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.

by Anonymous 6 years ago

Agreed. //First good, then morality.// Bertolt Brecht

by Anonymous 6 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 6 years ago

If only. 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.

by Anonymous 6 years ago

Your logic is flawed. I doubt that equality is a first world concern.

by Anonymous 6 years ago

It is a concern There’s always room for improvement

by Anonymous 6 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 6 years ago

Haven’t seen that When the early humans were focused on surviving they killed outsiders and those different from them

by Anonymous 6 years ago

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".

by Anonymous 6 years ago

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

by Anonymous 6 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 6 years ago

No it doesn’t reinforce it They fight the different first before the same Us versus them In group

by Anonymous 6 years ago

Scenario: 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.

by Anonymous 6 years ago

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

by Anonymous 6 years ago

I can't remember where I read it, but the outline of the survival hierarchy was: Me My family My friends My acquaintances/neighbors Everybody else

by Anonymous 6 years ago