Should we help the poor/weak or do nothing?

[wkeej]

The other day, I came across a newspaper article that one mother has a mental breakdown taking care of a mentally ill child. Now, her elder daughter is taking care of the younger sick sister. The former noted that life is tough for her - quit her studies, quite her job, no social life. She has to do it because there is no other way. Should we help our sick family members too?

[remember_Cedric]

Wow, some debate this became.

"May GOD (TM) have mercy on you" has officially entered the Idioms of SPCNET.

That's a patient and more civilized way of saying "Ready to get struck by lightning cos' you're fcuking crude" to the intended person. ... IMO!

[Canuck21]

The world is overpopulated with humans as it is. Natural resources are becoming more scarce as a result of human overpopulation and overconsumption and careless depletion of natural resources.

One argument might be, the world was never intended to support such a overpopulated human species. Currently, as life gets better, we're using more resources. If more people were to improve their lives, they would consume even more resources than now.

I didn't bother reading the whole thread, but I call the concept of "the world is overpopulated" crap. If humans were a lot more compassionate, corporations less greedy, the whole world would be fed properly. Do you realize how much food we waste in western countries? We are full of fat people in the West and we throw away a lot of food. As for corporations, I highly suggest you do some research on Monsanto. There are few things in this world that I HATE and despise more than this slimy corporation, one of the most evil corporations on earth that I'm aware of. Who knows what other horrible things are going on behind corporate doors. The ironic thing about Monsanto is despite all this huge quantity of manufactured processed food, we still don't feed the poor; corporations rather throw away the food than to feed the poor. I'm telling you, if we really wanted to, the quantity of food we have right now is enough for the whole world, but due to GREED, we do nothing.

I cannot stress this more, learn about Monsanto. Here's an easy way: go on YouTube, search for Monsanto and click on the first link. Just take a few minutes. Instead of watching a video of Justin Bieber, this time learn about Monsanto, it never hurts to be informed. I am appalled that videos of Lada Gaga gets millions of hits whilst infos about things that affect our rights only get a few thousands of hits. Come to think of it, the people deserve to be lied upon. The mass is simply too lazy and dumb to deserve better.

Another argument could be, that everything has a balance with 2 sides, including quality of life. For some to have a good life, other must suffer. One man's gain is another one's loss. This is how the world must be.

Yet another point could be that many poor/weak people were born by mistake. Their parents didn't mean to conceive them, but it happened anyway. Notice that the world's fastest growing regions are the poorer countries. More "mistakes" are made there, so the sooner they die off, the more mistakes are corrected.

To me, those are morally wrong and I will never adhere to those ideas. I'm no saint myself, I'm not saving anyone, but I do the best I can. I do give some of my money to charity, I buy things that I think is better for our planet and I would be willing to share my wealth by eating less and consuming less if I knew that by doing so would help someone across the world, but for that our whole society needs to wake up and stop believing in the lies of corporations and corrupt politicians.

[Trien Chieu]

I didn't bother reading the whole thread, but I call the concept of "the world is overpopulated" crap. If humans were a lot more compassionate, corporations less greedy, the whole world would be fed properly.

Humans are overly compassionate. We donate billions every year to help others. What else do you want??

Do you realize how much food we waste in western countries? We are full of fat people in the West and we throw away a lot of food.

That is none of your business. People have every right to waste whatever belong to them.

As for corporations, I highly suggest you do some research on Monsanto. There are few things in this world that I HATE and despise more than this slimy corporation, one of the most evil corporations on earth that I'm aware of. Who knows what other horrible things are going on behind corporate doors. The ironic thing about Monsanto is despite all this huge quantity of manufactured processed food, we still don't feed the poor; corporations rather throw away the food than to feed the poor. I'm telling you, if we really wanted to, the quantity of food we have right now is enough for the whole world, but due to GREED, we do nothing.

I cannot stress this more, learn about Monsanto. Here's an easy way: go on YouTube, search for Monsanto and click on the first link. Just take a few minutes. Instead of watching a video of Justin Bieber, this time learn about Monsanto, it never hurts to be informed.

Monsanto is a corporation and its goal is about the bottom line just like any other corporation, nothing else. What do you expect? Why would Monsanto give their food away?

I am appalled that videos of Lada Gaga gets millions of hits whilst infos about things that affect our rights only get a few thousands of hits. Come to think of it, the people deserve to be lied upon. The mass is simply too lazy and dumb to deserve better.

Again, everything comes down to PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

To me, those are morally wrong and I will never adhere to those ideas. I'm no saint myself, I'm not saving anyone, but I do the best I can. I do give some of my money to charity, I buy things that I think is better for our planet and I would be willing to share my wealth by eating less and consuming less if I knew that by doing so would help someone across the world, but for that our whole society needs to wake up and stop believing in the lies of corporations and corrupt politicians.

If you yourself are not saint, then do not expect that from others. Other people have their priorities just like you have yours, do not expect them to be selfless.

[AndyChrono]

You should help them help themselves. This goes back to the old story of giving a man a fish or teaching a man how to fish. This applies (or should apply) at all levels from personal all the way up to government.

Disaster charity is a bit different. In most cases it is more practical to send money because you don't have the skills/time necessary to teach them, or because of distance. For instance, when the Typhoons struck Taiwan I just sent money because I live in the U.S so flying over to help out and then back would be impractical. But if (god forbid) a major disaster struck the LA area (earthquake!) then I would probably go do volunteer work. Helping these local people is technically helping myself in the long run. My family business sells furniture, so the quicker you can get the locals back on their feet, the more likely they might buy furniture from us. Especially since I would have introduced myself to them and a bunch of homes (and thus furniture!) were probably just destroyed by the earthquake.

[Guo Xiang]

The ironic thing about Monsanto is despite all this huge quantity of manufactured processed food, we still don't feed the poor; corporations rather throw away the food than to feed the poor. I'm telling you, if we really wanted to, the quantity of food we have right now is enough for the whole world, but due to GREED, we do nothing.

Hmm... I actually wrote a blog post on this topic two years ago. And someone ( a stranger commenter) told me the idea was infantile because the poor countries could never be able to afford the food. The same person also said the food would not be able to stand the travel time and would spoil by the time they get to the target countries.

I thought we've got preservation technologies. Even if we do not, we are simply not investing in them but we are investing money in other superficial and useless stuff.

Point is, people (especially those in power) are not interested if there's nothing to benefit them. That's why stuff like environmentalism, animal welfare, human rights and etc. are always having a hard time - it doesn't fill the pockets with cash.

[Trien Chieu]

Point is, people (especially those in power) are not interested if there's nothing to benefit them. That's why stuff like environmentalism, animal welfare, human rights and etc. are always having a hard time - it doesn't fill the pockets with cash.

You are too pessimistic. You need to explore the world. Have you visit countries like Canada and US? If not, you should give a try. You will see how much we care about environment, animal welfare and human rights. Countries like Canada and the US are definitely leaders in those fields.

[Newxia]

You are too pessimistic. You need to explore the world. Have you visit countries like Canada and US? If not, you should give a try. You will see how much we care about environment, animal welfare and human rights. Countries like Canada and the US are definitely leaders in those fields.

Jumping in with a thought or two...

People in the US, myself included, are some of the largest wasters of natural resources in the world. I just noticed, Trien Chieu, that you wrote in a comment above that "People have every right to waste whatever belong to them". That's the kind of attitude that has the majority of us throwing away perfectly good food that could feed at least another person at that meal, perfectly good clothing because it's out of season in the fashion world, taking one or two showers a day and often flushing toilets with potable water, because we're sanitary, first-world and we feel like it. This is the American way, but I don't think it can last as the world begins to fight over limited natural resources.

We conserve our forests and protect our wildlife because we can afford to, because we have already spent decades destroying the planet in order to build up wealth. Other countries in the world wish they could have our lifestyle, but it's ironic because it would be unsustainable without poor countries staying poor to provide us with cheap labor and products.

In my opinion, the "optimistic" US attitude is one that can only be had when one is relatively well-off. Many of us are blissfully naive, willfully ignorant or lazily complacent (I admit I'm in the latter category but I'm trying to be less so), because we can afford to be. WE'RE the ones who should be exploring the world to see how lucky most of us are, and that our way of thinking doesn't really apply to many parts of the world.

I also do think controlling the growth of the human population will eventually be the key to the survival of our species.

[Trien Chieu]

Jumping in with a thought or two...

People in the US, myself included, are some of the largest wasters of natural resources in the world. I just noticed, Trien Chieu, that you wrote in a comment above that "People have every right to waste whatever belong to them". That's the kind of attitude that has the majority of us throwing away perfectly good food that could feed at least another person at that meal, perfectly good clothing because it's out of season in the fashion world, taking one or two showers a day and often flushing toilets with potable water, because we're sanitary, first-world and we feel like it. This is the American way, but I don't think it can last as the world begins to fight over limited natural resources.

We conserve our forests and protect our wildlife because we can afford to, because we have already spent decades destroying the planet in order to build up wealth. Other countries in the world wish they could have our lifestyle, but it's ironic because it would be unsustainable without poor countries staying poor to provide us with cheap labor and products.

In my opinion, the "optimistic" US attitude is one that can only be had when one is relatively well-off. Many of us are blissfully naive, willfully ignorant or lazily complacent (I admit I'm in the latter category but I'm trying to be less so), because we can afford to be. WE'RE the ones who should be exploring the world to see how lucky most of us are, and that our way of thinking doesn't really apply to many parts of the world.

I also do think controlling the growth of the human population will eventually be the key to the survival of our species.

Newxia, do you know why people in countries like the US and Canada are more well off than most of other countries? It's because they are the hardest working people in the planet earth. Wealth is created through hard work, not falling from the sky. The responsible and hard working people will get ahead whereas the irresponsible and lazy people will stay behind. That is life.

[Guo Xiang]

Newxia, do you know why people in countries like the US and Canada are more well off than most of other countries? It's because they are the hardest working people in the planet earth. Wealth is created through hard work, not falling from the sky. The responsible and hard working people will get ahead whereas the irresponsible and lazy people will stay behind. That is life.

Poverty is not caused by a single factor (the trait of hardworking, that is). That is an over-simplistic, irresponsible and selfish view. I say irresponsible and selfish because with this reasoning you conveniently absolve yourself of any responsibility you may have for the society while condescends the less privileged.

[Trien Chieu]

Poverty is not caused by a single factor (the trait of hardworking, that is). That is an over-simplistic, irresponsible and selfish view. I say irresponsible and selfish because with this reasoning you conveniently absolve yourself of any responsibility you may have for the society while condescends the less privileged.

Sure, it's not caused by a single factor but if they work hard and live responsibly (live below the mean, not live for the moment) then they wouldn't be at where they are. I have loved ones that are like that, some in Canada and some from Vietnam. Poverty is mostly self inflicted. If you look at the population that into alcohol, tobacco and drugs, you will see there are lot of so call poor. You would see them max out their high interest credit cards for luxuries. If you go to the bar at night on the day that people receive their welfare check, you will see lot of them enjoy the alcohol and dancing. Yeah, it's their money and they can do whatever they want and I am totally agree with that, but it's their life style that lead them to where they are. Do you know what? There are immigrants that don't even speak English when they come to the country. They work two jobs that pay them minimum wage, and they still able to make end meets and eventually move up the ladder. If they can do it, why can't the ones that are born here with English as their first language.

I work and pay taxes, that is my responsibility for society, nothing more. I have my priorities like owning a house, buying a new car, and saving up for rainy days. Throwing away my hard earn dollars into a bottomless hole is not one of them. By the way, I am not even rich but I live responsibly. If I live my life like the way they do, I would be have nothing left just like them.

[wkeej]

May be suitable for this thread. http://sg.news.yahoo.com/blogs/singa...004953242.html

[KeongJai]

It's not a question of should the strong help the weak, but a question HOW should the strong help the weak.

There's a saying, give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, but if you teach him to catch fish you feed him for a lifetime.

I believe in that mantra, but it's very hard to implement because that man you are helping only wants the fish right now and doesn't understand that you are teaching him to fish to help himself and will fight you because he thinks you are controlling him.

I think the only thing you can do is help those who want to be helped. You can give them fish for now but you still need to teach them how to catch the fish themselves. If they don't want to learn then I think there's no point helping.

[Guo Xiang]

It's not a question of should the strong help the weak, but a question HOW should the strong help the weak.

There's a saying, give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, but if you teach him to catch fish you feed him for a lifetime.

I believe in that mantra, but it's very hard to implement because that man you are helping only wants the fish right now and doesn't understand that you are teaching him to fish to help himself and will fight you because he thinks you are controlling him.

I think the only thing you can do is help those who want to be helped. You can give them fish for now but you still need to teach them how to catch the fish themselves. If they don't want to learn then I think there's no point helping.

I think this is easy only when one-on-one, but gets difficult when you are dealing with a lot of people. And even then, how do you figure who are the ones that are really in trouble and who are lying (e.g. years of inability to land a job, who really has difficulty getting and who's lying about trying to get one)?

[Trien Chieu]

It's not a question of should the strong help the weak, but a question HOW should the strong help the weak.

There's a saying, give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, but if you teach him to catch fish you feed him for a lifetime.

I believe in that mantra, but it's very hard to implement because that man you are helping only wants the fish right now and doesn't understand that you are teaching him to fish to help himself and will fight you because he thinks you are controlling him.

I think the only thing you can do is help those who want to be helped. You can give them fish for now but you still need to teach them how to catch the fish themselves. If they don't want to learn then I think there's no point helping.

Since you live in Australia, try to visit the food bank at the end of the welfare check period and see who is going there for free food. Then, go to the bar/club at the beginning of the welfare check period and see who is going there for dancing/drinking. You will see lot of familiar faces.

[Guo Xiang]

Since you live in Australia, try to visit the food bank at the end of the welfare check period and see who is going there for free food. Then, go to the bar/club at the beginning of the welfare check period and see who is going there for dancing/drinking. You will see lot of familiar faces.

I assume that's because people don't get jobs at the snap of the fingers or overnight.

Also, have you been visiting Australia's food bank on a frequent basis to know that?

[Trien Chieu]

Also, have you been visiting Australia's food bank on a frequent basis to know that?

Never been to Australia but I assume welfare recipients from Australia are similar to welfare recipients in Canada and US. Hard working people from Singapore are very fortunate that their government doesn't pour their tax dollar from hard working people into a bottomless hole like many other governments. My relative own a restaurant and on the day they receive the welfare check, they spend the money very lavishly, much more than working people.
Did you ever heard of the term Welfare Queen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_queen

[jiang bao]

TC embodies Republican thought, that poor people deserve to be poor because they are stereotypically lazy. Well, I've lived in the hood. There are definitely lazy people who just live off welfare, but there are also many hardworking people who simply can't make it because of the lack of opportunities.

[KeongJai]

Since you live in Australia, try to visit the food bank at the end of the welfare check period and see who is going there for free food. Then, go to the bar/club at the beginning of the welfare check period and see who is going there for dancing/drinking. You will see lot of familiar faces.

That's my point. Just handing out welfare checks isn't the way. Education subsidies (which is what we do have here) is better and the ones who WANT to benefit from it will take up that offer and those who don't, won't.

If welfare was in the form of food coupons (like during the depression) and education/apprenticeship subsidies that would help them more i.e. the teaching people how to catch fish idea instead of just giving them money i.e. giving them fish.

The problem is people complain about getting food stamps and education subsidies because that's telling people what to do and controlling their lives.

But if I am reading your point correctly are you just saying don't help them at all? because they'll just piss it up the wall? My counter to that is, maybe if you feel that way instead of just giving up, try a different method.

[Trien Chieu]

I am all for education subsidies because it is helping people who want to help themselves to get ahead. It's also just temporarily because they eventually will graduate and will contribute to the system. I just don't like the idea of taxing the hard working people heavily and give a big fat check to the welfare recipients, something the lefty loves to embrace.