Becuase "we" want the system the way it is. But how do we come to accept that?.. satisfying banal pleasures, offering marginal liberties, the slow eek of progress in standards of living.
To violate 'progress' is to alienate yourself from it.
But people aren't thinking for themselves or seeing alternatives.
We are fed this mainstream, facts are purely practical.
Critical "negative" thinking is marginalized.
Until people figure out that theyre working double, triple, and quadruple for an industry that exploits them at every level-- we will be rather 'doomed' to our own ignorance. Or believing in the inequitable placement of people in "nation-states", of families and tribes in wealth and others, patently not. Offering ourselves up to the machine we reduce ourselves to tools, and we need to re-orient that relationship. Are we working for the machine we built, or for ourselves?
Allowing homeless people into your 'home' isn't enough, i.e. charity just supports a system that doesn't care. The problem is structural, metaphysical, holistic, everywhere. We have to get clear on it. I agree.
2006-06-09 16:51:24
·
answer #1
·
answered by -.- 6
·
4⤊
2⤋
Because for us humans it's difficult to be generous and loving to our kindred. Would you willingly give up the money that you've earned through hard work so that someone who haven't moved a finger could have a decent life? But how many more will decide not to move a finger, since they get everything they need out of the blue sky? See, this is the reason why there will always be poverty, as long as the world will be: human nature. But I do believe that it is better to help others as much as we can.
2006-06-11 01:00:22
·
answer #2
·
answered by todaywiserthanyesterday 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I am English- and proud to be so!
Having said that I am deeply saddened by the extreme poverty situation in Zimbabwe. We have thrown this country out of the Commonwealth, thereby withdrawing support, because of the actions of it's Dictator, Robert Mugabe. Mugabe retains power by Genocide (killing the anti-Mugabe population). A kilo of flour costs two month's wages for the average man. Zimbabe was once the food-basket of Africa. Mugabe took the profitable farms and gave them to his friends. They are now desert.
In response to Bush we removed Saddam Hussein and created complete anarchy. Why doesn't Britain act to remove Mugabe, who is far worse than Saddam? Because Zimbabwe does not have OIL, GOLD, DIAMONDS OR ANYTHING ELSE THAT AMERICANS WANT!! Add to that the fact that Britain is now an extra state of America, unable to act without American permission and you have the answer to world poverty.
AMERICA IS A TOTALLY GREEDY STATE THAT WANTS TO CONTROL THE WORLD!Their only interest is to destry the world by continued use of fossil fuels and by creating climatic havoc. They who sow the wind shall reap the harvest (Katrina).
Would Bush have invaded Iraq if Britain had REFUSED SUPPORT? The Americans have NEVER closed a war unaided. They specialise is coming in at the last moment (1917, 1942) and then taking the credit.
I hope to see a burning bush- George that is!
2006-06-10 08:34:31
·
answer #3
·
answered by tony_rly 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
America, America, America. They promise solutions. Once in office nothing is done. Invent stupid reasons, lie to the public and persue the congress to declare war to a total different nation which had no implication in the situation. Or should i remind you people of last year's terrible huricane? Give me a break... This is "America" why are tings like that happening here? Can someone tell me? I...i mean we would've espect this from a third world country, but no. It happened here in America.
2006-06-09 21:10:49
·
answer #4
·
answered by G. 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
a)because humans are naturally greedy and that's not gonna change no matter how many years go by
b)because theres a growing number of people in the world and a massive imbalance of goods.
c)because humans are incapable of keeping peace and working together long enough to solve such a problem that many people don't even really care about.
seriously, when was the last time you helped someone in poverty, eh?
2006-06-09 21:21:35
·
answer #5
·
answered by hobo 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Because humans are greedy and care more about themselves than others. If we cared about others as much or more than we cared about ourselves, we would give money away and trade fairly, and stop wasting money (in the west) on Multi-billion dollar space programmes so we can collect particles from space or take better pictures of Mars or whatever.
It all comes down to the golden rule. If we loved our neighbours as ourselves, we wouldn't be able to spend money on space programmes while other humans were starving.
2006-06-10 05:17:40
·
answer #6
·
answered by D Law 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Try as hard as we could as Jesus said : " The poor will always be among us."It can go on like that for centuries- unfortunately. We will try to eradicate poverty but there will still be pockets if poverty some-where. I realised this even as a small child , and thought that Jesus made a poignant point: " The poor............ but I would not always be among you" said Jesus. I too cry in my heart when I see humans living below the basic level.
2006-06-10 03:09:44
·
answer #7
·
answered by skeetejacquelinelightersnumber7 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
There's an unequal distribution of food and resources for people to live off of. One person will have eat half of their meal and throw the rest away, while another wishes for a grain of rice. We should be helping them. Just remember "It's much better to teach a man how to fish than to give him a fish. Otherwise he'll just keep coming back hungry."
2006-06-09 23:42:19
·
answer #8
·
answered by fawkesfire13 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
The fact is that we, the Western world, have almost continually abused and exploited Africa and the poor of our own countries for centuries.
What needs to be done is to lift trade restrictions on Africa (like Bob Geldof wanted) so they can grow food for themselves and not for Western pockets. In terms of the homeless, more needs to be done to eradicate the problems that cause homelessness in the first place, such as our consumer culture and the problems of drink and drugs, which socialists have wanted for years, as well as myself.
2006-06-09 21:14:35
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
cause we are so self-centred! people like bush don't understand that there are people in the world that don't live n a home. also he cares so much about his politics, that the world doesn't care any more. there are so many people like bush (not to the same extent) that we don't notice the homeless people any more. stand up for what you believe in and what is right!! do this world some good.
2006-06-09 21:43:04
·
answer #10
·
answered by happy 3
·
0⤊
0⤋