HOME | DD
Party9999999 β The War Machine
Published: 2014-06-11 10:57:26 +0000 UTC; Views: 5848; Favourites: 230; Downloads: 28
Redirect to original
Description
Oh but their no money to be made in raising people out of poverty only in blowing them to pieces.Related content
Comments: 441
That takes economic determinism too far. Eradicating poverty would definitely reduce the likelihood of armed conflict over basic resources, true. But war starts for reasons other than basic need. Religion has long been a motivating factor, as has the greed & venality of leaders.
π: 0 β©: 0
Your leaders have billians of scrubs to fuel their lives. Wars are for resources. If the US doesn't intervene in Iraq and Syria, Russia will have it's dominance on the oil fields and other countries, apart from the US, mainly Europe, will suffer from this, which will cause problems in trade between Europe and the US and might also strainghten Russia, which will "steal" America's allies and will weaken the US trade power which will weaken its economy.
I live in a country that's in a war, I don't question my government's spending and I appriciate that other countries have intrests in my conflict. I question other economical problems like housing prices and monoploies, or coruption.
Also, there are places whose poverity you can't fix, most of Africa for example, is subjected to bad leaderships and exapnding population with limited resources. If you provide the resources, more people will be born and the resources will end. India has a good democratic leadership and it has the resources needed to provide the poor with resources. China provides work to most of it's citizens and even though most live in poverty, they can live after all, those countries know how to take care of their populations. Countries like Nigeria, who has over 100 million people and are subjected to ethnic and religious conflicts can't really manage their population which costantly give birth to new kids while resources are limited and the population is not westernized to be able to be aided with western money.
Many wars today are caused by poverty, the best example is Yemen, who had a growing number of population, who grew by over 100% in 20 years and now stands on over 24,000,000. The country can't provide enough resources to feed the people and ethnic-religious conflicts are more likely to happen and that's what happened with Houthies rebelled against the government and now millions of Yemenis can't are cut from water and food. But if the war ends the population will continue to grow and the country would still not be able to manage it's population and a water crisis leading to a war is likely to happen.
The same happened in Syria, when a water crisis in a bad moumentum of Arab Spring encoureged more people to protest against the government and it's not a concident that the largest protests took place in the areas with the largest water problems, mainly Daraa in southern Syria which is until this day under a water crisis.
Also in Jordan they have this problem, where the population continue to grow, immigriants enter the country and water sources are going low. Today Jordan borrows water from Israel while it's population continue to grow.
You can only temporarly help countries with money, and the wars you are talking about are the cause of populations who get resources and over populate. You provide a poor and overpopulating society with all the resources needed and the poeple will populate even faster and another crisis will happen soon after. This is exactly what happened in Africa and the Middle East.
π: 0 β©: 0
Tell me how we are going to eradicate the world of power hungry psychopathics that run the world and eliminate the root causes for war and I will consider not making myself better at the war thing than my neighbor.
π: 0 β©: 0
Aaaand this sums up why I'm disgusted to be a Human...
π: 0 β©: 0
Count me in on the list of people wondering where this information is coming from, and just what "$ 135 BILLION TO TOTALLY ERADICATE WORLD POVERTY" is asserting, because you claim there IS a solution for that little, but you don't exactly tell us what that solution is or how it would be implemented (instead seeming to focus on complaining that we haven't implemented this mystery solution yet, in favor of waging war on each-other which, ok, sure, war is terrible, but you still have to put your money where your mouth is, proverbially speaking XD).Β
And I really DO mean that!Β If somebody knows of some miracle solution to all the world's woes that can easily be covered with a mere 12 digit annual contribution, that's astronomical!Β (In the famous lines of Dr. Strangelove: )Β "SO WHY DON'T YA TELL THE WORLD, HUH?!?Β
π: 0 β©: 1
Divides, would you mind if we discussed this in Notes? I would love to toss ideas around to see if we could find something
π: 0 β©: 1
Ok, not entirely sure why you're asking me, of all people, especially considering my rather flippant comment...
Also not sure why this would have to be in notes XD.Β
But sure, if you want to share something with me privately, I'll listen.Β
π: 0 β©: 0
I second those asking for the source of the information
π: 0 β©: 0
Β you know seven hundred fiftysix billion of that was North Korea
π: 0 β©: 0
Poverty ain't payin' my bills. Military-Industrial Complex ho!
π: 0 β©: 0
What is the source of this info?
How would the money be allocated for those in poverty to end it?
π: 0 β©: 1
Yeah...
I briefly thought that maybe it was based on some overly simplistic criteria... specifically I thought it might be based on the World Bank's definition of "absolute poverty"... but then I realized that even if it was 135,000,000,000 per MONTH, it still wouldn't be nearly enough to eradicate world poverty that way.Β
... So count me in on the list of people wondering what this is asserting.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
Fixed that pesky 1,756 billion number didja? Unfortunately you still didn't spell check but the third time's the charm.Β
Hundred*******
π: 0 β©: 0
Where'd you get these numbers from? Source?
π: 0 β©: 0
Rubbish.Β
It's not lack of money being given to the poor.
It's not lack of resources available.
Its corruption. And communists in the former Soviet Union, and the current PRC, let alone banana republics like Cuba, are some of history's most egregious offenders.
But hey, don't let facts get in the way of your agitprop.Β
π: 0 β©: 0
1 thousand 7 hundred and 35 billion? ah.. er... isn't that 1 trillion? or is it 1 billion?
π: 0 β©: 0
Your intention is good but I'm not so sure about the train of thought you're going with there.Β How exactly would those billions eradicate poverty?
Β --- Giving them food and shelter? Which is only going to last for a few months before they start descending again into a poverty state again because they basically have no means to sustain a balanced life?
Β --- Or are you talking about giving the means to be able to sustain themselves in a medium-long term? Because that sounds like something that would take more than a few hundred billions to give EVERYONE in this planet that kind of treatment.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
These are statistics for a specific year.Β Presumably the assertion is that $135,000,000,000 is enough to eliminate poverty for one year.Β
I have no idea where that's coming from, either.Β
("This are?"Β Aparently this new edit feature has made me lazy already XD.Β Ahh well, fixed :-p.)Β
π: 0 β©: 0
Poverty isn't about money. It's about resources. We have one planet Earth, and it has a finite amount of stuff in it.
We simply have too many people. That's why there is poverty to the degree that there is. We hit the Earth's sustainable carrying capacity at 4 billion people; we're now at almost double that number. We're spending natural capital (i.e. resources) at a frightening rate to try and support our growing population. We've stretched our resources too thin, like butter spread over too much bread.
The Earth is 4.6 billion years old. Letβs scale that to 46 years.
We have been here for 4 hours. Our industrial revolution began 1 minute ago.
In that time, we have destroyed more than 50% of the worldβs forests.
And that's just one facet of the problem we face. There's CO2 levels, oil reserves, drinkable water, endangered species...the list goes on.
In short and sweet terms...we're in trouble. 
π: 0 β©: 2
There has always been poverty though since the start of civilization. Rome had a 50% unemployment rate (in Rome... in the Roman empire) Poverty was worse in Europe and the US in the 19th century than it is now (look at life expectancy and standard of living).Β
π: 0 β©: 1
Okay, and that's relevant...how?
π: 0 β©: 1
Because you are saying there is poverty because there are limited resources for human consumption and too many people to share them. There has been poverty even when the total human population was less than 200,000,000
π: 0 β©: 1
So people were poor back then because certain other people were monumentally egocentric assholes. What's your point?
You have done absolutely nothing to refute what I've said, only stated and restated some tangentially-related fact.
π: 0 β©: 1
What I was trying to get at is there will be poverty regardless of the number of people.
π: 0 β©: 1
Having more people than the Earth's carrying capacity is only going to make it worse. That's what I'm saying.
π: 0 β©: 1
"We hit the Earth's sustainable carrying capacity at 4 billion people;"Β
Actually, the notion that there's a single sustainable carrying capacity is somewhat flawed:Β www.youtube.com/watch?v=dD-yN2β¦ (Hank Green talks about overpopulation).Β
So it's not that our total population has somehow crossed some all-important threshold... it's that 1:Β It's continuing to rise too fast, 2:Β Our resources aren't being handled very efficiently, and 3:Β A LOT of the above mentioned population growth is happening where even fewer of the resources are going to get to them.Β
You are right, however, that saying we can just throw money at the problem and fix it is a somewhat overly-simplistic viewpoint XD.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
The more people we have, the more we will have to lower the average standard of living for each person alive, because we will have to allocate resources to sustain that person.
So we can have a standard of living, or we can have 10 billion people. We cannot have both. We just can't. The "stuff" is simply not there to be had. Until we can directly manipulate energy into matter, until we can turn sunlight into something we can hold and touch in our hands, we have to control the population and put a cap on it at some point.
Only when the last fish is caught, the last tree cut down, and the last drinkable river polluted will we realize: we can't eat money.
π: 0 β©: 0
Eradicating world poverty would be amazing. It'd be inspiration and beautiful to see the worlds people stop suffering. But how long would it last? Poverty can't be eradicated just by money. The resources it would take in order to solve poverty is more than even those of us who do not live in poverty can truly "afford". Poverty's money is the world's resources. There isn't enough clean water and air on the planet to support the worlds poverty. There isn't enough land to house them all, there's barely enough food to support the people that aren't living in poverty. To fix poverty we must first fix our own problems. Poverty is proof that we don't truly know how to take care of ourselves. Human beings are ignorant to what stands right in front of them. The world it self is dying. Fix the planet before you fix something as insignificant as poverty.Β
π: 0 β©: 0
This is extremely interesting and powerful. You shouldΒ definitelyΒ tag this a long many parts of a city. TheΒ color schemeΒ is simple yet loud enough to grab someone's attention and the words are scarce enough for someone who is driving by to read it.
π: 0 β©: 0
That would end world poverty for maybe a day.Β There is only one way to end things like terrorism, hunger, poverty, or any other social injustice you can think of:Β make the human race extinct.Β As long as human beings exist, everything you hate will continue to exist.Β So if you want to save the human race, destroy it.Β I wont let you, of course, because that's just what I do.
π: 0 β©: 0
... thats just.. wowwwww... just dont make grenades for a year? use that on poverty...
π: 0 β©: 0
Not true. If poverty ended today then the world would become more stable, less war would occur, higher prosperity and overall a better planet,
π: 0 β©: 0
The people that have control over huge ammounts of money are apparently the worst for that job.
π: 0 β©: 0
And under communists it'd be worse. NO government in the history of man has ever served it's people. For that only law can lead without a ruler. And that is never going to happen no nation would ever allow it.
π: 0 β©: 0
Time to celebrate the 100 year's jubilee of World War One with new World War.
π: 0 β©: 0
It doesnt matter if the numbers can be wrong or from which country he is talking about.
The point is, humanity does not help each other, but wastes money
(Yeah.. sometimes army to defend, but if everybody would have a heart we wouldnt even need weapons)
We shouldnt complain what the government does or the rich people next to you. It starts with us. With You! Touch ur own Nose. Why dont you help the people around you? Why dont you plant a tree? If EVERYBODY cares a little little little bit more, it wouldnt matter if any government (you cant probably reach) spends too much money on army instead of helping.
π: 0 β©: 0
DON'T. REMIND. ME. 
π: 0 β©: 0
It's the American way!
π: 0 β©: 0
Because keeping people enslaved by foisting a victim mentality on them is the answer to everything.
/sarcasm
It's a nice, works-on-paper theory you are advocating here, but the truth is that it's never that simple. What truly raises people out of poverty is removing the shackles that most governments impose upon their citizenry.
π: 0 β©: 0
| Next =>