:up:

This thread is really bad, partly because of your obnoxious manner. I'm reluctant to delete it only because people have put some effort into writing posts. — jamalrob

It's not my problem that you refused to delete it. If you're not happy with it, then just close it. No need to stress out and show you care. It's really no big deal. This is just a thread. Sorry to disappoint you.
Obnoxious? Wow!

? — _db

Don't worry about that. I said that becauseI favor that kind of thinking. There's insight.

One thing I think we should take into account is that smart people will likely shine brighter within a certain population range. In a group of ten people the smartest will likely be clear, whereas in a group of more, at some point, they may not shine as bright. — I like sushi

Well, that's what we would commonly expect. But have you ever been a part of a group assigned to do a project with very little training and of diverse background? I had been in that group. The will (or motivation) will always trump smarts.
It was a large group, so you couldn't shine. We were all given a manual to read and learn all the nooks and crannies and names of departments, their functions, on all 4 directions of the NSEW of a very large complex and multiple buildings. A guy next to me who didn't go to college and probably barely passed high school started reading the manual in the morning and by afternoon he was giving directions and instructions to people. Like, he could even estimate the distance from the east wing to across the courtyard to the next building. WTF. If you were not born with high IQ, develop your will.

We certainly can and will speculate about what we MIGHT know in the future. That's fine as long as we don't claim our speculation as fact, until it IS fact, which it might never be. — Bitter Crank

Crabtree and Woodley are researchers. They use science to do their work. Not speculation.

Yes, there is evidence to suggest that hunter-gatherers were much more well-rounded and capable than modern domesticated humans (the same can be said about domesticated farm animals). Much of this has to do with the specialization of work that comes with sedentary agricultural life. Cities are like tool boxes, with each person being a tool that performs a specific function but is only really useful when part of an assembly of other tools. A hunter-gatherer, on the other hand, is like a Swiss army knife, capable of doing lots of different tasks on its own (viz self-sufficiency), or at least with assistance from a small group of other multi-purpose tools (of which the collaboration is voluntary). — _db

I'm gonna use my bias argument and say this is the kind of thinking I have been expecting on this thread.

We don't care. — Bitter Crank

Unfortunately, I do. I started this thread. I should at least have some responsibility for it.

So, at least Crabtree based his guess on something in particular, though it isn't at all convincing. Look, we don't know whether people are smarter now, or dumber, than they were 1, 2, 5, 10, or 50 thousand years ago. We have no way of knowing that--none. — Bitter Crank

You mean you're not convinced. That's fine. That's why I created this thread. But to continue saying "we don't know..." and "we have no way of knowing.." are killers of rational dialectic. You don't know. That's fine. But Crabtree and Woodley certainly know something. Crabtree runs the lab to investigate things like this.

From a strictly materialistic point of view, the physical components of myself as a biological organism existed long before I was conceived. However, in every practical sense, ‘I’ did not exist before my conception despite the fact that the material components that would eventually comprise me did exist. — Paul Michael

In light of Aristotle's the totality is not, as it were, a mere heap, but the whole is something besides the parts..., let's define what it is to be you. Certainly, you're not a collection of physical components.

“The graham cracker was inspired by the preaching of Sylvester Graham who was part of the 19th-century temperance movement. He believed that minimizing pleasure and stimulation of all kinds, including the prevention of masturbation, coupled with a vegetarian diet anchored by bread made from wheat coarsely ground at home, was how God intended people to live, and that following this natural law would keep people healthy.” — Joshs

There is truth to this. All in moderation.

Do people cheat on IQ tests? There are a lot of devices available nowadays that make cheating a walk in the park! — Agent Smith

IQ is influenced by culture. And yes, you can practice the IQ tests.

Every facet of our society is idiotic, so it figures. I can tell people are getting dumber; it's pretty pronounced, actually. — theRiddler

Are you referring to the Darwin Awards?

@Banno, @Tom Storm, @Bitter Crank

Thanks for the laugh.

Meanwhile, I have work to do:

The dulling of humanity

Even as the Flynn effect sends IQ scores skyrocketing, some researchers argue a darker view. Humans aren't getting smarter, they say. They're getting stupider.

In November 2012, Stanford University School of Medicine researcher Gerald Crabtree published two papers in the journal Trends in Genetics suggesting that humanity's intelligence peaked between 2,000 and 6,000 years ago.

Crabtree based this assertion on genetics. About 2,000 to 5,000 genes control human intelligence, he estimated. At the rate at which genetic mutations accumulate, Crabtree calculated that within the last 3,000 years, all of humanity has sustained at least two mutations harmful to these intellect-determining genes (and will sustain a couple more in another 3,000 years). Not every mutation will cause harm — genes come in pairs, and some weaknesses caused by mutation can be covered for by the healthy half of the pair, Crabtree wrote; but the calculation suggests that intelligence is more fragile than it seems.

Are Humans Getting Smarter or Dumber?, Stephanie Pappas, LiveScience

I don't have access to the actual Crabtree research. But I just want to point out that this is one of those studies examining the development of intelligence throughout the history of prehistoric and modern humans.

IQ is culturally influenced. The researchers are looking into factors that are not cultural-driven. Reaction time is one. Here's Woodley:

"It's not simply that intelligence is going down or going up," said Michael Woodley, a psychologist at Umea University in Sweden who led the new research. "Different parts of intelligence could be changing in lots of different ways." [Life's Extremes: Smart vs. Dumb]

L'elephant is a person who is within more of the far right culture, so he's probably heard something similar to what you were stating. — Philosophim

You assume too much. My post was gathered 100% from ToothyMaw's OP. I was wondering why no one could get what he was saying.

This is the reason why I avoid political topics -- you get accused of carrying a baggage. Let me assure you that I don't even vote. I don't know what's going on in any government -- except the covid. I never got sick in the year 2019, 2020, and 2021. Maybe because I followed what the medical experts said?

I didn't miss a day of work during those times. Even going to the empty office building to finish some paperwork (this was the time when everyone was working from home). It was fucking scary because all the floors were empty, so motion lighting wasn't being activated. Have you ever stepped out of an elevator to an empty, dark floor? It was holy fuck paranormal-ridden adrenalin to walk around and there was not enough motion to trigger the lights. (Before covid, the building was very busy, elevators took forever to come to you). This is as close as I've gotten to a horror movie.

Sorry to go off on a tangent. Carry on.

↪ToothyMaw
No really, what on Earth are you trying to say? — ssu

He is talking about how the government tries to stir the public's attention to the domestic (internal) problems, while talking about going to war on the global scale. Internal affairs as diversion, so the government could focus on going to a massive war with another country. Or talking about domestic culture conflicts while dodging the scrutiny on the lack of socialized medicine. ETC.

Unless the OP can cite evidence for the primary claims, this thread is a non-starter. I'm tempted to just close it. — jamalrob

You can close it if you're tempted. No sweat.

↪jamalrob
One could cite this thread as evidence for its thesis. *runs away giggling foolishly.* — unenlightened

Right. Compared to your boring threads? Sorry, just kidding. *giggles*

Second, we would likely need detailed brain scans to compare brain development. — Philosophim

They actually did some measurements -- https://theconversation.com/how-our-species-got-smarter-through-a-rush-of-blood-to-the-head-73856
-- granted these are primates (hominid) -- https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.160305

And if I haven't linked this https://www.livescience.com/24713-humans-losing-intelligence.html This is the article that you may or may not agree. In the end, perhaps, we could only opine that intelligence had become more diverse, but not superior.

I'm actually with Jackass on this one, mean IQ has been steadily increasing for decades. OWID documents the trends here: https://ourworldindata.org/intelligence — Garrett Travers

Okay, for the sake of discussion, how does this increase compare to the learning curve theory?

Banno, sometimes talking to you incites the murderous self in me.

Did you read the links I provided?

In case some of you don't know the relevance of learning curve theory:



The steepness of the curve shows how much a person had learned and improved. So, a person learning a completely new task, has a very steep curve, compared to the one who does not have to invent the wheel.

I said in my OP "studies suggest". The precursor of all our skills today are the evolutionary wins that the prehistoric humans had achieved. Do you really think that someone today learning another language has an equal difficulty and learning curve as the prehistoric humans who were just beginning to form a language? Be serious now.

Here's another article:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-smart-early-humans-brain-imaging-answers-180963176/

What studies. Without that your post is vapid. — Banno

Here's one.

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2011.0099

Here's a link to the Wikipedia article on the Flynn Effect. — T Clark

You guys should wean yourselves from IQ and Wikipedia.

I hope you are right about this. Look how much trouble and misery humans have caused just by being Sapien. Some brain cell loss may just the ticket to slow us down. :wink: — Tom Storm

Tom, now that you said that, we can look at philosophy to know that misery is actually a modern problem. But, good point. lol.

How do these studies define and measure intelligence? — pfirefry

Mostly spatial skills and tasks-driven abilities. They contend that our ability today, such as computer knowledge, is the result of those early primitive skills.

Sorry, I made an edit above. Please read my OP again. Thanks.

Not that I care, but I'm going to try to be the devil's advocate here. Word count limit could potentially lead to concise, well thought-out posts because posters are forced to make do of what they're given. However, given that they could repeatedly post anyway, word count can't help.

Some say if we lived forever even in perfect health that it would eventually be meaningless. — TiredThinker

Meaningless in what way? Is living all about meaning? Whatever happened to getting out of bed, getting ready for work, and coming back home and having a nice meal? Funny because if there's anything in life that gets such a high demand, it is this thing called meaning. Big deal!

Many people have a propensity to waste an enormous amount of time with the limited lifespan we have at the moment. If you give these people the eternity to live, they'd be just as happy to stay put and not be productive.

Honestly I really don't get this requirement for meaning. I don't search for meaning in life. I just live it. If I get to live forever, then, I'd live forever and go about my business. Heck, I'd plant bristlecone pine that can live to 5,000 years. I'd also start planting coral reefs -- which takes many thousand of years to line the tropics.

Gender is a cultural concept anyway. The corresponding biological concept is called "sex". — Olivier5

Okay, I agree. I should use sex.

I’m not assuming this occurred, I’m casting doubt on your assumption of a binary model of segregated male and female roles prior to the forming of socio-cultural groups — Possibility

You can't use an assumption to argue against what you call an "assumption". I was speaking in terms of achaeological evidence anyway, not assumptions. So, if you're going to disagree, please produce a counter-factual evidence.

But my point really is not to discuss the primitive humans. This thread is about the difference in moral and ethical emphasis. Why not go back to the topic.

Note that the above scenario was presented by Kohlberg to adolescent children, not adults.

Here's one of the choices, among the choices included in the moral dilemma:

Heinz can steal the drug and no law should punish him.

This decision lets Heinz save his wife and both of them can live happily. This thinking is based on the thought that the rigidity in law should be rejected and justice should be done on moral grounds.

This is a Post-conventional level of Moral thinking.

(Thanks, Tutorials Point)

If anyone is wondering who Lawrence Kohlberg is, he is the one who created the "Heinz Steals the Drug" moral conundrum:

In this scenario, a woman has cancer and her doctors believe only one drug might save her. This drug had been discovered by a local pharmacist and he was able to make it for $200 per dose and sell it for $2,000 per dose. The woman's husband, Heinz, could only raise $1,000 to buy the drug.

He tried to negotiate with the pharmacist for a lower price or to be extended credit to pay for it over time. But the pharmacist refused to sell it for any less or to accept partial payments. Rebuffed, Heinz instead broke into the pharmacy and stole the drug to save his wife. Kohlberg asked, "Should the husband have done that?"

(Thanks, verywell mind).

Carol Gilligan's theory of sex differences in the development of moral reasoning during adolescence :

Here's an abstract.

Gilligan's work, which focuses on sex differences in moral reasoning, the perception of violence, the resolution of sexual dilemmas and abortion decisions, poses a major challenge to Kohlberg's theory by introducing a feminist perspective of moral development. Kohlberg had shown that the average female attained a moral judgment rating of stage three (good boy-nice girl), while adolescent males score at level four (law and order) and are more likely to move on to postconventional levels. Gilligan suggests that these findings reveal a gender bias, not that females are less mature than boys. Men and women follow different voices. Men tend to organize social relationships in a hierarchical order and subscribe to a morality of rights. Females value interpersonal connectedness, care, sensitivity, and responsibility to people. Kohlberg's scoring criteria give the interpersonal care orientations of females lower ratings than the principled justice orientation. Hence, Gilligan identifies different developmental stages for females. However, she does not claim that one system is better; both are equally valid. Only by integrating these complementary male (justice) and female (care) orientations will we be able to realize our full human potential in moral development.

Why not? Hitler is as valuable as Gandhi? — baker

Well, if you put it that way, of course, one is inferior than the other. I'm talking in terms of necessarily. The difference I'm talking about is gender differences.

Studies about men in a certain cultural context may say more about the culture than about men — Olivier5

And this is what I've been trying to explain. Are we confusing causation here? Is it culture or gender?

And whatever primitive humans’ awareness of socio-cultural constructs, you are making a lot of assumptions here about their understanding of ‘males’ and ‘females’ - most of which I would argue are aspects of your own socio-cultural construction rather than theirs. Still, they don’t need to be aware of socio-cultural constructs to be constrained by them.

Men and women likely both fought (or fled) wild animals and invaders to protect themselves, their children, their mate, or anyone whose presence served their narrow interests, whatever they perceived them to be. — Possibility

So, after criticizing my use of primitive humans as "making a lot of assumptions", you went ahead and made your own -- Men and women likely both fought (or fled) wild animals and invaders to protect themselves, their children, their mate, or anyone whose presence served their narrow interests, whatever they perceived them to be.
I think a double-standard is happening here. Did you know that primitive women gathered berries, while men created tools? Or are you saying I'm just assuming this also? That's written in archaeology. I did not come up with that out of thin air.

Tricky because we tend to make generalizations about the differences and similarities of men and women without having a whole lot of proof. — Bitter Crank

What proof are you looking for? Please explain this.

Stop acting as if bad empericism saves flagrantly sexist claims from being sexist. We are, I hope, sophisticated enough on this forums to understand that universal claims about morality are dumb, that discussing a particular morality as if it is a stand in for all possible moralities is dumb, — Ennui Elucidator

Universal claims about morality are dumb? Really? You don't hold any values yourself, about your family? Friends? Your livelihood? I find it controlling whenever one says talking about a particular subject is dumb. It is intellectually annoying, let alone unoriginal.
Let's start with this premise: men and women are different in physiology and traits.
Then: are the differences due to culture/upbringing/nurture? Or was there a compelling reason besides culture/nurture? I already explained that, before modern civilization, men and women behaved differently. Let's start there.

Sexist ideology? Is women being different from man an idea only? Or is it the stupid idea that women have less value? Women are different. — Raymond

and
No one here is saying, at least I'm not, that differences in morals means differences in value of an individual. I hope this clears things up.

In context, I was trying to say that any difference potentially observed between men and women in terms of morality could be due in part at least to a lesser exposure historically to the corruptive effects of power. The corollary is that as women get more power, they will be exposed to more temptation to misuse such power. — Olivier5

There are other experiments/studies that could at least suggest that there are fundamentals differences in moral traits that have nothing to do with having power.

Consider this:

"When it comes to negotiating a deal, “Males more readily justify moral misconduct by minimizing its consequences or otherwise excusing it,” write Laura Kray of the University of California, Berkeley, and Michael Haselhuhn of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Their study finds “a robust pattern by which men are more pragmatic in their ethical reasoning at the bargaining table than women.

“Men’s competitive behavior, more so than women’s, appears to be motivated by situational threats to their masculinity,” the researchers write in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. “When men feel like they have something to prove or defend against, they become more aggressive and competitive.”

--Men's Morals Are Malleable, Tom Jacobs, Pacific Standard

I don't see from the above that it's the doing of power that makes a difference between male and female view of ethical behavior. Although, once in power, a person could be in spotlight for everyone to see the unethical behavior.

Oh you're trying to make a valid point? I thought you were just complaining that I was using vaccination as a means to win an argument. Well, in that case, enlighten me as to what exactly your point is? Maybe I can hazard a correct response?

Because I'm trying to make a point. Vaccination is something concrete they could grasp.

So what you refer to as ‘masculine morality’ and ‘feminine morality’ are socio-cultural constructions, highlighting the fact that these binary models ‘masculine-feminine’ and ‘good-bad’ are both an oversimplification of reality. — Possibility

The primitive humans living in caves had no concept or awareness of socio-cultural constructs. Heck, they're primitives, with no language. You should be looking at this time in human civilization where males just took it upon themselves to fight wild animals and invaders because women would have zero chance of surviving those attacks. If this behavior of primitive males does not strike you as moral behavior, then what was it they were doing? Extra-curricular activities? Physical education?

To be good people, we need to get in touch with the woman inside us. What say you? — Agent Smith

I have no objection to you forming your own opinion. This thread is as much pointing out the facts that most wouldn't want to talk about as it is expressing one's dissatisfaction about anything.

All men have feminine traits and this is not the same as saying they have female traits (I’m talking in terms of technical jargon NOT colloquial talk). — I like sushi

This is neither technical nor colloquial. So, no need to make a notation.
Your point is similar to Agent Smith above. Again, I'm not denying that males have feminine traits too. But are you not noticing the pattern here? You guys are arguing against me about traits that have no bearing on what I'm saying about morality and ethics. Shouldn't you continue that train of thought like this -- males have feminine traits too, just like women have feminine traits, so therefore, they don't have differences in morality. Why is the default trait only feminine?

The externally observable action (in this case, charitable giving) doesn't say anything about the person's motivations for doing it. Yet it's the person's motivations for doing something that determines the quality of the action for the person doing the action, and for the one on the receiving end as well. — baker

In fact, it is the women's dislike of being seen as bad or uncaring that drives them to do charitable giving. So, you are correct to question the motivation.

The OP seems to be something of a needling against perceived wishy washy types who are more interested in siding with any kind of activists simply because they can and they get a kick out of it. — I like sushi

Incorrect. Vaccination is an example of paternalism -- we restrict the freedom of individuals because we believe that there is a greater good that's more important. Coercion for vaccination is done in the name of health and science, truthful as it is, it is still coercion and restriction.

I'm not sure from your post if you're challenging the wisdom of a universal standard given what the statistical data shows regarding the distinctions between the genders. — Hanover

I'm saying that morality and ethics for men and women are different contextually based on gender/physiology. So, while we can generally say that people believe in morality, the divide between genders reveal that the emphasis of moral actions between men and women are different. You don't think that the much lower rate of men wanting/filing for divorce has something to do with the primitive behavior of males as protectors in the wild?
Have we forgotten paternalism? Coming from the word "father", paternalism actually wants to limit the freedom of the individual to protect them from themselves! One can make an argument that the road to hell is paved with good intention. Historically, men would not hesitate to commit unethical actions to preserve society and show what the greater good is.

Some of these statements seem to be based on statistics, others seem to be arguing a personal opinion. — Possibility

No personal opinion. All the points are taken from articles citing studies. And yes, statistics was involved.

So I don’t think this is necessarily a gender divide. It’s more along the lines of how we perceive ourselves in relation to the world. — Possibility

So, we're just gonna ignore the fact that your gender divide has a lot to do with how we perceive ourselves in relation to the world? Isn't this like a sleight of hand which makes your audience think you're saying two different things but really aren't?

Most women have recognised, to some extent at least, that isolating themselves from their qualitative relation to the world is an illusion. — Possibility

Another attempt at confusing the above point -- women recognize that it is an illusion to ignore their gender in relation to the world.

For men generally, as you have described here, most action (as well as inaction) seems to be a transaction between themselves and the world as two separate entities. Philosophically, though, this seems to be outdated thinking. Consider - how much less violence, hatred, oppression, abuse and neglect would exist if everyone viewed each of their actions/inactions as social events? — Possibility

You know it would be nice if violence, hatred, etc are reduced if everyone viewed their actions as social events -- but opinions like this are just opinions. The reality is in statistics and studies.

That our culture perpetuates this divide along gender lines is simply a way of controlling and predicting behaviour that has been supported by statistical differences in physicality (eg. Muscle mass, childbirth, etc). — Possibility

What? No -- the reality of gender is the reason why our culture is like this, not the way you're describing it. I have no idea that in the year 2021 to 2022, gender has become synonymous with despicable crime! Why has gender become a dirty word?

There is no ‘masculine morality’ and ‘feminine morality’ - all this does is perpetuate false gender and moral binary models. — Possibility

There is. scientific american

The ethical question is whether or not we should view an action/inaction such as getting vaccinated or seeing a doctor as a complex social event, or as a simple transaction. — Possibility

I don't have a problem with that. What's your answer?

Historically. But in more modern terms 'feminine' and 'masculine' qualities (psychologically speaking) are not exclusive to either sex. Just like Red in Spanish doesn't have a penis or a vagina, yet grammatically language has morphed into a weird admixture of terms across history.

Physiologically there are quite distinct differences between men and women. In a few situations (as with most situations in nature) there are exceptions where sex as a defining feature is less than clear. — I like sushi

And again, people speak of differences in gender as if it's criminal. No! historically, and pre-historically, men protected the women and children and hunted boars and bears and fought invaders. I don't understand why replacing gender with "physiological" is a good option and somehow makes us all "educated and refined". Gender has a lot to do with physiological. Why do you sound so much like Possibility? Are you and Possibility the same posters?

I am skeptical of the characterizations you have made. I'm even more skeptical about the rationales you have provided for the differences between men a women. Since you say you know this thread deals with a touch subject, it's hard to accept you making claims with no justification. — T Clark

Trust me I have consulted findings and studies to back my OP. I'm just lazy right now to provide the links. It is a touchy subject because we get posters like Possibility who start mincing and dicing educational words so that gender becomes the enemy here. There are other things to fear -- zombies, for one. Ax murderers, another.

It seem quite hyperbolic which is fine — I like sushi

Hyperbolic? So everything that's said on this thread is just..exaggeration?

What is the point of this post? Genuinely curious. — I like sushi

The point is to point out there is a class of low wage earners. I know, funny. It's shallow and lacks imagination.

It would be hopeful if the economy moved in this direction. Of course, this only matters for those kind of white collar jobs.. automation for the rest? Much further down the line of course. — schopenhauer1

In western economies, there are people who get paid this way -- artists, for example. That's not a white collar job. It's artistic.

and then there is the rest who didn't do that, but work for that guy.. There's always the owners and the not owners who work for them. — schopenhauer1

Because we were made to believe that economies can only be one way, and not another. I mean, look at the parents who start telling their children before birth what the children are going to be -- an engineer, a doctor, a teacher, an architect -- in other words, salary-earners! Everyone is supporting the economy as it is now. The blue collar work are there to catch us in case we don't want to be one type of salary-earner -- we become the wage-earners. Amazon warehouses abound.

Most being not clever enough to create the technology themselves or figure out how to own the means by which to make stuff to sell. — schopenhauer1

It's all about necessity. If that ability is taken away from you, there is a salve for your psyche: your life is much more comfortable if you don't have to work your muscles or brains for the things you need. Do you agree?

You know the memory capacity of the ancient civilization professionals, right? The lawyers, the orators, the philosophers -- like a dictation machine. Yes, that good. Why? Because there were no tape recorders or typewriters during their time. Just their hearing and memory, and they had to wait until the meeting is over before they could start writing things down. Imagine doing that now.

Just wondering, would you be satisfied if everyone were middle class but the only hitch were that there were really really rich people that ran the companies that the middle class were working for? — schopenhauer1

I don't know. In western societies, the "necessities" are different than in other countries. For example, creative self-expression and low unemployment rate are necessities in the first world. By creative self-expression I mean, the freedom and opportunity to be able to do things that one enjoys outside work, or to be able to be employed according to one's passion. Being a middle class but controlled by business owners is not satisfying. A finding in psychology reveals that the most satisfying way to earn a living is by getting paid per project you complete (not by wages or salary where you have to meet the number of hours worked and be present at the location fixed by your employer).

What do you mean it's a crime? If the economy is weak and people are poor, how can it be a crime? — ssu

In western societies it's a crime.

In fact, that there isn't widespread abject povetry shows that things can indeed improve. Likely if prosperity increases, in the future people with low income will enjoy a lifestyle that now is limited to upper middle class and even upper class. — ssu

So you assume the same poor people occupy the low income class. They might be able to move up, but then there will always be other people who would just occupy that place. Are you really not getting this? The state of being low income is what's permanent, not necessarily the people.

I think if you are low income with no kids, you should go vegetarian. It is cheaper and more practical than veganism and meat-eating, and also reduce your food intake and look into different diets and fasting. — Cobra

I agree. I'm mostly vegetarian by choice.

There are many resources out there for low income to make life easier. I bought a car from the junkyard for $5000 that got me through college and was $24 for a full tank that lasted over a week. — Cobra

That's not happening now. Covid-19 has brought out the worst in people. Have you tried looking at the prices of stupid used cars these days? What about housing? Overpriced real estate, realty companies/realtors hording...houses!

The poor are screwed because once they are poor they are generally going to stay that way, unless their economic environment changes--which it might, or might not. In general the same is true with people who are have reasonably stable, if barely adequate income. — Bitter Crank

Yes, one indicator of the state of well-being is how long do poor people remain in that same economic level, as in how many years or generation. Another indicator is the existence of the middle class -- if it shrinks or expands.

If it's so easy to end poverty, then why is it more complex than money? — Bitter Crank

Drum roll....

One method of preventing crime is to increase police presence (the threat of capture deters). — Agent Smith

I second the motion! The threat of capture is scarier than being already inside a prison.