Bum Simulator will simulate life as a homeless person

Yawn, looks so stupid. The real Urban Survival Sim is Urban Pirate [[itch](https://babyduka.itch.io/urban-pirate)] [[steam](https://store.steampowered.com/app/471380/Urban_Pirate/)] folks, go get it. Much nicer graphix and music too!

Hey, don't just go off-topic! We're talking about do-gooders here! /s
:P


Last edited by Lakorta on 13 May 2018 at 1:14 am UTC

If I actually did go out of my way to defend the poor and downtrodden Panterra people, and believe I am doing good, I would be a do-gooder.
Because that would only lead to the Panterra people never learning to defend themselves and always require someone to do it for them, it would actually be a bad result.

If you're right, that's a problem. And it's a widespread claim; give a man a fish, yadda yadda. This is the ostensible rationale, for instance, behind many pushes to reduce, eliminate, or aggressively micromanage social programs. There is however a lot of controversy over how often it is actually true. Much data suggests, for instance, that cutting social programs mainly leads not to increased self-reliance but to poverty and suffering.
Whoever's right, the problem is not the intention to do good, but the possiblity that the means chosen to do it may be mistaken.

Mind you, I would tend to agree that a lot of "aid" organizations supposedly helping people in third world countries end up doing little or no good and often a great deal of harm, and so the people well meaningly supporting them are making mistakes. However, that has relatively little to do with the well-meaning people either donating small amounts of money or staffing the organizations at the lower levels. Left to themselves, they might do quite a bit of good. However, the design of these organizations' programs tends to be shaped by their major sources of money, which tend to be either large corporations or first-world governments, both of which have as their main objective not doing good but making sure the third world countries remain good places for foreign investors to extract profits from. So the "aid" is in fact an investment meant to shape the third-world society to its own disadvantage. In short, the problem is not the do-gooders, but the do-badders, and it is not a problem of unintended consequences but of intended ones.

Good people doing things with good intentions can create bad results. But it's less common than many believe. And the Adam Smith myth of bad people doing things with bad intentions creating good results thanks to the magic of the market can happen too, but that is also far less common than many believe. In fact, good intentions generally create good results, and bad intentions usually create bad ones. The problem is that a lot of the most powerful people have bad intentions, and that can swamp the effects of other actors doing smaller things. Being told that it's good intentions causing the problems tends to help us miss the bad intentions that are actually doing so.


Last edited by Purple Library Guy on 13 May 2018 at 4:02 am UTC

But: What I say is that there is a difference between hypocrites (people who say A and do B) and do-gooders (people who say A, do A, claim that A is good, but A is actually a bad thing once you think about it more deeply).

So, a try-do-gooder?

A naive hypocrite then? :)

Erm, no, not at all. About the opposite.

That means that only those people are do-gooders that are doing things that you wouldn't do. Or people who have views you don't share. You label them do-gooders as soon as you disagree with their views or the reasoning behind their actions. If I would do the same, you would be a do-gooder from my perspective.

It really just boils down to your disagreement with their views and actions. You don't like what they say and do, and you show your dislike by calling those people names. In my opinion, that's neither useful nor helpful for you or for them.

Uhm, no?
I call them do-gooders because their well-meaning actions (would) lead to negative results.
Of course I disagree with actions that lead to negative results. There is nothing positive about a people incapable of defending themselves having to be kept kicking by another party spending their resources for eternity. That is only logical.

But of course, it is so much easier to reduce what I do to name-calling instead of swallowing the bitter pill that many good-willed actions are actually harmful ones in a nice disguise.

Whoever's right, the problem is not the intention to do good, but the possiblity that the means chosen to do it may be mistaken.

Yes and no.
It isn't the intention to do good that makes one a do-gooder. Everyone (generally) intends to do good.
But those that go about it in a very naive way are the most likely to actually create or support a negative effect.
So a do-gooder would be more identified by how naive and uninformed they act.
And naive and uninformed actions rarely to never lead to a positive result. Though they admittedly might.


Last edited by TheSHEEEP on 13 May 2018 at 8:01 am UTC

And naive and uninformed actions rarely to never lead to a positive result.

You base this guesstimate on what?

And naive and uninformed actions rarely to never lead to a positive result.

You base this guesstimate on what?

Logic. Common sense.
If you don't know what you are doing, how likely are you to achieve what you want to achieve?

I call them do-gooders because their well-meaning actions (would) lead to negative results. Of course I disagree with actions that lead to negative results.

Some people think that all help organizations do good. Some people think that all help organizations do bad. Both are cases that are phrased with superlative wording and are extremely likely not true.

That means that what actually happens is somewhere in between. Some do good, some do bad. By assuming that one of the two extreme cases is true, you rob yourself of a good look at reality.

Anecdote time! In 10th grade, there was a kid in my class that got bullied hard. It was the typical small and thin kid that didn't know how to defend himself - be it physically or socially. For him, it had become normal to be bullied, so he just ate it up and waited until the bullies were done with him.

I was in his shoes for years, I knew exactly how he felt. That is why I changed the school: I just couldn't take it anymore in my former class. Because kids are weird and, well, kids... I somehow wasn't the bully target anymore in the new school. In some weird turn of the stars, I suddenly was the cool guy (took me a half year to fully realize that). So I intervened, and people stopped immediately bullying him. Sometimes it would happen again, but I stopped them quickly. After a few times, it stopped for the rest of the year. Not that it completely stopped: There was of course still some verbal fighting and other mean stuff... what kids do. But they never tried to put him into the waste bin anymore. Such kind of humiliation didn't happen anymore. In my personal opinion, this was good for him. He now knows that there are people that are there for each other and step in. He now knows that it isn't normal to be bullied like that. And he left the class without being the only victim all the time. I think this gave him a positive kind of a perspective. At least I hope.

Maybe he would have fought back and changed his personality so that he wouldn't get bullied anymore. But maybe not. Maybe what happened instead helped in different ways. There are two ways you can stop bullying: By fighting back, or by not being the easy and silent target anymore. I like the latter far better.

You may disagree. You may have thought: "He should help himself. If I help him, I'm making it worse for him!" That may be your opinion. But calling me a do-gooder is just calling me names. A well phrased disagreement and an explanation would be more helpful.


Last edited by Doc Angelo on 13 May 2018 at 10:39 am UTC

And naive and uninformed actions rarely to never lead to a positive result.

You base this guesstimate on what?

Logic. Common sense.

Common sense as in "many people think so." Where's the logic in that? It used to be common sense that the Sun orbits the Earth.

If you don't know what you are doing, how likely are you to achieve what you want to achieve?

Who knows. The scope or your question is too vague and there are too many variables. Sure, the result might be negative, but isn't it more likely it has no profound effect at all? That's not the same as negative. It's just insignificant. In the end, trying to do good is always preferable to trying to do bad. And trying is usually better than not trying.


Last edited by tuubi on 13 May 2018 at 11:28 am UTC

And naive and uninformed actions rarely to never lead to a positive result.

You base this guesstimate on what?

Logic. Common sense.
If you don't know what you are doing, how likely are you to achieve what you want to achieve?

"Common sense", in my experience, largely means "matches with the things I was taught as a child and assume are universal laws". It leads to a lot of problems when presented with ideas and people that refuse to fit into simple little boxes.

And I see from the previous comment that we've started to attract the edgelords. Hello, hello. Welcome to GoL.


Last edited by Nezchan on 13 May 2018 at 2:29 pm UTC

And naive and uninformed actions rarely to never lead to a positive result.

You base this guesstimate on what?

Logic. Common sense.

Common sense as in "many people think so." Where's the logic in that? It used to be common sense that the Sun orbits the Earth.

I don't think common sense means what you think it means.
I will help you:
[Common sense](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense)

In a psychology context, Smedslund defines common sense as "the system of implications shared by the competent users of a language" and notes, "A proposition in a given context belongs to common sense if and only if all competent users of the language involved agree that the proposition in the given context is true and that its negation is false."

I think you would be hard pressed to find someone to disagree with the notion that you should know what you are doing in order to produce the results that you want. Thus, common sense.

If you don't know what you are doing, how likely are you to achieve what you want to achieve?

Who knows. The scope or your question is too vague and there are too many variables. Sure, the result might be negative, but isn't it more likely it has no profound effect at all? That's not the same as negative. It's just insignificant.

You wasted your (and more than likely someone else's) time.
Time is the most important resource any non-immortal being has.
I'd call that quite negative. And that is the best case scenario - of the failure cases, which are more likely than the success cases.


Last edited by TheSHEEEP on 13 May 2018 at 4:52 pm UTC

And naive and uninformed actions rarely to never lead to a positive result.

You base this guesstimate on what?

Logic. Common sense.

Common sense as in "many people think so." Where's the logic in that? It used to be common sense that the Sun orbits the Earth.

I don't think common sense means what you think it means.
I will help you:
[Common sense](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense)

Sure, it would be fine and dandy if that actually meant something, but the general usage is "I don't have proof but this fits what I know, it's just common sense." Common sense, in any meaning of the expression, simply does not trump proven fact or real science.

If you don't know what you are doing, how likely are you to achieve what you want to achieve?

Who knows. The scope or your question is too vague and there are too many variables. Sure, the result might be negative, but isn't it more likely it has no profound effect at all? That's not the same as negative. It's just insignificant.

You wasted your (and more than likely someone else's) time.
Time is the most important resource any non-immortal being has.
I'd call that quite negative. And that is the best case scenario - of the failure cases, which are more likely than the success cases.

Again, why do you think anything that isn't a spectacular success is a failure and not just a less than perfect result. And why would failure be more likely than some level of success when specifically talking about philantrophic endeavours or trying to do good? Cynicism?

And naive and uninformed actions rarely to never lead to a positive result.

You base this guesstimate on what?

Logic. Common sense.

Common sense as in "many people think so." Where's the logic in that? It used to be common sense that the Sun orbits the Earth.

I don't think common sense means what you think it means.
I will help you:
[Common sense](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense)

Sure, it would be fine and dandy if that actually meant something, but the general usage is "I don't have proof but this fits what I know, it's just common sense." Common sense, in any meaning of the expression, simply does not trump proven fact or real science.

So, when confronted with clear definitions of what something I say means and how I use it, you just chose to ignore it and say "but that's not what everyone does!", just so you can continue debating? :D
I really don't care how "everyone" uses it, even if you were right (and I don't think you are). I use it by its defined meaning.

Again, why do you think anything that isn't a spectacular success is a failure and not just a less than perfect result.

I do not think that and neither did I say it. You are just trying to project something onto me, and I don't know where that comes from.

And why would failure be more likely than some level of success when specifically talking about philantrophic endeavours or trying to do good? Cynicism?

It does not matter what you do. Do it uninformed and naive and you are more likely to fail than to succeed. There isn't a single kind of endeavour that would be exempt from this rule.
Now, I'm not talking about small stuff like helping someone up who fell down - such actions do not really require thought to begin with.
I'm talking about bigger decisions like that African charity stuff. Something with a larger scale impact that requires more thought to understand the implications.

I say just eat the rich. *runs and hides*

Wasn't this game already released? Pretty sure it was called Postal 2. :P You know, walking around and urinating on people?

I don't think common sense means what you think it means.
I will help you:
[Common sense](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense)

Sure, it would be fine and dandy if that actually meant something, but the general usage is "I don't have proof but this fits what I know, it's just common sense." Common sense, in any meaning of the expression, simply does not trump proven fact or real science.

So, when confronted with clear definitions of what something I say means and how I use it, you just chose to ignore it and say "but that's not what everyone does!", just so you can continue debating? :D
I really don't care how "everyone" uses it, even if you were right (and I don't think you are). I use it by its defined meaning.

I can call any opinion of mine common sense. I can even call it fact and show you a definition of the word when you disagree. Without data to back it up it's still only an opinion. It might even be a common opinion but the sense part is debatable.

Again, why do you think anything that isn't a spectacular success is a failure and not just a less than perfect result.

I do not think that and neither did I say it. You are just trying to project something onto me, and I don't know where that comes from.

It comes from what you write. I'm not projecting anything but I might have misunderstood your meaning. If you actually do believe that the absence of total success isn't the same as failure then I stand corrected.

And why would failure be more likely than some level of success when specifically talking about philantrophic endeavours or trying to do good? Cynicism?

It does not matter what you do. Do it uninformed and naive and you are more likely to fail than to succeed. There isn't a single kind of endeavour that would be exempt from this rule.

Oh if it's a rule it surely can't be wrong. Except that I'd really want to know what makes it a rule. Is there some data to back this up? I mean, it sounds reasonable, but that doesn't quite make it a rule.

I'm talking about bigger decisions like that African charity stuff. Something with a larger scale impact that requires more thought to understand the implications.

And how much thought have you put into your "common sense" for it to trump the decades of research that organizations like Unicef, the Red Cross or Médecins Sans Frontières have put into their relief efforts around the world? You're just that much smarter?

And how much thought have you put into your "common sense" for it to trump the decades of research that organizations like Unicef, the Red Cross or Médecins Sans Frontières have put into their relief efforts around the world? You're just that much smarter?

Research by organizations that could not be more lined with agenda.

I'm not saying those organizations are bad or only doing bad. That would be absurd.
However, a research with an expectation will - if in any way possible - try and reach that expectation. Results in almost all cases can be interpreted in a way that supports the expectation. The cases in which such behavior was later found out and researches turned out to be false or willfully misinterpreted is long. One can only guess how much larger the amount of researches is in which the fraud was not detected.
The last thing I'd do for the sake of argumentation is to trust in research funded/initialized/executed with such clear expectations on their outcome in mind.

Show me a non-agenda-fueled research that clearly and unmistakably shows all those "relief efforts" actually do end up doing more good than harm and I'll shut up on the matter.
I'm pretty sure you won't be able to.

And how much thought have you put into your "common sense" for it to trump the decades of research that organizations like Unicef, the Red Cross or Médecins Sans Frontières have put into their relief efforts around the world? You're just that much smarter?

Research by organizations that could not be more lined with agenda.

They've even got the balls to [publish their sinister agendas](https://www.unicef.org/agenda2030/) for all to see!

I'm not saying those organizations are bad or only doing bad. That would be absurd.
However, a research with an expectation will - if in any way possible - try and reach that expectation. Results in almost all cases can be interpreted in a way that supports the expectation. The cases in which such behavior was later found out and researches turned out to be false or willfully misinterpreted is long. One can only guess how much larger the amount of researches is in which the fraud was not detected.
The last thing I'd do for the sake of argumentation is to trust in research funded/initialized/executed with such clear expectations on their outcome in mind.

You're absolutely right. A lot of research is invalidated by a bias (sometimes obviously so), and no single paper or report should be blindly trusted without proper peer-review. But we need to remember that claims of invalidity are just as often similarly biased. I'll still take scientific research any day over uninformed opinion thank-you-very-much.

Show me a non-agenda-fueled research that clearly and unmistakably shows all those "relief efforts" actually do end up doing more good than harm and I'll shut up on the matter.
I'm pretty sure you won't be able to.

Would it help if I found you lists of preventable diseases Unicef has helped eradicate through massive immunization campaigns in third world countries, like polio in India and in most of Africa? How about if I brought you a list of conflict or disaster torn regions where the doctors of Médecins Sans Frontières have indisputably saved countless lives? Maybe numbers of children that receive a basic education and health care due to Unicef's programs.

No. You'd call these statistics biased, or you'd point to some corruption case (I don't doubt you'll find skeletons in the closets of any of these huge international organizations) as if that discredits the good they do. But yeah, I think the burden of proof is on you, seeing as you haven't brought any facts to the table.

And how much thought have you put into your "common sense" for it to trump the decades of research that organizations like Unicef, the Red Cross or Médecins Sans Frontières have put into their relief efforts around the world? You're just that much smarter?

Research by organizations that could not be more lined with agenda.

They've even got the balls to [publish their sinister agendas](https://www.unicef.org/agenda2030/) for all to see!

See, that's the funny thing about do-gooders.
Say anything not blissfully positive about them and they immediately see a threat, lashing out.
"How could anyone think they are doing bad?!"
I never said anything about "sinister" agendas. Just that they have clear agendas and will obviously try to underline them with their own research. Therefore, their research can never be free of the claim of being biased.

You're absolutely right. A lot of research is invalidated by a bias (sometimes obviously so), and no single paper or report should be blindly trusted without proper peer-review. But we need to remember that claims of invalidity are just as often similarly biased. I'll still take scientific research any day over uninformed opinion thank-you-very-much.

Well, you chose to believe in what you want to.
I chose to believe only in trustworthy sources (Those without clear agendas. And those are rare) and basic, irrefutable logic.
But of course, that is only "opinion" as soon as it isn't what you think. Cute.

Would it help if I found you lists of preventable diseases Unicef has helped eradicate through massive immunization campaigns in third world countries, like polio in India and in most of Africa? How about if I brought you a list of conflict or disaster torn regions where the doctors of Médecins Sans Frontières have indisputably saved countless lives? Maybe numbers of children that receive a basic education and health care due to Unicef's programs.

Developing cures to illnesses or even wiping them out is obviously positive, at least in the long term.
Short-term, it is problematic as the biggest problem mankind is facing is that there are simply too many of us, living too long, leading (soon) to a shortage in resources. I guess we can only hope we solve the resource problem before we have to solve the overpopulation problem, right? That is a problem many people, especially many do-gooders, choose to ignore. "How could saving people ever have negative consequences?" is something I rarely see them ask themselves. It would not be a "good" thought.
Now, the number of children receiving basic education and health care is exactly what I was talking about earlier. It makes the situation of those people "barely tolerable", instead of "intolerable" which would eventually lead to a change from within.
Of course, the elites of those countries gladly take the help - after all, it helps them maintain their current system, doesn't it?

But yeah, I think the burden of proof is on you, seeing as you haven't brought any facts to the table.

I don't need to bring extra facts to the table. Logic is on my side. Prove my logic wrong and you're good to go. Shouldn't be that hard if you are right. Or, of course, you could just ignore everything I say as "opinion" since that would relieve you of having to find actual arguments.


Last edited by TheSHEEEP on 14 May 2018 at 6:22 am UTC

They've even got the balls to [publish their sinister agendas](https://www.unicef.org/agenda2030/) for all to see!

See, that's the funny thing about do-gooders.
Say anything not blissfully positive about them and they immediately see a threat, lashing out.
"How could anyone think they are doing bad?!"
I never said anything about "sinister" agendas. Just that they have clear agendas and will obviously try to underline them with their own research. Therefore, their research can never be free of the claim of being biased.

No, you see, that was what I call a joke, with maybe a touch of sarcasm. I'm sorry if I don't take this as seriously as you do.

A bit more seriously: I guess there's just no way for an organization you don't agree with (or any independent researcher) to publish statistics or research that supports their cause without you calling it out on an agenda. You know that's the kind of mindset that keeps the intelligent design kooks, the climate change deniers and flat earthers of the world in the dark. Of course everyone has an agenda, but both (proper) journalism and science have guidelines and a peer-review process to combat this.

You're absolutely right. A lot of research is invalidated by a bias (sometimes obviously so), and no single paper or report should be blindly trusted without proper peer-review. But we need to remember that claims of invalidity are just as often similarly biased. I'll still take scientific research any day over uninformed opinion thank-you-very-much.

Well, you chose to believe in what you want to.
I chose to believe only in trustworthy sources (Those without clear agendas. And those are rare) and basic, irrefutable logic.
But of course, that is only "opinion" as soon as it isn't what you think. Cute.

Now who's getting patronizing. As I said, no source is bias-free, and you'd be better off getting your info from all sides and making your own informed decisions. But please, if you think you've found the elusive news outlet without and agenda, I'd be really interested if you could share it.

Would it help if I found you lists of preventable diseases Unicef has helped eradicate through massive immunization campaigns in third world countries, like polio in India and in most of Africa? How about if I brought you a list of conflict or disaster torn regions where the doctors of Médecins Sans Frontières have indisputably saved countless lives? Maybe numbers of children that receive a basic education and health care due to Unicef's programs.

Developing cures to illnesses or even wiping them out is obviously positive, at least in the long term.
Short-term, it is problematic as the biggest problem mankind is facing is that there are simply too many of us, living too long, leading (soon) to a shortage in resources. I guess we can only hope we solve the resource problem before we have to solve the overpopulation problem, right? That is a problem many people, especially many do-gooders, choose to ignore.

You're pushing goalposts here, but part of this might be because the issue of overpopulation is for many of us not a good reason to just let people suffer. The right way to control the growth of populations is through education, access to contraceptives and better standards of living. You might not believe it but these have actually proven to be the most effective ways to do it. Also, keep in mind that trusting a conclusion that isn't the direst or picking a solution that isn't the most drastic aren't necessarily proof of naïveté.

"How could saving people ever have negative consequences?" is something I rarely see them ask themselves. It would not be a "good" thought.

Or maybe they're not idiots and they do understand this. Have you considered that? I'm sure you've never bothered checking, but they do include risks and negative effects in their public research (if not in their marketing materials, understandably) and they couldn't hide their failures even if they wanted to. These are openly discussed in their conferences and strategy papers, at least for the mentioned organizations. They're big, but they're not corporations. Their organization models make it very hard to keep any hidden agendas.

Now, the number of children receiving basic education and health care is exactly what I was talking about earlier. It makes the situation of those people "barely tolerable", instead of "intolerable" which would eventually lead to a change from within.

No. Education is the basic necessity for a community to start on the road to self-sufficiency in today's global society. You might swallow the idiocy even our own government is spouting currently, but inhospitable living conditions do not inspire people to fix things. They just force them to exhaust all their mental and physical energy on the struggle to survive. Pushes them deeper down the rabbit hole so to speak.

Of course, the elites of those countries gladly take the help - after all, it helps them maintain their current system, doesn't it?

Not really. An ignorant population is much easier to control. But I'm right with you on the corruption issue. You can call me naive all you want, but that doesn't make me so.

But yeah, I think the burden of proof is on you, seeing as you haven't brought any facts to the table.

I don't need to bring extra facts to the table. Logic is on my side. Prove my logic wrong and you're good to go. Shouldn't be that hard if you are right. Or, of course, you could just ignore everything I say as "opinion" since that would relieve you of having to find actual arguments.

First of all, opinion isn't a derogatory word. You can substitute the word "hypothesis" or maybe "stance". It turns to trustworthy information only when we get enough evidence to back it up. What I say is opinion as well, naturally.

We went through this before with the common sense thing. You can call your arguments logical, but that doesn't necessarily make them so. We're not discussing basic arithmetic here but complex issues. Facts are necessary to make proper judgments.


PS: I know our discussion won't ever go anywhere, but hey, maybe someone got something out of it. If they can be arsed to read these walls of text.

A bit more seriously: I guess there's just no way for an organization you don't agree with (or any independent researcher) to publish statistics or research that supports their cause without you calling it out on an agenda. You know that's the kind of mindset that keeps the intelligent design kooks, the climate change deniers and flat earthers of the world in the dark. Of course everyone has an agenda, but both (proper) journalism and science have guidelines and a peer-review process to combat this.

There are still flat earthers?
Anyway, the problem many of those groups have is that their logic is fundamentally flawed and can easily be disproven by applying simple logic, you don't even need facts (though they help). They will still not believe you, of course, because in the end fools will believe whatever the hell they want. Reality itself cannot harm them.
Climate change deniers are often misrepresented, though. Many just claim that it isn't clear that mankind caused the change (which I agree with, there's just no clear proof that couldn't just be coincidence, we might never know). However, it doesn't matter who or what caused it, it only matters how we deal with the consequences.

The right way to control the growth of populations is through education, access to contraceptives and better standards of living. You might not believe it but these have actually proven to be the most effective ways to do it.

I do believe it.
But how is it helping to just cure people of ailments and give them food and clothing and send them to their daily lives again, which will just end up increasing the overpopulation, ending up with MORE people that then cannot all help any more?
At the same time, I doubt these organizations have the means to operate on a country-wide scale, also giving out education, contraceptives, etc. By that point, they'd BE the government. See my point below...

"How could saving people ever have negative consequences?" is something I rarely see them ask themselves. It would not be a "good" thought.

Or maybe they're not idiots and they do understand this. Have you considered that? I'm sure you've never bothered checking, but they do include risks and negative effects in their public research (if not in their marketing materials, understandably) and they couldn't hide their failures even if they wanted to. These are openly discussed in their conferences and strategy papers, at least for the mentioned organizations. They're big, but they're not corporations. Their organization models make it very hard to keep any hidden agendas.

Now, the number of children receiving basic education and health care is exactly what I was talking about earlier. It makes the situation of those people "barely tolerable", instead of "intolerable" which would eventually lead to a change from within.

No. Education is the basic necessity for a community to start on the road to self-sufficiency in today's global society. You might swallow the idiocy even our own government is spouting currently, but inhospitable living conditions do not inspire people to fix things. They just force them to exhaust all their mental and physical energy on the struggle to survive. Pushes them deeper down the rabbit hole so to speak.

That is an absurd theory.
If reality was anything like that, events like the French Revolution or the American War of Indipendence or the Uprising of the former British Indian colonies or other similar events would have never happened.
If the majority of a people's situation becomes dire enough, they revolt in one way or another. Change under such circumstances is inevitable - if no "third party" intervenes.

Now, I might agree with the education part. Education is the surest way to enable someone to find ways out of their misery on their own.
But if you counteract at the same time by providing what the government should provide (health care), you only become part of the government, if you want it or not. And you only slow down the change that you want to bring - it is simply inefficient. I don't disagree with the goals, I disagree with the methods, if you want.
Too much helping, too little "help yourselves, here's how to".
At that point, why not go all the way and become the government? But that would be called colonialism or imperialism and isn't really to en vogue right now.
"What have the Romans ever done for us?!" ;)

Maybe the next 30 years will prove me wrong. The last 30 certainly didn't.
Of all the 3rd world countries, only few managed to truly improve their situation. Like India, or China. China even to a point where they will (in due time) likely become the primary world power - if nothing unforeseen happens and their upwards trend continues just as the US' downwards trend does.
And lo and behold - they did it all without interference from any western organisation (other than trading with them).
It is almost as if interference of those companies did not help African countries at all, maybe even the opposite...

You can call your arguments logical, but that doesn't necessarily make them so. We're not discussing basic arithmetic here but complex issues. Facts are necessary to make proper judgments.

Everything is based on logic. Except love, hate and morals, maybe ;)
Facts are results, they are not required to predict results, or to discuss theories.
If it was any different, there would never be any theories.


Last edited by TheSHEEEP on 14 May 2018 at 10:30 am UTC