Quote:
Originally Posted by Skeptikos Examiner
Feeding the unsuccessful and dependent people that could otherwise not survive and thus allowing them to reproduce comes down to genetics! Natural selection in nature means that those unable to secure their own survival do not survive and thus give room for those more successful, a process which benefits the whole species and has triggered the development from the most primitive being to intelligent life (well as much as humans can be count as such) A welfare state often not only stops natural selection but turns it around, socialization means that third worlders are being subsidized to outbreed the people of more successful nations like Japan and Europe by factors of 4:1 or more!
They are starving - we send them food - they increse reproduction till they are starving again - we send them more food - they increase reproduction again - ad infinitum till there is no one left that could send them anymore food.
When this happens humanity will have become unable to support civilization anylonger, than the welfare state will necessarily end and natural selection starts to kick in again. But do we really have to go there? This road will cost billions of lifes and in the end humans will have to start over from scratch which means a second run through all the misery and hardships our ancestors had to endure since the stone age!
|
I'm going to have to agree with this for the most part. While I support providing opportunities for people, we are continually dumping more and more money into areas that don't improve and for good reason. We've doubled the amount of money spent per child in school yet nothing has changed in their academic achievements? You cannot beat a solid upbringing from two intelligent individuals who know how to guide their children to discovering new things and understanding the world. The current state of welfare basically allows people who are more than likely not too bright to do what they do best, make poor decisions. Why is it that people in poverty have so many kids, and also many of them have a single parent? Middle class to wealthy tend to have fewer kids to provide them a proper upbringing, while the poor have more and generally off one income?
I'm not going to lie, our current economic system heavily favors those who have had money and those who make good decisions almost all the time. The people who don't make good decisions whine when they can't handle their own kids, house, etc. The housing crisis is a grade A example of the number of idiots that are allowed to live in this country at the cost of other people.
I would actually agree with Javablack's concept if it weren't for the fact that in my experience it doesn't work. You can't throw money at a situation and expect it to get better. A lot of the people who end up in the positions they are in make poor decisions, and furthermore have no idea how to stop spending money on worthless crap. A certain someone I know makes a little over $60,000 a year and managed to rack up $20,000 in credit card from QVC. WTF? Too many people are credit happy, and due not have any sense of saving. The government cannot fix reckless reproduction on a single income, a lack of a desire to work, and disciplining and shaping all aspects of one's child. The reasons I just listed are why people in poverty do not advance, and it is one that they need to deal with themselves.