| Username |
Post |
| maximus |
Posted
on 13-Jun-02 02:26 PM
Poverty breeds poverty. I have this radical propostion that the poor should just stop reproducing. Yes, it will create shortage of labor but at least that next generation of laboring class does not have to go through the pains of their parents' generation.
A baby does not decide to get born. The parents make a decision and that decision, although evangelists would want us to believe comes out of love and selflessness, in fact comes from parental selfish desires of company and security, etc...Life is not a gift, it is a conscious decision on your parents' part to have you be born. I believe parents are to be wholly blamed for a child living in misery and with no future prospects.
I encourage poor people to not have kids at all. Do not give life to another being that has to suffer your fate. That is the real sin.
I encourage all potential parents to think, "if we give birth to this baby, can we provide him with comfort and the means for a good future?" If you think the answer is NO, then please spare the misery.
What do you say?
|
| Kabi |
Posted
on 13-Jun-02 03:16 PM
It's not going to work. Not because you will not be able to convince the poor parents about it, but because the rich class needs cheap labors the source of which is the poor class. It is for the same reason, the rich countries are not interested in making the poor countries rich. So don't even think about carrying out it.
However, your proposition is very interesting in theory. Let's try to implement this proposition, of course in theory. You will see resistance from several fronts. Who is resisting and the nature of the resistance should tell us a lot about how class society works, or better, is made to work.
The rich class needs the poor class in order to remain rich. But the poor class does not need the rich class (except for a comparison) in order to remain poor. If this is true, then the rich class has reason to look 'kind' and the poor class has no reason not to be 'unkind'. So.. I forgot.. what was I talking about ?
|
| EM DEE HUN |
Posted
on 13-Jun-02 05:23 PM
"Poverty breeds poverty"
Humbly disagree. My grandparents were pretty poor but my dad through education and hardwork is pretty well to-do. I have heard simlilar examples of many other people in Nepal and the US as well. I think given tendency for upward mobility in most people , people can and do come out of poverty if given the right opportunities. Education and awareness are keys to availing opportunities. I have seen many kids in my generation from pretty poor economic backgrounds in Nepal who are doing very well in the US right now.
"I encourage all potential parents to think, "if we give birth to this baby, can we provide him with comfort and the means for a good future?" If you think the answer is NO, then please spare the misery"
Applause. Agree. Awareness is the key.
|
| SIWALIK |
Posted
on 13-Jun-02 05:39 PM
I suggest some reading on the emergency rule in India and the "kartuts" of Sanjaya Gandhi. What gives you the right to determine who reproduces and who not?
|
| maximus |
Posted
on 14-Jun-02 09:02 AM
Siwalik ji,
If you read carefully, what i have said is to encourage people by making a moral/relgious/ethical argument for why poor should not reproduce. I am not suggesting that we coerce such harsh conditions on the poor. Yes, we have no right.
Ed Dee Hun,
Yes, examples abound but I could give you a million examples of people in Nepal and rest of the world who have not enjoyed that upward mobility, even with all their effort. There is no place on the top for everyone!
Again, mine is an argument to convince the poor through persuasion.
maximus
|
| EM DEE HUN |
Posted
on 14-Jun-02 12:24 PM
"Yes, examples abound but I could give you a million examples of people in Nepal and rest of the world who have not enjoyed that upward mobility, even with all their effort."
Probably because opportunities have not been provided by society to those people or because people have not been able to take advantage of those opportunities.It is preposterous to think that children of poor people are doomed to be poor forever even if they are given opportunities for upward mobility and have the necesseary capability to take advantage of them. That is not to say everyone in society will be rich all at the same time, but the relative economic conditions of people will continue to improve given the opportunity to earn more income and the ability to take full advantage of that opp. How else do you explain for example all the relatively poorer students from Budhanilkantha school who are earning good incomes in the US?
|
| Mitra 2 |
Posted
on 14-Jun-02 01:00 PM
Maximus ji,
you reminded me of the Mastercard ad 'there is something money can't buy... for everything else there is mastercard'. I'm against your theory coz poors without children would be deprived of happiness. One can not compare the joy of having a baby with wealth. If the poors lose happiness, don't they even become poorer? I'd rather stay happiest poor. Rich people have some other problems. Royal massacre is a fresh example. So, please come up with other ideas where we poors don't loose no more!
|
| vagabond |
Posted
on 14-Jun-02 01:43 PM
Poor have basic problems (food, shelter etc.)
Rich have limitless problems (countless)
|
| AP |
Posted
on 15-Jun-02 10:34 AM
Rich and Poor concepts should be mesured measured by the Psychological point of view too. A rich person could be very unhappy too, where as a poor person who serves for the same unhappy rich person could be very happy too. So there is no need to be worried too much about the poverty itself.
The basic thing is Schooling and information should be accessable to the both group.
The rich people could learn from the poor people about the way of happiness and
the poor people could learn from the rich people how do they make money.
There should be basic compuslary education in the country which will help every body to have a wide horizon and to move forward in his or her life.
|
