Poverty is closer to our *natural* state

[rousseau]

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?

 

[NobleSavage]

Subsistence living plain and simply sucks. My family came from farmers who were close to subsistence. No electricity, no running water, kids were born on the farm not in a hospital, you had to shit in an outhouse in the winter, etc. I never lived on the farm, but had the privilege of talking to many who did. They were quick to correct any notion of farm life being romantic. Many took shitty factory jobs for little pay because that was better in their mind.

If you go backpacking it doesn't take long to figure out "Damn this is really hard" and that is with the added benefit of expensive gear and the knowledge that it's only going to last 5 days.

Paraphrasing Hobbs, The state of nature is nasty, brutish, and short.

I can go to the supermarket and spend $5 at the salad bar and get fresh vegetables, fruit, and nuts that only a king of old could dream of.

 

[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.

 

[rousseau]

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.

I don't know.

Here's a quick definition:

the state or condition of having little or no money, goods, or means of support; condition of being poor.

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.

 

[Davka]

One definition of poverty is that it is not a lack of money or possessions, but rather a lack of options. When the shit hits the fan, do you have a wealth of choices for dealing with it, or are you pretty much SOL? Hunter-gatherers can follow the food and the good weather - in fact, that's how we humans got spread all over the planet; by exercising our options.

Poverty happens when groups of people start hoarding power to the detriment of others. A tribe that controls the water-holes or the hunting-grounds is building wealth by stealing options from other tribes. The problem has never been that there isn't enough to go around. The problem is that some people want everything they can get their hands on, and they don't care if other people get hurt by their acquisitiveness.

 

[Davka]

I don't know.

Here's a quick definition:

the state or condition of having little or no money, goods, or means of support; condition of being poor.

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.

When I was 19, I was robbed at gunpoint down in southern Oaxaca. They took literally everything but the clothes on my back. My wallet, my backpack, my sleeping-bag, my I.D., my cash - everything. The next day I made my way into town and made a collect call to my Dad to ask for help. Then I headed over to hotel row and started asking American tourists for cash, explaining that I'd been robbed. Within 3 days I was back in the USA, warm & dry with a full belly.

At one point a kid walked up and tried to sell me some sopapillas (yum!) from a tray. I told him I had no money, and turned my pockets inside-out to show him. He looked at me like I was from another planet - a gringo with no money? Such a thing is impossible!

That boy had pesos in his pocket, and food on a tray. I had nothing. But while he was unmistakably poor, selling homemade food to tourists instead of going to school, I - with nothing but the clothes on my back - was wealthy. Not because I have family who can help, either - I could have begged my way back to the USA, depending on the kindness of fellow Americans. No, I was (and am) wealthy because I had the good fortune to be born white, male, and a citizen of the USA. Poverty is a whole lot deeper than a simple lack of resources.

 

[rousseau]

Before we go down the path of politicizing the word 'poverty' .. can I go back and start the thread again?

 

[Davka]

Before we go down the path of politicizing the word 'poverty' .. can I go back and start the thread again?

It's not a case of politicizing, but rather of defining accurately. I've lived below the poverty line all my life, but I've never been truly poor. I can life my life pretty much however I want. Poor people can't.

If you want to start the thread over, you're going to have to define your terms. What exactly is it that you're trying to point to? The natural state in which animals live, without possessions? Or are you talking about need, hunger, lack of power, lack of education, and all the other things that keep so many people in a state of perpetual struggle and suffering?

It's an important distinction. Is a monk who has taken a vow of poverty really "poor"? How about a billionaire who is captured by terrorists and forced to live in a filthy hole, eating swill - is he rich?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

So starving is only a problem if you're aware it's a problem???

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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?

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.

 

[DBT]

the state or condition of having little or no money, goods, or means of support; condition of being poor.

That definition is deceptive because money is not necessary if you are getting the raw materials necessary to maintain life and comfort diectly from the environment. Timber for constructing shelter and for fuel, animals and plants as a food source, and so on. Your environment being the means of supply and support(goods directly manufacured by you and your tribe or group).

 

[DBT]

.....

 

[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.

So starving is only a problem if you're aware it's a problem???

Anorexics starve with millions in the bank. You are gonna have to do better than that. I know nuance isn't your strong suit, but do try to keep up.

 

[Underseer]

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?

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.

No, starving is only a problem if a member of your precious aristocracy lacks food. No one cares if a mere commoner starves, and certainly not if they starve as a direct result of economic policies we chose to implement knowing that it would result in lots of non-aristocrats starving.

 

[Davka]

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?

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.

 

[barbos]

OP would be totally correct if it was about food only.
People evolved in the environment where food was scarce and being constantly hungry was a survival trait. But that trait clearly poses the problem when food is constantly available.

 

[DBT]

It's a combination of resource use and management and population numbers. A small population may not have the skills to use their resources wisely and their society collapses. One the other hand, an extremely large and ever growing population may exceed the carrying capacity of their ecosystems regardless of how well they manage their natural resources. There is only so much to go around in a finite system.

 

[bilby]

I don't know.

Here's a quick definition:

the state or condition of having little or no money, goods, or means of support; condition of being poor.

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?

 

[Bomb#20]

Subsistence living plain and simply sucks. My family came from farmers who were close to subsistence. No electricity, no running water, kids were born on the farm not in a hospital,...Paraphrasing Hobbs, The state of nature is nasty, brutish, and short.

To which it should be added that, assuming your family were in the U.S. or another 1st world country, that near-subsistence life was most likely a picture of success compared to what most people endured through most of human existence. They didn't have to spend their lives in fear of violent death from others of their species; they could rely on getting to keep or trade most of the food they grew; they weren't in a community that was always one poor hunting season away from extinction. For most of the 200,000-odd years that H. sapiens existed, our annual population growth rate was 0.0%. That sort of thing doesn't happen because we don't exponentially grow when constraints are removed; it happens because we were at the earth's carrying capacity -- a few million -- for warm-blooded non-farming omnivores of our size. We didn't maintain that balance by birth control, or by communities generally letting their least viable members starve. We maintained it with a high murder rate and by entire communities starving together. The widespread notion that hunter-gatherers were the original affluent society makes no ecological sense; it's based on observing such societies at a few random typical snapshots in time and not being there watching at the rare moments when their physical and/or human environments take them out.

 

[Jayjay]

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?

Most of my meals include ingredients from multiple continents.