On Apr 25, 2005, at 7:17 PM, JDG wrote:
At 07:13 AM 4/25/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote:isolationism;We could choose to be in a position to stop all kinds of mass death. How much of it do we choose to be responsible for? How much are we willing to give up in order to maximize life?
And speaking of codependency... as we focus increasingly on other nations'
problems, more and more people in our homeland are living in poverty, social
programs are being cut all over the place. I'm not arguing forwe are part of an international family of nations. But when we focus somuchon being "global do-gooders" that we no longer can take care of our own, we
crossed over into a sort of international codependency, haven't we?
A series of questions:
Oo! Oo! Mistah Kottah!
Do you believe that "the poor will always be with us"?
Possibly. "Always" is a very, very, *very* long time. I think it's safe to assert that there will, for a very long time, be people whose wealth on a given scale is less than that of others' on the same scale, but what a human culture 2K years from now might regard as poverty is something I don't think anyone can guess.
Do you believe that ending poverty is simply a matter of spending enough
money?
I don't see how that could work. It hasn't so far anyway. Seems to me it's a considerably more complicated matter.
I don't think Nick's on about "the poor"; I think he's pointing to a broader range of issues. Such as crumbling infrastructure and ever-shrinking education budgets, for starters.
-- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
