Street light summarized the demands -- which were stated in an NPR report from Hong Kong. They are not, according to a spokeswoman in Hong Kong, seeking independence from China. There are supposed to be two systems; they want their part.

They might be defeated, true. However, they are not betting on a horserace; they are demanding what was supposed to be their system (one country, two systems). They are also (gratuitously) providing a fine example of resistance to ordinary, banal tyranny for other people around the world who are unhappy with their governments' behavior.

Not all civil battles are won, just as not all military battles are won. But if the goal is sufficiently worthwhile, it is worth the risk of failure. Your lickity-boot approach only makes sense if nothing much is at stake.

The Importance of Philosophy
Why do philosophy in the first place, what does it matter? — Pfhorrest

The philosophy that is most important is the effort we make to situate ourselves in the world, and judge whether where we are is good or not. some people do not think about these questions, because their questions have been answered by their other-worldly or their temporal ruler, or because they prefer not to think about such matters. Somebody has to get out and till the corn so that there will be food on the table. Be grateful that the corn was hoed.

Somebody has been thinking about these questions beginning perhaps 300,000 years ago. There is no accumulation of insight, because each person in each generation who asks these questions must find his or her own answers.

Now in the 21st Century, we are still asking these kinds of questions. Perhaps we are able to use more sophisticated language (or not) but the need to situate ourselves in our time and place is no less or more important. The answer does not usually come to us swiftly. We can spend decades rolling the question around in our heads without much result.

Ok, so we've established that the FHA is still racist. — Harry Hindu

I don't know why this is difficult. The FHA could be 100% color blind, and the black housing conditions could be worse now (which they are). Ameliorating the damage done to the black community in the area of housing would require reparations. The FHA is not charged with the task of paying reparations, and nobody else is, either -- as you know.

There are two other sets of actors in the real estate industry: real estate brokerages and banks. Their roles are at least as critical now as the FHA's role.

Does the FHA still "notice color" for the purpose of segregating whites and blacks today? I didn't get an answer - just more ad hominems. — Harry Hindu

The FHA does not now engage in racial segregation as a matter of policy. They have been reformed by court orders, legislation, and large changes in the political personnel--different than what existed in 1935. In 1935, southern congressmen could force racial exclusion into federal law. The segregationist congressmen, and their allies north and south, have died.

The point I was making is that, even if we became color blind over night racial segregation would continue. Why is that? It would continue because white people, even if they are 100% enlightened about race, possess so much more valuable real estate than any other group. A big hunk of the wealth advantage is a legacy of the earlier segregation. how? After WWII, vast suburban building projects serving many millions of families, were sold only to white people. These were very good housing properties and they appreciated in value several times over. As the older generation moved on, they liquidated that large value and a younger (white) generation inherited the wealth. Real estate, and racially preferential employment policies, has cemented the white advantage.

Most non-whites lack the accumulated advantages of real estate appreciation and preferential employment. THEREFORE, they will not be able to buy into economically segregated communities. The suburbs stay mostly white because blacks can't afford to buy houses there.

The economic crash of 2007 created conditions for some racial integration. Homes owned by bankrupted victims have, in many cases, been bought up by rental companies. Minorities can often rent a house in an otherwise mostly white neighborhood. Rental companies owning large numbers of housing in a community is never a good thing for housing values, but it opens up some opportunities. If housing prices rise sufficiently, the rental houses will be sold to buyers, who will probably be white.

I refer the OP to the Jerry Seinfeld Comedy series, which was a show about nothing. Very popular. Also, this on YouTube:

Nothin' from nothin' leaves nothin'
You gotta have somethin' if you wanna be with me
Nothin' from nothin' leaves nothin'
You gotta have somethin' if you wanna be with me

I'm not tryna be your hero
'Cause that zero is too cold for me, brrr
I'm not tryin' to be your highness
'Cause that minus is too low to see, yeah

and so on. Nothing has been done already.

But this is 2019. What are the racist institutions in 2019? Are you saying the FHA is still racist today? — Harry Hindu

The economic effects of what the FHA began doing in 1935 and (supposedly) ended in the 1980s are enduring. In addition, disinvestment in housing continues to occur, which is why some parts of cities descend into slum grade housing, or stay that way.

There are, of course, other important factors at work. Loss of manufacturing jobs, poor education performance, deteriorating family structures, alcohol and drugs, and on and on. There are also cultural factors at work that aren't institutional. Individuals make decisions that affect their lifetime outcomes, for better and for worse.

Does this response address your question? I'm on my way to a funeral just right now, so not much time.

Is there anything we can do about this? — Wallows

Yes: Stop worrying about it.

To use a phrase which you popularized a while back, The Philosophy Forum "is what it is". What it is is a free chat room of sorts where people share ideas in a generally civil, thoughtful manner, helped by a hit squad of volunteer moderators who do a good job of keeping the site free of garbage. There's no barrier to entry and no achievement grades once one signs up. It is there for the taking or the leaving. Moreover, the forum is pitched to a relatively narrow population: People who are interested in philosophy, or at least in having thoughtful conversations about Life As We Know It.

Please be aware that people do the same thing on even fine porn sites. They view; they sign up; they may or may not post so much as a plaid wool-covered breast; they get bored or feel guilty and are not seen again. Some people--usually guys--just like the philosophy forum--contribute content and keep the site as active as it is. Tumblr has millions of porn fans who sign up and "come and go" so to speak.

If people don't stay with porn sites that offer physical pleasure as a reward, how much less likely are they to stay on a site that offers them perhaps only slight interest and many conundrums?

The turnover rate has nothing to do with philosophy. Revolving door participation is a feature of public fora, whether they are actual or virtual. It's not a bug, it's a feature.

As for guiding the peasants into higher abstractions, just put the hay down where the goats can get at it. Most people will, quite appropriately, find their level of interest. Over time a sub-population will migrate across the board, forming layers of interest with people like you on the farthest side, and others with less interest in abstractions in bands closer to the starting point.

I'm sorry, but there is nothing special about the field of philosophy among other academic fields. "Nothing special" is not disparagement. There are a host of academic fields which will interest people differentially. If philosophy or biology or supply chain management or literature or mathematics or history or music or... whatever is your thing, do that.

Let's take a longer over view than the last century. We evolved into our modern form roughly 300,000 years ago, and we lived as expert tool making hunter gatherers for about 280,000 years. During that time we were certainly not in any sort of Edenic state: We engaged in the sort of conflict that primates tend to engage in. (We are, after all, primates.). During those 280,000 years we did very little damage to the earth (we didn't have the means, yet). There weren't too many of us then, so we weren't always rubbing up against each other, the way people do in crowded cities.

Around 20,000 years ago, by some means not altogether known, we began to grow food, rather than using the snatch and grab method. There are still some people who hunt and gather. In order to do that, we had to settle down. We had to organize our labor, develop timing methods so that grain was scattered at the right time. In all, life quickly grew more complicated.

In another 15,000 years we had developed writing. We started building bigger things. (Much earlier we had already learned how to travel far and wide.). In not too many years later, the Greeks and others were philosophizing. Here we are.

SO, NO. Our beginnings weren't destructive. We became destructive as we developed the means to behave more dangerously in the manner of the primates we are--clever, very short-sighted creatures.

Former Theists, how do you avoid nihilism??

Maybe they stay theists?

So, we're experiencing the longest economic boom in modern history. — Wallows

If the post WWII boom is what you are talking about, it's a very screwy boom. Anyway, the post WWII boom came to an end in the early 1970s. For the working class (just to remind you, that's about 90% of the population) it's been slowly going down-hill since 1973, with bursting bubbles along the way.

Much of the wealth expansion is highly concentrated and isn't based on actual production; it's based on speculative investments in paper, much of which does not connect to the real economy of production and consumption (per Pikeitty).

I would agree that China is a variety of fascism. I think you'll be seeing more fascist regimes over time -- but don't think Hitler and the Nazis. They were fascists of a particularly vile variety, but fascism has other - friendly and not very friendly - faces.

But but the invisible hand does wonderous things for us. Why shalt one bite it? — Wallows

It's hard to bite the invisible hand when it has your balls in a tight grip

More like rotisserie chicken, I would think.

But which of the two is more pragmatic? Is believing there is a way with optimism better than disbelieving there is a way with Pessimism? — Mark Dennis

Optimism and pessimism have nothing to do with pragmatism. Optimism and pessimism are emotional states. Neither are a solution to anything.

BECAUSE

Political priorities of world governments don’t seem to be matching up with the priorities that are required for long term survival — Mark Dennis

IT ISN'T

... extremely hard to get a true gauge of what our chances really are — Mark Dennis

It's really very simple: IF political [and economic] priorities don't match up with long term survival requirements

THEN

we won't survive.

We're screwed. The world will become our rotisserie.

Is it the biggest challenged we’ve faced as a species? — Mark Dennis

It might be, but you know, the bubonic plague wiped out at least a third of Europe's population in a short period of time. The plague was horrible, but once it let up, the survivors picked up where they left off and carried on. A lot of people found they were better off than before the plague because they had inherited bits of property that the dead had left them. The economy boomed.

I don't cite the plague as evidence that all will be well. I cite it as evidence that abandoning coal/oil/gas, and the private auto would be a horrible experience (it really would be) but that many people would survive. Walking or riding a bike to work, taking a bus, literally running to the store for bread, forgoing many of the luxuries that have become necessities (like fresh strawberries all year round, organic air-cooled-chicken, or flying 10,000 miles to attend a wedding) would be hard, but people would learn to make do. It would be easier than recovering from bubonic plague.

A realistic assessment of the global warming crisis ought to result in feelings ranging from pessimism to despair, with a side trip to include rage.

Do not make the mistake of thinking you are personally responsible. If you are not a high level national decision maker; if you are not a coal/oil/gas CEO or member of any of several coal/oil/gas boards of directors; if you are not a CEO of an auto maker; if you are not a major stockholder in any of these industries--then you are not in a position to make critical decisions.

Those who are in positions where they could make critical decisions have, by and large, decided to burn the last ton of coal, the last barrel of petroleum, and the last cubic foot of gas. That is why I am fairly certain that we will collectively suffer a hot wet death.

We are running out of time (or we have run out of time--not sure which) for our usual slow rate of change to make a difference in the outcome. What we are doing now (putting in modest wind and solar farms) we should have been doing 40 years ago. Jimmy Carter put a solar panel on the White House roof in 1976. Ronald Reagan took it down in 1980. End of discussion. We should have started worrying about temperate and tropical rain forests 40 years ago. We didn't.

A hand full of ultra-rich and power people in the world are both guilty and responsible for the critical problems we face.

I am curious what people class as ‘self taught’. If it means they’ve read a couple of philosophical works then I’d call that ‘Not at all’. — I like sushi

I've read a couple of philosophical works. But mostly, I've lived for 70+ years and have actively inquired what the nature of our life together is. I've read history, science, sociology, psychology, politics, theology, literature, etc.

Mostly though, it is reflecting on life as we live it, for better and for worse. That is the main entrepôt for evaluating reality. Scholars write weighty books which are quoted here (Aristotle, Hume, Nietzsche and so on). Were all the books in the philosophical library to disappear, it would only be the end of philosophy as a 'literature'. Philosophy as a practice would continue on.

If all the books about yoga and meditation were to disappear, yoga and meditation would continue. There is a literature of yoga and a practice of yoga; the two are not the same.

It is good for civilization to have the literature of various and sundry fields: accounting, yoga, medieval French poetry, geology, history, math, architecture, agriculture, and much more. It is good to read and learn from the literature of the various fields. But in philosophy (or theology) it is important to live the field.

It is certainly the case that many people do not inquire into the nature of life together, and do not gain much insight as time goes on. Some of them are faultless, and some of them are guilty of the shallowest, narrowest, of lives.

There is a good article tangentially related to your post at Aeon addressing the question, Is capitalism modernity's most beguiling and dangerous enchantment?. The author dips into the Philosophical Manuscripts, the Grundrisse, and so on. It was a good food for thought.

Marx has been proven correct. Human life has been devalued. We are replaceable units of production, less reliable than robots and automated equipment. Laborers are not an asset to a business; they are a cost, best shed as soon as possible.

A good share of humanity is simply irrelevant to capitalism.

What about...? Both, of course. We accept a job. It turns out to be a nightmare. We didn't make it a nightmare, but we keep showing up every day. The stress of the job is horrible. We probably can't change the workplace, but we can quit.

Sometimes people are out to get us and the only thing we can do is avoid them or defend ourselves. This may be much easier said than done. Harassers can be devious devils.

I wouldn't hazard a guess about the percentages of internal vs. external stressors. In many cases, it's both. We have pictures of what a perfect life ought to be. Other people fail to cooperate in supporting our picture of the perfect life. Other people in the apartment building make too much noise. The neighbor's dogs bark all the time. There is too much traffic in the street. On and on. We keep identifying new guilty parties who are ruining our perfect life. Alternatively, we could try and accept that we live in a very unsatisfactory, noisy, dog-barking, trafficed, world. (Easier said than done.).

I can testify to having made my own life more difficult than it needed to be because I didn't follow my own good advice.

Poor people, for instance, suffer from a higher rate of both physical and mental diseases because of the low quality of their surrounding environment. Bad air, maybe lead in the paint on the windows (or in the water), low grade housing, poverty, food deserts, crime, violence, crappy schools, and so forth.

I can't say that the study of philosophy produced positive changes in my mental health. What philosophy was useful for was understanding why I had experienced positive changes. I have held it as an axiom of mental health therapy that "Therapy means change, not adjustment." Change might not be produced by one's own initiative; it may happen TO a person, or be brought about BY the person.

IF we keep doing the same things that are driving us crazy, then we will stay crazy. Ceasing crazy-making behavior will (usually) help a great deal. That assumes, of course, that one can change. If raising one's 6 children on a poverty budget is driving one crazy, one might have to stick with it anyway. Or, if the only job one can find is bad for mental health, one might have to stay on the job. [During WWII soldiers in Europe deserted at a fairly high rte -- usually returning to their units later. Soldiers in the Pacific almost never deserted. Did the Pacific Theater soldiers like being in battle? Probably not. But in a war fought on isolated islands in a big ocean, there was no way to desert.]

That's my case. Other people might have knotty problems that weigh heavily on their minds, for which clarity of thought might be extremely helpful and bring relief. In that sort of situation, philosophy could be good therapy. If one is troubled by one's history of bad actions, an study of ethics might prove very helpful.

Europe may want windmills, but in a UN report on meeting the Paris Accord targets ---->

The authors of the report stated in a press release that the kind of drastic, large-scale action the planet desperately needs has yet to be seen, even though global emissions have reached record levels at 53.5 billion metric tons in 2017, with no signs of peaking.

The G20 nations (Europeans for sure) aren't pulling out the stops to meet the goals. What the nations are doing is quite short of what needs to be done. Instead we have dithering, delaying, and denying.

The United States has a slob for president. Outside of that, the US behaves much like other countries do and have behaved. Every national government has as its highest goal to benefit its own citizens first. Other nations' citizens are elsewhere on the list.

All sorts of people here have denounced American Exceptionalism--as well they should. Because the USA isn't exceptional. We aren't better than others, but equally, we aren't worse.

If any major power's policies seem confused at times, it is only a sign that we are living in the real world. When governments and their militaries have expanded to maximum size, it is difficult to figure out what the nation should do next. Damned if I know.

there are many groups which disagree with the statement that religions are always a human creation — Samuel Lacrampe

I suppose a bunch of somebodies will disagree with the statement that 2 + 2 = 4. Be that as it may...

I think religion is ALWAYS a human creation. This isn't a reflection on the gods. Suppose that the gods are real. Religion, as @Wayfarer said, is "an attitude of awe and reverence to the gods". If a people have an encounter with a god, they are likely to feel awe, fear (or terror), reverence, and more all to overwhelming degrees. Religion is the response to an encounter with the holy, a connection. Since the gods thought to be real don't conveniently pop in every day religion finds ways of recreating the encounter. The Eucharist, Passover, the gods in the Hindu temples, meditation practices, ascetic practices, and so forth provide a way for subsequent generations to share (symbolically) the encounter.

That religion (a response to the holy) is a human creation would seem axiomatic. The gods do not need religion.

In some religions (thinking here of the classical period) the gods were thought to need sacrifices. A passage in the Epic of Gilgamesh states that when a sacrifice of burnt offerings was being made, "The gods gathered around the altar like flies". The gods were hungry. Since the gods didn't literally descend from the heavens and consume the sacrifice, the sacrifice was eaten by humans, and thus shared with the gods. In other references, libations are poured out on the ground for the gods. I don't know how many extant religions operate with that idea.

Splendid post.

In the 1930s The US declared that control of Middle Eastern oil was a vital interest of the United States. If we didn't need it at the moment, we at least wanted to decide who could have it and who could not. Is this policy defunct? What would really reduce our commitment to the Middle East is the collapse of oil's value owing to sufficient renewable power generation. We are not there yet, but what was unimaginable 25 years ago is now something we can just about plan on.

World Economic Domination requires either exclusive control of a vital substance (like the magical spice drug found only on the planet Arrakis) or it requires being everywhere. Rome was everywhere. The UK was everywhere; we are everywhere; soon the Chinese will be everywhere--the big new Silk Conveyor Belt project is about being everywhere.

Globalism is another term for world domination.

A question: Forced by circumstances, can the United States peacefully cede its role to the Chinese over the next few decades? Can it operate a sufficiently robust economy for 350,000,000 people without world economic domination? Or will we resist their expansion?

World Economic Domination isn't in the interests of most of The People, because the whole reason for going global is to find markets, cheap labor, and maximum profits. The benefits do not flow to the majority Working Class. The benefits flow to a small minority. On the other hand, we probably can't have a really good economy without selling abroad.

Globalism vs. isolationism isn't an abstract choice: It finds its concrete meaning in economics. How are we (the US) going to live? Maximize self-sufficiency? Go for a strong military profile or a modest one? Be everywhere, or just be in some places where we really have to be?

Whether the gods exists or not, a well structured and developed philosophy of religion is a very good idea.

Perhaps we should preface our assertions about god(s) with the phrase, "whether the gods exists or not": Whether the gods exist or not, religions are a human creation. Theology (about the gods that may or may not exist) is a human creation. Ritual is a human creation. Whether the gods exists or not, religions, rituals, and theology have value and meaning to people.

Can people (ardent believers, lukewarm believers, apostates, agnostics, atheists...) agree that there is a a limit on how much anyone can know about the gods, which is imposed by the differences we suppose exist between humans and gods?

Can we agree that believers can not precisely map out what they can know about the gods (because the gods are to some extent unknowable)?

Part of nihilism is recognising that there IS no certainty or authority — Possibility

This is not directed at, toward, or about you. I'm talking about the standard model of juvenile nihilist.

The doctrine of an extreme Russian revolutionary party c. 1900 found nothing to approve of in the established social order. Given how badly Romanov rule sucked, that is probably the very model of political rationality. That is a far cry from the rejection of all religious and moral principles, in the belief that life is meaningless. In philosophy, it means extreme skepticism; maintaining that nothing in the world has a real existence. (Not only does life suck, it isn't even real. Fuck!)

One wonders where the young nihilist (or an old one, for that matter) gets the chutzpa to stand up and declare "It's all meaningless!" "There is no authority -- nobody knows anything," "Meaning is completely arbitrary -- life sucks!" I have a picture in my mind of a group of raging adult nihilists throwing a temper tantrum in the middle of Macy's, Forever 21 or -- god forbid -- the Apple Store: rolling around on the floor, kicking, screaming, cursing, and turning red in the face. Eventually they get up, feel much better, and go have cappuccinos at Starbucks.

The thing is, nihilism is self negating. If everything is meaningless, if there is no authority, life is a valueless and dismal swamp, if there is no certainty... then all that includes the nihilist. The nihilist is meaningless, without authority, a swamp creature, altogether lacking certainty. He or she should shut the fuck up before they even open their mouths.

Lots of people fleeing the church feel like they need a bath (something that doesn't involve getting washed in the blood of the lamb). Take a bath, but don't go down the drain with the bath water.

Congruence. (agreement or harmony; compatibility)

Older children and adults do not arrive at a decision-making crossroads with blank minds. We have put together a moral system; over time it will become more refined as we apply it across a broad set of problems. Our moral system is wired into our emotional system, and it has force. Violating the rules of our moral system generally makes us feel very uncomfortable. Most people would rather forego some minor advantage and be congruent, than be morally uneasy and have the minor benefit.

So, if you find a purse on a bench in the park, you can either turn it in to the park office, or you can check it out for anything valuable and take those items, then dump the purse in the trash. If your moral system is strong, you will feel compelled to turn the purse in. If you don't, you will feel bad about yourself. Some people have weaker moral systems and rifling the purse for goodies which you keep will cause at most a blip on one's moral radar screen.

Donald Trump would sift the contents, dump the purse, and be on his erring way. Bernie Sanders would turn it in without thinking twice about it.

I am wondering if others who have lost their religion have found a path out of this sense of loss and underlying chaos and would care to share. — dazed

I am sort of a Protestant mirror of your Catholic experience. I was steeped in mainline Protestant (Methodist) Christianity, and had no objection to it. I 'drifted' away more than severed the connection. I found a new interest in church as a gay man when I got involved with Metropolitan Community Church in the '70s, for a few years. At some point in the 1980s I realized I really didn't believe any part of the Creed any more, and I declared myself an atheist.

I found it much harder than I would have thought to disconnect all the emotional and intellectual ties I had to the Church, Christian theology, and the satisfactions I found in various narratives in the Bible (OT & NT). It took me maybe 20 years to pull the last plug. I wasn't left with nihilism, because I recognized that the Christian ethics I learned early on was my core "operating system" whether I believed in God, the divinity of Jesus, the Resurrection, salvation... or not.

What I consider right and wrong may be derived from theism, but as an atheist, I don't have any objection to that. Treating other people the way one wants to be treated is a pretty universal rule. Of course, there are elements in Christian teaching that I reject. I reject what the church has to say about homosexuality, for instance. I disapprove of the Church's balance between spending to maintain itself and spending to perform works of mercy (way, way too much spent on the maintenance of the church institution). The Church ought to be poor. On the other hand, atheists do well to feed the poor, house the homeless, visit the prisoner, and so forth, NOT because Christ commanded it, but because it is good for the person who does it, as well as the person for whom it is done. Helping others breaks down barriers between we happy and contented and you miserable and discontented (assuming "we' are, in fact, happy).

people from illustrious biological lineages who fall into poverty — Hallucinogen

Well, it may be that some people from "illustrious biological lineages" can fall into poverty (like, not so much as a room and a pot to piss in) and then in subsequent generations become magnates of industry. There is no reason why such a thing can't happen. But then, why do people from "illustrious biological lineages" fall into poverty in the first place if they are so illustrious? Lots of illustrious biological specimens went bankrupt in the Great Depression. It wasn't their fault that there was a depression that wiped out an enormous amount of wealth, but they were swept along to their financial doom. And their great grand children tell stories about their illustrious biological lineage who struck it rich, once upon a time. Meanwhile, the great grand children are living pay check to pay check, as did their parents and grand parents.

We are all products of at least somewhat illustrious biological lineages, because we are here. Really fucked up biological lineages get eaten alive -- go a ways back and that would be literally eaten alive.

Another problem with illustrious biological lineages is defining the thing. What is an illustrious biological lineage exactly? Perfect physical specimen plus very high IQ plus athletic ability, plus incredibly good looks, plus a big dick?

Peter Watson (you wouldn't know him) was an important person in mid-century modern art. What was Peter's biggest asset (besides good looks and a big dick, which he reportedly had)? It was income from a hundred million dollar trust fund. Plus, it was the years at "public school" (AKA private schools) such as Eton and Oxford. It happened that Pete flunked out of Oxford. Still, his family connections, his schooling, and his money gave him automatic entre to places that would tell schmucks like us to take a flying fuck. Peter Watson was smart, very well educated on his own as well as school, fluent in a couple of languages besides English. He knew a lot about art, which he learned on his own, mostly.

But then, there are quite a few people who are multilingual who are not "important people". There are quite a few intellectuals and artists that die poor, or at least, not well off.

There isn't anything here that proves that opportunity isn't roughly the same for all people in America today. — Hallucinogen

You will have to read the book (The Color of Law, among others) to get the evidence on black/white achievement differentials.

I do not disagree with you that personal characteristics play a strong role in success. But group histories and characteristics amplify personal features. Take your high-achieving South and East Asians for example. My guess is that this high achieving group do not represented a cross section of the populations in South and East Asia from which they originated. This would be unlikely for two reasons: #1 immigration quotas in the US favor people who are educated and have skills that are in demand. #2 is that leaving South and East Asia to immigrate and settle in the United States would require considerable wherewithal. These people are successful here because they were successful there.

If you are ready to perform at a high level In technological fields and you settle in Silicon Valley or Boston, one ought to do well. Similarly, if you leave China and can afford to settle in Vancouver, you had to have been a success already. Success begets success.

Success begets success: this is a truth Americans do not love. The popular mythology holds that anyone can be a big success if they work very hard, save their pennies, invest wisely, and so on.

There are a few rags to riches stories that are true. In most cases, those who end up rich did NOT start out with rags. Most successful people started out with advantages: Successful parents with at least above-average incomes; stable homes; good schools; good community environment; good role models; (often) higher education; good health, stable personality.

In all cases of success, the brains and piles of wealth represented by investment banking step in (or not) to make good ideas a success. If the best idea in the world doesn't appeal to the bankers, you'll have to take a begging bowl out to raise funds. Unlikely.

But all that is about a tiny minority of the population--people who belong to the 1%. For people who make it into the top 10%, you will find that far more often than not, they came from the top 10%.
Conversely, people who "make it" into the bottom 10% generally came from the bottom 10% (except the very downward mobile). And on up the line.

Where does the African American fit into this? As a group, they tend to have started out poorer than average and generation after generation stayed poorer than average. Did they like it that way? No, they did not, do not.

Successive generations of poverty create an impoverished culture which imparts to individuals habits that do not lead to success. This is NOT unique to blacks: any group mired in successive generations of poverty (including anglo-saxons) will develop habits that do not lead to success, and they will -- by definition -- not have the resources it takes to leap out of the impoverished culture/comunity/family.

We do not have time to review the history of the United States and the United Kingdom (just for starters) to find all of the major causes of economic success and failure among various groups. But...

Studies (from the UK at least) show that education funding has very little effect on pupil's academic attainment and life outcomes. — Hallucinogen

In the US, education funding is largely a local matter. It may be the case that in the UK education funding is largely a national matter. How funding is distributed would be a factor in examining differing educational outcomes. In the US, the relationship between the average income of a school district (which generally overlap municipal boundaries) is very strongly related to academic performance. Income of households is certainly correlated with (even caused by) the personal characteristics of parents and children. Among any group one can find individuals whose life outcomes are much better (and much worse) than the average. Averages submerge individual achievements and failures.

And what's the evidence that bad health outcome is mediated by low education or poverty?

I can simply claim that people who have the personality factors that cause them to be in poverty are the same ones that cause them to be uneducated and make bad decisions for their health. — Hallucinogen

The evidence is in both case histories and statistically large group outcomes. In the case histories one will find personality factors and bad decisions that resulted in poor health, but these disappear in large statistical groups, and other factors emerge. Being born in "the fried fish belt" of the Deep South, for instance, is indicative of poorer health outcomes. Why? Because of lower income, more smoking, more bad diets (too much fat, sugar), obesity, stress, and so forth. People with low income MUST behave differently than people with high income because their choices are limited by low income.

And the picture looks even better when you start looking at which people in particular succeed and which personality traits they have that predict future success. — Hallucinogen

Of course. If you select people who have succeeded (however success is defined) you will find similarities. If you select out people who have failed (however failure is defined) you will also find similarities. Personal characteristics (conscientiousness, success-producing habits, successful role models, etc.) will be there In most cases.

I was just including you in the loop. one doesn't always know who is reading which posts.

I would suggest that you read about philosophy first. Libraries and bookstores have introductions to philosophy which range from very simple to quite difficult. Pick a book toward the simpler side, and work your way up.

You don't have to read philosophy in chronological sequence -- starting with Heraclitus 2500+ years ago and ending in the present time.

If you are not in a class, then you need a guide (book) that will tell you what the field of philosophy is about.

If you get bored with the topic, don't feel bad. Philosophy can involve a lot of difficult concepts and obscure writing styles. Plowing into a field like Philosophy, English Literature, Russian History, Mathematics, Archeology, and so forth is fine if you are REALLY interested in it and are willing to stick with it until you get good at it. But...

Lots of people find that philosophy is not all that interesting beyond a certain point. Same goes for English lit, Russian History, and everything else.

Loose as a goose. Lose your blues.

I think it's because we now have true equality of opportunity. — Hallucinogen

I can point you to a history book - THE COLOR OF LAW (2017) - that will show that we do not have, and have not had equality of opportunity. We need not go back as far as the 18th and 19th centuries and slavery. Let's go back to the 1930s.

IN the middle of the Great Depression, Roosevelt recognized that the availability and quality of housing in the US was poor. Of course, there were fine houses being built, but across the board, housing stock was deteriorating and was in short supply. In 1934 Congress created the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) which was charged with the task of promoting housing construction. One element of the law was that the FHA housing program was NOT TO RESULT IN INTEGRATED HOUSING. Blacks and whites would both be served, but not in the same places.

For white people there was an ambitious program of suburban community creation with tracts of new single-family housing located next to existing cities. For blacks, there was to be a large program of rental housing creation inside existing cities. Before these plans could be rolled out, WWII intervened. After WWII, the FHA program took off.

The quality of the housing was at least GOOD. The urban rental housing was sturdily built, and where they were maintained, FHA buildings remain in use and are in good shape. The suburban housing tracts were semi-manufactured, and were built very rapidly. Still, the quality was at least good. The houses were fairly small, and were situated on (usually) spacious lots. No city or suburban developer ever had difficulty finding urban renters or eager buyers. The housing was affordable but not "cheap".

Over time, the affordable suburban housing was improved by the owners. Rooms were added, landscaping was carried out, and services were upgraded. The value of the homes has, on average, continually appreciated. Some modest houses built in the 1950s now sell for $300,000 to $400,000.

The rental housing built in cities provided good housing, but renters do not accumulate equity. After 10 years of renting, a family is not better off in terms of equity than they were the day the moved in. Suburban families, however, stood to gain equity which they could either cash out, pass on to children, or keep by remaining in place. When they did cash out their property, they might enjoy a very large windfall that could be used for education, purchasing another house, or some other life enhancement.

Many cities had a weak commitment to maintaining the rental housing stock. If it was allowed to deteriorate, a downward spiral could--and often did--begin, which ended up with the rental housing turning into high-rise slums. Chicago had huge rental housing tracts built which were initially good, but ended up being altogether unlivable--owing to urban housing authority corruption and neglect.

The upshot of the FHA program is this:

After 40 years of official segregation, and 70 years of de facto segregation, suburban whites were much better off financially than they were immediately after WWII, and urban blacks were as bad off, or worse off, than they were in 1946.

Since education is organized along community boundaries, suburban communities have generally funded much better education than poorer cities. That's another way that opportunity is not equally distributed. Poor and poorly educated populations tend to have worse health outcomes than more affluent people. That's a third inequity of opportunity.

Bed time. Tomorrow.

You will also fail to unlearn the deceptive and manipulative views that you were indoctrinated with from a young age. — alcontali

And you weren't? Come now... How is it that you and you alone managed to overcome the deception and manipulation that was visited upon you, and that nobody else in the world could overcome?

The reason why the urban poor fail to reproduce, is not because of the survival rate of children. It is because they cannot keep their families together for long enough. — alcontali

The population increase would suggest that somehow the urban poor are managing to reproduce.

Once a woman has a child with one man, it becomes harder for her to find another man to commit to funding a second one. — alcontali

Whatever happened to fathering several children with one woman?

Having a lot of children requires the same nuclear family staying together for all that time. That just does not seem to happen much outside the context of religious communities. — alcontali

Hogwash.

the government will try to ask them to give up resources to pay to retired, middle-class atheists. — alcontali

The government will not merely TRY to make you give up resources for aged atheists, they will be successful in making you pay for the luxurious assisted living and skilled care homes we shall require. So work hard, earn lots of money, cheerfully pay your taxes, and know that you are a blessing to old atheists everywhere.

That may have been an interesting observation possibly a century ago. — alcontali

Actually I was wondering which century you were living in. Seems to be something of a perception-distorting time warp going on here.

I sincerely hope that the current generation of 'click-bait-wise' youth will be more resistant to being dazzled by bullshit than past generations. I am just slightly pessimistic about how well they will resist. Isn't this the generation that spends hours and hours and hours playing on-line games? On-line games designed to hook and keep players at their consoles? A generation seduced to buy as much stuff on line as the elder generation was seduced to buy in brick and mortar stores?

There is always SOMETHING bright and shiny to dangle in front of the masses that the masses will decide they really, really want. AND NEED! RIGHT NOW!

See, all the wizardry of mass merchandizers works on the wizards of mass merchandizing just as well as it works on everybody else. One may be in charge of manipulating the masses for United Consolidated & Amalgamated Retailers of The World and be really good at it, but then, you know, you're walking down the street (or the mega mall) and you happen to look into the window and there it is: the perfectly displayed object, designed to reach into your brain and grab your amygdala by the balls and cause you to reach for your wallet and BUY something you definitely do not need.