Beggars?

[soonny]

I just woke up one morning and was suddenly more aware about the fact that I'm broke! (not like I was ever rich, I just got aware of it) And this has prompt me into thinking about the several different classes of people within the community. So there are the wealthy, the high, average, low income groups, and there's beggars with nothing at all!

How did this ever come about? Why are there different classes of people? Is it a matter of individual personality? Corruption? Governing incompetence that has lead to a viscious cycle? Or is it plain coincidence? :p

[andy hughes]

An interesting question. i believe that all societoes, apart from those which exist based on mutual co-operation, will eventually evolve into the strata system you have outlined. I think it is rooted in human nature - although we all like to think we are generous with our time, and give to charity and so on, human nature is to acquire and to keep as much material wealth as possible. The reasons why such systems exist is again down to human nature. As Clive james once said "People in power rarely use that power to give themselves less of anything." and that really sums it up,

[Dom Tuk]

Its back to the Darwinian concept of survival of the fittest. The fitter of the human species will do better and accrue more. At one time that would have meant better at hunting and gathering food, now it means better at hunting and gathering wealth which in the end translates to food and comfort. Where our liberal social policies fail is in recognising this basic fact. By providing for our lesser equipped brethren (read the government sponsored benefits system) we are in fact jeopardising the Darwinian principles of evolution. What should not have survived due to principles of survival of fittest (over hunderds of years) is being allowed to profilgate and survive and an underachieving, underprepared genetic subclass is being generated.

[Dom Tuk]

reposting as other post got lost in the ether....Are you suggesting that Darwin was wrong Soupspoon. Why are the above posts prejudiced and reactionary. If a horse that tried to reach a higher branch was aided by a unnatural force that brought the brances within reach, we would not have had giraffes. This is the basic principle that your social policy for the past 80 odd years is interfering with (please do not assume that i am living in the western world). We are no different from animals. The female of every species looks for in a mate the ability to provide among other things, food and shelter . If an illusion is created by the system that the male of the species can provide for these two basic things then you are in effect interfering with the principle of evolution and helping in building an underequipped strata to your society. This is the sad truth. It may seem bitter now but nature in the end will prevail and find ways to rectify this imbalance. Its not prejudicial. Its the inevitable truth.

[soonny]

Hello Dom Tuk,

Darwin did mention that the fittest would survive but its only because they have a genetical advantage of some sort which allows them to adapt to the environment. In fact other species of the same/similar organism fail to keep up and cease to exist altogether.

But does the same law apply to us humans? If the beggars couldn't keep up, why do they still exist? I'm sure It's not just because of the government sponsored benefits system because I too take into account the fact that many beggars today, or so to speak, anybody who belongs to any of the mentioned groups above, was not genetically impaired/advantageous in any way if compared to the majority. Some are born into poverty, yet some broke the cycle, some turned beggars when he/she was once wealthy, etc etc.

There must be another reason besides genetics. Genetics may be the reason of higher intelligence, but that does not necessarily means success later in life.

I'm more concerned about the environmental factors like stated in the orginal question.

[BigDogsWang]

Re-arrange the following words into a famous phrase:

"living does world owe not you the a"

[Dom Tuk]

Hello Soony and thank you for not resorting to slander in your posts. I genuinely try not to. I will accept that what you say about 'genetics ' not being the only factor. And neither is the theory that i propose the only reason for the question you posed about beggars and those deprived of what we would consider as essential to our lives. It is and has to be a combination of factors. Human greed, the politics of corruption, natural events, bad governments and wars are some of the reasons that i can cite. But to outright dismiss the theory that our state sponsored system in a small way rewards those that would not have been if the survival of fittest were to be allowed to take its course and then imply that it is progressive thinking to not deny it is bizarre.

As for the jibe about 'HIV'children it is an outright lie. I raised the issue about what methods are in place in the Uk to notify local education authorities of children who are HIV + and if parents should be involved in the disclosure of such information. I think it was a legitimate question and not many parents seemed concerned so i take it I was unduly concerned about the issue. I accept that maybe i was too haste in judging that it would harm my child in the school and some posts put that to rest in a scientific manner. Whats the problem with that soupspoon. To label everything as racist is a convenience that sometimes gets used too often in place to rational debate.

[LordyGeordie]

what Dom Tuk is advocating is known as social darwinism. it was first mooted in america in the 19th century, mainly as a reason for excusing some of the worst exceses of captialism.

interestingly, darwin never subscribed to it at all. his 'survival of the fittest' was about how  a species managed to adapt, evolve and survive over millenia in nature. not an excuse to ignore a beggar simply because somehow you believe you are genetically superior.

The thing is if we take social darwinism to its logical conclusion then there should really be a 100% inheritance tax. otherwise we get people who have had no work/ business experience inheriting large sums of money and thereby 'diluting the gene pool'.

i don't see many people advocating that somehow. what dom tuk refers to as governement sponsored attempts to provide for lesser equipped brethren are in actual fact trying to give everyone a more or less equal footing. or at the very least as much of a start as they can so that they can compete with those who have inherited wealth from mummy and daddy.

admittedly there are those who abuse the system and feel the state is there to provide for them. but the majority of people use benefits as they are meant to, as a spring board to keep themselves and their families from starving while they find some work.

[Dom Tuk]

Homo sapiens is perhaps the only species that demonstrates compassion for its felow beings in certain circumstances. Those circumstances include when a subset has more of one thing it is liable to share it with others lesser well off. I dont know if any other living species has developed this widespread compassion. But remember at the end of the day if we have less of it it is unlikely that we will still share it. I am talking in wider sense than individually. Like for example in developing world countries there is widespread poverty and destitute people as there is no social benefits sytem in place. We give as we have more. But i would not for a moment advocate social darwinism. The system we have in place is adequate and works but some of its demerits cannot be ignored.