Discussions
Should the Poor be kept poor and uneducated ?
Posted by elitethinker • 4/16/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: environment, poverty
Well according to this eds toolkit promoted by the United Nation
tinyurl.com/unitednationesdtoolkit
“Generally, more highly educated people, who have higher incomes, consume more resources than poorly educated people, who tend to have lower incomes. In this case, more education increases the threat to sustainability.”
So should we conclude that the mass of poor should stay poor and uneducated for the sake of sustainability of Environment 
For me this is a complete fake reasoning, the more educated people are, the more they can become conscious of problem.
User Comments
-
DOesn't matter, poor or rich both consume non-renewable resources.
For the sake of sustainability, world population needs to decline. And non-renewable resources need to stop being part of what sustains us.-
Uh...yeah, they both consume, but the wealthy consume a lot more.
Are you acquainted with the concept of quantity? In not, let me explain: 2 is more than 1. 3 is more than 2. And so on... -
Try again numbnuts..
I said NON-RENEWABLE!
Doesn't matter what quantity, as long as non-renewable resources are used to sustain life. Consumption at any rate is going to be the same as being non sustainable.
Seriously, I know you don't like me, but trying something as lame-brained as that poke makes you look dumber than you normally do. -
DrJay has numb nuts, who knew lol -
i agree with csiunatc. We as a human race need to find alternatives to non-renewable resources.
The biggest problem though is that many massive multi national corporations and countries will stand to loose a fortune if they invest in such RND or if alternatives become the norm. They will do what is necessary to sustain their short term profits.
Thus, for progressive development it is up to these countries and multi national corporations to step back and allow the development of such alternatives. i.e. the Hydrogen engine as opposed to the Gas driven type and so on.
Or at the very least invest in such technology.
The problem also lies in this fact
"The superior man is modest in his speech, but exceeds in his actions."
Confucius (551 BC - 479 BC), The Confucian Analects
Everyone can talk but we see little action. This is the problem. -
This is the same old stupid 'Population Bomb' crap that has been about for decades.
The earth CAN sustain many more persons than it currently has, and it will sustain those people.
-
-
-
I'm sure that, growing up in Socialist Sweden, Csi recieved a fine education--even English! -
But the stench! It's not so much the smell but the burning of the eyes!
-
-
Oh, yes. They're so much easier to manipulate and oppress that way. -
This is a good thing for democracy. So the country can plateau and work on silly idealism -
in response to this: "For me this is a complete fake reasoning, the more educated people are, the more they can become conscious of problem."
becoming conscious of a problem doesn't necessarily entail desiring to correct it. it's a step, certainly, but a liminal one. people can go either way at this point. by this example, there is no concrete correlation between education and habits of consumption. in this regard, i agree with you.
in general, the argument and conclusions are flawed.-
Yes but if you aren't even conscious of it, you can even less correct it
-
i'm not sure if education can even really make someone "more" conscious. it essentially comes down to experience which for the most part is accessible to everyone. whether you consider experience to be education or serving some pedagogical function is a different question altogether. given the current state of education (i only mean in the USA), one might be better off not going to school at all.
in virtually any study you encounter, you will invariably see some arbitrary correlations being made, in this particular case, they are education, resources, social standing, and sustainability of the environment. often times these correlations aren't seen as so arbitrary because they reflect already accepted norms. one of these ostensible norms, that seems to be used here, is the idea that poor people aren't conscious because they lack formal education; this is a syllogism with all the egregious gaps and flaws of the most basic type, yet many subscribe to this idea (though often too ashamed to admit to it; so why do they believe it? my immediate guess is sustenance of certain power relations). now this study arbitrarily tags on another problem, that is, consumption of resources, in order to ground its argument about sustainability.
the point that i'm making is that you don't need an education (whatever that means) to consume a lot of resources. there are some serious things being overlooked here because there is a significant distance between the idea of education and the idea of resources. what this article tries to do is fill that gap with assumptions. this is probably why we find the argument so suspicious and objectionable to begin with.
-
-
"...it is better for the poorer classes to have the aid of the richer by a general tax on property, than that every parent should provide at his own expence for the education of his children, it is certain that every Class is interested in establishments which give to the human mind its highest improvements, and to every Country its truest and most durable celebrity. Learned Institutions ought to be favorite objects with every free people. They throw that light over the public mind which is the best security against crafty & dangerous encroachments on the public liberty... Whilst those who are without property, or with but little, must be peculiarly interested in a System which unites with the more Learned Institutions, a provision for diffusing through the entire Society the education needed for the common purposes of life."--James Madison
-
Well it certainly does square with the globalists depopulation plans
"Calls to begin sterilizing the human population have previously been put forward by former secretary of State and high ranking Bilderberger Henry Kissinger in a declassified document of the National Security Council (1974) entitled "The Implications of World-wide Population Growth on the Security and External Interests of the United States"."
www.population-security.org/11-CH3.html#1 -
With that way of thinking, it's best just to knock off all the rich people and the meek shall inherit the earth. -
The poor deserve to be educated so long as if they are given the opportunity it is productive and not wasted. What they do with that education whether educated or not is up to them as their own ambition is their own responsibility and none to another. -
I believe everybody should have the chance to an education. I also think that all area schools should be as good as the next. For example:
I grew up in the wealthiest county in NJ. We had just about everything available and I mean an incredible number of studies in high school. I learned the stock market in high school because it was one of two required social studies classes. Now some of the lower income counties in NJ the schools do not even offer any information about the stock market. Here I had a jump start on it just because of the average income in my county. I don't think it is at all fair.-
Neither would James Madison (see quote above)
-
James Madison believed that sometimes a government's people need a little assistance from time to time yet we should still be cautious of auxiliary aid.
I can't remember which one of the Federalist Papers it came from or the exact wording, but it basically means that needing a little help from time to time is normal BUT as citizens we should be cautious against forced benefits and benefits that establish dependencies which encourage us to be unreliable to ourselves.
Education is very important and is a needed opportunity to everyone so long as it is not wasteful and is productive and the education is a learned and broadening experience and I'm sure that Madison would also object to forced educational views as well.
-
-
That is not UNESCO's position on education. This is portal.unesco.org/education/en/ev.php-URL_ID=58906&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECT...-
The problem is that like The Church advocating Goodness, it never happens so exhortation without action means nothing The Unesco / United Nations like the World Bank and the FMI are hugely under the control of the US and Europe who have an essentially economic viewpoint on Globalization and all the rests (their speeches) are just slogans to make people think they do want social welfare whereas they are scared of the growing demographics especially in poor countries. So rationally why would you expect something real from these big organizations ?
-
-
I live in a major city where the population of homeless/poor people is 30% ... That is a staggering number when you think about it ..
On top of that, we are currently in a recession. Because of this the crime rate is up, depression is worse and a general care and understanding of others is being highly affected in a negative manner...
So, do I think that the poor should stay poor? My answer is no ... The crime rate here has more than trippled during this recession..Who's committing these crimes? the poor & homeless are ... Why are they committing more crime? Because there is no work, no work means no food or money for rent .. and boom before you know it that turns into a very evil cycle of events that are affecting everyone ..
I believe everyone should have to work for what they want .. but to keep those that have virtually nothing, in the dog house only makes it worse...
Do I feel that anyone down on thier luck should get a free check? No, but create educational programs so that they have the chance for employment..thus reducing the drain on the economy and on themselves .. -
Being educated does not make one more able. I would take personal wisdom and experience over a college degree any day. Since poor people don't have much, they tend to be very resourceful. Maybe we should take more from the rich and give them to the poor; the environment will reap the benefits of their resourcefulness.-
Considering Henry Ford (uneducated mechanic) is immediately coming to mind, if you are an environmentalist, I would seriously reconsider that statement.
In any case, the higher educated, if given a technical education, often have greater ability to replace the resources as they run out, whereas the uneducated, with less theoretical knowledge to fall back on, usually have to resort to "common sense" (what has already been done,) thus leading to a dead-end. What really matters is that the resources can be replaced, and at this point, they can. -
I'm guessing that you have a degree and have no clue what it is like to apply for job after job...for which you are actually qualified due to innate talent plus years of experience...and find yourself automatically eliminated from consideration for no other reason than the lack of a degree.
Personally, I think education should be free up to the bachelor's degree. Entirely too many talented, capable people end up slinging hash or wrenching simply because tertiary education is beyond their financial reach. -
I know what it feels like to be a Georgia Tech engineering student and apply for job after job and not get even an interview if that's what you mean.
Or if you mean "innate talent," sure, but that's a tiny percentage of the population (that, by the way, I gave an example of), and even with the widening that education creates, not enough ever to satisfy the need for that level of ingenuity. Kill our professors and we'll be even worse off then we are now.
-
-
this is should have been less a question of keeping poor people uneducated, but an affirmative on the "uneducating" of the rich.
-
Nah. A good engineer can replace a resource. Uranium for gasoline, boron for carbon.
-
what are you talking about?
-
Quite simple. You run out of one resource, you start using another.
-
my point was about "uneducating" the rich, not directly about resources.
-
And my point is sometimes the rich make good engineers who can replace the resources they take.
-
if people didn't abuse resources, there wouldn't be a need for engineers to replace them. the process of replacing, by the way, doesn't solve the real problem; it only defers it.
-
Whether people want to abuse resources or not, resources are needed to keep people alive. This is a simple fact, there is no way for us to live without consuming resources. The only other option is extinction. Even controlling population growth (software in and of itself) will only work with modern government, urbanization or contraception, all products of modern industry, beauracracy, transport, and communications.
Before industrialization, Europe was being clearcut of forests and of it's entire ecosystem being destroyed by the need for food to feed peasants. These peasants worked inefficient methods of farming that allowed to much of the crop to be destroyed and required too much rotation to prove the fields from losing all nutrients.
Before that, we were hunter gatherers, who had, in the America's, already driven the horse to extinction on those continents by the end of the Ice Age. They would not reappear there until the 16th century AD, when they were brought by Spaniards, and there is no doubt that the particular subspeci that lived there are gone forever. To their credit though, those hunter gatherers did eventually learn, and used their SCIENCE and WISDOM and ENGINEERING to sustain themselves, burning forests to provide for farm fields, and calculating the amount of resource remaining in area so as to split the village when the time came, and building larger canoes to transport rare resources from other regions.
Some have even argued that Babylon and the Islamic Empire were destroyed by environmental failures, though the Rome argument is a little weaker then the other two.
With industry, tractors sped up harvest time to reduce waste, and modern fertilizers allowed the efficient replensishment of the fields, while modern irrigation, the result of steel age construction techniques, allowed us to farm lower impact desert lands, that were more fertile anyhow, lowering the environmental impact of our own sustenance and saving new territories, like Washington State, and underdeveloped ones like Appalachia and Peru, from environmental destruction. Today, you can enjoy the Cascade mountains and the clean air over Seattle because we succesfully replaced our resources, whereas the Netherlands has no nature left, and France only in a few small corners of it's country where recent military devastation, harsh terrain, and over-supply allowed recovery of the ecosystem to occur.
Also, enough of our resources are renewable that if we can control our population, we should be able to last. But it seems to me that such can only happen through modernization, and in fact, experience has shown that more modernization will, overall, be better for the environment. -
your historical account is interesting and a pleasure to read despite numerous mistakes and occasional generalizations, but it has no bearing on the fact that resources are abused. i've never said that consuming resources was altogether a pernicious practice. i'm very aware, as much as any four year old is aware, of the incontrovertible necessity of consumption. it's a fact of life as much as death is a part of it; which brings me to extinction. we're all going to be extinct at some point anyway (and this is largely because of human consumptive practice which is fine and something we have to reconcile ourselves with), but why expedite death through feckless consumption with the assumption that modernization will succeed in cushioning or preventing consequences of our actions? the major problem is not consumption, it's gluttony, and that's what you haven't addressed.
modernization is ambiguous. it doesn't promise anything, especially with regard to consumption. the function of modernization is to make existence easier, jobs more efficient. on the one hand, modernization helps us; but on the other, it makes access to resources dangerously easier, which then leads to abusive consumption by virtue of ease in accessibility; the very easing of accessibility that modernization tries to do is the source of the paradoxical nature of modernization. in other words, you're absolutely wrong to say that modernization "will, overall, be better for the environment." -
"modernization is ambiguous. it doesn't promise anything, especially with regard to consumption. the function of modernization is to make existence easier, jobs more efficient. on the one hand, modernization helps us; but on the other, it makes access to resources dangerously easier, which then leads to abusive consumption by virtue of ease in accessibility; the very easing of accessibility that modernization tries to do is the source of the paradoxical nature of modernization. in other words, you're absolutely wrong to say that modernization "will, overall, be better for the environment.""
And now you're overgeneralizing, big time. Certain TECHNOLOGIES may be to make life easier, but a steel mill, a concrete plant, a farm machinery factory, or even a computer chip maker, all these are for the purpose of maximizing production and making it more efficient. Some technologies, like telephones, security cameras, and jet aircraft, also help bring about law and order, neccesary to protect the environment. And it's not mutually exclusive - some technologies (like Automobiles) may make life easier while also achieving something else (in particular for cars, making life in harsher, less damaging environments, like the Southwest, more practical, by spreading people out sufficiently to prevent too much traffic on any particular water reserve.)
And yes, it makes consumption easier, but this includes items like Condoms, Automobiles, Trains, Telephones, Water Treatment Facilities, and skyscrapers. These 1) make where human beings live more versatile, helping the environment, 2) discourage child bearing, 3) assist with government, helping to regulate pollution, and 4) discourage waste of the most precious resources of all, land and time. And with greater technology, comes greater urbanization, which, even with suburbs, drives down fertility rates, and without costing anyone their liberties. And if you try to drive down fertility rates against the liberty of others, that requires force, something you won't have for very long if you destroy the basic structure of your society.
By comparison, we could continue being modern, modernize the rest of the earth, and drive down fertility rates, keeping us at the same pace of consumption for the rest of eternity, while leaving open room for space travel. -
hahaha. that must have been one of the most ridiculous responses i've yet to hear here on bc. i'm sorry, but i can't take you seriously especially when you have the confederate flag to represent you. all i hear when i read your post is a dirty hick talking incomprehensibly about modernization, because he can't seem to get a grasp on the problem and the point of what i'm saying. it's fine if your education has failed you, just own up to it.
am i overgeneralizing? it seems like my "overgeneralizing" proves my point all the more. do you honestly believe that steel mills, concrete plants, and automobiles help the environment? as you've unconvincingly pointed out, certain modernization projects do help the environment (i'll sort of give you that), but they also pollute the world. now if you think my assessment of modernization as ambiguous is overgeneralizing, then i suggest you reevaluate what you just said here and tell me if my generalization isn't in fact right on target.
you still don't get the problem which is why you continue to avoid what i've been saying all along: consumption practice is unregulated and excessive. the problem isn't consumption, the problem is people can't exercise enough self-control to be mindful of the consequences of their actions. they rely too much on technology and little on themselves. that's the problem. let me repeat, you illiterate and incompetent boor: that is the problem.
do me a favor and go space traveling. take your throwback flag with you.
-
-
i just can't imagine every bodies in india and china being rich and educated!! it's would be the dead of planet earth-
defense of the caste system, eh?
-
-
Our problem is a limited and constant supply of resources, and an exponentially increasing population.
There are two solutions to this problem: Increase our supply of resources (see: colonize other planets) or decrease the population (see: genocide).
I guess I don't have to mention that I'm a fan of NASA, do I?-
Birth control and educate male about codom is the only way to go!!
-
Well, there are other alternatives. There's a hormone that causes a fertilized egg to not develop at all, but of course the pro-strifers want to block that too.
-
We don't have an exponentially increasing population anymore. That stopped in 1950. Look it up.
-
Who's we? America doesn't, but other countries do.
-
absolutely Muslim population is exploding in Europe and Africa population.
-
No. Worldwide it's cresting. The massive increases in Africa are offset with massive decreases in Europe. There's still some gain but the days of exponential growth are over.
-
-
Do you have any idea how many people are on welfare attending college right now? Have any idea how many pell grants and other education funds were provided to unemployed people last year?
Unless you have a mental problem, there's no reason why a person has to remain poor and uneducated if they're willing to work hard.
And labeling people as "rich" as if they never actually EARNED their money is asinine. Most successful people become so by working hard, playing by the rules, and forming good habits.
Some people sit on their arse all day and wait for the entitlements to roll in..... complaining about how the "rich".-
[And labeling people as "rich" as if they never actually EARNED their money is asinine.]
I agree, but there are also some who did not. -
Sure... some people inherit money... win it in a lottery .... or become an athlete who earns millions for playing a game.
But that money belongs to them. I don't want their money. I have no problem paying an equal percentage of tax that they do.
It seems to me it's high time for a fair tax code that people can understand..... a tax code that doesn't pit social classes against each other.
I'd like income tax to go away completely....
Raise the tax on things you buy to 25% (or there abouts)..
That way you are taxed directly on the things you buy...
Wealthy people who buy a lot, get taxed a lot.
Poorer people who can't buy as much pay very little tax. -
The tax on any income over 3 million dollars a year should be taxed at a rate of 90 percent. I doubt there are any people who earn that much ethically.
-
Do you have any idea how many people are on welfare attending college right now?
Statistically speaking, a very small percentage of college attendees are on welfare. The poorest of high school into college aged students rarely make it to college. In any case - even if they were in college they would not be on welfare - their parents would be. They are minors who do not qualify for welfare programs unless they are emancipated from their parents.
Furthermore they might have gotten a scholarship from the school, took out loans, and received other grants to receive a higher education.
Do you have a problem with that?
Have any idea how many pell grants and other education funds were provided to unemployed people last year?
Amazingly enough - most college students are unemployed. In fact, very few college students hold full time jobs. Most actually work part time on break or summer vacation.
Your point is? -
some even take part in the presently voluntary form of Work Camp
-
You mean to say they EARN their college education by working as a volunteer to help compensate for the grants they get?
I wonder how many Ivy League trust fund college students do that?
-
Some enter "public service" later in life after they destroy most of their brain cells and find Jesus... except that such public service is being President and declaring war on behalf of your corporate buddies/rapture nutballs
-
@Satijournal
Why would they put a 90% tax on anybody who earns $3 million a year? How can you think that people can't make that ethically? Most people who earn that kind of money spent years in college and do work hard as a role of scapegoat. They get praise when the company is doing good and the first person to catch a ton of crap if it is not. Others that make that kind of money and more are also just smart investors. And don't worry there is a high enough tax on the rich. Anybody has the potential to be a millionaire it's just a matter of knowledge and yes you can be a millionaire without getting a college degree.
-
-
-
I believe every child should get as much education as possible. I believe poor is mostly a state of mind. The world is full of poor educated failures.-
"poor is a state of mind"?
Tell that to the millions of South Africans who live in tipsy dirt-floored shacks that have black garbage bags for roofs and no running water. I'd say that being poor is a "state of being."
Do they choose such a life? Well, in one view they do: they migrate to the cities from even more deprived situations, seeking work. But with a 30% national unemployment rate, there isn't much work available for people who have no work experience and at best, a rudimentary education.
Being poor is not a state of mind, it is the pain in your belly as you wait for your one meal a day...a bowl of cornmeal mush (mielie pap); it is the goosebumps covering your body because you can't find a dry place to sleep in your shack on a rainy night; it is the ache in your joints from sleeping on a flattened cardboard box on the dirt floor because you don't have a bed. It is frantically taking your sick child from one government clinic to another...each one refusing to see him because you got there too late to make the day's quota...and having him die in your arms on the way home. It is far from a state of mind.
-
-
The problem with being "rich and educated" comes only in a culture that measures national wealth according to sumptuous consumption above utility. It a FAILURE of education not a ill effect of it.
-
The more educated they are, the better-paying job they can get, the more money they can afford to throw at the problem instead of having to care about it. I think it's stupid to suggest that any people don't care about the environment as a group. Some people have more immediate concerns, but I'll bet you most homeless people recycle and reduce waste in ways you never thought about because you never had to do so. I suppose that eliminating homelessness would cause an increase in the garbage load of most major cities and possibly a rat population explosion as they would no longer have competition for the food that gets thrown out by the ton.
-
This is very true. On trash days here in Cape Town, there is an army of poor people out in the neighbourhoods that have set out their bins. These people go through the bins meticulously...even opening the plastic trash bags...looking for items that they can reuse, sell for scrap, recycle, or otherwise make some money from. The ones in my neighbourhood are good about tidying up around the bins when they are done, and I have seen them with makeshift wagons pulling old washing machines, computer monitors, even pieces of furniture. The amount of stuff that stays out of the landfills and ends up recycled or reused as a result of their efforts must be amazing, considering that the greater Cape Town population exceeds 4 million people!
-
-
Ways to recycle:
Donate old computers for schoold and low income children www.unitedwaytriangle.org/t4t/
Donate old cell phones www.charitablerecycling.com/CR/home.asp
Did you know after your cell phone has called it's last call it can still dial 911 one last time? Some are donated to domestic violence organizations for this reason www.ncadv.org/takeaction/DonateaPhone_129.html
I can tell you more about reduce, reuse, recycle than most who are wealthy and my family is below America's poverty level.
Do I want to remain poor? No. For someone to take that basic right from me, my husband, my children is not just unconstitutional (right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness) it's ignorant and shows how narrow people can be.-
Join Freecycle. I've donated lots of stuff through our local branch, and got a refrigerator, TV, and pots and pans for my maid when she left her abusive husband. These were all things that were destined for the trash, as the owners were moving back to Holland and were keeping them until their last day here. We came on their last day and picked the stuff up and delivered it to our maid's new home, saving her the cost of trying to buy the stuff, saving the emigrants the cost of disposal, saving the landfill a big load...Freecycle is amazing!
-
@sweetviolet:
I agree freecycle is amazing!
-
-
Educated people tend to have fewer children and an educated population tends to have declining birthrates. Less people use less resources.-
tru' dat
-
-
Is it fair to give them false hope?-
Why false hope ? or you think that poors are poor because of genetic failure
-
-
Basic Bakunin: ---(Paraphrased) The class gap won't close shut until the proletariat offspring as well as the bourgoisie offspring are educated to an equal, ample and thorough degree.--
Education is the key. Educate all. We all need it. Ponder away.
Wrench -
This sounds like a justification from the elite to keep there lessers ignorant so the elite can enjoy their ivory towers. -
Sounds like the educated rich need to be given lessons of generosity and thriftiness. Rather then the poor and uneducated kept that way.
-
No need to do so because they are getting soo generally, it's going on as topics not need to be doneeee.............
-
The question seems to imply that governments of countries in which a high proportion of citizens are poor and uneducated would need to change their policies if they wanted to keep these people in that state. Unfortunately, all they need to do is to just keep doing what they are currently doing. And don't imagine that their present policies are good for the environment either!-
Well, there are more subtile ways you can dump education while appearing to teach people: for example fill their head with useless informations but without real knowledge (theory and history needed to interpret these informations)
-
-
Governments of countries where a majority of people are poor and uneducated do not care about environment. And do not care about educating the people of their country either. They care about money only.-
Also, modern industry gives you a lot more options about where you get stuff from, giving you much more ecological wiggle room. For example, without modern construction and irrigation techniques, we'd probably have to farm our most precious forests.
Politics and government is more dangerous to the environment then business and science for the simple reason that businesses have some incentive to not waste and adapt modern technology, and take that which is least valuable, science really only has an effect insofar as it is used by business, but government has an incentive to keep everything the same (keeping coal-power workers on the job, for instance) to keep their constituents happy.
-
-
Is it a foregone conclusion that you can't be poor and educated then? or well off and uneducated?
Or that if you're educated you will automatically be a excessive consumer?
Education and intelligent thinking are not necessarily the same thing.-
"Is it a foregone conclusion that you can't be poor and educated then? or well off and uneducated?"
Hardly. I lived in a town of millionaire rednecks out West.
"Or that if you're educated you will automatically be a excessive consumer?"
Likewise, hardly.
"Education and intelligent thinking are not necessarily the same thing."
And this entire crowd needs to show more humility.
-
-
This is a very interesting question, because I have found that the working poor and middle class consume more and create more garbage than wealthier classes. At least in the US.
The US is afflicted with a disposable mentality. Many of the working poor and middle class buy poor quality goods that need to replaced on a regular basis because of initial price discounting by major retailers such as Walmart and Costco. Most of these products, are over packaged and produced in China, meaning they have a heavy ecological cost in materials and energy. Walmart, and retailers like them, put downward pressure on the price of these unsustainable goods making them artifically less expensive than locally produced, higher quality goods.
I am basing this off personal observation, not any actual statistics.
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
