If we are so good at saving people from famine and war why have so many people died from famines and wars? Please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famines and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll

Did you look at https://www.anonymousforthevoiceless.org/kill-counter and https://inequality.org/facts/global-inequality ? We slaughter more sentient organisms than ever before. Global inequality keeps growing. The rich get richer and the poor die out. — Truth Seeker

I have to run. I really regret that and I hope I have the energy to get back to the forum this afternoon. However, at the moment, I think if we limit the discussion to humans it will be more comprehensive. But if you want to include animals I think that should cover all the animals that are nearing extinction because we have taken the land and natural resources that they must have to live.

To stay on topic you might pick a moment in history when animals were slaughtered and rewrite that history, telling us how the world would be better if our past had been better. We can do a lot with a discussion like that. :grin:

Come on, people around the world are very involved with saving those suffering from famine and war. — Athena

Yes, lots of little charities work to help, but what do they have to work with?

https://www.dlg.org/en/agriculture/topics/dlg-agrifuture-magazine/knowledge-skills/grain-reserves-in-the-hands-of-just-a-few-countries

If these countries would release the reserves they have a lot of suffering could be eliminated.

https://earth.org/countries-that-waste-the-most-food/

If these countries would do something about the amount of food they waste, that might have help to eliminate some suffering.

It might not be that they do not want to share, it is just too damned expensive to move the stuff and no on wants to pay. :sad: — Sir2u

Yep, that is what I said. It is too expensive to send it there and most of the places where they excess food have no way to ship it.

Good grief that was unexpected! Here it is in English. — Athena

It helps to view the video before linking to it, titles can be misleading

If they were so generous from the beginning they wouldn't get to be billionaires in the first place. — Truth Seeker

Ain't that the truth man.

I agree. We as a species spend much more on weapons than we do on charities.

To stay on topic you might pick a moment in history when animals were slaughtered and rewrite that history, telling us how the world would be better if our past had been better. We can do a lot with a discussion like that. :grin: — Athena

We have indeed veered off-topic. So, I have created this new thread: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15216/how-can-we-reduce-suffering-inequality-injustice-and-death

An interesting article I found today.

The case against Israel has just collapsed

Sat, 18 May 2024 at 1:30 pm GMT-6·3-min read
People gather in Parliament Square ahead of a pro-Palestine march
People gather in Parliament Square ahead of a pro-Palestine march

By rights, this should be the moment that the humanitarian case against Israel’s campaign in Gaza goes into terminal collapse. From now on, there can be no equivocation. Those who persist in opposing the war based on the number of civilian casualties are either ignorant or arguing in bad faith. Or both.

Earlier this month, the United Nations halved its assessment of the numbers of women and children killed in Gaza. Then: 9,500 women and 14,500 children dead. Now: 4,959 women and 7,797 children. In a further seven months’ time, perhaps another few thousand will be resurrected.

A moment’s thought reveals that it is impossible to quickly produce reliable figures. People might be missing but, in the chaos of war, how do the authorities know they haven’t fled, gone into hiding, or died of natural causes? Casualties may be buried under collapsed buildings, vapourised, burnt, or so disfigured that it would take complex forensic analysis to identify them. That is why it took months for Israeli investigators to arrive at a final figure for the victims of October 7, with some remaining unaccounted for.

With war raging, this kind of detailed work is impossible. Yet for months, the UN has trusted figures produced by the same savages who butchered poor Shani Louk and drank chilled water from an Israeli fridge while watching a dying young boy comforting his little brother who was missing an eye. At long last, it has taken a first step towards sanity. But it continues to rely on figures from Hamas as a touch-point.

Do those sanctimonious UN officials not realise how ridiculous they look? Have they forgotten how war works? Two decades after our invasion of Iraq, death tolls remain intensely disputed, ranging enormously from 100,000 to 600,000. Yet we’re expected to believe that Hamas, as it squats underground with its Jewish sex slaves, has the professionalism to provide statistics within hours, reliable to the single digit.

Statisticians have debunked the data. Yet the narrative remains unchanged, even by President Biden. Clearly, the sheer volume of the footage of suffering civilians – all projected by Hamas, which censors pictures of dead or wounded combatants – has caused us to lose our minds. When we fought in Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq, nobody debated civilian casualties. Yet when it comes to Israel, it’s all anybody talks about. We are being played.

This is why Gazan civilians are barred from the safety of the tunnels, even though the whole population would fit inside them. This is why they do not have a single air raid shelter. Hamas’s leaders have been doing their best to get their people killed on camera, then fabricated the figures. They have been doing so to brainwash the international media, political leaders, celebrities and the protesters on our streets, to believe the lie of Israeli “genocide”. They want Jerusalem to be pressured to stop the war, leaving them to plot the next act of savagery.

Every humane heart must bleed for Gaza. Even a single innocent death is appalling. But unless you are a pacifist, the tragedy of the individual civilian in a warzone – no matter how heartrending – is not what sways the argument. What should do so is the bigger picture. It is the principle of a just war, which always involves civilian casualties. Israel did not choose this conflict any more than Britain chose to fight Nazi Germany. Such is the curse of the world that democracies are sometimes faced with an ugly enemy and the only way to respond is with force. Churchill knew this. So does Israel. Do we?

Those of sound judgment must insist that the emperor has no clothes. The Jewish state is estimated to be killing proportionately fewer civilians than any other democracy in the history of warfare. To argue otherwise is simply wrong. Now let’s talk about destroying jihadism. — Jake Wallis Simons

I agree. We as a species spend much more on weapons than we do on charities. — Truth Seeker

If the world was a moral place place there would be no charities, they would not be needed.

Have you looked at https://inequality.org/facts/wealth-inequality ? I know that some billionaires are generous but most are not. If they were so generous from the beginning they wouldn't get to be billionaires in the first place. — Truth Seeker

This is not working. We are doing unimaginably better than in the past and can either agree with than or defend what appears to be your notion that great progress has not been made. How could you possibly know most billionaires are not generous? The answer to that question requires how you got that information. How can you know more about "them" than you know about me?

If the world was a moral place place there would be no charities, they would not be needed. — Sir2u

Oh really? and how is that organized? In the middle ages some Christian groups were strongly in favor of communism. Perhaps you are a reincarnated anabaptist?

Anabaptism (from Neo-Latin anabaptista,[1] from the Greek ἀναβαπτισμός: ἀνά- 're-' and βαπτισμός 'baptism',[1] German: Täufer, earlier also Wiedertäufer)[a] is a Christian movement which traces its origins to the Radical Reformation in the 16th century. Anabaptists believe that baptism is valid only when candidates freely confess their faith in Christ and request to be baptized. Commonly referred to as believer's baptism, it is opposed to baptism of infants, who are not able to make a conscious decision to be baptized. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabaptism

In the late 1520s Bernard Rothmann became the leader for religious reform in the city of Münster.....

The pamphlets at first denounced Catholicism from a radical Lutheran perspective, but soon started to proclaim that the Bible called for the absolute equality of man in all matters, including the distribution of wealth. The pamphlets, which were distributed throughout northern Germany, called upon the poor of the region to join the citizens of Münster to share the wealth of the town and benefit spiritually from being the elect of Heaven. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernhard_Rothmann

From what I have read the attempt to have complete equality became anarchy with people leaving their doors unlocked and people having sex with anyone whenever they pleased. The objection is there isn't even family order and I do not believe the complete lack of social order would be viable. I also do not believe a leader is equal to a follower, a peasant is equal to a scientist. Complete equality is not viable.

This is not working. We are doing unimaginably better than in the past and can either agree with than or defend what appears to be your notion that great progress has not been made. How could you possibly know most billionaires are not generous? The answer to that question requires how you got that information. How can you know more about "them" than you know about me? — Athena

Most of the humans who are currently alive are doing much better in terms of standards of living than most of the humans who were alive 10,000 or 5,000 or 2,000 or 1,000 or 500 or 250 or 100 or even 50 years ago. However, inequality is at its worst in terms of the disparity in the standards of living of the richest 0.001% compared with the poorest 0.001%.

I only know about billionaires what is publicly available. Please see: https://www.forbes.com/billionaires

But how generous are the super-rich, really? Not very, according to Forbes’ research. The members of the 2023 Forbes 400 list have collectively given more than $250 billion to charity, by our count—less than 6% of their combined net worth.

I am quoting from:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/phoebeliu/2023/10/03/the-forbes-philanthropy-score-2023-how-charitable-are-the-richest-americans/

How can someone become a billionaire if they have been donating most of their income throughout their life? How could a human become even a millionaire (i.e. have USD 1,000,000 in their bank account and/or own assets of this value) if they donated most of their annual net income, never mind a billionaire? It's impossible.

We as a species spend much more on weapons than we do on charities.
— Truth Seeker

If the world was a moral place place there would be no charities, they would not be needed. — Sir2u

I agree.

How can someone become a billionaire if they have been donating most of their income throughout their life? I have donated a large percentage of my income to charities since I was four years old. How could a human become a millionaire (i.e. have USD 1,000,000 in their bank account and/or own assets of this value) if they donated most of their annual net income, never mind a billionaire? It's impossible. — Truth Seeker

Wow, I wish everyone would acknowledge what I say by adding facts to what was said.:heart: It made want to read the link carefully. I am so pleased that the rich are getting richer because that means it is possible to increase wealth.

It would help to understand what are the rules for increasing wealth? What if charities learned the rules for increasing wealth and by using those rules they became wealthy and could do more? I seriously think government needs to take control of something like say the internet or AI and get its revenue that way instead of taxing people. The problem is not knowing how to increase wealth, but not knowing how to increase wealth. Our taxing system from the past and inappropriate for a high-tech society.

If you were struggling to keep your family alive as was so in 1820 as people moved west and struggled to survive on their homesteads, and knew nothing except what your church and neighbors told you, you would not be so unhappy about our failure to provide everyone with the good life. We are demanding more for everyone because we are accustomed to abundance. This is important because it means we need to change our thinking for a new reality. WHAT TO DO WE KNOW ABOUT ECONOMICS? Please, stop talking to me about rich people being greedy, and talk to me about economics and social organization. Your notion of people being greedy and not compassionate is myth. The big lie/myth is we need to be saved and we are not moral until we are saved. The truth is God was not a loving God until people's bellies were full. Around the world people of all faiths are very caring. The poor peasants are very willing to share a meal and be gracious host to the stranger. At least the geologist I have spoken with say that is so. Hawaiians didn't need Christianity to have beautiful spirits and a good culture. Many cultures put a high value on giving.

How could you possibly know most billionaires are not generous? The answer to that question requires how you got that information. — Athena

There is a thing called the internet, it can be used to find information. Let me repeat an example of what has already been stated.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/phoebeliu/2023/10/03/the-forbes-philanthropy-score-2023-how-charitable-are-the-richest-americans/?sh=39ab7cf9eccc

But how generous are the super-rich, really? Not very, according to Forbes’ research. The members of the 2023 Forbes 400 list have collectively given more than $250 billion to charity, by our count—less than 6% of their combined net worth. — Forbes

How can you know more about "them" than you know about me? — Athena

Maybe because we are not interested in finding out anything about you. Give us a clue to where you live or your name and I am sure we could come up with something though.

Oh really? and how is that organized? — Athena

I will write this slowly to make it easier for you to understand.
If everyone was a moral person they would help everyone else, at least according to your idea of morality.
If everyone helped everyone else then no one would be needy.
If there were no needy people then charities would have no place in societies.

In the middle ages some Christian groups were strongly in favor of communism. — Athena

Seriously, if you do not want me to die laughing at that please provide some proof.
Actually you are probably just confused by the way the word communism is used in today's context as compared to how the early christians used it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism

Christian communism was based on the concept of koinonia, which means common or shared life, which was not an economic doctrine but an expression of agape love.[5] It was the voluntary sharing of goods amongst the community.[6] Acts 4:35 records that in the early Christian Church in Jerusalem "[n]o one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but shared everything in common." The pattern helped the early Christians to survive after the siege of Jerusalem and was taken seriously for several centuries.[7] While it later disappeared from church history, it remained within monasticism[8] and was an important supporting factor in the rise of feudalism. This ideal returned in the 19th century with monasticism revival and the rise of religious movements wanting to revive the early Christian egalitarianism. Because they were accused of atheism due its association with Marxism, they preferred communalism to describe their Christian communism.[9]

Perhaps you are a reincarnated anabaptist?

Anabaptism (from Neo-Latin anabaptista,[1] from the Greek ἀναβαπτισμός: ἀνά- 're-' and βαπτισμός 'baptism',[1] German: Täufer, earlier also Wiedertäufer)[a] is a Christian movement which traces its origins to the Radical Reformation in the 16th century. Anabaptists believe that baptism is valid only when candidates freely confess their faith in Christ and request to be baptized. Commonly referred to as believer's baptism, it is opposed to baptism of infants, who are not able to make a conscious decision to be baptized. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabaptism

In the late 1520s Bernard Rothmann became the leader for religious reform in the city of Münster.....

The pamphlets at first denounced Catholicism from a radical Lutheran perspective, but soon started to proclaim that the Bible called for the absolute equality of man in all matters, including the distribution of wealth. The pamphlets, which were distributed throughout northern Germany, called upon the poor of the region to join the citizens of Münster to share the wealth of the town and benefit spiritually from being the elect of Heaven. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernhard_Rothmann


From what I have read the attempt to have complete equality became anarchy with people leaving their doors unlocked and people having sex with anyone whenever they pleased. The objection is there isn't even family order and I do not believe the complete lack of social order would be viable. I also do not believe a leader is equal to a follower, a peasant is equal to a scientist. Complete equality is not viable. — Athena

I have absolutely no idea how that has anything to do with the discussion, May you would be kind enough to explain it to me. Did I by mistake mention or insinuate that people were equal in that post.

Perhaps you are not paying attention or have no idea what that even means. I am not even a christian.

If the world was a moral place place there would be no charities, they would not be needed. — Sir2u

That recent high isn't the result of a slow climb, nor is it due to inflation. In constant dollars, U.S. foreign aid obligations jumped from $56.3 billion in 2021 to $70.4 billion in 2022, the latest year for which final data is available from a federal tracker.Jan 18, 2024

Countries That Receive the Most Foreign Aid From the U.S https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/countries-that-receive-the-most-foreign-aid-from-the-u-s#:~:text=That%20recent%20high%20isn't,available%20from%20a%20federal%20tracker.

[/quote]Defense spending by the United States accounted for nearly 40 percent of military expenditures by countries around the world in 2023, according to recently released figures from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). U.S. defense spending increased by $55 billion from 2022 to 2023, in part due to additional military aid sent to support Ukraine in its ongoing conflict. The United States spends more on defense than the next nine countries combined. https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2024/04/the-united-states-spends-more-on-defense-than-the-next-9-countries-combined [/quote] There is a graph at this link saying the defense spending in $916 Billion.

The defense spending is quite a bit more than the foreign aid spending, but the foreign spending does not include the cost of dealing with immigrants. I don't like the wording of this next link but the facts are important.

WASHINGTON, D.C.—This week, the House Committee on Homeland Security majority, led by Chairman Mark E. Green, MD (R-TN), released a shocking new interim report as part of its ongoing, comprehensive oversight investigation into Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and President Joe Biden’s reckless open-borders policies that have facilitated in the worst border crisis in American history. This report details the immense financial costs of the unprecedented border crisis being borne by American taxpayers, including the costs for health care, shelter, education, and law enforcement, as well as costs forced on private property owners and businesses. According to one estimate, housing and other services just to those who have been released into the United States on Mayorkas’ watch, or entered as known gotaways, could exceed $451 billion. https://homeland.house.gov/2023/11/16/what-they-are-saying-homeland-majoritys-fourth-interim-report-on-the-financial-cost-of-secretary-mayorkas-border-crisis/

So if we add $70 billion and $451 billion we get $521 billion and if we look at this as charity we can add another trillion to this.

The United States' welfare budget totaled $1.101 trillion in fiscal year 2023, or 18% of all federal outlays. Eight different federal agencies run welfare. This analysis pulls information from the agencies to show a combined federal welfare budget. The welfare program listing is shown below.

welfare budget - Federal Safety Net https://www.google.com/search?q=welfare+cost+in+US&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS926US926&oq=welfare+cost+in+US&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIICAEQABgWGB4yCAgCEAAYFhgeMg0IAxAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMg0IBBAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMg0IBRAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMgoIBhAAGIAEGKIEMgoIBxAAGIAEGKIE0gEKMTE0NzVqMGoxNagCCLACAQ&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Maybe that means more is spent on caring for other humans than is spent on military defense. Would we like to reduce that military spending by denying military support to our allies? Would that be cost effective? :grimace: I do not like giving Israel weapons but some of them a strictly defense preventing bombs from landing. Truly defensive weapons save lives and may prevent the use of destructive weapons. I don't think the choices are simple.

It would help to understand what are the rules for increasing wealth? What if charities learned the rules for increasing wealth and by using those rules they became wealthy and could do more? — Athena

charities are by law in most countries non-profit, that means that they cannot make more money than they spend on giving away that money and expenses involved in doing so. But most churches are not bound by these laws, why are a lot of them so rich despite most of them having internal rules about humbleness.

I seriously think government needs to take control of something like say the internet or AI and get its revenue that way instead of taxing people. — Athena

Are you a reincarnated Marxist?

The problem is not knowing how to increase wealth, but not knowing how to increase wealth. — Athena

Say that again without repeating yourself.

The problem is, not knowing how to increase wealth, but not knowing how to increase wealth.
The problem is not, knowing how to increase wealth, but not knowing how to increase wealth.

Which did you mean?

Our taxing system from the past and inappropriate for a high-tech society. — Athena

How so, you earn money you pay taxes. What is the problem with that now that we live in a high tech world?

We are demanding more for everyone because we are accustomed to abundance. — Athena

Silly generalization, I for one am not accustomed to abundance. I have what I need and I am try to save enough so that I can retire in the next few years. There is no abundance in the lives of the majority.

Please, stop talking to me about rich people being greedy, and talk to me about economics and social organization. — Athena

There are free course online that could help cure your ignorance, we are not here to do that.

The big lie/myth is we need to be saved and we are not moral until we are saved. The truth is God was not a loving God until people's bellies were full. Around the world people of all faiths are very caring. The poor peasants are very willing to share a meal and be gracious host to the stranger. At least the geologist I have spoken with say that is so. Hawaiians didn't need Christianity to have beautiful spirits and a good culture. Many cultures put a high value on giving. — Athena

Holy crapola, that is one bunch of rolled up blah blah blah.
First of all you need to be moral before you can be saved and go to heaven, at least that is what it says in the bible.
Second, god does not give a shit if people have full bellies or not. He gave mankind free will so it is their problem not his.
Third, please tell the terrorist groups that they are supposed to be caring so that they will stop using kids as bombs.
Lots of Hawaiians are christians, but a lot still follow the old beliefs. part of which is being nice.

Maybe because we are not interested in finding out anything about you. Give us a clue to where you live or your name and I am sure we could come up with something though. — Sir2u

I talk about myself in the forum all the time. I live in Oregon. USA. I am elderly and at the moment focusing on learning about the Renaissance and Reformation. I am low income and like to give money away when it is a free choice. Not so much when it is over $5,000 in car repairs for a car that in the Bluebook is worth $500. :lol:

You keep ignoring my points. My points remain true even if you keep ignoring them instead of acknowledging them.

Holy crapola, that is one bunch of rolled up blah blah blah. — Sir2u

That was disrespectful. Time for me to move on.

↪Athena You keep ignoring my points. My points remain true even if you keep ignoring them instead of acknowledging them. — Truth Seeker

Okay I have read your links but I am not sure what your points are. Can you list them?

Most of the humans who are currently alive are doing much better in terms of standards of living than most of the humans who were alive 10,000 or 5,000 or 2,000 or 1,000 or 500 or 250 or 100 or even 50 years ago. However, inequality is at its worst in terms of the disparity in the standards of living of the richest 0.001% compared with the poorest 0.001%.

I only know about billionaires what is publicly available. Please see: https://www.forbes.com/billionaires

But how generous are the super-rich, really? Not very, according to Forbes’ research. The members of the 2023 Forbes 400 list have collectively given more than $250 billion to charity, by our count—less than 6% of their combined net worth.

I am quoting from:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/phoebeliu/2023/10/03/the-forbes-philanthropy-score-2023-how-charitable-are-the-richest-americans/

How can someone become a billionaire if they have been donating most of their income throughout their life? How could a human become even a millionaire (i.e. have USD 1,000,000 in their bank account and/or own assets of this value) if they donated most of their annual net income, never mind a billionaire? It's impossible for people to become millionaires and billionaires if they have been charitable their entire lives. So, the billionaires who have donated billions were not always donating.

Why are we still talking about this in this thread when https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15216/how-can-we-reduce-suffering-inequality-injustice-and-death was created to discuss it?

Maybe that means more is spent on caring for other humans than is spent on military defense. — Athena

Health and welfare is not charity, it is a state's obligation to its people that pay taxes and healthcare from their wages.

Would we like to reduce that military spending by denying military support to our allies? — Athena

Military spending is different from military aid to other countries, but I would like to see the elimination of both. And they are not my allies either, I am not an American.

Would that be cost effective? — Athena

Eliminating both would be.

So you think all foreign aid is the same as charity, or at least that is how I interpret you post.
It is mostly tax payers money given to allies to keep them as allies, obviously given only in times of need.

Not so much when it is over $5,000 in car repairs for a car that in the Bluebook is worth $500. :lol: — Athena

Yep, you definitely need to learn how the economy works. The parts for older cars are more expansive and the work is usually more intensive because today's cars have all throw away parts that take minutes to replace. Get a second quote on it.

That was disrespectful. Time for me to move on. — Athena

That is always the best way to avoid answering the questions. :wink:

Health and welfare is not charity, it is a state's obligation to its people that pay taxes and healthcare from their wages. — Sir2u

That is an opinion. I have dealt with medical personnel who believe Medicaid is charity. The last time I went to the Social Security office the person I had to turn to for information considered Supplemental Security Income to be charity. And these people announce that in such a demeaning manner I want to crawl away and go hide in a hole.

Military spending is different from military aid to other countries, but I would like to see the elimination of both. And they are not my allies either, I am not an American. — Sir2u

So if a nation were bombing your country would still disapprove of the US providing weapons for defense? What can be done to end the threat of war and the expense of war?

That is an opinion. I have dealt with medical personnel who believe Medicaid is charity. The last time I went to the Social Security office the person I had to turn to for information considered Supplemental Security Income to be charity. And these people announce that in such a demeaning manner I want to crawl away and go hide in a hole. — Athena

Other people's opinions, such as the employees you mention, have no value. Just because of their ignorant and arrogant demeanor affects your personal self confidence doe not mean it has any value in this discussion either. It might make a topic for another thread, "The inherent airs of superiority of public employees" maybe.

So if a nation were bombing your country would still disapprove of the US providing weapons for defense? — Athena

If all military spending world wild there would be no on bombing my country would there, so yes I am still in favor of eliminating such spending

What can be done to end the threat of war and the expense of war? — Athena

Maybe if people stopped voting for the idiots that approve the spending. People still believe that if they do not vote the other party will win, if no one at all votes because there are no adequate candidates then no one will win and they will have to re-think the political systems.
Eliminating the manufacturing of arms worldwide would help. But to be able to do that all of the people that want to fight, for pathetic reasons such as religion, would have to be re-educated.

I am listening to history lectures from the "The Great Courses" and European countries were made poor by kings who insisted on wars that did nothing for their countries. They were so far in debt all their income had to go to bankers who funded the wars. It is totally insane behavior and we are still doing it. However, I applaud the brave souls who have accused the Israel and Hamas leaders of war crimes. I hope they carry this through and actually act on this decision.

I just looked up how long wheat can be stored and that is 8 to 10 years. I am not opposed to storing food. I don't mind passing out money but I am not going to empty my bank account so today someone has some money. Each individual and each country must have a reserve for unexpected events. If a nation is not achieving this goal we need to know why and resolve the problem.

I am strongly in favor of birth control practices. It really bothers me that our economies demand growth and that means we are building our city over more and more farmland! This is insane. Not all land is good farmland and we should be protecting it. We should also leave land and resources for the animals we share this planet with.

I don't like the focus on meeting people's needs as Sparta did. Athens did not have the same focus on meeting needs but was focused on creating opportunities. One diminishes the commonwealth and the other increases the commonwealth.

France kept its economy hampered with decisions that favored the wealthy. The Dutch developed such a good economy they could go into banking and make even more money.

Economics is a hard subject and perhaps it is one of the most important things for us to understand. The only thing I am confident of is focusing on opportunity gets better results, than focusing on needs.

This looks interesting
Kiva: Make a loan, change a life

Kiva
https://www.kiva.org
Kiva is the world's first online lending platform. For as little as $25 you can lend to an entrepreneur around the world. Learn more here.
‎How Kiva works · ‎Borrow · ‎Learn more about Kiva's mission · ‎Loans by category

But feeding people who go on to have children who will also be dependent on receiving food, increases the problem. We can not keep increasing the human population. We live on a finite planet and need to base our decisions on that.

It's great that you have found Kiva.

But feeding people who go on to have children who will also be dependent on receiving food, increases the problem. We can not keep increasing the human population. We live on a finite planet and need to base our decisions on that. — Athena

We should certainly use contraceptives to keep our population at an optimum level for the Earth. I am not suggesting that we should be encouraging people to be freeloaders. I am suggesting collective equal ownership and contribution based on ability and receiving based on needs. I know a thirty-year-old autistic man who is still in nappies and is non-speaking. His condition severely limits what he can do. The Nazis would have executed him. I once met someone who believed in the ideology that if you can't defend your life you don't have the right to live. I believe that all living things have a right to life, not just the ones that can defend their lives. Vegan egalitarianism will reduce the amount of suffering, inequality, injustice, and death on Earth. It would be even better if we could genetically engineer all living things to be nonconsumers so that they can exist without consuming any air, water and food.