wildgoldenhoney said:

johnart said:

I'm not sure I understand the bolded part.

Here's my response to the rest:

If you're all knowing and all powerful and creator of all, no, there is not a difference to me between causing and allowing. If there was a starving child within your capability to help, wouldn't you help them? You didn't cause them to starve. And if you let them starve you might even teach someone else a lesson...still, would you?

The whole Adam & Eve thing is pointless to me. If he'd stopped them from disobeying from the start, of course it would've solved the problems. Everyone's always goin on about how our problems come from them disobeying in the first place and him "allowing" things to happen due to that. If there was a God and a Garden of Eden and bliss and all that, what's the point in letting it go to shit so that then it can come full circle???

Unless he's not just an asshole but an arrogant one at that who just wants to tell us TOLD YOU SO!!! in the end. Possible.

Ok, where Adam and Eve come in is not only that they were the start of where human imperfection began but if you examine the context of the story you can see that this was more than just a simple act of disobedience but slander on God's name and a challenge that challenged God, their father having the right to set the standards of right and wrong and that he had the right to rule over humans.

Don't know how familiar you are with the story from Genesis 3:1-5, but the snake seduced Eve to thinking that she could make her own rules and actually become 'enlightened'. The snake said that God lied to them and they would not die if they disobeyed. So in this moment she, Adam and Satan raised an important issue that could not be answered with a simple restraining of them. If God just destroyed them all and started again, the issue would still be up in the air to be challenged again - possibly by one of the trillions of angels who were watching to see if the opposers were right in their challenge. In order to have a proper answer to the issues raised, God had to allow the challenge to take place, to allow humans to make their own rules as to what they think is right and wrong and rule over themselves - to see if Satan was right.

Of course God knew the answer but he allowed them to prove their claim to be fair and to prove for all time his right to rule. If ever this issue would be raised in the future afterwards, all would know the answer that humans cannot prove succesful in ruling over themselves and other humans. This doesn't mean that he is a hard ruler and does not see the suffering of humankind, it does break his heart to see the suffering but he can't step in and rescue everyone, it would be counterproductive to answering the charge against him. But he will reverse the effects and promises to reward with a chance at everlasting life in perfect conditions after the claim has been fully proved. This results of this issue will be a touchstone.

In the future he promises that humans will become perfect and not die anymore, or the results of Adam and Eve's disobedience will be reversed and gone forever such as death and imperfection.

Well, as long as he's letting millions of innocent children die and suffer in the name of fairness, it all makes perfect sense to me.

I'm familiar with the material from my mother, who knew her bible inside and out but I can't have this discussion with you because I know that you are putting your points and arguments (not to say we're arguing) forth calmly and respectfully, and I will fully admit that I have a very very hard time keeping myself calm and respectful when it comes to this topic, not only because of what it imposes on my life and who I am but because, at that, we're talking about stories (as you yourself put it). And stories that are not even original. There is so very little about Christianity that is original. Stories that are either not to be challenged, or if they are, then in some safe way that was worked-up by those who sell them so that the challenge is subtle and staged to re-inforce the fable. Respectfully, because we've had no past issues (at least nothing too serious I can remember ) I will bow out of this discussion with you.

ZombieKitten said:

Graycap23 said:

How is this possible?

http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/08/10/saving.ahmed.gupta/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

I read an article once (I think in New Scientist) that said the earth could support a population many times greater than our current one, there IS enough food and resources, the problem isn't that, it's the logistics and politics. Nobody is placing any importance on distribution. GREED stands in the way. Every day tons of food is dumped and wasted and every day people die of starvation.

It's the case in India, the country produces way enough food but export the main part abroad. the rest is stored and rots.

In France, supermarkets throw food not selled after eat by date out and pour bleach on it to make sure beggars and homeless people won't pick it. WTF?

armpit said:

Because people in power see to it that they do.

XxAxX said:

HotGritz said:

Jesus said "the poor you will have with you always." IMO this means that for as long as man rules, there will be people who suffer and are hungry. Look at how we poison this world which is and should be ripe with food and resources necessary to sustain life generation after generation. Hell even the animals are starving. Our air is polluted, our water is polluted, our technology supposedly interferes with weather systems so some places that once had rainfall are now experiencing extreme drought. Basically, its all our own fault.

no, it's not. this entire planet is one long story of endless suffering over the billions of years of its life. supervolcanoes blasting the crap out of the atmosphere and mass extinctions, mass coronal ejections blighting plant life and ice age after ice age after ice age. it does not matter what we do, it will occur again as it has been for billions of years.

and africa, the gobi desert, becomes a lush, tropical region every few ten thousand years or so. right now, the planet is tipping off a bit of center, causing the rain to not fall on the gobi region. another few thousand years and planet earth will tip back again, the wind patterns will change, or a new mountain range be pushed up by plate tectonics and poof! the gobi will once again bloom. the fossil records show this happening over and over.

the current drought in somalia is not really our fault. industry has only hastened what would have occurred, without fail. the next glacial melt cycle and the ensuing ice age and mass entinctions again. that is, if the next pole shift, asteroid, toxic algae bloom or supervolcano doesn't take us out first.

this planet is without mercy for its living creatures. the changing, shifting earth is responsible for far, far more deaths throughout history than any one species.

Uhhhhh...the Gobi desert is in Asia (northwest China and southern Mongolia, to be exact) - not Africa.

Famine is as much a political thing as it is meteorological. Why do you think the same places/peoples get hit time after time after time? Because the policies of their "governments" (in quotes because many of these places don't have governments as we know them) make it so.

XxAxX said:

HotGritz said:

Jesus said "the poor you will have with you always." IMO this means that for as long as man rules, there will be people who suffer and are hungry. Look at how we poison this world which is and should be ripe with food and resources necessary to sustain life generation after generation. Hell even the animals are starving. Our air is polluted, our water is polluted, our technology supposedly interferes with weather systems so some places that once had rainfall are now experiencing extreme drought. Basically, its all our own fault.

no, it's not. this entire planet is one long story of endless suffering over the billions of years of its life. supervolcanoes blasting the crap out of the atmosphere and mass extinctions, mass coronal ejections blighting plant life and ice age after ice age after ice age. it does not matter what we do, it will occur again as it has been for billions of years.

and africa, the gobi desert, becomes a lush, tropical region every few ten thousand years or so. right now, the planet is tipping off a bit of center, causing the rain to not fall on the gobi region. another few thousand years and planet earth will tip back again, the wind patterns will change, or a new mountain range be pushed up by plate tectonics and poof! the gobi will once again bloom. the fossil records show this happening over and over.

the current drought in somalia is not really our fault. industry has only hastened what would have occurred, without fail. the next glacial melt cycle and the ensuing ice age and mass entinctions again. that is, if the next pole shift, asteroid, toxic algae bloom or supervolcano doesn't take us out first.

this planet is without mercy for its living creatures. the changing, shifting earth is responsible for far, far more deaths throughout history than any one species.

doom! edit

[Edited 8/10/11 17:38pm]

I agree there's been endless suffering but suffering from natural disasters is different from suffering by our own hand. Humans are notorious for perserverance and survival. We are migrators and even parasites to an extent. We find a place that is rich in resources and suitable for us to live and thrive and then we fuck it up by fighting amongst ourselves and inventing weapons to destroy ourselves and those same weapons wreak havoc on our environment along with the inventions that are supposed to make our lives more convenient.

I kind of agree about the drought in Somalia but isn't that drought extending longer than what history has shown? Months instead of weeks. The corrupt government is not even letting proper aid groups pass the borders so in that regard, humans are at fault for letting other humans starve.

I think this planet has been very merciful for its living creatures and creatures of all kinds are highly adaptable. Humans fuck things up for all the living kinds which is why we have animals becoming extinct and others having to find new habitat because we come in and destroy their territory. Speaking of destroying territory, I am very uncomfortable with the fracking that is going in some US states and having people and their pets being poisoned because the water is contaminated with chemicals.

It's a mad house!!!!!!!

Dewrede said:

Not trying to sound inconsiderate or rude or anything

But who goes and lives

on land that's so dry and barren that barely anything can be grown

and where it hardly ever rains

[Edited 8/10/11 19:33pm]

having eight children per woman is not helping either. birth control would be a good thing, imo

johnart said:

wildgoldenhoney said:

Ok, where Adam and Eve come in is not only that they were the start of where human imperfection began but if you examine the context of the story you can see that this was more than just a simple act of disobedience but slander on God's name and a challenge that challenged God, their father having the right to set the standards of right and wrong and that he had the right to rule over humans.

Don't know how familiar you are with the story from Genesis 3:1-5, but the snake seduced Eve to thinking that she could make her own rules and actually become 'enlightened'. The snake said that God lied to them and they would not die if they disobeyed. So in this moment she, Adam and Satan raised an important issue that could not be answered with a simple restraining of them. If God just destroyed them all and started again, the issue would still be up in the air to be challenged again - possibly by one of the trillions of angels who were watching to see if the opposers were right in their challenge. In order to have a proper answer to the issues raised, God had to allow the challenge to take place, to allow humans to make their own rules as to what they think is right and wrong and rule over themselves - to see if Satan was right.

Of course God knew the answer but he allowed them to prove their claim to be fair and to prove for all time his right to rule. If ever this issue would be raised in the future afterwards, all would know the answer that humans cannot prove succesful in ruling over themselves and other humans. This doesn't mean that he is a hard ruler and does not see the suffering of humankind, it does break his heart to see the suffering but he can't step in and rescue everyone, it would be counterproductive to answering the charge against him. But he will reverse the effects and promises to reward with a chance at everlasting life in perfect conditions after the claim has been fully proved. This results of this issue will be a touchstone.

In the future he promises that humans will become perfect and not die anymore, or the results of Adam and Eve's disobedience will be reversed and gone forever such as death and imperfection.

Well, as long as he's letting millions of innocent children die and suffer in the name of fairness, it all makes perfect sense to me.

I'm familiar with the material from my mother, who knew her bible inside and out but I can't have this discussion with you because I know that you are putting your points and arguments (not to say we're arguing) forth calmly and respectfully, and I will fully admit that I have a very very hard time keeping myself calm and respectful when it comes to this topic, not only because of what it imposes on my life and who I am but because, at that, we're talking about stories (as you yourself put it). And stories that are not even original. There is so very little about Christianity that is original. Stories that are either not to be challenged, or if they are, then in some safe way that was worked-up by those who sell them so that the challenge is subtle and staged to re-inforce the fable. Respectfully, because we've had no past issues (at least nothing too serious I can remember ) I will bow out of this discussion with you.

No problem johnart. Thought I'd try to supply an answer from the bible if you were seeking one. Have a good one!

Cloudbuster said:

armpit said:

Because people in power see to it that they do.

Cloudbuster said:

armpit said:

Because people in power see to it that they do.

co-

It's called Capitalism.

PurpleJedi said:

It's called Capitalism.

Graycap23 said:

How is this possible?

http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/08/10/saving.ahmed.gupta/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

Human behavior.

ZombieKitten said:

Graycap23 said:

How is this possible?

http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/08/10/saving.ahmed.gupta/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

I read an article once (I think in New Scientist) that said the earth could support a population many times greater than our current one, there IS enough food and resources, the problem isn't that, it's the logistics and politics. Nobody is placing any importance on distribution. GREED stands in the way. Every day tons of food is dumped and wasted and every day people die of starvation.

Co-sign

wildgoldenhoney said:

HotGritz said:

Jesus said "the poor you will have with you always." IMO this means that for as long as man rules, there will be people who suffer and are hungry. Look at how we poison this world which is and should be ripe with food and resources necessary to sustain life generation after generation. Hell even the animals are starving. Our air is polluted, our water is polluted, our technology supposedly interferes with weather systems so some places that once had rainfall are now experiencing extreme drought. Basically, its all our own fault.

And famines are part of the sign that leads to the end of human governments ruling the earth, where God's government/kingdom will be ushered in and put an end to hunger, pollution, corruption on a worldwide scale.

If that's the case, why not this famine? Famine happens. Today, the cause is generally political.

Political fighting that prevents food from being grown, harvested and distributed efficiently or a state that allows it to be wasted, withheld or sold.

PurpleJedi said:

It's called Capitalism.

You don't think people have starved under Communist regimes?

PurpleJedi said:

It's called Capitalism.

So starvation doesn't exist in places without capitalism?

It certainly does.

Somalia is hardly capitalistic.

Genesia said:

PurpleJedi said:

It's called Capitalism.

You don't think people have starved under Communist regimes?

In socialist regimes, people shared what they had equally so everyone at least had enough.

There was no profit so everyone had an equal share.

SUPRMAN said:

Genesia said:

You don't think people have starved under Communist regimes?

In socialist regimes, people shared what they had equally so everyone at least had enough.

There was no profit so everyone had an equal share.

Wrong. There were constant food shortages in the Soviet Union (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics). In fact, food shortages in the Soviet Union in the 1980s were part of the reason for the events of 1989.

When the government is going to take everything you produce, what incentive is there to make (or grow) anything?

SUPRMAN said:

Genesia said:

You don't think people have starved under Communist regimes?

In socialist regimes, people shared what they had equally so everyone at least had enough.

There was no profit so everyone had an equal share.

I didn't mean to imply that communism is a better means of distributing the bounty of the land...in principle it is, but then there's the issue of human beings being naturally proprietary & lazy that negates the advantages of what communism meant to accomplish.

NO...what I mean to say is that Capitalism...the economic system which currently reigns supreme on this crazy little planet of ours...is a system that by nature ensures that there is poverty and hunger.

There are limited resources to be had. They can either be shared by all, or appropriated according to caste/priviledge/strength/whatever. Once upon a time humans farmed the lands and hunted or grazed to feed their families. Now we are mostly dependent on a paycheck. When you base a person's ability to feed himself by how much gold he has in his pocket, then you are forming a caste system whereby those with more gold have more resources and vice versa.

Now, those with the most resources have the ability to aid those without. In fact, we have the capacity to produce much more than we actually do, but will NOT because it affects profit margins. Look at dairy farmers...they have the technology to produce much more milk than they can sell at a profit...so they DON'T because if the cost of milk lowers, then they can't afford to buy feed for their cows (let alone turn a profit). Yet...thousands of children are starving in Somalia. Why aren't these farmers producing as much as their cows will allow and the dairy converted into protein products that could be shipped overseas? PROFIT. Our capitalistic system doesn't allow for charity of that scale, and these well-meaning farmers would see themselves out of business quick.

I've already posted before that I don't believe communism is a better choice...we still as a race want to "own things" and need "compensation" for our efforts. We can discuss this further on a separate thread if you wish.

But the simple answer to the OP's question...how can humans be starving in 2011...is simple. Capitalism.

PurpleJedi said:

SUPRMAN said:

In socialist regimes, people shared what they had equally so everyone at least had enough.

There was no profit so everyone had an equal share.

I didn't mean to imply that communism is a better means of distributing the bounty of the land...in principle it is, but then there's the issue of human beings being naturally proprietary & lazy that negates the advantages of what communism meant to accomplish.

NO...what I mean to say is that Capitalism...the economic system which currently reigns supreme on this crazy little planet of ours...is a system that by nature ensures that there is poverty and hunger.

There are limited resources to be had. They can either be shared by all, or appropriated according to caste/priviledge/strength/whatever. Once upon a time humans farmed the lands and hunted or grazed to feed their families. Now we are mostly dependent on a paycheck. When you base a person's ability to feed himself by how much gold he has in his pocket, then you are forming a caste system whereby those with more gold have more resources and vice versa.

Now, those with the most resources have the ability to aid those without. In fact, we have the capacity to produce much more than we actually do, but will NOT because it affects profit margins. Look at dairy farmers...they have the technology to produce much more milk than they can sell at a profit...so they DON'T because if the cost of milk lowers, then they can't afford to buy feed for their cows (let alone turn a profit). Yet...thousands of children are starving in Somalia. Why aren't these farmers producing as much as their cows will allow and the dairy converted into protein products that could be shipped overseas? PROFIT. Our capitalistic system doesn't allow for charity of that scale, and these well-meaning farmers would see themselves out of business quick.

I've already posted before that I don't believe communism is a better choice...we still as a race want to "own things" and need "compensation" for our efforts. We can discuss this further on a separate thread if you wish.

But the simple answer to the OP's question...how can humans be starving in 2011...is simple. Capitalism.

This is the mistake anti-capitalists make. They think wealth and resources are finite and constant. They aren't - they are created.

If they were finite and constant, 6 billion-odd human beings would be trying to subsist on pre-industrial resources and wealth.

It is anti-capitalist systems that render wealth finite, by removing incentives to create more.

Genesia said:

PurpleJedi said:

I didn't mean to imply that communism is a better means of distributing the bounty of the land...in principle it is, but then there's the issue of human beings being naturally proprietary & lazy that negates the advantages of what communism meant to accomplish.

NO...what I mean to say is that Capitalism...the economic system which currently reigns supreme on this crazy little planet of ours...is a system that by nature ensures that there is poverty and hunger.

There are limited resources to be had. They can either be shared by all, or appropriated according to caste/priviledge/strength/whatever. Once upon a time humans farmed the lands and hunted or grazed to feed their families. Now we are mostly dependent on a paycheck. When you base a person's ability to feed himself by how much gold he has in his pocket, then you are forming a caste system whereby those with more gold have more resources and vice versa.

Now, those with the most resources have the ability to aid those without. In fact, we have the capacity to produce much more than we actually do, but will NOT because it affects profit margins. Look at dairy farmers...they have the technology to produce much more milk than they can sell at a profit...so they DON'T because if the cost of milk lowers, then they can't afford to buy feed for their cows (let alone turn a profit). Yet...thousands of children are starving in Somalia. Why aren't these farmers producing as much as their cows will allow and the dairy converted into protein products that could be shipped overseas? PROFIT. Our capitalistic system doesn't allow for charity of that scale, and these well-meaning farmers would see themselves out of business quick.

I've already posted before that I don't believe communism is a better choice...we still as a race want to "own things" and need "compensation" for our efforts. We can discuss this further on a separate thread if you wish.

But the simple answer to the OP's question...how can humans be starving in 2011...is simple. Capitalism.

This is the mistake anti-capitalists make. They think wealth and resources are finite and constant. They aren't - they are created.

If they were finite and constant, 6 billion-odd human beings would be trying to subsist on pre-industrial resources and wealth.

It is anti-capitalist systems that render wealth finite, by removing incentives to create more.

That's fodder for a separate thread.

But, whether or not resources are finite really doesn't negate the basic fact that charity and benevolence have little place in a true capitalistic society. Just look at how the mantra "spreading of the wealth" drives Republicans into a rabid frenzy!

Genesia said:

SUPRMAN said:

In socialist regimes, people shared what they had equally so everyone at least had enough.

There was no profit so everyone had an equal share.

Wrong. There were constant food shortages in the Soviet Union (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics). In fact, food shortages in the Soviet Union in the 1980s were part of the reason for the events of 1989.

When the government is going to take everything you produce, what incentive is there to make (or grow) anything?

Sarcasm. I agree with you.

PurpleJedi said:

SUPRMAN said:

In socialist regimes, people shared what they had equally so everyone at least had enough.

There was no profit so everyone had an equal share.

I didn't mean to imply that communism is a better means of distributing the bounty of the land...in principle it is, but then there's the issue of human beings being naturally proprietary & lazy that negates the advantages of what communism meant to accomplish.

NO...what I mean to say is that Capitalism...the economic system which currently reigns supreme on this crazy little planet of ours...is a system that by nature ensures that there is poverty and hunger.

There are limited resources to be had. They can either be shared by all, or appropriated according to caste/priviledge/strength/whatever. Once upon a time humans farmed the lands and hunted or grazed to feed their families. Now we are mostly dependent on a paycheck. When you base a person's ability to feed himself by how much gold he has in his pocket, then you are forming a caste system whereby those with more gold have more resources and vice versa.

Now, those with the most resources have the ability to aid those without. In fact, we have the capacity to produce much more than we actually do, but will NOT because it affects profit margins. Look at dairy farmers...they have the technology to produce much more milk than they can sell at a profit...so they DON'T because if the cost of milk lowers, then they can't afford to buy feed for their cows (let alone turn a profit). Yet...thousands of children are starving in Somalia. Why aren't these farmers producing as much as their cows will allow and the dairy converted into protein products that could be shipped overseas? PROFIT. Our capitalistic system doesn't allow for charity of that scale, and these well-meaning farmers would see themselves out of business quick.

I've already posted before that I don't believe communism is a better choice...we still as a race want to "own things" and need "compensation" for our efforts. We can discuss this further on a separate thread if you wish.

But the simple answer to the OP's question...how can humans be starving in 2011...is simple. Capitalism.

Capitalism is the the source of starvation.

Distribution of food is a bigger problem.

One quarter of all the food produced on the planet spoils and is never eaten.

That's not because of capitalism.

Somalia has no capitalism, but people there are starving.

There are non-capitalist nations (China) that grow plenty of food and yet people in China and elsewhere die of starvation.

More politics than capitalism.

I guess once we get rid of capitalism, everyone will somehow be fed?

PurpleJedi said:

Genesia said:

This is the mistake anti-capitalists make. They think wealth and resources are finite and constant. They aren't - they are created.

If they were finite and constant, 6 billion-odd human beings would be trying to subsist on pre-industrial resources and wealth.

It is anti-capitalist systems that render wealth finite, by removing incentives to create more.

That's fodder for a separate thread.

But, whether or not resources are finite really doesn't negate the basic fact that charity and benevolence have little place in a true capitalistic society. Just look at how the mantra "spreading of the wealth" drives Republicans into a rabid frenzy!

Wrong again. According to figures compiled by the National Park Service, Americans gave $290.89 billion to charity in 2010 - up 3.8% from 2009.

And what people don't like (people of all political stripes - not just Republicans) is government taking more in taxes to "spread the wealth" - largely because they spread it to the wrong people. I will pick the charities I give to, thankyouverymuch.

SUPRMAN said:

Genesia said:

Wrong. There were constant food shortages in the Soviet Union (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics). In fact, food shortages in the Soviet Union in the 1980s were part of the reason for the events of 1989.

When the government is going to take everything you produce, what incentive is there to make (or grow) anything?

Sarcasm. I agree with you.

Genesia said:

PurpleJedi said:

That's fodder for a separate thread.

But, whether or not resources are finite really doesn't negate the basic fact that charity and benevolence have little place in a true capitalistic society. Just look at how the mantra "spreading of the wealth" drives Republicans into a rabid frenzy!

Wrong again. According to figures compiled by the National Park Service, Americans gave $290.89 billion to charity in 2010 - up 3.8% from 2009.

And what people don't like (people of all political stripes - not just Republicans) is government taking more in taxes to "spread the wealth" - largely because they spread it to the wrong people. I will pick the charities I give to, thankyouverymuch.

$290 billion dollars represents just about the net worth of the FIVE richest individuals on earth.

Stop turning this into a political tit-for-tat. This is not a rallying cry for socialism. This is simply stating a fact. Capitalism is about accumulating wealth. Accumulate means hoarding. Which is why Carlos Slim, for example, is hoarding more money than he could possibly spend in ten lifetimes.

I am not going to get into whether or not that is good or bad. Personally, I do not want the government to tell ME how to spread my wealth. I am materialistic that way.

But if I weren't...if I only kept what I needed to live on and donated the rest...and everyone else did as well...there wouldn't be so much hunger in the world.

THAT is the point of this thread.

Is there anything constructive you'd like to offer that is relevant to this thread, or you want to keep picking at my words?

PurpleJedi said:

Genesia said:

Wrong again. According to figures compiled by the National Park Service, Americans gave $290.89 billion to charity in 2010 - up 3.8% from 2009.

And what people don't like (people of all political stripes - not just Republicans) is government taking more in taxes to "spread the wealth" - largely because they spread it to the wrong people. I will pick the charities I give to, thankyouverymuch.

$290 billion dollars represents just about the net worth of the FIVE richest individuals on earth.

Stop turning this into a political tit-for-tat. This is not a rallying cry for socialism. This is simply stating a fact. Capitalism is about accumulating wealth. Accumulate means hoarding. Which is why Carlos Slim, for example, is hoarding more money than he could possibly spend in ten lifetimes.

I am not going to get into whether or not that is good or bad. Personally, I do not want the government to tell ME how to spread my wealth. I am materialistic that way.

But if I weren't...if I only kept what I needed to live on and donated the rest...and everyone else did as well...there wouldn't be so much hunger in the world.

THAT is the point of this thread.

Is there anything constructive you'd like to offer that is relevant to this thread, or you want to keep picking at my words?

Buy a dictionary and look up "accumulate" and "hoard." They do not mean the same thing.

Every person on earth could give away every cent they have - and there would still be poverty, starvation and misery. It accomplishes nothing.

Your assertions are incorrect - and it is not out of line for me to point it out. I am simply not the type to let bullshit go unchallenged.

If that puts your nose out of joint, pick another hobby.

PurpleJedi said:

Genesia said:

This is the mistake anti-capitalists make. They think wealth and resources are finite and constant. They aren't - they are created.

If they were finite and constant, 6 billion-odd human beings would be trying to subsist on pre-industrial resources and wealth.

It is anti-capitalist systems that render wealth finite, by removing incentives to create more.

That's fodder for a separate thread.

But, whether or not resources are finite really doesn't negate the basic fact that charity and benevolence have little place in a true capitalistic society. Just look at how the mantra "spreading of the wealth" drives Republicans into a rabid frenzy!

Yes they are separate but as our reality shows they can co-exist successfully. Capitalism provides the means for more charity.

Business is, and has been much more beneveolent and beneficial to society than charities.

We don't live in a true capitalist society either, nor has that been the goal.

PurpleJedi said:

Genesia said:

Wrong again. According to figures compiled by the National Park Service, Americans gave $290.89 billion to charity in 2010 - up 3.8% from 2009.

And what people don't like (people of all political stripes - not just Republicans) is government taking more in taxes to "spread the wealth" - largely because they spread it to the wrong people. I will pick the charities I give to, thankyouverymuch.

$290 billion dollars represents just about the net worth of the FIVE richest individuals on earth.

Stop turning this into a political tit-for-tat. This is not a rallying cry for socialism. This is simply stating a fact. Capitalism is about accumulating wealth. Accumulate means hoarding. Which is why Carlos Slim, for example, is hoarding more money than he could possibly spend in ten lifetimes.

I am not going to get into whether or not that is good or bad. Personally, I do not want the government to tell ME how to spread my wealth. I am materialistic that way.

But if I weren't...if I only kept what I needed to live on and donated the rest...and everyone else did as well...there wouldn't be so much hunger in the world.

THAT is the point of this thread.

Is there anything constructive you'd like to offer that is relevant to this thread, or you want to keep picking at my words?

He's haording it because he's not giving it to you? Maybe he wants to live his children an inheritance. Regardless, it is his to with as he chooses.

Capitalism is not about accumulating wealth. Wealth is a byproduct of capitalism, not the reason it exists.

Who decides what is enough to live on? Maybe I need a boat, a plane, several houses, servants and the rest to 'live on.'

You don't want other people, i.e., government, telling you, but you have no problem doing it for others. Hypocrite.

btw, that would not end hunger in the world. It's naive to say there is enough food but people are starving so people should donate more. If there is enough food being produced, then the problem isn't wealth.

How do you address corruption and armed thugs/soldiers that seize donated food? How do prevent others from selling food intended to be donated?

The problem is human beings acting like human beings rather than rational communal creatures.

That's why humans are starving in 2011?

Blame it on the rich, but the rich aren't the ones with the guns seizing food as soon as its off loaded off a ship.

Again, one quarter of all food produced simply rots due to inefficiencies in transportation, storage and usage. How many people could you feed with improvements in transportation, storage and usage?

But then, you couldn't simply blame wealth.

Genesia said:

PurpleJedi said:

$290 billion dollars represents just about the net worth of the FIVE richest individuals on earth.

Stop turning this into a political tit-for-tat. This is not a rallying cry for socialism. This is simply stating a fact. Capitalism is about accumulating wealth. Accumulate means hoarding. Which is why Carlos Slim, for example, is hoarding more money than he could possibly spend in ten lifetimes.

I am not going to get into whether or not that is good or bad. Personally, I do not want the government to tell ME how to spread my wealth. I am materialistic that way.

But if I weren't...if I only kept what I needed to live on and donated the rest...and everyone else did as well...there wouldn't be so much hunger in the world.

THAT is the point of this thread.

Is there anything constructive you'd like to offer that is relevant to this thread, or you want to keep picking at my words?

Buy a dictionary and look up "accumulate" and "hoard." They do not mean the same thing.

Every person on earth could give away every cent they have - and there would still be poverty, starvation and misery. It accomplishes nothing.

Your assertions are incorrect - and it is not out of line for me to point it out. I am simply not the type to let bullshit go unchallenged.

If that puts your nose out of joint, pick another hobby.