Time for skeptics to grow up?!

[Skeptic Ginger]

Why? Some believers will take their beliefs to the extreme, while others will take the exact same beliefs much lighter.

Is it their beliefs you want to ban, or the results of how they view their beliefs?



You bet. Because unless you can prove that the basis for their beliefs is to harm other people, then you have started banning thoughts, merely because you don't agree with them.

Is English your second language?

I use an example of the results of beliefs vs the beliefs without such results and you ask me if I had thought of what I just said?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well, I would tend to find it absurd that the World Bank and other international institutions of capitalism usually have one recommendation for heavily indebted Third-World countries: increase the impoverishment of the masses.
No, they aren't. But the countries that do their best to put up a fight with capitalism, tend to avoid the most excessive poverty, destitution and starvation:
http://www.granma.cu/playagiron/conferencia/13duran-i.html
Alfredo Durán, former vice president of Brigade 2506 Veteran’s Association, veteran from Playa Giron, fighting against Castro’s troops:
“If I were poor in any Latin American country, I would prefer to be in Cuba than anywhere else.”
Well, if your digestive system is able to handle newspapers, you might be right. I find it interesting that nobody seems to cry “cause and effect!” when claims like this are made …

You are confusing the practices of countries under both communist and capitalist economic systems with the basic economic theories themselves.

The World Bank, corruption and greed are no more inherent in capitalism than repressive governments, corruption and incompetence are inherent in communism. Sweden isn't so repressive and they share a lot of the wealth. And some of the worst dictators in the world ruled countries with capitalist economic systems.

Looking at the economic theories by themselves, capitalism is good for motivating people and stimulating efficiency. However, it fails in some of the "best thing for all people" categories, especially when it comes to monopolies and concentration of wealth in too few hands.

Communism is terrible for motivating people to work and for improving efficiency. But if the goals are really to do the most for the masses, there are many things which if one eliminated corruption, would be better than under capitalism.

Regardless of what is bad about Cuba's repressive government, they did a much better job recovering from their last big hurricane than we did in New Orleans. Not one person died in Cuba's last big hurricane. Everyone was evacuated. They may not have had the choice, but they didn't have to find their own transportation and place to go either.


It is my opinion capitalism is the best system. But the 'people' can't be apathetic or the rich will get richer and the poor poorer. The profit motive will not result in everything we need, nor can profit create the best result with life's necessities.

Corrupt people are a reality. The US did have a good system of keeping corruption to a minimum but we've been slipping lately. Corporations with the bottom line of profit before people need to be regulated. And there needs to be social safety nets, environmental protection, and public investment in things we need which for profit companies are not motivated to invest in.

Take the example of new antibiotics. Drug companies don't want to invest big bucks in the research because when a new antibx is developed, prescribers have to use it sparingly or drug resistance will develop quickly. So we need public money to research new antibxs.

But this is getting a bit off topic.....

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That makes one wonder, where else has he been in Latin America?

I do agree that propaganda coupled with terror has worked throughout another maniac dictator's lifetime.

Would you have preferred Nicaragua, El Salvador or Guatemala in the 70s or the Dominican Republic in the 50s? How about Columbia currently?

And add to that propaganda and terror (not sure how Castro's terror compared to Somoza or Trujillo) universal health care, education, and social security and you'll have a better picture of the country. Not to mention Castro replaced Batista.

Opposition

Near the end of 1955, anti-Batista demonstrations and student rioting were frequent. The military police dealt with the opposition violently. Students who wanted to march from the University of Havana were stopped by the police and beaten. One of the student leaders, José A. Echeverría, had to be hosptialized. When another popular student leader was killed on December 10th, his funeral led to a nationwide protest, with a 5-minute nationwide work stoppage. Batista suspended constitutional rights, put tighter censorship restrictions on what the media could report. The military police patrolled streets picking up anyone suspected of being part of the insurrection.

I saw Somoza's work first hand. I'll take Castro's Cuba any day! And I am a staunch capitalist.

 

[hammegk]

Would you have preferred Nicaragua, El Salvador or Guatemala in the 70s or the Dominican Republic in the 50s?

Er, it's 2007, in case you hadn't noticed. But yes, US Latin American policy backing right-wing thugs hurt a lot of people.

How about Columbia currently?

Welcome to narco-politics, another failure of US policies.

... universal health care, education, and social security ...

I saw Somoza's work first hand. I'll take Castro's Cuba any day! .

Your choice. Many others still prefer "live free, or die".

And I am a staunch capitalist.

You hide it well.

 

[Piscivore]

Yes, but you cannot really prevent people from thinking what they do, can you? You can kill a person and thus put a stop to his or her thinking, but the thoughts themselves? The Romans did not have much success with this strategy, nor does banning racism or homophobia seem to put a stop to racist or homophobic thoughts.

Or pedophilic thoughts?

You seem to be saying you think thoughts are separate from the person thinking them, am I misunderstanding?

 

[dann]

You refer to another thread where I already told you that I was not interested in the question of banning, which is what this discussion was about (or had derailed to):

Originally Posted by CFLarsen : "... then you have started banning thoughts, ..."
Originally Posted by dann: " ... which, of course, you can't!"
Originally Posted by hammegk: The US can, and does. See "Hate Crimes"."

I tell hammegk that the state may want to ban certain ideas, which, however, it cannot:
"Yes, but you cannot really prevent people from thinking what they do, can you? You can kill a person and thus put a stop to his or her thinking, but the thoughts themselves? The Romans did not have much success with this strategy, nor does banning racism or homophobia seem to put a stop to racist or homophobic thoughts."

Are you, Piscivore, able to read and thus hopefully understand the thoughts of somebody, even somebody long dead, who made the effort of writing them down?
That would make thoughts separate from the person thinking them, wouldn't it?

You would like to see this as a self-contradiction in my case, which it isn't, since I never claimed that you could prevent the desires of paedophiles by banning them. When it comes to paedophilic thoughts, which is something else even though you are not able to distinguish between thoughts, ideas and desires, who would even want to ban them? Their weird ideas when it comes to the arguments that they use to defend having sex with children and to justify child pornography are identical to the ones presented by you and Kevin Lowe. They can be criticized and if the paedophile or the advocate of the same ideas understands and agrees with the argument, they will give up these ideas. Banning them might make it a little more difficult to distribute these ideas, but it would not eradicate them.
They may still desire to have sex with children, even though they realize that their justification for this desire was wrong. In that case it becomes a question of will: Will they persist in trying to have sex with children or will they try to fight this desire, maybe through therapy or in other ways? Will they insist on doing something that they realize is harmful to the victims, or will they, out of respect for or empathy with the potential victims, the children that they desire to have sex with, give it up?
Perverts may give up their perversions. Stranger things have happened ...

For some reason nobody seems to want to ban poverty, however.

 

[The Atheist]

For some reason nobody seems to want to ban poverty, however.

 

[Piscivore]

You refer to another thread where I already told you that I was not interested in the question of banning,

The first line was a joke. That's why I put a smiley on it. I'm sorry you didn't understand that.

The question I wanted to ask in this thread was "You seem to be saying you think thoughts are separate from the person thinking them, am I misunderstanding?"

 

[dann]

Do you understand the answer?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Quote:"I saw Somoza's work first hand. I'll take Castro's Cuba any day!"

Your choice. Many others still prefer "live free, or die".

Quote:"And I am a staunch capitalist."

You hide it well.

Re preferences, what makes you so sure capitalism means no repression and communism always means repression?

I don't hide my preference for capitalism. Point to my posts that have given you your false impression? Surely you don't think the world is black and white? Do you think one cannot discuss the benefits Castro brought to Cuba without agreeing with everything that came with it?

I spent a good deal of time in both the Caribbean and in Central America. People from the USA often have such a poor understanding of the relationship between rich and poor, and between undemocratic dictatorships and real democracies.

The Nicaraguan Contras were never "Freedom Fighters". They were cruel, thieving, murderers used by the rich to oppress the poor. And for the poorest of the people, freedom meant working 7 days a week 12-16 hours a day to survive. "Many others" might call that freedom, because they have no concept of such circumstances.

The big mistake Reagan and his predecessors made was choosing repression to keep these people from turning to communism. Had we encouraged labor unions instead of training Contras how to behead union leaders, had we spent money on infrastructure, health care and education in return for using the natural resources instead of spending money on the military of the repressive dictators in exchange for using the natural resources, we would have promoted democracy and capitalism in both Cuba and the rest of Latin America.

Do you know one of the first laws Bush's man in Iraq wrote for them was to outlaw labor unions?

 

[dann]

Would you have preferred Nicaragua, El Salvador or Guatemala in the 70s or the Dominican Republic in the 50s?

Or nowadays, for that matter:

A number of my close friends (mostly teachers in language schools), who live in Quetzaltenango, Guatemala, had read my above account, and, during a recent face-to-face conversation with them over dinner, they expressed a strong unanimous desire to live in Cuba if they could, with its attendant social benefits, rather than continue struggling in Guatemala.

(From this webpage.) I heard the same sentiment expressed by some of my friends who were recently stationed in Guatemala.

Many others still prefer "live free, or die".

That is so very easy to say as long as you don't have to choose. I can recommend reading the page that I link to above. It is not at all pro-Castro, on the contrary. But one should take into account that it is based on only four days in Cuba and very biased, but the writer of the piece makes up for it by linking to an email conversation he has had with a Cuban living in Habana.

I have talked with many Cubans over the years, in particular in the summer of 2006, and their major concern seems to be the material conditions in Cuba: That you cannot afford to buy many necessities, like for instance ordinary gas rings, if you don't have access to foreign currency, which is why people with either relatives in Miami (usually white!) or a job in the tourist industry tend to do much better than e.g. medical doctors.
The people I talked with, most of them professional dancers or musicians (usually coloured), often used half an hour complaining about their monthly salaries in Cuban pesos, but almost always ended with something along the lines of: 'But if the norte americanos invade us, I’ll take up arms!'

By the way, does anybody know anything about skepticism in Cuba? If you do, please PM me. When I was there three years ago, I saw a skeptical programme on TV (in English with Spanish subtitles, one of the woowoos was Gary Schwarz talking about an alleged 9/11 prediction, and I think that one of the skeptics was Richard Wiseman). It was followed by a discussion in Spanish between a TV host and what appeared to be a Cuban skeptic, but I did not understand much of it. I have been trying to find out more about skepticism in Cuba, but unsuccessfully.

 

[dann]

The micro-loan example was one example. It wasn't meant as the only solution to poverty among women. It has, however, been especially beneficial for women who turn out to be more reliable paying it back as well.

Nobel Peace Prize for banker.

 

[quixotecoyote]

I read the 'conversations with a Cuban' link you posted. A good half of his complaints were about Cuba being short of goods of all kinds. I wonder if the problme is with Cuba or the embargo.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Or nowadays, for that matter:
(From this webpage.) I heard the same sentiment expressed by some of my friends who were recently stationed in Guatemala.

That is so very easy to say as long as you don't have to choose. I can recommend reading the page that I link to above. It is not at all pro-Castro, on the contrary. But one should take into account that it is based on only four days in Cuba and very biased, but the writer of the piece makes up for it by linking to an email conversation he has had with a Cuban living in Habana.....

Interesting they would have Che Guevara's image on the first link. Castro is purported to have convinced/encouraged?? Guevara to continue the struggle in Bolivia where Guevara was eventually killed. Rivalry between them was supposed to have played a part.

Interesting link to declassified US documents and chronology of events leading to Che's death

Sorry for the sidetrack.

I'm sorry to hear things are not better in Guatemala. You don't hear much about it in the news these days.

 

[dann]

Interesting they would have Che Guevara's image on the first link.

I think that the guy went to Cuba as a fan of Che, but was disappointed by the reality of Cuban society, which did not live up to his expectations. However, his email correspondence with a Cuban makes him reconsider his experiences, which were based on a very short stay in the country.

Castro is purported to have convinced/encouraged?? Guevara to continue the struggle in Bolivia where Guevara was eventually killed. Rivalry between them was supposed to have played a part.

I think that it's a myth. I think Castro was actually opposed to the idea, mainly because he wanted Che to focus on conditions in Cuba.
The mistake that Che made by going to Boliva was probably to some extent due to his experiences in the Sierra Maestra. He arrived with a small group of men, less than 20 survived the landing, and in only two years they managed to topple Batista. Unlike the Cubans, however, Che had not been a part of Cuban politics until then, he had no experience with the opposition already existing in the cities. In other words, he arrived in a country where a political movement was already fighting Batista's regime and a lot of people already pinned their hope on Castro and his followers. The situation facing Che and his followers in Bolivia was very different.
His spirit of self-sacrifice may also have contributed to his aversion to taking advice from more experienced people sympathetic to his idea of revolution in Latin America.

Interesting link to declassified US documents and chronology of events leading to Che's death

From your link:

Castro also "accused the USSR of having turned its back upon its own revolutionary tradition and of having moved to a point where it would refuse to support any revolutionary movement unless the actions of the latter contributed to the achievement of Soviet objectives...."

It seems to support the idea that Castro sympathized with Che's intentions in principle - in spite of the wishes of his new allies.
I can recommend this biography. (It is very long, however!)

 

[dann]

I read the 'conversations with a Cuban' link you posted. A good half of his complaints were about Cuba being short of goods of all kinds. I wonder if the problme is with Cuba or the embargo.

Why "or (!) the embargo"? Do you think that an embargo (and this is a very radical one, which is why the Cubans prefer the word blockade) helps getting more goods? Or that it wouldn't cause problems?

 

[dann]

Bozone (n.): The substance surrounding stupid people that stops bright ideas from penetrating. The bozone layer, unfortunately, shows little sign of breaking down in the near future.
Sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.
http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-04/042007todd.html#i2

Mensa … another group of people whose raison d'être seems to be the false notion that they are so much more clever (or is it bright?) than everybody else.

An Alternative Intelligence Test
(…)
3. Kevin Langdon, a member of Mensa, the society for high-IQ dimwits, designed a test to find people with a higher IQ than 99.997 percent of the population (or approximately 1 in 30.000), because he wanted to "meet women that he did not have to talk down to".
http://www.skepticreport.com/pseudoscience/iq2.htm

 

[Puppycow]

Let me paraphrase the critique in the OP:
Poverty is a more important problem than superstition. Skeptics only get upset by the superstition but not the poverty. If skeptics really cared, they would be for "banning poverty."

My skeptical response: I agree that poverty is a big problem, but what is its cure? Rational thinking. The road out of poverty lies in rational thinking. All our wealth, technology and high standards of living are due to rational thought. To be sure, irrational superstition exists in developed countries, but that is not where our wealth and high living standards come from. More rational thinking will lead to higher standards of living. A critical mass of rational thinkers cooperating with each other under peaceful conditions is necessary to eliminate poverty.

 

[Darth Rotor]

My skeptical response: I agree that poverty is a big problem, but what is its cure? Rational thinking. The road out of poverty lies in rational thinking. All our wealth, technology and high standards of living are due to rational thought. To be sure, irrational superstition exists in developed countries, but that is not where our wealth and high living standards come from. More rational thinking will lead to higher standards of living. A critical mass of rational thinkers cooperating with each other under peaceful conditions is necessary to eliminate poverty.

Eliminate or reduce?

I'd consider a rational aim the narrowing of the poverty incidence (if you can define poverty in functional terms) to the 2.5 - 4 sigma region under a standard bell curve, rather than this woo induced sound byte of "eliminate poverty." The definition of "what poverty is" changes with political motivations for redefinition.

Poverty thus ends up as a relative condition, although when you exist at that end of the economic bell curve, it isn't hard to tell when you are there.

The elimination of poverty, as a soundbyte, is not evidence of critical thinking. The problem of eliminating it is the inverse of the insanely rich person's problem of grasping "how much is enough?" What are the minimum functional standards of life quality that define crossing the line from "poverty" to "getting by, but just." A slight raise in that bar changes the numbers, and any concrete achievement of the aim.

DR

 

[gtc]

The obvious retort to the OP is that there is plenty of superstition in rich countries too.

 

[Slimething]

I'd consider a rational aim the narrowing of the poverty incidence (if you can define poverty in functional terms) to the 2.5 - 4 sigma region under a standard bell curve, rather than this woo induced sound byte of "eliminate poverty." The definition of "what poverty is" changes with political motivations for redefinition.

Perfectly stated. I've pointed out to dann that his equating poverty and ignorance is unfalsifiable. He won't define "poverty" in any meaningful economic terms. Poverty will always be with us as there's always a left side to a distribution. Poverty does not have to mean hunger or lack of shelter and medical care. Nor does it mean that the poor have carte blanche to practice ignorance and child abuse. That's the state we should be striving for.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Let me paraphrase the critique in the OP:
Poverty is a more important problem than superstition. Skeptics only get upset by the superstition but not the poverty. If skeptics really cared, they would be for "banning poverty."

In fact, if we are to take this admonition seriously, everyone should only be worrying about the most important issue, whatever that may be.

~~ Paul

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Why is it so hard for many skeptics to notice that poverty and misery breed superstition, an insight which makes it very obvious how to go about fighting superstition if you actually want to do away with it in an efficient manner? Or do they really believe that these children would be so much happier if they were starving without the added insult of being called witches?

I think skeptics have it really clear that poverty is one of the things that breed superstition (Notice I clarified, it's one of the things. It's not THE ONE thing)

Skeptics are indeed doing the one thing that fights against this disease: Skeptics struggle to promote critical thinking and they stress education above indoctrination. Education is the one tool. Misery and poverty are results of ignorance (Indoctrination is the mother of ignorance).

Now, if your claim is that skeptics are not doing their work because they're not donating money to the poor, then I have to disagree. Like the old saying goes: Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish and you feed him forever.

 

[dann]

Let me paraphrase the critique in the OP

Great! Thanks for bumping my thread, guys, but won't you please stop paraphrasing my critique!? It is not so difficult to understand that it needs paraphrasing!
That also goes for:

Now, if your claim is that skeptics are not doing their work because they're not donating money to the poor, then I have to disagree. Like the old saying goes: Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish and you feed him forever.

No, Ron, that's not my claim. What makes you think that it is? I can see that you are yet another fan of the strawman approach, but would you mind telling me what makes you come up with this particular one?

The obvious retort to the OP is that there is plenty of superstition in rich countries too.

And how exactly would that be a retort to my opening post - and an obvious one at that??!

 

[dann]

I would like to add that you can no longer access Steve Kowit's brilliant article The Mass Suicide of the Xhosa: A study in collective self-deception in its entirety for free, but you can access the beginning of the article in order to decide whether or not you'd like to buy the rest:
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-36844/The-mass-suicide-of-the.html
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-36844_ITM

That is, unless you are one the lucky guys who read and understand Danish, of course!
http://www.skeptica.dk/2005/kowit.htm

The article about poverty in the Third World, however, is still for free:
http://www.gegenstandpunkt.com/english/poverty.html

 

[Slimething]

dann, you should let people paraphrase your OP. It makes more sense that way.

 

[Puppycow]

Eliminate or reduce?

I'd consider a rational aim the narrowing of the poverty incidence (if you can define poverty in functional terms) to the 2.5 - 4 sigma region under a standard bell curve, rather than this woo induced sound byte of "eliminate poverty." The definition of "what poverty is" changes with political motivations for redefinition.

Poverty thus ends up as a relative condition, although when you exist at that end of the economic bell curve, it isn't hard to tell when you are there.

The elimination of poverty, as a soundbyte, is not evidence of critical thinking. The problem of eliminating it is the inverse of the insanely rich person's problem of grasping "how much is enough?" What are the minimum functional standards of life quality that define crossing the line from "poverty" to "getting by, but just." A slight raise in that bar changes the numbers, and any concrete achievement of the aim.

DR

Reduce. Does the word 'elimination' imply total elimination? Is partial elimination (=reduction) not a valid concept?
Granted total elimination is unlikely, but relative poverty is not what I was thinking of. By poverty, I mean a condition in which the most basic needs in Maslow's hierarchy are not satisfied. That is, the lower two rungs, physiological needs and safety needs.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

That also goes for:
No, Ron, that's not my claim. What makes you think that it is? I can see that you are yet another fan of the strawman approach, but would you mind telling me what makes you come up with this particular one?
And how exactly would that be a retort to my opening post - and an obvious one at that??!

That's why I said "Now, if your claim is..." as opposed to "Your claim is". I didn't imply that that's your claim. I was wondering if it was. Obviously it isn't. Very well then, what is your claim then?

 

[Puppycow]

Great! Thanks for bumping my thread, guys, but won't you please stop paraphrasing my critique!? It is not so difficult to understand that it needs paraphrasing!

The obvious retort to the OP is that there is plenty of superstition in rich countries too.

And how exactly would that be a retort to my opening post - and an obvious one at that??!

OK, but the function of paraphrasing is to show that I have read and understood your post, as gtc seems to have failed to.

 

[Puppycow]

I would like to add that you can no longer access Steve Kowit's brilliant article The Mass Suicide of the Xhosa: A study in collective self-deception in its entirety for free, but you can access the beginning of the article in order to decide whether or not you'd like to buy the rest:
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-36844/The-mass-suicide-of-the.html
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-36844_ITM

The article about poverty in the Third World, however, is still for free:
http://www.gegenstandpunkt.com/english/poverty.html

As to the former article, I didn't find anything in the exerpt to disagree with. I am aware of confirmation bias, and I have read some of Robert Wright's work and generally agree with it.

But that second article.

People in developing countries are poor because they are excluded from wealth in general, and in particular in their own countries. ... What causes this exclusion from wealth? Private property.

Here we have a failure to understand economics. This is Marxist ideology, not critical thinking. This sort of thinking when put into practice has resulted in massive famines in the Soviet Union, China and North Korea. An ideology that fails to understand human nature cannot produce a society that is livable by humans.

 

[Puppycow]

I think skeptics have it really clear that poverty is one of the things that breed superstition (Notice I clarified, it's one of the things. It's not THE ONE thing)

Only indirectly. I think the more direct link is the other way around: That is, superstition breeds poverty.

Skeptics are indeed doing the one thing that fights against this disease: Skeptics struggle to promote critical thinking and they stress education above indoctrination. Education is the one tool. Misery and poverty are results of ignorance (Indoctrination is the mother of ignorance).

Yes. That's I mean. Superstition is a symptom of ignorance. Ignorance is indirectly a result of poverty but poverty and ignorance are the default human condition. IOW, people are animals born in the jungle and they have to rely on their instincts and wits to survive. The way out of this state of nature is through rational thinking. Each person has to learn to think for themselves. They can be taught, if they are willing to learn.
There are three ways to acquire wealth: you can be given it, you can take it, or you can produce it. The first two depend on others to produce the wealth. Only the third way creates new wealth, and this way requires rational thinking. The first two do not require rational thinking (the second one requires a certain sort of self-interested antisocial rational thinking, but leave that aside) but won't reduce poverty overall.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Only indirectly. I think the more direct link is the other way around: That is, superstition breeds poverty.

Hmmmm, I don't know. I don't really see it. When you say superstition breeds poverty, do you mean poverty literally, understood as a financial status, or do you mean poverty of mind? If you meant the first, could you illustrate please?

I'm not saying I don't agree, I just don't see it.

Yes. That's I mean. Superstition is a symptom of ignorance. Ignorance is indirectly a result of poverty but poverty and ignorance are the default human condition. IOW, people are animals born in the jungle and they have to rely on their instincts and wits to survive. The way out of this state of nature is through rational thinking. Each person has to learn to think for themselves. They can be taught, if they are willing to learn.
There are three ways to acquire wealth: you can be given it, you can take it, or you can produce it. The first two depend on others to produce the wealth. Only the third way creates new wealth, and this way requires rational thinking. The first two do not require rational thinking (the second one requires a certain sort of self-interested antisocial rational thinking, but leave that aside) but won't reduce poverty overall.

I completely agree with that.

 

[dann]

Yes. That's I mean. Superstition is a symptom of ignorance. Ignorance is indirectly a result of poverty but poverty and ignorance are the default human condition. IOW, people are animals born in the jungle and they have to rely on their instincts and wits to survive. The way out of this state of nature is through rational thinking. Each person has to learn to think for themselves. They can be taught, if they are willing to learn.

Just to make sure, I've asked around, and so far not a single one of the people I've asked was,
a) born in the jungle,
b) then had to rely on their instincts to survive,
c) or even on rational thinking.
A very large majority of them were actually born at a maternity ward in a hospital, they were cared for by doctors and nurses - and their mothers, of course - and for an extensive number of years they had no idea what rational thinking was.

There are three ways to acquire wealth: you can be given it, you can take it, or you can produce it. The first two depend on others to produce the wealth. Only the third way creates new wealth, and this way requires rational thinking. The first two do not require rational thinking (the second one requires a certain sort of self-interested antisocial rational thinking, but leave that aside) but won't reduce poverty overall.

Well, one and two are capitalism in action, which seems to work very well. It certainly does not reduce poverty, but that was never its intention.

 

[dann]

That is, superstition breeds poverty.

I don't know .... Sylvia Browne seems to be doing just fine. So does the pope ...

 

[dann]

That's why I said "Now, if your claim is..." as opposed to "Your claim is". I didn't imply that that's your claim. I was wondering if it was. Obviously it isn't. Very well then, what is your claim then?

Please answer my question, Ron Tomkins! "What makes you think that it is?"

 

[dann]

dann, you should let people paraphrase your OP. It makes more sense that way.

In a way you're right, Slimething. Your failure to understand my opening post might imply that you'd be happier reading something completely different. It may not be what I wrote, but at least you're able to grasp it.
That other people's strawmen aren't better than yours is a problem that shouldn't concern you.

 

[Diamond]

Here we have a failure to understand economics. This is Marxist ideology, not critical thinking. This sort of thinking when put into practice has resulted in massive famines in the Soviet Union, China and North Korea. An ideology that fails to understand human nature cannot produce a society that is livable by humans.

 

[CFLarsen]

Ignorance is indirectly a result of poverty but poverty and ignorance are the default human condition. IOW, people are animals born in the jungle and they have to rely on their instincts and wits to survive. The way out of this state of nature is through rational thinking.

News flash: We don't live in caves anymore.

Each person has to learn to think for themselves. They can be taught, if they are willing to learn.

So....people who believe in Sylvia Browne only have themselves to blame?

 

[Puppycow]

Just to make sure, I've asked around, and so far not a single one of the people I've asked was,
a) born in the jungle,
b) then had to rely on their instincts to survive,
c) or even on rational thinking.
A very large majority of them were actually born at a maternity ward in a hospital, they were cared for by doctors and nurses - and their mothers, of course - and for an extensive number of years they had no idea what rational thinking was.

Well, one and two are capitalism in action, which seems to work very well. It certainly does not reduce poverty, but that was never its intention.

There is a book called The Jungle by Upton Sinclair. It turns out that it's not about tropical rainforests. It's supposed to be a metaphor for something else. The Jungle is a metaphor for the world. Does the world owe anyone a living? We might like to think so, but for billions of years it has been "survival of the fittest." That is the default. I think that modern welfare states are better than the jungle but it takes a lot of rational thinking and cooperating by a lot of people to get from the jungle to a modern state.

Actually, capitalism is about number 3, creating wealth, not 1 and 2. Capitalism is how new wealth is created. Now, I'm not Ann Rand. I'm not saying that we shouldn't have any welfare at all. I'm only saying that a market economy is more efficient than a command economy, although it needs certain interventions like anti-trust laws, some public goods likes roads, police, an army and schools, and occasionally corrections for externalities to optimize the benefit for everyone.

Capitalism generally refers to an economic system in which the means of production are all or mostly privately[1][2] owned and operated for profit, and in which investments, distribution, income, production and pricing of goods and services are determined through the operation of a market economy.

China is an example of a country that has given up a command economy in favor of a market economy. The results have been dramatic. During the Great Leap Forward, tens of millions starved to death. Today:

There has been a significant rise in the Chinese standard of living in recent years. Today, a rapidly declining 10 percent of the Chinese population is below the poverty line. 90.9% of the population is literate,[61] compared to 20% in 1950.[62] The life expectancy in China is the third highest in East Asia, after Japan and South Korea.

So there it is: Capitalism reduces poverty. It may result in inequality, but more people can afford to meet their basic physiological and safety needs.

 

[CFLarsen]

China is an example of a country that has given up a command economy in favor of a market economy.

You may want to read up on China's economy. It's not a "market economy", but a mix of very centralized controlled economy and market economy.

The results have been dramatic. During the Great Leap Forward, tens of millions starved to death.

You commit the same fallacy as Creationists, when they blame all things bad on Evilution:

There were huge famines in China way before the Communists.

Between 108 BC and 1911 AD there were no fewer than 1828 major famines in China, or one nearly every year in one or another province, which however varied greatly in severity.