Remember when basic needs were food and a roof over your head? Today it seems like the definition of basic needs include free internet, free cable, free smart phone, big screen TV, and a monthly paycheck if you refuse to work.
I don't mind a hand "up", but I'm tired of giving hand outs to those who are able to work but wont.
First good, then morality.
Yes, that is true. Equality seems to be one of the last things achieved for a society (and even then equality for men of different races seems to come first, then women, then LGBT people). I do believe that it's possible for most "third world" nations to be "first world"; generally when people are starving in this day and age it's not because the food can't be grown, but because it isn't being effectively brought to the people.
So when, for example, people compare the LGBT equality situation in Uganda to the situation in the U.S., it's not really a fair comparison. That said, there are people in Uganda fighting for equality; it's not as if the entire nation is indifferent and preoccupied. But the numbers are small and not very effective.
There is no such thing as equality, and there never has been, because people aren't equal. I think the myth of all people being equal came out of peoples desire to be deemed as qualified as someone else. That simply isn't true. Some have taken it further claiming they should be considered qualified because of their gender, their age, their color, their orientation etc etc.
The only thing that makes people equal to someone else, is if their abilities and qualifications are equal. It doesn't make one better better than someone else. It simply makes them more qualified.
Equality doesn't mean "everyone is exactly same". It means that everyone has the same rights and opportunities under the law. It's something we take for granted in a developed nation.
That would be nice but not if it is me paying for people who won't work and keep having children they can not provide for. More often the 3rd world people demand we give to them so everyone end up in a far worst place.
Better is a dinner of herbs where love is than a fattened ox and hatred with it.
There's food being thrown away by the tons in some countries... that shouldn't be happening if the food was distributed correctly. But then some countries and cities, between going in the place with food, and walking towards an awakening volcano, you have better chance of surviving with the volcano. "First World" World sounds like an impossibility. Humanity is too screwed up to reach that dream.
Your logic is flawed.
I doubt that equality is a first world concern.
It is a concern
There’s always room for improvement
Nope. It's actually the other way around. When everybody is focused purely on survival, it doesn't matter what gender/ethnic/ect you are - it comes down to what you can provide. Only when people get to the point they can focus on things other than survival, do they start making rules against equality.
Haven’t seen that
When the early humans were focused on surviving they killed outsiders and those different from them
Actually, the archaeological evidence ... and modern genetics ... appear to show just the opposite.
Early Homo Sapiens interbred with Homo Neanderthalus. And those groups were further apart than modern humans.
Genetic variance between modern humans = .1%
Genetic variance between HS and HN = .3%
Now, if 2 (or more) groups are competing for the same resources that they believe can only sustain 1 group - of course they are going to fight. That has nothing to do with "they are different".
Yeah it does have to do with being different because they want their own genes to pass than those that are different
they mated with neanderthals maybe because they were less pressed for their other basic needs like food
Which goes along with my post
less hungry, more open to different tribes
starving, violent against different tribes
Your last paragraph reinforces my point.
It doesn't matter if the other tribes have different looks, values, etc ... if there isn't enough food for everyone, they will fight.
No it doesn’t reinforce it
They fight the different first before the same
Us versus them
3 tribes ... 2 eating meat and 1 eating fruits ... and there is not enough meat-food
You say the meat eaters will kill the fruit eaters first because they are different.
I say the meat eaters will leave the fruit eaters alone, and kill each other - because they are the same, and competing for the same resource.
Different in their looks and customs overall
So that example doesn’t work at all
You’ll still fight the vegetarian for other resources like shelter
You’ll share with your tribe because you favor them. Human are social creatures so turning on your own tribe was less likely than attacking another tribe.
It was in-group favoritism and exists even today in the form of racism
I can't remember where I read it, but the outline of the survival hierarchy was: