to stop a rotten food aid system. That's not an easy decision to make and we applaud their efforts. Now there's something YOU can do. Please see below to contact your Senator.

The U.S. Congress is considering a new direction in the U.S. food aid program. For years Grassroots has advocated a dramatic change in the U.S. food aid program to stop a system that hurts small farmers' livelihoods, creates food dependency globally and largely benefits a handful of agricultural corporations.

...make sure the charities you give money to isn't dumping food into the area and hurting the local farmer. For more information: Grassroots International

[suspire]

suspire, why do you throw so much hatred against life-extension and cryonics? Why are you in these forums in the first place? Just to flame people that don't share your "absolute all-wise" point of view? Don't you have anything better to do?

I was waiting for this line of attack. It reminds me of the attacks lobbed against those who speak out against the American government: "Why do you live in America if you have so many problems with it!" Next, you'll be telling me that if "I am not with you, I am against you!" I post my disagreements, because I have this strange notion that I might cause some readers to at least consider alternative points of view or look outside of their tiny world. I also hope that the life extension community will take a more positive, more humane stance towards the rest of society for the simple reason that it will allow our community to be heard more seriously (and thereby gain more supporters) and not as a bunch of fringe lunatics advocating cutting off billions of dollars worth of aid to the poor, so that the money can be distributed for life extension research. The more I post, however, the more I've come to believe this is a futile hope in most cases.

I dislike cryonics corporations (though not necessarily cryonics research) for the reasons I've stated in the cryonics forum. I am not, however, against life extension technology and research as a whole--I think stem cell research, nanotechnology, microbiology, etc all have some very interesting and worthy applications and I look forward to them and will support them.

I rarely flame people. I avoided engaging with you in another thread, when you brought up your whole "lets let all the poor die, because it is logical" argument, for the sake of sanity. But when I do comment, I tend to state my point vehemently. Sometimes I go overboard, especially when I read certain grotesquely inhumane comments.

I am on these forums because I am avidly interested in the topic. Do not mistake avid interest with unconditional support, however. History is chalk full of the hells created from unconditional, unthinking support for any position. I will always approach a topic with a healthy dose of skepticism that an idea is wrong and with a kernel of hope that it is not. I also have reservations on the impact of life extension on human society--there are some broad implications that few on the forum ever discuss. This still does not mean I do not support life extension technology--I simply try and go forward with my eyes open, not with the blind devotion of some religious zealot.

P.S.: Absolute all-wise point of view? You were the one claiming to be too logical for most people to understand. Your hubris was appalling and well, undeserved.

I understand your point of view, but do you understand mine? I still believe mine makes more sense, but i agree with you, some people (you included) will think it's a cold hearted approach (i prefer to call it logical) since we're denying help for those in need now in order to help much more people in the future.


And yes you're right when you say that i hold interest in the approach i defend. Obviously i do, and i never tried to hide it. So the fact that i hold interest in my approach of where we should invest doesn't mean that it should be discredited, or that it's wrong.

It is not a logical position. It is a grossly selfish and inhumane position. If you are willing to admit that, then I have no more issue with you. It is, however, when people try and wrap obviously self-interested, and potentially damaging positions in the blanket of "logic", the "greater good" and "saving lives" that I have a problem. Such statements lend themselves to a false sense of legitimacy when none is warranted. Individuals, corporations and governments have been doing this since society was created and your statements are simply a derivative of this trend.

We can take a logic exercise, if you'd like: "Curing death" is hypothetical. We do not know if it can be achieved. And we do not know when it will occur, if it will occur at all. Anyone telling you otherwise is simply guessing and if we took a quick glance backwards at "predictions" for future technology, we can see we have often been woefully optimistic.

We do know, however, that humanity will, at some point in the future, encounter an extinction-level event. I believe somewhere in the range of 95 to 99 percent of all species that have ever lived on this planet have gone extinct. There are a number of ways we may go extinct. One of them is coming up--there is at least one asteroid of significant size, if I recall, that has a 1 in 40 chance of hitting us within the next 20 to 30 years. There are many other possible threats to humanity, man-made and natural.

The only way to increase the odds of human survival is for humanity to colonize other planets. So logically, we should focus our investments not on life extension, but extraterrestrial colonization. Of course, you and I are less likely to benefit from this agenda(though who knows what inventions are created as a byproduct of the research), but it would be the logical decision if we're interested in saving lives.

Another logic exercise: Taking the given premise that "curing death" is still a hypothetical, one only has to look back at the prime motivators for conflict throughout history: money/goods or the lack thereof. People without money/resources (and power by implication) will act. Their actions might take a wide variety of courses(terrorism, revolution, etc), but many of those courses can negatively impact society, humanity and well, life extension. Therefore, it is in our best interest to "end poverty" (I put it in quotes, because I do not think poverty will ever end, but it can be mitigated to the point where there is a reasonable amount of money and resources for almost the entire global population) in order to further all other aspects of society. A side effect of this policy will be that we will have a larger percentage of the population who are in good health/condition and will desire life extension technology, thereby donating funds, putting pressure and removing obstacles for life extension technology. Moreover, we will have a larger percentage of the population who is educated and has the means to aid research in the field; god only knows how many Einsteins languish in poverty stricken conditions, their precious abilities lost because of their living conditions.

Finally, from what I know, almost every(or perhaps every) "life extending" technology has been derived through research in other fields--how to cure diseases, sanitation, agriculture, etc or by accident rather than research into direct "immortality". I believe this will continue to be the trend going forward.

In the end, the logic of your arguments only extends to the logic of the immediate--save those who are alive now and have the money to benefit from life extension. Even then, it is deeply flawed, because it may not actually be in their overall best interest to divert funds from other endeavors.

You said about all those poor people that are suffering. But do you realize the amount of old sick people that are also suffering? From all the people that die on earth, 2/3 die of old age, which is 100,000. How many die of hunger? It's definitely far less. So i could argue that you don't care about old people and that you're very cold-hearted because you let them all die and suffer in old-age sicknesses. The only reason why the majority of people don't see it this way is because death and aging has been around for a long time so we got used to it. So you see, it's all a matter of perspective.

This statement barely deserves a response. It is akin to another poster who brought up the hypothetical death of my father in the cryonics discussion. Please do not try and couch your arguments in some "don't you like the old people?!" masquerade. You couldn't care less about the elderly--you're concerned, as you said yourself, with yourself. Anything else is an afterthought. If you admit this, and end the whole "I am so logical, I turn Spock green with envy" line of thought, you won't hear any dissent from me.

That said, I've met many of the elderly in their last days. Their attitudes towards death are varied. Some are resigned. Some are ready for it--tired of life. Some are scared. Many are peaceful. Compared to those who are dying of hunger, disease, and a laundry list of social injustices--well, there is no comparison.

Edited by suspire, 14 September 2007 - 08:39 PM.

[suspire]

Ahh now everything is explained. No wonder he defends his "give all money to charity" point of view so fiercely. Not that i'm calling him selfish and that he's acting only on his own interest, i know he really believes in his cause and wants to help the poor. But still, i can see now why he is so partial about where money should be invested.

And here we go again. This is the second time I've been attacked for working for a non-profit.

I am independently wealthy. I work pro bono and have done so for the last several years. I sometimes ask for remuneration when I incur heavy out-of-pocket expenses for my work (ie, when I have to travel extensively). I am unlikely to ask for an actual paycheck in the foreseeable future(and I've actually donated quite a bit of money to them myself, over the years--beyond my time and work). The non-profit I work for is funded by a handful of private, wealthy donors--ex-businessman turned philanthropists(none on the level of Gates of Buffet, but they've all done well for themselves), so there is little contribution from the general public except in those times we get media coverage.

But you are right--I am self-interested. I believe that it is the most vital cause for humanity. Life extension, while I find it interesting, fascinating, and potentially useful, ranks several notches lower in my priorities. Still, I don't think the forums are looking for a bunch of "yes men" who march lockstep with the crusade.

[suspire]

You still need to be careful who you donate money to...

Dead on. You should do a lot of research on different non-profits, for those who are thinking of donating. A disturbingly high percentage of them are shams. And others, while their hearts are in the right place, do not have the savvy and skill to run a non-profit properly--waste becomes a big problem. And others cause more harm than good through inept and counter-productive policies.

[forever freedom]

suspire, if we both agree in one thing, it is that our discussion will go nowhere.


Having that said, i add here that i still don't agree with you but i'm tired of arguing as you must bee too.


I just want to add some last things.

First, i said that i hold interest in my approach to investments, yes, but that doesn't mean that i do not also believe that we can save more lives with it. I'm sorry if my line of thought offends you, but i'm not going to change it because you want to.

Second, now that i know why the heck you're on these forums, i have one more reason to stop arguing with you; you're not going to convince me of your point of view in a million years (literally, if life extension benefits us soon enough [tung] ), so you can go and try to convert to your humanist honored altruistic cause someone else.

Third, yes radical life extension in our life time (at least in mine; i don't know how old you are) is hypothetical (but highly probable to happen), as many other technological leaps in humanity were. And if it turns out to happen soon (in some decades, not more than a century), it will definitely be worth every cent spent on it, it's like it would be worth many times over every cent invested in charity.

Fourth, after my third point, i bet you're already nodding your head negatively and all angry at me, so whatever i say now won't get much attention from you since you will be struggling not to give me another inflammatory answer without barely paying attention to what i say further. So i won't say anything else, just for you to keep doing your non profit charity or whatever you do, feel good because of it and die happy, knowing that you contributed to humanity.

[Shannon Vyff]

Sam989 how old are you?


Do you contribute to anything like Mprize for example? Are you a cryonicist?

Just because someone does charity work, it does not mean that they are more happy than someone that does not. The people I've met who do it, do so because they have a high level of empathy--usually are wealthy or well off--and want to share. They also research exactly where their money is going and how it will be utilized.

Suspire, I hang out at ImmInst to learn--if you do know of arguments that have not been espoused --and you get the time--please share It seems like I've heard them all

[forever freedom]

Sam989 how old are you?

If it matters; i'm 19.

Do you contribute to anything like Mprize for example?  Are you a cryonicist?

I already answered that question on my previous reply to your previous post.

Just because someone does charity work, it does not mean that they are more happy than someone that does not.

Hmm so? Who said they were?




By the way, i'm still patiently waiting for some examples of how the government invests in anti-aging, as you said. I'm really interested in knowing.

[Ghostrider]

It's just so weird to me that Bill Gates, a guy who is so rich and so dedicated to humanity
and technology, doesn't donate anything to for the singularity, life extension, etc.

He does not because, ironically, he also cares about his image. By investing in life extension, people would claim that he is only trying to save himself -- that he has a selfish motive instead of curing AIDS or malaria so that those people saved can die of starvation or old age, whatever happens first. Yeah, what needs to happen first is a paradigm shift on how the majority views aging. If people had a Manhattan Project or invested as much energy into aging as putting a man on the moon to fight communism, the problem would be largely solved by now.

I don't think Bill Gates is thinking about his public image. He isn't a politician, he is a businessman. As is Warren Buffet. As is many of the top folks donating to various charities. And I think their public image would be enormous if they were behind helping figure out a solution to aging. That said, most of these folks see a larger picture that have priority: global poverty, environmentalism, multiple major diseases, etc. Hell, if you agree with Stephen Hawking, the most important goal for humanity would be to colonize other planets in order to ensure the survival of the species.

That said, it is quite possible Gates, Buffet and others give donations to biomedical and other assorted research relating to life extension. It just isn't their priority, rightly so.

Gates cares about his image, both in how other people perceive him and how he perceives himself. I am not saying that that is his only motive, but if he came out with a war against aging, people would complain that he is just trying to save himself. Not all people want aging to be cured. That is what we need to change, but it will not be easy because some people simply get bored of living and expect to die "naturally" to relieve them of infinite boredom (it's easier if you believe that you are going to heaven).

[dannov]

Do you think that bill and warren donate everything they have? Of course not. Neither would I, that's never what i said. But if i get rich i will definitely donate a lot of money to life extension researches instead of donating to charity, you can count on that.

Yes, I am quite aware you would, unfortunately. You missed the gist of what I was getting at--it's always people living comfortably in the Western world who make such statements, especially in the name of logic. Every niche cause, idea, movement, etc finds its position to be the most "logical" for society/humanity. My point was: If you're so dedicated to the cause, give up everything, see how it is to live in real poverty and then decide whether you'd still think it was a "pain killer" mindset to give to charity. Your statement is just the next step in a long and sordid line of flawed reasoning that has dominated societies in power when speaking about the rest of the world--pure self-interest disguised as "for the good of humanity".

So put your money where your mouth is: donate all your cash to life extension, then live in utter poverty for a few years and come back and tell us if you still find that the most "logical" decision is for those with wealth to turn their back on charity as "pain killer" ideology and simply donate to...life extension. You'd be giving to your "cause", which you've already said was *worth the lives of hundreds of millions of people*(by implication), so step up!

I think this is short-term thinking and an instant pain reliever as i said before.

I think investing in technology is far more important than saving lives now. May seem cruel and too cold blooded, but in the long term many more lives are going to be saved by the technological advances created by billions of investment than by spending these billions in charity to save some lives now.

The problem is that people think this is a cold hearted approach, but i cant see a more logic approach than this one. Maybe thats the problem; its too logic for most people to understand and rationalize.

Yes, I saw this grossly monstrous, not to mention arrogant(ooh, you're just sooooo much more "logical" than all of us, including Bill Gates and Warren Buffet--those guys are just so stupid and illogical!) statement before and that was what I was getting at in my prior jibe. This "logical" thinking is reminiscent of Pol Pot and Mao Zedong and their "logical" conclusions for their societies. While you are not advocating proactive genocide, your callous indifference is its philosophical next door neighbor.

Beyond this, you also seem to have no grasp of history--that simply turning your back on the poor--especially when you are talking about 1 to 2 billion people--may lead to the destruction of entire societies, revolutions, international terrorism, and socio-economic upheavals that will have global impact. The resulting chaos will have unpredictable results, many of which will probably have a detrimental impact on life-extension technology, at the least. While I know all those hundreds of millions of people are nameless and faceless to you and separated, in all probability by tons of land and water, and therefore you believe their plight does not impact nor endanger your safe, comfortable environment, in this technologically advanced world, it has become more, not less imperative that we make an effort to help humanity as a whole and not simply people with the luxury to enjoy life extension.

This is just the tip of the iceberg of why there are massive logic holes in your position. You need to really push yourself to see beyond your own four walls before you make such radically rash statements.

And how is giving money to the poor a solution to their problems? That money donated is finite, and distributed amongst billions. Billions distributed amongst billions--that's a couple of bucks apiece. It'll get some basic commodoties for living, but you're still poor in the end. Cure AIDS? Why? How about eliminating the cause of AIDS--people havings tons of sex without adequate protection. Welfare is a failure, that money is often used to help satisfy drug addictions, and never does it really allow a person to find a job and create their own income. Why work when you can live off of another person's? Where can you find work when no company will establish itself anywhere near your ghetto?

The best thing to possibly do is invest in technology, because that technology can reap massive benefits for those billions. Technology that greatly increases crop production so that they have food, technology that provides free energy so that populaces can have electricity which in turn helps their societies advance as a whole, technology that provides clean water. With electricity comes a means for further education and knowledge via online learning and countless other methods.

You can't throw money at a situation and hope that it helps. Giving money to a charity is a bottomless pit--there will always be a demand for that money. However, if you invest in technology that aims to find a bottom to that pit, and then begin to fill it then Amen to that.

[suspire]

Yes, I am well aware of this; while your arguments might have been valid twenty or thirty years ago, there is an entirely new wave of approaches to poverty that emphasizes sustainable development and permanent solutions. I will also concede that such approaches are currently in the minority, but they are growing--and moreover, sometimes immediate aid in the traditional forms are necessary. Which is why not all charitable organizations and NGOs are the same and one should choose carefully where one donates their money--this should have been self-evident, but I am starting to see an alarming trend on the boards of painting everything with a single brush.

Cure AIDS? Why? Uh...that's like saying: "Give medical assistance to someone in a car accident?! Why!? We should teach them to drive better!" I'm not going to say anymore on this topic; if someone doesn't understand why we need to cure AIDS, there isn't much I can say that'll make a difference.

I know the libertarian/conservative approach is to bandy about words and catch-phrases like "welfare, socialized medicine, etc" from their comfortable, lofty perches--the manipulation of language, the specific words chosen is an attempt to discredit and belittle an effort--but educating oneself on the topics (not in a "I read an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal and now I am an armchair general" sort of way, but rather in the "I've spent years researching the topic and the underlying issues at hand" sort of way) might help you grasp the complexities of the situation and may enable you to see the issue with some measure of depth, rather than black and white. Your descriptions of how technology might be used to target the underlying problems of poverty shows your lack of comprehension on the fundamentals--I will not say it is entirely invalid(because some of it would be useful and some of it has already been implemented), but the situation is so much more complicated than the picture you've painted that the solutions given by you do not even come close to approaching the reality of the crisis. I am always amazed at how "professionals" in other fields, who will shout to the high heavens about their expertise in their chosen areas(the stock market, medicine, etc), have no problem considering themselves experts on government, poverty, etc on the basis of reading a few articles or a trendy book. To give a constructive opinion, people need to educate themselves; otherwise they're just ranting.

On the other hand, human empathy cannot be taught. Then again, apparently 1 percent of the population are psychopathic, so that may explain some of the monstrous arguments I read on here.

Regardless, I am done with this thread. It is coming close to being as pointless as discussing 9/11 conspiracy theories.

EDIT: If you(or anyone) is genuinely interested in the topic and wants to further their understanding of the issue, you can PM me and I'll be happy to send you a recommended reading list. If you're just here to say "ooh, life extension technology will be our Jesus Christ", I am not interested.

Edited by suspire, 19 September 2007 - 04:23 PM.

[dannov]

Look dude--I have a friend that grew up in the Brooklyn ghetto of NYC. He got kicked out at the age of 13, joined up with the Bloods, did whatever he was told to do to ensure his survival (this includes killing) and trafficked and sold drugs and worked his way up to the top to survive. He was in an out of Reiker's prison, and got straightened out by the military after 5 years and is currently attending the college that I graduated from, but his ties to the gang and home are still there and very much a real part of his life. I know how welfare works through him, and what people do to circumvent the system, how the provided money is spent, what people trade their food stamps for, and so forth. He lived a life most people would have collapsed under and did things he'll have to live with the rest of his life due to poverty-based conditions. We used to drink and talk for hours about what the government and state could do to improve the conditions, and none of his suggestions were remotely close to what people like you or politicians think because, quite frankly, you're in no position to tell people how they ought to be helped when you have no idea what sort of conditions they are in without walking in their shoes to begin with.

I don't like to read articles and other media elitist propaganda on what they think is best for our country--the rich in our country are what is slowly bringing it to a ruin. They only have at best false intentions of helping out the poor--in reality, they do not want the lower class to rise...they like them just fine the way they are. They like bleeding the middle class for everything that they're worth.

Welcome to America, land of the free for the 5% that control 70%.

And, poor analogy about car accidents. Accidents happen, sex isn't an accident. Being promiscious is a conscious decision, and then being promiscious without a condom is yet ANOTHER conscious decision. Now, you can blame education (and that can be funded) for lack of knowledge of AIDS and reasoning behind using protection, or lack of income to afford protection (also can be helped), but if that is not the case--then you dug your own grave, both literally and figuratively.

[suspire]

Great. You've PMed me to read your reply and obviously are baiting me for a response. This is about the most this sort of comment deserves:

1) Glad you're using the "I've got a token poor friend and we're drinking buddies, so I am an expert on poverty" defense. Is he also your token black friend? I am unimpressed with this argument, have always been unimpressed by this argument and will always continue to be unimpressed with the "X token friend" argument. You'd do well to drop it if you ever want to convince anyone of your position.

2) Don't need no readin' stuff, 'cause anecdotal third party evidence is gonna do you well all by itself! Glad ya know all the answers. Those books just make things real complicated like.

3) I've been on the ground level, in the field, for years(though not in the last 16 months, though I will be going overseas for direct field work again in about a year's time). Not just in the U.S., but in Asia. In the villages. With people who'd make your poor friend look like Bill Gates. And despite that, I still feel the need to read broadly and deeply on the subject from others who have much more experience in the field--I take ideas from those I think have merit, consider ideas I may have reservations on and dismiss ideas that I think have failed in the past or are not promising (in my estimation). Most importantly, I am always ready to alter or change course on my position and ideas if new evidence or ideas come forward to make me reconsider what I think is right--and this happens often. As an aside, I actually have little experience with inner city poverty(I've only had exposure to it in my early 20s through the Big Brother program as a Big Brother to a kid from South Bronx), so I both feel unqualified to comment constructively on it and admit that inner city poverty is an entirely different ballgame from other forms of poverty. And that's about all I feel the need to say about my qualifications, but I will state very adamantly: I do not believe I know how to end poverty. At best, I've got some ideas, based on my work and my study of the work of others, on how poverty may be alleviated in certain situations.

4) AIDs: If you cannot see the need to find a cure to the disease, we have no room for discussion.

The thing is, you do have some valid statements: America is considerably less free than we've been conditioned to believe and as a general principle, I think the wealthy are less inclined to make substantial efforts to help the poor, for a number of reasons, not the least is an utter lack of empathy and ability to understand the depth of their plight. I also agree that in certain cases, technology can provide the *means* towards alleviating poverty, though it is a far cry from being the solution in of itself and moreover, it can be as destructive as it is creative. But the "solution" to poverty is enormously complicated, is often contingent on regional factors and rarely has easy answers (and no, micro-finance isn't one of them).

Unfortunately, your ego has clouded your judgment, and you seem to believe you know all, and only one set of solutions apply to poverty across the board. And I don't have time for that. So please stop PMing me to read your responses, unless you're A) Genuinely interested in an exchange of ideas and not simply "winning your argument". B) Actually have something substantial to say on the topic.

Edited by suspire, 20 September 2007 - 08:21 PM.

[dannov]

My PM was simply "I replied to your reply." From a forum perspective, I consider it quite immature when someone tries to get the "last word" in a thread by throwing their 2 cents in and simply says "I'm not reading this thread anymore." I had no reason otherwise to PM you.

Also, your latest reply is full of unfounded accusations about me, such as assuming that I haven't read the stuff out there, assuming that I assume that I "Believe I know all" and even accusing me of believing that "only one set of solutions apply to poverty across the board" when I didn't even give a solution to begin with, and wasn't referring to anything but poverty in the place that it matters most at the moment--in our own country. Now, that is a point you can argue, but I believe that before a fat, out of shape man helps another fat, out of shape man to lose weight, that he should first help himself so that he is more capable of helping the other man. Our country is in a financial mess, in hundreds of billions of debt to the Chinese (Asia has 60-65% of the global wealth, btw) and many other countries that have bought up our treasuries, and the value of our dollar is dropping by the day. Fact is, we ARE headed into a recession and perhaps even a Depression that will trivialize the last one; yet what are Gates and Buffet doing to help this at home? They're just throwing their money outside of the country's circulation, and not really resolving any problems abroad with it either. This just means more money printed from the Fed, which means inflation...

Those who live in the inner city live in 3rd world conditions. I'm not pulling the "I know a black guy who lived in the ghetto" card as you are improperly and quite immaturely insinuating, but I am a strong proponent of going to a primary source in the name of empathy to attempt to better understand a situation. Remember Bill Clinton's moniker that helped him win against Bush? It was the old "I feel your pain." Whether it was true or not, it demonstrated a level of empathy that Bush did not exhibit, and the best way (in my opinion) to take the first steps towards resolving a poverty issue in a certain area is to live through people that live in that area. You can live in the ghetto for years, but being raised in the middle class or higher, you will never understand the home life or childhood behind being raised by gangs, doing dirty jobs to put food on the table for your siblings while your mother spends her welfare money on crack and coke, or having to live with the knowledge that you have taken another man's life.

Great reply to the AIDS topic by the way, the old "if you don't know, I won't bother"--right out of high school. I gave very valid reasons that attack the root of what causes the AIDS issue as well as sound ways to help reduce it, and you reply with a high sqhool quip. It's not a catch-all, but just remember that AIDS is an ever-mutating virus...a cure is incredibly hard to find for such a thing.

[Futurist1000]

1) Glad you're using the "I've got a token poor friend and we're drinking buddies, so I am an expert on poverty" defense. Is he also your token black friend? I am unimpressed with this argument, have always been unimpressed by this argument and will always continue to be unimpressed with the "X token friend" argument. You'd do well to drop it if you ever want to convince anyone of your position.

Interesting that you are doing something similar when you say that since you do charity you imply that you are an "expert" on the causes of poverty. Hey I'm not trying to downplay what you are doing for the poor, but if you are going to point that out that against dannov you might as well realize your doing it as well in your own posts. Implying that you are an somehow an "expert" on the causes and solutions to poverty because you work for charity or you have "done a lot of reading" does not really make for a good argument. Maybe you are an expert, but that still doesn't necessarily make for a great post.

It would be like me saying: Capitalism is the best system PERIOD, I should know I have PHD in economics. Well even if it were true that I had a PHD in economics (I don't by the way), it still wouldn't be a very sound argument.

Hey I don't know it all. In fact I am trying to learn more about logical fallacies myself in order to improve my own posts. (I realize you may never have used the word "expert" but you have implied something to that effect)

I am independently wealthy. I work pro bono and have done so for the last several years. I sometimes ask for remuneration when I incur heavy out-of-pocket expenses for my work (ie, when I have to travel extensively). I am unlikely to ask for an actual paycheck in the foreseeable future(and I've actually donated quite a bit of money to them myself, over the years--beyond my time and work). The non-profit I work for is funded by a handful of private, wealthy donors--ex-businessman turned philanthropists(none on the level of Gates of Buffet, but they've all done well for themselves), so there is little contribution from the general public except in those times we get media coverage.

Edited by hrc579, 24 September 2007 - 01:03 AM.

[Futurist1000]

Ignore some of my above post Suspire. I didn't really read your entire thing and I realize you don't make yourself out as being an expert on poverty. Though in the past you have kind of used that as leverage for your particular position.