From the knowledge-picture (originally shared by 'Did you know' on google+), we can see the job of archaeologists and paleontologists, to find out how present humans have evolved from nothing, and obtained such power. Then we know poverty for humans is always there, not human-made as some people announced, while what humans are supposed to do is to remove it. It is a pity, humans have not become capable enough to remove all stains, which is problem.
How do we know that poverty was always there? And how do we actually measure poverty between two totally different cultures?
Poverty in its present form is totally man made, the less cooperation there is between men, the more some are pushed into poverty.
Do you then think that everyone can live the life of a rich man? Because, according to him, anything less is poverty.
Or do you look and find that all in the first world get enough to eat; there are no more corpses created from starvation, and thus no poverty?
II don't even think that everyone should live the life of a rich man-it's not necessary for avoiding poverty.
Of course I don't look at the first world and find no poverty, it's plentiful.
Your point somewhat eludes me though I must say.
You define poverty one way, I define it another and the rich man has a third definition. Which is correct? Mine, with almost no poverty because no one is dying of hunger? Yours because some people are richer than others or the rich man who thinks anything less than a yacht and jet is poverty?
Not "no one dying from hunger" rather "few dying from hunger" But the fact that more don't die from hunger is because society throws them a bone, not because they are not in poverty.
And my definition of poverty is not "some people are richer than others" but some people do not have enough to live on, that's live, not exist at some almost animal level.
Define live, then.
That's a major problem to me, John. You absolutely refuse to put any kind of definition at all out there, except that people with necessities of life can still be in poverty. You're on record earlier as saying that a caveman was not living in poverty, but people today with vastly more, are. Still without defining the word - if you want serious consideration, you're going to have to do better than that.
Live = have access to that which their peers have access to.
To not have to chose between heating and eating, to not have to forego meals in order to feed their children.
Oh, and I've never said that people with the necessities of life are in poverty.
Peers = other people. Which is what I said you meant; some have things others do not and that means that those "others" are poor. Got no yacht, but the neighbor does? You're in poverty. No mansion, but the guy down the street a ways does? You're in poverty. And so on.
And then you say that the "working poor" in the US (and I assume the UK) are not in poverty, because they have the necessities of life. None are dying of exposure or hunger. Not even dehydration. An odd statement coming from you, that there is no one in poverty. Make up your mind here!
But plenty of working poor in the UK do not have the necessities of life.
And peer does not mean other people, it means those of the same social group and age group.
Even people from one culture rob people from another culture of resources or anything else, it is a form of removing poverty in the present stage of human civilization. Consider the planet in one, consider human evolution in one with different parts. We used to have nothing as in the picture, and now we are still far from being capable to have everything. We all see and satisfied with those scenes of happy cats playing, but we should always remember there are millions of other cats tortured by cruelty. We're still on the way, and have a long road to obtain enough ability to deal with nature, the final resource of enough necessity.
It is true that some cultures, such as eastern and western ones, have rises and falls along the human history, and have enough ability to self-repair from wounds. But it is also true some people in one culture can't develop themselves without help or even management from outside. We have to face up to reality, however painful it is.
Before we've got enough necessities, the fight would never be possible to stop!
I would wager that there was a time in human history when an extra bear skin or flint knife made you part of the selfish 1%. Poverty is relative, of course. Many in modern economies are called poor despite owning an automobile, flat screen TV, a dish washing machine, air conditioning, refrigerator, washer/dryer, DVD player, smart phone, etc.... How can one be truly poor yet 100 lbs. over weight? In most of the poor countries of the world the children of the poor starve to death, they do not get fat playing videos games.
"Poverty is general scarcity or dearth, or the state of one who lacks a certain amount of material possessions or money. Absolute poverty or destitution refers to the deprivation of basic human needs, which commonly includes food, water, sanitation, clothing, shelter, health care and education. Relative poverty is defined contextually as economic inequality in the location or society in which people live." Wikipedia
Are we discussing absolute poverty, relative poverty, penury or scarcity?
" Penury: destitution, pauperism, pauperdom, beggary, indigence, pennilessness, impoverishment, neediness, need, hardship, impecuniousness.
2 Scarcity: deficiency, dearth, shortage, paucity, insufficiency, absence, lack."
My god, where did you get that list of necessities? Not a nation in the world offers that to everyone, and never has!
I personally know somebody right now who is unable to eat until payments come in tomorrow. He's going without food for two days.
He is not in the third world. He is unable to work because he is a full-time caregiver. The benefits they get run out routinely, they have to choose which bills to pay and *often do not have enough to eat.*
There are children in this country who's ONLY MEAL is a school provided lunch.
Maybe nobody is actually starving to death, but there are definitely malnourished children, people skipping meals because they can't afford to eat.
There are also people with no shelter.
There are children with no coats this winter.
It is completely fallacious to think absolute poverty has been eliminated in the first world. Until everyone has *enough* to eat, a roof over their head, access to a doctor and clothes that fit and aren't rags, we still have absolute poverty.
We have 5 times as many empty houses as we have homeless people.
Tell me that's not man-made.
Artificial scarcity to force people to work or starve is the current basis of our society - and I don't see it changing any time soon.
I believe that concept of poverty was established after the selection of what metals and gems were of value. I believe the concept of cash and coin money was established in Europe after Alexander The Great. Before the concepts of precious metals, gems, and money there was no more poverty among men then among animals. Nobody had to pay for earth, wind, fire, food or water, shelter was where you found it. Poverty is a by-product of human progress and gathering of limited precious resources.
You are right that treasure is always there, and people born first who hadn't got treasures were all in poverty. With time, some people, such as Alexander The Great, got it, and others not, which is human progress. But, I don't agree with you that poverty is a by-product, because we used to have nothing as in the picture, which is the point of this discussion. The reason to feel it by-product is the difference between rich and poor in civilized societies, unlike in primitive society people were all in need. Natural resources are limited, but human intelligence could be unlimited.
Hui, poverty is the opposite of wealth. there was no poverty before there was wealth. Poverity is a by-product of wealth, you can't have one without the other. Natural resourses are limited also precious metals and gems with exceptional finds. Human intelligents could be unlimited, but not yet.
I agree with you, junko, that no one, then no the other one, but comparing "poverty" today with "non-poverty" 10,000 years ago, which one would fall into your category of "poverty"? We may not call it "poverty", but it's not wealth. Bottom line, it should be the forerunner of poverty.
According to you, we can say humans created "poverty by definition", but not "poverty, the thing".
It is not man-made, but always there! The man's fault is to tend not to remove it! All those present that human civilization is still in a selfish stage.
There are also millions of people acting on the opposite way, donation everyday everywhere... And all men do, good and bad, are units in a general trend.
But it is man-made! Man introduced the concept of paying for food, man introduced the concept of paying for shelter, man introduced false needs. Tell me why you don't think it man-made.
Can you say primitive people rich, then who made that?
All those concepts you mentioned are required abilities to remove the original poverty, but not powerful enough yet.
Which one is richer, primitive society or slavery society?
You think it is man-made, because there rises rich people and poor people in civilized societies, while in primitive society people were all in need.
You are confusing riches with a lack of poverty!
No, I can't say primitive people were rich, but neither were they poverty stricken.
Neither were?! Then how many poor people would like to go back then?
And yet the "poor" today are every so much richer than the primitives of even 10,000 years ago. By that reasoning there is no poverty today, at least in the first world.
But how are you measuring that richness? In terms of money or in terms of lack of want?
I see your point, wilderness. Of course there is poverty today, but point here is whether it is always there or human-created? We may say a group of people facilitate the degree of poverty of another group, but it's still always there. What humans are supposed to do is to eliminate or lessen it. However, it is a pity, humans have not powerful enough to achieve that.
Even before people paid for shelter, clothing and food - there were people who died of exposure and starved. There have always been those - from the dawn of time - who did not hunt as well - did not run as fast or for whatever reason - were unable to gather as much food and skins as the next tribe.
That happened long before money or anything of value traded hands.
Poverty, however, is a concept, so that concept is a human construct. And, it's a variable. Today, a family that lives in a broken-down mobile home without running water and electricity is said to live in poverty. But, take a stone age family and give them that box called a mobile home and they would feel like kings.
Poverty is a human construct.
But people didn't starve amongst plenty for want of money-they starved through a shortage of young hunters, or too many unlucky hunts.
I dispute that the stone age family living in a broken down mobile home would feel like kings, they would probably ask where they were supposed to hunt for food and where they were supposed to get water from.
?? Of course they died amongst plenty - they died because they could not bring down that Mastodon, or died trying. Or, as you say, too many unlucky hunts; meat everywhere around them but they can't find it.
Your stone age family can hunt the neighborhood dogs and look for an operating sprinkler hose for water.
Fine, apart from the fact that our ancestors were omnivorous and capable of living off much more than meat.
Without refrigeration it's kind of hard to have berries or roots for lunch in the dead of winter when you live north of the 45th parallel. Doubly so when you live in a cave and haven't a clue about preserving food.
Berries and roots survive the hardest winters. How do you think plants carry on from year to year?
Not in an edible form, they don't Have you never picked strawberries, blackberries, blueberries, etc? They can be picked for only a short time, when the season is just right. Same thing for such things as potatoes and carrots; they must be harvested at the right time or they are virtually inedible.
Oh blast! You mean when I used to garden and stored my root crops in the ground until I was ready to eat them they were inedible! I never noticed.
True, soft fruit has a very short life but many berries survive, indeed some are more edible after a frost or two. Nuts.
We did that too. As long as it was cold enough they did not begin to root themselves they were fine. Think the caveman knew to do it?
strangely... our teeth and digestive system show that we are suited to a grain/ vegetable diet. Not a meat eating diet. So how did prehistoric hunter-gatherer men survive long winters? Isn't irritating we'll never know for sure? All we can do is speculate according to the evidence.
Why would they have needed to know anything beyond some roots being edible for most of the winter?
Because roots are not enough to survive on. So, consider:
They probably stored many other edible items in the caves allowing them to consume wild yams, potatoes, beets, carrots, onions, leeks, garlics, maybe sun-dried apricots, peaches, grapes, prunes during the winter months…Maybe they would gather, dry, grind and soak wild-growing corn in water from the stream and then after the discovery and usefulness of fire they would cook the mush… And maybe rice was also growing wild in the marshes. They would store the grains and do something similar with the grains of rice… grind, soak cook… You just never know… Or maybe the earth was a much warmer place way back when.
The point is, even when there was very little, but just enough, people were able to survive.
Yes, our ancestors were hunter-gatherers, but when no animals are around and there is a drought - or winter - people starve - and freeze.
That is poverty in today's terms. Even if people share all they have - if they have little to share, it doesn't go very far. Entire civilizations have died out due to weather woes and starving.
Because people have experienced hunger - they have a desire to find better ways to grow crops and hunt animals.
Because people have experienced cold - they have a desire to build warmer huts - or migrate to warmer climes.
Necessity is the father of invention after all. When people start living lives without want - they will stop striving to make the world a better place.
Then, devolution begins.
"Entire civilizations have died out due to weather woes and starving. "
Sure enough, and they didn't have to be cavemen. Plymouth Colony nearly did and one in Virginia DID die out - disappeared without a trace.
Were Adam and Eve living in poverty?
Being as they had only fig leaves to hide their sin, I'd have to say yes. Not a dime to their name, either, nor a roof over their head! Food they had, but all it did was get them in trouble (with the woman's help, anyway).
Kathryn said you didn;t believe in God wilderness.Do you believe in Adam and Eve but not God or are you and your friend just playing?
oh, he totally believes in Adam and Eve…especially the part where it was the woman's fault that they lost the beautiful paradise where there was no poverty! What was paradise on earth (Eden according to the bible) like, junko?
But of course - well all know how evil women are, are at lease we married people do!
No, Junko - there was no adam and eve. Unless Lucy was actually Eve?
Some misguided soul told me that the cave men were humans that de-evolved! Never heard that one before!
This is getting weird. Seems like every thread is turning religious.
...yes, you're right...Before you know it the religious forums will turn political. Haven't they yet?
Thanks for asking Kathryn, In Eden there was peace of mind until they got the knowledge of good and evil.(women?) according to wilderness. LoL
In Eden there was no poverty,(I presume)… so what DID they have?
Besides peace of mind, what else was in Eden? Technology?
no, just intelligent design no tech, thats all I know.
Ah HA! So we are all quite RICH! There is no such thing as poverty!
Although, some people have severely tampered with their own Intelligent Design through substance abuse, etc.!
Kathryn you take jumping to conclusion to a new level and you don't mind misrepresent anothers comment. Maybe we should leave Hui's forum to show respect as guest. You Go Far.
You meant to say "you go TOO far?" Okay, I took care of that with a new forum post. I apologize. (I didn't know it would upset you/ anyone!)
But why so upsetting?
You go far Kathryn, Not Too Far but far . you do it with humor but I feel Hui is serious about the inquiry. Poverty in Eden? Now substance abuse wasn't too far off , its a by-product of poverty and wealth. Maybe I'm to considerate.
How so? ( substance abuse as a by product of poverty AND wealth?)
Substance abuse certainly doesn't help poverty. And wealthy people, once they start a habit, won't be wealthy for long.
Yes, MAN creates poverty. But each man must worry about himself. That is the only way to eradicate poverty. One man/ woman at a time... and all people working together with good will toward one another. That's how we do it in heaven.
MAN for sure.
Hi, Kathryn L Hill, how are you?
All of sudden, I remember this topic that we dropped here.
To be clear, when I say "God creates", I did not blame him. The most qualified father only teaches children how to live and to create fortune, but does not give them ready-made (which is spoil, kind but sad). So, my point is man is not qualified to create poverty, but a group of men can facilitate the poverty of another group. Somehow, same thing with Nature!
We are on one planet out of numerous planets, then we separate natural society from human society. Smart humans discovered the law in nature, i.e. stronger animals prey on weaker ones. However, from the eyes of Heavenly Father, so-called nature and humans on this planet are in one, also: let it go! Until balance! Hope the Earth can live that long.
By the way, I believe in Buddha, and won't change!
Hi Hui I am fine. Hope you are too. Here is your topic: Present humans have evolved from nothing,(cave men) and have obtained much power.
"...we know poverty for humans is always there, not human-made as some people announced, while what humans are supposed to do is to remove it. It is a pity, humans have not become capable enough to remove all stains…"
I think you are saying that humans are not helping each other as they should to eradicate poverty. Who can argue this?
However, have you ever tried to help a homeless person?
They are homeless because of many missteps they themselves have taken. They have many habits which have landed them where they are.
I would like to help them as much as the next person and have come up with many plans which may or may not work.
Plan One. give them art supplies and have them paint pictures: abstracts, or whatever. Have a gallery show. Give them the proceeds.
Plan Two: Give them something to sell on the road side...something worth, say, a dollar. Handmade soaps, jewelry, ?
Plan Three. Write their life-stories, poems etc. and print copies for them so they can sell them on the streets.
Plan Four: Give them a free post office box/ mailing address so they will have an address to list when they apply for work. Who wants to employ someone who does not have an address to send a check?
There are many reasons these ideas will not work.
Got any other ideas to help eradicate poverty without increasing taxes which will put all of us in the poor house?
I am serious about the inquiry, but so far given some friends got unique ideas, I do want to ask how many people here agree that women are evils? If no the first evil woman (whether religious or not), how can you be here talking? Which means evil women are made of pure water full of feelings, while earthly men are made of mud with filthy chest.
But I am not saying humans can not help each other. Of course humans help each other, but also upset each other. I help helpless ones. All I said is whether help or upset is on our own. Humans move on with the way of conflict, union, help and upset...
You are saying: besides not helping each other, we actually upset one another! We can give help or hinderance.
How can we help?
How do we hinder?
You misunderstood. I am saying: besides helping each other, we upset one another.
Why do we not try harder to not upset each other?
I wish we did not upset each other too.
Sometimes I upset others when I do not mean to.
I try to correct it the next time.
Many do not have this desire to not upset others. I do not like to upset my fellow humans.
Some do not care in the least. They care more about money. Like the Monsanto folks. Like power hungry people who pillage the land and the people.
It is sad.
I like Buddha and the eight-fold path too.
"The Noble Eightfold Path is the fourth of the Buddha's Four Noble Truths; the first element of the Noble Eightfold Path is, in turn, an understanding of the Four Noble Truths. It is also known as the Middle Path or Middle Way."
" It is used to develop insight into the true nature of phenomena (or reality) and to eradicate greed, hatred, and delusion."
We should and need to stop upsetting each other, which is what I want with all heart. But the world does not follow me. I am nobody. Then, me, you, and millions of others like you and me, try harder to do something helpful, do our best to help hungary people, but hunger still on, then we still work, then humans move on...
by Alexander A. Villarasa 11 years ago
Atheists on HubPages have always insisted that God does not exist because He is just a man-made concept and as is with any other concept His reality, unless physically inferred and proven can not be rationally accepted.Gravity, was just a...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 9 years ago
there will be no work and no money as a result of the increasing mechanization and computerization of society) will become reality? Why? Why not?
by Grace Marguerite Williams 24 months ago
This is what one would call inverse logic. There are people who value struggle. They believe that struggle is normative. They don't believe in a life which is without struggle. They deride people who have abundance & have it much easier than they do. They somehow...
by Goodpal 5 years ago
Are the poor useful for the society in any way?Is it that Poverty and the Poor are mere burden on the society? Do they serve any meaningful purpose?
by maestrowhit 14 years ago
Free Will is a rather loose topic. There are many arguments for and against it. I'm of the persuasion that free will is a deception of what the Bible calls Satan (the evil one, the great deceiver, the father of lies). I have a simple thought I want to explore through receipt of your responses. A...
by PurrlieGates 5 years ago
Why did Jesus have to die for our sins? I can't comprehend this concept; it doesn't make sense.
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
Copyright © 2023 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective owners.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|