Poverty is closer to our *natural* state

[Loren Pechtel]

Birth control.

If the population grows freely it will always expand to the point that just about everyone is in poverty. That's why it's our natural state. The only way to avoid it is to keep our population well below that point.

If the problem were simply too many people, there would have been a Golden Age in the past when there were just the right number of people. But there wasn't.

Oh, and your hypothesis flies in the face of natural history. Populations of mammals don't grow until "just about everyone" is starving (animal poverty), they grow until a handful at the fringe are starving - but not for long, because the predators eat them.

ETA: there is more than enough food to feed everyone. there are more than enough resources to house and clothe everyone. Americans throw away enough food every day to feed 40,000 people for a month. Resources are being thrown into landfills in the "have" nations, instead of redistributed. But the concept of redistribution of wealth scares the crap out of those who wish to profit at the expense of others.

It's the resources per capita that counts. There used to be fewer people--but even fewer resources.

 

[Davka]

If the problem were simply too many people, there would have been a Golden Age in the past when there were just the right number of people. But there wasn't.

Oh, and your hypothesis flies in the face of natural history. Populations of mammals don't grow until "just about everyone" is starving (animal poverty), they grow until a handful at the fringe are starving - but not for long, because the predators eat them.

ETA: there is more than enough food to feed everyone. there are more than enough resources to house and clothe everyone. Americans throw away enough food every day to feed 40,000 people for a month. Resources are being thrown into landfills in the "have" nations, instead of redistributed. But the concept of redistribution of wealth scares the crap out of those who wish to profit at the expense of others.

It's the resources per capita that counts. There used to be fewer people--but even fewer resources.

And where did all the extra resources come from, pray tell?

 

[PyramidHead]

I agree that our natural state is pretty wretched; that's the whole point of intervening with society and other human inventions. As OP says, whether you want to call that wretched state 'poverty' or not is beside the point. I agree that birth control is a solution, but only because the people who are never born are spared the struggle of distancing themselves from that state.

Some kind of directed redistribution of resources, combined with strong incentives for adoption and against procreation would be a place to start.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

When my Ex and I first began dating, I told him about my family. I told him that my father was the 10th of 14 children. He then asked me would I be interested in having 14 children. I said no. he asked why. I said that unlike my grandmother, I had cable and a driver's license. IOW, I had something else to do and someplace else to go. People with options limit their their family size. You don't have to chastise them, you don't have to make special laws, you don't have to bribe them or extort them. You don't have to get all up in their business and try to micro manage their reproductive lives and treat them like children.

 

[PyramidHead]

When my Ex and I first began dating, I told him about my family. I told him that my father was the 10th of 14 children. He then asked me would I be interested in having 14 children. I said no. he asked why. I said that unlike my grandmother, I had cable and a driver's license. IOW, I had something else to do and someplace else to go. People with options limit their their family size. You don't have to chastise them, you don't have to make special laws, you don't have to bribe them or extort them. You don't have to get all up in their business and try to micro manage their reproductive lives and treat them like children.

All of that may be true, but I was talking not about limiting procreation to ease the strain on society, but to ease the strain on the procreated.

 

[dismal]

Topic reminds me of a quote:

“Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.

This is known as "bad luck.”

― Robert A. Heinlein

 

[PyramidHead]

Topic reminds me of a quote:

“Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.

This is known as "bad luck.”

― Robert A. Heinlein

I would agree for the most part, but the quote suggests benevolent dictatorship as the only means of escaping poverty, which isn't necessarily the case.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

When my Ex and I first began dating, I told him about my family. I told him that my father was the 10th of 14 children. He then asked me would I be interested in having 14 children. I said no. he asked why. I said that unlike my grandmother, I had cable and a driver's license. IOW, I had something else to do and someplace else to go. People with options limit their their family size. You don't have to chastise them, you don't have to make special laws, you don't have to bribe them or extort them. You don't have to get all up in their business and try to micro manage their reproductive lives and treat them like children.

All of that may be true, but I was talking not about limiting procreation to ease the strain on society, but to ease the strain on the procreated.

Children don't get a say in their birth, only the parents. neighbors, no matter how noble and well meaning, don't get a say either. either people's reproductive choices are theirs or those choices are not. Are you prepared to live in a world where other's decide your reproductive choices based on what they think is in the best interest of a child not even yet conceived?

 

[Horatio Parker]

I'm not sure you're framing the question correctly.

How does the lack of sufficient surplus to evolve social complexity with its attendant inequality equal poverty?

I'm not sure the lower strata of complex societies were better off than subsistence societies.

In colonial America, many thought the NAs enjoyed a better life than the colonists.

 

[Davka]

The idea that hunter-gatherer societies were living in poverty and near-starvation is ludicrous. We have relatively recent accounts of the lives of hunter-gatherers in the Americas, as well as current examples of the last remaining hunter-gatherer societies in the world, and the record is clear and undisputed by historians and anthropologists who have studied these peoples. Hunter-gatherers were in some ways wealthier than we are today: they worked an average of 4 hours a day in order to feed, clothe, and shelter themselves, and led relatively stress-free lives. In the Americas, there were trade networks stretching all the way from the Aztec empire to the North American Plains, as evidenced by widely-traveled trade items. Various tribal societies formed pacts with their neighbors, with loose agreements regarding territory and resources.

Starvation/malnourishment and desperation are the primary indicators of true poverty. These things historically have been the effects of caste systems and worker exploitation, first in Agricultural Europe, and later across the world in the Industrial Revolution. This utter ignorance of history depresses me. Go talk to the elders of your local tribe about their ancestor's supposed "poverty." Read accounts of indigenous hunter-gatherers by those who actually visited and observed them. They weren't starving or desperate. They were doing far better than European serfs, or later slaves, or factory workers in the 19th century.

 

[Emily Lake]

Poverty is not what people used to live in. You don't begin to see poverty until you begin to see surplus and the concentration of surplus in the hands of a few. Poverty is a relative term stemming from inequality. If everybody is a hunter/gatherer then there is no inequality, therefore no poverty. It's not an easy life, but without a state to compare it to, it isn't a life of poverty either.

This would suggest that if everyone lived in a famine stricken drought land, everyone would be happy, because we're all equally screwed...

 

[TV and credit cards]

Before you flame away, hear me out and try to get a gist of what I'm saying. I can see that the term *natural state* is problematic, but I'll try to explain.

For almost the entirety of human history people had a basic, subsistence lifestyle. That is the balance between finding enough food to survive and dying was a much thinner one, many people literally did starve, babies died, injuries killed. In a sense we were not far removed from any other animal. Let's just say that this period of human history represents a good..say.. 99.9999999999% of it.

So in that context we can see that the period of *prosperity* that we're experiencing now seems to be an outlier. Suddenly we have the appearance of progress and rationality because people have nice, warm houses, we have movie theatres, and the like. And in that type of lifestyle and environment we've suddenly re-framed poverty as an *unnatural* state. When people don't have enough to eat, are barely surviving, there's something *wrong* about that .. those people should be rich like the top 1% or whatever.

And ok, maybe there is something wrong with people being poverty-stricken. In reality we want everyone to be more comfortable and happier, that's a goal we can agree on. But the elephant in the room that we're not asking ourselves is the cost of everyone in the world living in excess of poverty. This seems to be something that ends up on posters, but everyone ignores as long as they have a movie theatre to go to.

So to take that analogy down to an individual level, imagine person [x] has 100 000 dollars which can easily get him to the end of his life if he only spends 10 000 per year. But because it takes him 25 000 per year to be comfortable and happy, he has four really great years, and six really fucking destitute ones. To me that seems to be what's happening in human history right now.

The obvious question is how do we change our course so living in excess of poverty is sustainable? The harder question is, is this even possible?

Oh, you started out so well too. I italicized where I thought you went astray. Nevermind the amounts. Redefine happiness. In my four years of realative poverty with Guaranteed Basic Income from my pension I learned to do just this. Retiring in late '08 put me in what I thought was going to be a state of impoverished misery. It turned out to be some of the best years (4) of my life. Very enlightening. I did not want for extras because extras were out of the question. The minimalist life was simple and enjoyable. It was only feelings of guilt that kept me looking for employment and even that I gave up for want of the simple life again. Sadly, bad habits had me put in one resume. One, and here I am, employed again. But this too shall pass. A year, perhaps two, just so I know I can ride this train until the last stop and then I will quit again and go back to endless summers of riding my bike.

Excess is not sustainable or at least should not be encouraged. Consumerism and happiness cannot coexist. It is an abberation.

 

[Emily Lake]

Just for consideration, here is my take on what a definition of poverty should be:

If you have enough, in terms of shelter, sustenance, goods, and services, to survive without external assistance in your resident culture, then you are not in poverty.

In this fashion, it is relative, because it is defined in terms of the culture and society in which you live. A person living in New York will have a different set of needs than a person living in Tibet. The shelter, sustenance, goods, and services that one is expected to have are socially defined. Someone in the US really can't get along without access to modern transportation of some sort. Someone in a rural farming village in India may not need anything more than a horse. The type of shelter required in Alaska may be substantially different from the type of shelter required in Florida.

It is also defined in terms of survival, not in terms of comfort. When you introduce comfort into the definition, it becomes highly subjective. While there will always be some degree of subjectivity involved, approaching it from the perspective of survival allows us to use slightly more objective terms like daily caloric intake, necessary shelter from the elements, activities of daily living, etc.

Finally, it's defined in terms of whether of not the person in question can, or cannot, do these things on their own, or whether they require assistance from an external source. The external source can be extended family, charities, or government assistance. The definition is agnostic with respect to the source of assistance.

I think it's a reasonable definition of poverty. Of course, it's mine, so I'm predisposed to think so.

 

[PyramidHead]

All of that may be true, but I was talking not about limiting procreation to ease the strain on society, but to ease the strain on the procreated.

Children don't get a say in their birth, only the parents. neighbors, no matter how noble and well meaning, don't get a say either. either people's reproductive choices are theirs or those choices are not. Are you prepared to live in a world where other's decide your reproductive choices based on what they think is in the best interest of a child not even yet conceived?

It's a topic for another thread, but I think it's in every child's best interest not to be conceived. But on the other hand, I agree that outlawing procreation would be socially disastrous. Nobody should be punished for having children. But people who avoid having children could still be rewarded... but that still wouldn't work on the scale of society. So, I retract my original suggestion, as it would be unworkable in practice (though I stand by the principle behind it).

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Poverty is not what people used to live in. You don't begin to see poverty until you begin to see surplus and the concentration of surplus in the hands of a few. Poverty is a relative term stemming from inequality. If everybody is a hunter/gatherer then there is no inequality, therefore no poverty. It's not an easy life, but without a state to compare it to, it isn't a life of poverty either.

This would suggest that if everyone lived in a famine stricken drought land, everyone would be happy, because we're all equally screwed...

No, it wouldn't. Famine describes famine, not poverty and famine is enough to make you unhappy. A millionaire living in a land without food will starve if he cannot leave or have food delivered to him. You can't eat gold.

 

[PyramidHead]

Besides, poverty isn't the only thing that leads to unhappiness. A lot of rich, well-fed people are miserable too.

 

[Davka]

Besides, poverty isn't the only thing that leads to unhappiness. A lot of rich, well-fed people are miserable too.

That's a chance I'm willing to take.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I find that when I'm unhappy, nothing brightens the mood better than snorting coke off of a supermodel's ass in the cabin of one of my luxury yachts. That's difficult to do when you're poor and you'd be forced to resort to a less tried-and-true methodologies like introspection and character development and other lower-class bullshit like that.

 

[TV and credit cards]

I find that when I'm unhappy, nothing brightens the mood better than snorting coke off of a supermodel's ass in the cabin of one of my luxury yachts. That's difficult to do when you're poor and you'd be forced to resort to a less tried-and-true methodologies like introspection and character development and other lower-class bullshit like that.

I'd appreciate it if you referred to it as middle-class bullshit.

 

[rousseau]

I don't know.

Here's a quick definition:



I think you could apply that definition to historical societies .. but then .. even if you don't want to, that doesn't change the premise of the thread .. we'd just have to use words other than 'poverty' to describe our meaning.

A hunter-gatherer has his entire continent as 'means of support'.

A subsistence farmer has his land as 'means of support'

A tenant farmer has the whim of his lord as 'means of support'

A labourer has the whim of his boss as 'means of support'

What was that about hunter-gatherers being 'poor' again?

The distinction between a hunter-gatherer and many people living today is that the hunter-gatherer is at the whims of weather and predatory-prey cycles.

Crop fails? Thousands die.

Buffalo goes extinct? Thousands die.

Hunt was unsuccessful? I guess you're not eating tonight.

Today this is mostly not the case for the majority of people, and for those who are on the lower fringe of society, they are at the whims of things like job availability, and government safety nets, so you can make a pretty good analogy between the poor of today and early humans.

One only needs to read a little history to understand that life fucking sucked for pretty much everyone in reference to the modern day prior to the late twentieth century.