There is a sufficiency in the world for man's need but not for man's greed. Do you agree?

Question

Mohandas K. Gandhi's point of view. Is it yours, too?

Answer 1

Of course! Because as Mr. Ghandi showed by example, a person's true needs are far less than than we sometimes claim them to be.

Answer 2

Okay, I actually follow another of Mahatma Gandhi's mantras ... MYOB. Mind your own business.
So what does this mean? Well, I actually believe that there is enough on this planet for both need and greed ... but that people also who have 'more than average' (in the world, not simply the U.S.) should 'give to charity' to help those that have less. Yes, CHARITY ... because if we had any 'government agency' deciding how much we people need, then I think that all of the cost of 'overseeing' would be far more than any of us need, and that we could easily be 'forced' to certain behaviors just to live at a 'barely substaining' level.
Yes, it does seem that there is 'something very wrong' in a world where more and more are becoming multi-billionaires, while there is still 'homelessness' in this country, and most of the world lives barely substained lives.
But ... both my husband and I have been homeless, but we were there only 'temporarily' and we KNEW THAT going into homelessness. We now have an 'above middle' income and are actually LESS WELL OFF than most of the homeless. THEY get 'free medical care' and in our city, people can 'eat free' no fewer that 7 times a day, if they know all of the addresses and times. Out of those 7 times, 5 are 'good hot meals' ...
I have no insurance, and can't afford to get it, because I've had cancer twice, and I have had two heart attacks with no insurance. Because of my husband's income, the hospitals expect us to pay EVERY PENNY and they don't want 'payments' ... they want us to pay EVERY PENNY. Never mind that the bills reach over $300,000, or that I was put into PRIVATE rooms, rather than a ward (by the hospital and NOT by my choice) which cost THREE TIMES AS MUCH. Now I face gall bladder surgery. Gall bladder surgery is ELECTIVE unless a person is 'critical' ... and I am NOT critical, so the hospitals will want 'payment before the surgery' ... the 'payment' will be 'about' $100,000 ... my doctor wants it done A.S.A.P. and we don't have ANY savings, are now paying 1/3 of my husband's income on the 'old hospital bills' and will be for at least ten more years ...
If I was 'homeless' or we were 'poor' the hospital would give us at least an 'extreme discount' or I would have medical 'coupons' from the government to pay for it. HUNH?
As for Charity ... yes, even though we have these 'extreme medical debt' my husband and I DO make regular donations to charities ... mainly those that 'help the homeless.' We know that people need MORE than just 'more than enough food' and better medical care to 'live well' ... and since we are Catholics, we 'tithe' and give 10% of our income ... through our church ... to 'homeless charities.' We also donate time and money to the 'other charities' we believe need our support. We'd give more, except for those 'bills' we owe.
I'm not trying to 'complain' ... I'm trying to put some 'balance' to your question. The 'hospitals' say that 'we should pay the whole and inflated price for their 'help' when we actually have very little 'discretionary income' ... and we have NO 'savings' because of the bills. THEY DON'T CARE. They don't want any 'proof' of how much we are forced to 'pay' ... all they care about is my husband's INCOME. I probably won't be able to get the gall bladder surgery UNTIL I am critical ... and because of that, the 'cost' may be tripled or quadrupled, and I'll be 'scolded' for 'not taking better care of myself' and told IT'S MY FAULT, so 'sit down, shut up, and pay up.'
I'm sorry, but that is just WRONG.
Yes, Bill Gates is 'ridiculously rich' ... but the Gates Foundation GIVES BILLIONS AWAY every year ... the provide far more than 'aid to Africans' to fight the AIDS epidemic over there. They also give 'excellent, state of the art computers' to schools, individuals, and organizations that they would otherwise not be able to afford. If I 'knew' Mr. Gates, he would probably just 'whip out his checkbook' and pay all of our 'health debt' and for my gall bladder surgery without blinking an eye ... but I DON'T WANT THAT.
I would be much more comfortable living in a world of 'true charity' ... and while Mahatma Gandhi did 'have a good idea,' I think that perhaps you should do some more 'studying' and find out ALL of what he taught before you try to 'break it down' one sentence at a time. MYOB ... now, what do you 'need' that I could give you?

Answer 3

in gandhi's day it was true;

unfortunatly the human population has now more than doubled since then and many non-renewable resources have been squandered.

We have lost vast areas of topsoil, most fisheries are in catastrophic decline, water use exceeds rainfall, oil production has peaked, and mineral extraction has polluted and impovershed many communities...

So there is not enough for everyone of 6bn humans' need. Maybe enough for man's need, but not the women too.

Answer 4

I kind of agree with that. But greed is relative. A greedy person in a refugee camp in Africa tries to get that extra bowl of rice while the least greedy American already has that and more. The greedy American wants that big screen TV.

Answer 5

Camphelp2002 is right, it is very difficult to distinguish between needs and wants. Sorry to strike a discordant note but perhaps we should not try too hard to distinguish unless the difference is really extreme, which of course in some instances it is.

Answer 6

Yes!
I think i agree with his point of view, cos the more one's heart desires increases the more they want to get what the want.Therefore they would do anything to get it. Some would use even illegal means in achieving their heart desires.

People kill to satisfy themselves.After satisfing themselves their desires (needs & wants) increases and therefore would not end after satisfing themselves.

Therefore man's greed is endless.

Answer 7

Yes, the west leads the way for greed.

Answer 8

Nice idea. Who defines these needs? Now even if we say basic needs how do we reach a consensus on what those needs would be? The definition of needs serves a political process more than it serves individuals. So how do we define needs to ensure equitable shares of finite resources? In practice this is a combination of politics, finite resources, epidemiology (how many), economics (cost effectiveness) and the values of that society which is defining those needs. These are used to produce a practical tool for assessing need. Allegedly! Now many people would quote Maslow's definitions of needs. These are far too simplistic and make unrealistic assumptions, needs that can not and are not met even within today's society in the Western World. Maslow consistently changed his views on needs. Even then, we as a society, do not and can not provide for those needs. 1st stage is air, food, drink, shelter, warmth, sex, sleep, etc

Before I comment on Maslow's first stage needs or commonly referred to Basic Needs I need to establish the concept 'capacity to benefit'. The need infers that the person or group have a capacity to benefit from the fulfillment of that need. This leads to unfavourable outcomes for certain sections of society, the very young, the physically disabled, the weak, the old. And that is in today's society, where we are relatively wealthy and resource rich.

The assessment of need is very different depending on which group's needs we are assessing. We make judgments and place different values on different people. For example look at the Assessment of Children in Need versus the Community Care Assessment both are done by local authorities. The needs of a small child may be very similar, in reality identical, to an older person with disabilities but most of the needs of the older disabled person are unmet. Assessment of children's basic needs is far broader, more inclusive, more comprehensive. So when allocating our finite resources are children or adults going to get the more fair share of finite resources? Back to Maslow's first stage Need analysis air, yep. What about food, shelter, warmth. The benefits system in the UK already makes judgments of value on people. It already denies access to shelter, warmth, food for many people. It relies on certain criteria and conditions to be met. As for sex couples look at community care law which actively encourages social work staff to help old married couples divorce or live separately in order to meet eligibility criteria.

Let's consider a legal definition of needs and the disadvantages of this. This is best demonstrated within the benefits system where claimants have to meet certain criteria before being awarded financial assistance. The cooked meal test demonstrates this well. A person must be able to cook a main meal once a day. Now this may sound ok, but in reality the benefits agency has decided that only one decent meal a day is necessary. That is in terms of ability not even in terms of finances or availability. Or in terms of a person's fluctuating functioning throughout the day. Additionally they do not consider ability/desire to pay for services even if awarded benefits as services are not free they are means tested and there is always a financial contribution.

So one cooked meal a day is a need. People who meet this criteria often end up eating biscuits or other packet ready food as the eligibility test is so strict that their physical or mental abilities must be so severely impaired that they often can not 'provide' other meals . Hey at least they then pass the test. LOL.

So we have different populations and differently awarded rights to resources so how do we allocate these finite resources. Think famine in the third world. Inadequate resources equate to starvation. When a Government limits resources it will mean rationing and death. Think Marxism, think five year plans. A Political response is that scarce resources require an optimal approach this is done by a cost-utility decision matrice. Unmet needs are appropriate as long as they are recognized so by those who define need. Unmet needs and allocation of finite resources will mean exploitation and wealth for some and death by starvation for many. Yep PERFECT solution to overpopulation.

Ooops ranting again, sorry.

Answer 9

Intelligent greed may be interpreted as saving for the future.How much is enough?