The Solution To Poverty?

Topic's posts
Posts in total: 304
--> @Titanium
All right you've got me.  Lets just do the noble thing and walk arm and arm to extinction.
K*lling poor people does not solve the problem. What part of that don't you understand? 

I gave you a response to your motivational speaking. 

--> @omar2345
I'm kidding and I don't advocate the extinction of the human race as a solution to poverty.  Didn't mean to be a downer.
--> @Titanium
Assume everything you say on this site unless it's in the funny section or something will be taken seriously.
--> @Alec
Ok, some do advocate extinction but I have never heard advocates of killing the poor or very rich but I'm sure they're out there.  I'm not one of them.
--> @Titanium
Ok, some do advocate extinction
Their called the deep ecologists

--> @Titanium
I'm kidding and I don't advocate the extinction of the human race as a solution to poverty.  Didn't mean to be a downer.
I can't really gauge very well if it isn't blatant and I am pretty annoyed as is. 

The solution to poverty is mandatory vasectomies of all male children at birth. When they acquire the skills to be productive enough to afford a reversal procedure, then they have earned the opportunity to procreate. Solves poverty and deadbeat unmarried dads with one simple policy.
--> @Greyparrot
The solution to poverty is mandatory vasectomies of all male children at birth. When they acquire the skills to be productive enough to afford a reversal procedure, then they have earned the opportunity to procreate.
Are vasectomy procedures reversible?  Unless you did this procedure on you, isn't it hypocritical?

Also, what if everyone or virtually everyone who is successful enough to reproduce has a vasectomy from birth but doesn't have the will to get the reversal?  Then the human race dies unless immortality is created.

I stand by my solution to make divorce illegal and punishable by jail time.
--> @Alec
Poverty is the inevitable result of overpopulation.
--> @Greyparrot
The solution to poverty is mandatory vasectomies of all male children at birth.
That is one step less than castration and one more than,

1} supplying highly effective condoms  --male and female-- to the the people,

2} as well as comprehensive sex education at at puberty.

When they acquire the skills to be productive enough to afford a reversal procedure, then they have earned the opportunity to procreate.
Skills are learned from those adults around you. If the majority of adults are practicing crimminal or immoral actions then we have a more societal issue to deal with than can be addressed in various ways.  Some more rational, logical and empatheticall compassion than others

Solves poverty
No it does not

and deadbeat unmarried dads with one simple policy.
Married or not is mostly irrelevant to overpopulation issues

Your simplistic viewpoints lack of comprehensive, empathetic and compassionate points-of-view.  Such is the way of the narrow, short-sighted mind.

--> @mustardness
Compassion is immoral. It's like keeping animals in a zoo to gawk at.

--> @Greyparrot
Compassion is immoral.
Huh you are a morally confused person.

It's like keeping animals in a zoo to gawk at
Huh? No its the exact opposite. Your appear to be a confused person morally and otherwise.

Compassion is to remove animals from their cages and place back into their with great freedoms to behave in their natural habitat.

--> @mustardness
Letting things suffer in nature is pure sadism.
--> @Greyparrot
Letting things suffer in nature is pure sadism.
Huh? None of your comments seem to be related to each other in any coherent way.  I think your a confused person morally and based on the last few posts, mentally confused also.  Maybe your just having a bad day. I dunno.

--> @mustardness
Morality is survival.
--> @Greyparrot
Morality is survival.
Your still a confused human and the last statement clearly shows that you really do not grasp or care, that, one of the key differrences between the animal that survives and,

1} the human animal that survives and has morals and most access to complex metaphysical-1 mind/intellect/concepts.

You must be a young teenager.
--> @Greyparrot
If poverty is the result of overpopulation, then why do cities have a high GDP per capita while being more overpopulated then the rural areas?
--> @Alec
Overpopulated city areas have more poor. Overpopulated rural areas have more poor. Scarcity of resources is a real thing. People can't just crap raw materials out of their asses.
--> @Greyparrot
Raw materials aren't the only source of wealth.  The parts of electronics are cheap but the finished product is worth more.  Wealth is generated.  It's partly why most countries have a higher GDP now then they did 10 years ago. 
--> @Alec
All wealth is based off of scarce raw resources, which includes landspace. When you run out, you run out.

If wealth was created from more population. It would be called underpopulation. Not overpopulation.
--> @Greyparrot
Wealth of energy
..... coal to cook a meal.....

Wealth of knowledge
....parabolic shaped surface using sunlight to cook a meal.......

We agree win/win that overpopulation is a problem, based on the operating systems we have in place.

On the other hand, Fuller in the 70's states that humanity the potential for all humans to be likened to billionaire if we used our minds more effectively  for doing-more-with-less, instead of our current butt-forward, class 2, evolutionary process.

--> @omar2345
In your terms I thought my first comments were a reductio ad absurdem.  You could not ever get rid of poverty in a realistic way.  It will always be relative.  It's like trying to make everyone exactly the same.  If the end of poverty were the goal the most basic attempt may be to kill the poor people or the rich.  Only then the differences between who is left would be emphasized and you would end up with some income inequality.  Everyone just decides what is reasonable to them because it is not going away unless you are an advocate of extinction.

I can't really gauge very well if it isn't blatant and I am pretty annoyed as is. 

I thought that suggesting outright that we kill all poor people to amend poverty was blatantly ridiculous.
--> @Titanium
In your terms I thought my first comments were a reductio ad absurdem.  You could not ever get rid of poverty in a realistic way.
I have heard people express similar views and they were being serious so I take the position people are being serious rather than joking.
It will always be relative.
Moral relativism is self-defeating so instead of using relative use it depends on X.
Everyone just decides what is reasonable to them because it is not going away unless you are an advocate of extinction.
Yeah there will always be people better off but that doesn't mean we are just going to allow the rich to get rich and the poor to either stay poor but comparing to the rich they are getting poorer. If the margins increase enough I think the majority will be advocate for violence. Populism is a way to address their concerns if that person isn't a fake populist like what Trump is. It is kind of a good thing that people who did vote for Trump have some kind of unconditional love for him because it does stop a revolution because they are too st*pid to realise Trump is not helping them but it is awful when they are out of the spell and realise their problems are getting worse which can mean they are going to be even closer to revolution. 
I thought that suggesting outright that we kill all poor people to amend poverty was blatantly ridiculous. 
I was annoyed at something else that impacted this but people do actually think they like. If you don't think so Ben pretty much says poor people choose to be poor. That is really similar to your statement but I am sure he is being serious so I much take people seriously then be shocked by such st*pid statements. 
--> @Greyparrot
All wealth is based off of scarce raw resources
If this were true, then someone's labor would be worthless.  But labor is not worthless.

which includes landspace
Due to labor, land space can actually increase.  An example would be building apartment buildings.  You get more land from building upwards.

If wealth was created from more population. It would be called underpopulation. Not overpopulation.
Overpopulation is present in some parts of the world like India and China.  However, some would say under population is present in the west, which is partly why there is so much immigration to the west.  If wealth isn't created from population, then why does the GDP per capita of countries generally go up as the population goes up?
If this were true, then someone's labor would be worthless.  But labor is not worthless.

Go sell some pies crafted with your own feces then and tell me how your labor is worth something.