h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I was thinking about the charity concept today, and the ideal that sharing what you have with other people to kind of offset the balance between the fortunate and unfortunate is a Good Thing. In turn, that got me to wondering just what y'all (especially Edward) think would happen if suddenly ALL resources (food, money, land, everything) were miraculously and equitably divided amongst everyone on the planet. If people *accepted* it as fair (rather than going on killing sprees to regain stuff they still considered to be 'theirs', how do you think it would play out over a decade or so?

People would begin to trade off the things they don't want in exchange for the things the other guy doesn't want but they'd prefer. Some would use their resources well, and some would use them up. Before long you'd have a divide again, with some people having too much and others having too little.

My approach to charity is very different. I don't chip in a dollar to help a drunk buy a bottle, because overall I don't think it makes anything better for the drunk, or for society. But there are lots of people around me who are clean-living, hard-working people who are having difficulty making ends meet for whatever reason. Mostly it's for family, but not always. So when my mom went on disability and began a months-long fight to collect benefits, I treated her to meals out, bought her a set of tires, and paid her car insurance. My wife takes trips to her family in Mexico, and she takes food and gifts (last time including a DVD player and burned copies of all our movies). And just yesterday she took her sister and two cousins out clothes shopping.

Improving the quality of life for people who I know deserve it is the kind of charity I can feel very good about.

There is a saying: charity begins at home

Hey MoG!

I guess I'm part of "y'all" so here goes...

Like Blathers, I too suspect that the effects of an equitable distribution of 'physical' resources would be but a memory within days, if not hours... because I see that there are so many differing styles/attitudes/whatever regarding investing/saving/etc and the value of material 'assets'

Entrepreneurs speculate, conservatives invest and gamblers erm... gamble - and I'm guessing that all of us here on this thread have our own ideas about 'materialism'

Even the most 'ethically sound' of those who are 'clever' would be hard pressed to strike a fair deal when dealing with someone who has a mental illness E.g. a friend of mine recently wanted to swap his near new 21-speed mountain bike for my half empty pack of cigarettes

On the redistribution idea:

Certainly inequalities would re-emerge. Particularly because it would still be the case that some people have had far better education than others.

But I think in such a situation you would end up with a greatly reduced number of people in poverty at the end, because places and people that currently have no hope would get a chance. Once basic farming techniques, transport infrastructure, healthcare , sanitation and most of all education are established then I think that raises the baseline irrevocably.

<>

Nice gender-neutral pronouns!


On the re-distribution thing... I find it quite hard to believe that anyone would accept it as 'fair' - witness collectivisation in the Soviet Union - but assuming they did, and assuming they returned to their original behaviour patterns, inequities would develop again. The poverty-stricken and homeless would have a start, but then they'd still have to keep up with the job and if any of them had drug habits or anything like that they'd have to kick them. The very wealthy would find themselves slightly less wealthy, but they're used to making money and so have no problem resuming that pattern and making even more money.

In short, you may change the resources around, but you're not going to change the behaviour of people who have gotten in to the habit of being homeless or of being CEOs.

I'm glad to learn that so far y'all are less cynical than I am. I was considering unlimited education to be one of the resources available, and I'm doubtful that all that many people would take full advantage of it if they already *had* enough resources to be comfortable with. I think some people would try to ensure that their position of comfort was maintained, some would try to end up on top because it's their nature to be industrious (and I'm not sure that includes the majority of those who hold wealth right now, as for many of them it's a birth-right, not something they created) and a majority would either blow it in a heartbeat or lose it slowly through lack of management. I also think that if that happened, people in general would be far more dissatisfied and unhappy than they are now, because they'd have an actual point of comparison once they'd known and lost.

I think one thing that would happen would be surprise at just how little each person owns if this scheme were applied globally. A lot of the things we take for granted would have to be shared among several people. And if we shared all available body mass equally (averaged out among adult men and adult women) most of us wil have gone on a tremendous diet...

*imagining being given white goods in an place without electricity*

Someone would have to make a realsitic distribution on most appropriate assets. I agree that things would not remain equal for long, because people aren't the same. Sharing assets would not help those who live in an area of drought - unless you can improve irrigation at least.

And there are things I could quite simply do without. I don't need 1/1000 of an airplane, and what would a Namibian want with part-time ownership of a skiing boot?

Well sharing all assets is just silly for several reasons, but sharing some items does make sense and what's more is not nihibited by the impracticalities of sharing some items that people see as very personal.

One of the best schemes Ive seen is a tool lending programme. Materials for safety, home security and energy efficiency are given away and the tools to install them were hired out at a minimal cost. Very useful to those on low incomes and whose need for privacy might have put them off if all the work was done by strangers.

Of course some people did not have the skills to do some of the work themselves, but even this was an opportunity for people to learn skills they could use in the future and gain trust in the service provider. So they sent out a friendly handyman to instruct/install stuff for young ladies who did not know how to do things for themselves.

Damn I miss that job.

Actually, in my flat I'm teaching the guys to use tools...

BI agree that that kind of thing is sensible. I'm sharing a flat, and I carpool/hitchhike when I travel - it's more environmentally friendly to share things one needs only occaisonally, and a good way of meeting people and communicating - society's too anonymous as is!

<> (six7s)

Indeed if we all made more effort to help out those in our immediate 'social/family circle' I think a lot of good could be done.

In a sense this is what I do by focussing on my two street-beggar friends rather than handing out spare change willy-nilly. I think even offering them a bit of conversation and all that sometimes means as much as the hand-out. I'm certainly under no illusions that I have helped 'change their lives' in any significant way. But doing what I can with these two feels - to me at least - like I am doing something a bit more than just throwing money at a problem.

I also like the various programmes mentioned here - providing information and tools in order to help people help themselves.

Re: organised charities. I am really of two minds here. I guess because I am never sure exactly how much of the financial assistance given actually gets to the people who need it (as opposed to how much gets eaten up with administration costs, etc). If anyone knows of some good charities to give to I would be interested in checking them out. I mean, half the time I'm struggling to pay my own rent and bills but I could probably spare something each month - if I really thought it was going to help. And I think this is something that stops a lot of people from blindly sending money off to various organised charities.


az

No offence intended to R Daneel. I do have a habit of doing this unintentionally. It's just that I kept thinking "...that's a reply to something from quite a while ago, isn't it?'

And apologies for the sexist assumption. I misread as 'Daniel'.

Onwards to:

Charitable giving:
I do, of course, agree that there are better things to do than to keep drug users in their habits. Giving time, food, shelter, love, etc. etc. are all perfectly valid things to do. But...let's not be too naive. In some cases, such things will not make an immediate difference. Some people will be so screwed up that they will be incapable of grasping the helping hand they are given. Even when support facilities are available, not all homeless people will use them. That is why I will continue to give cash. It may be used well or badly. I have no way of knowing. But I still have to give the recipient the option.

One thing - in the UK, addicts are able to have their addictions maintained by the government, through prescribed methadone or (less frequently) heroin. Diagnosed alcoholics are even - in some terminal cases - given additional money specifically in order for them to carry on drinking. A good thing? The experts on addiction clearly think so. This is similar to my approach is it not.

(separate post follows re redistribution of labour)

<>

In fact RDO's replies were only from a page or three back.

<>

Huh?

Meanwhile, I don't think that buying brekky for Miguel helps support his heroin habit - at least he gets a proper meal. I guess I don't think that by helping someone - no matter what their situation - means I am doing other than helping out.

The choice with street people is whether one feels like giving someone a handout or not. I'm not sure that moralising about what they are going to do with that money is particularly charitable. If you think you are only helping them buy more drugs, booze, whatever, then don't give money to them, if that bothers you. If you think that by giving them some food, clothes, whatever might help a bit, well okay.

I know of a very wealthy guy here in Seville that goes about every evening with a pocket-full of euro coins and hands them out to all the regulars. He doesn't have to do this (obviously). But I guess because he can afford it he feels good giving some money to these people. As far as I know, he doesn't judge them - I've seen him equally hand out money to junkies and drunks as well as women who say they are on the street because they have been mistreated.

The two gypsy women I mentioned earlier, with the flipper arms and distorted legs, are dropped off every morning by - I assume - their family. Then they are picked up again at the end of the day. I have no idea what their home situation is like but I am assuming they are being used by the family to bring in some cash.

Every street person has their own personal story. Maybe the thing to do (especially with regulars) is to actually talk to them for awhile? Find out why they are there, why they do this? Make them more 'human' in the sense of bothering to care about *why* they do this.


az

>>(redistribution of labour)
I meant of wealth.

>>the ideal that sharing what you have with other people to kind of offset the balance between the fortunate and unfortunate is a Good Thing. In turn, that got me to wondering just what y'all (especially Edward) think would happen if suddenly ALL resources (food, money, land, everything) were miraculously and equitably divided amongst everyone on the planet. If people *accepted* it as fair (rather than going on killing sprees to regain stuff they still considered to be 'theirs', how do you think it would play out over a decade or so?

Well...I suppose that since my name has been specifically mentioned, az won't think that I'm being too self-centred in replying.

Let's take an imaginary cases study on a slightly smaller case, but playing out over five decades or so.

Imagine a small island...oooh...let's say somewhere off the coast of Florida. Imagine if most of its land and resources were owned by a few foreigners, but that the population got together, kicked them out and redistributed the land.

I imagine a number of things happening:
a) Economic warfare: trade embargos enforced by the former owners and their allies so that the islanders were not able to use their resources to increase their wealth by engaging in world markets.
b) Attempts at *physical* warfare, to overthrow the new, more equitable system and return to the previous status quo.
c) As a result of a), an overall stais in the economy so that the population, while having their needs met, would have little opportunity to improve their living standards. The overall standard of living would be relatively low - even if significantly better than that under the previous system (universal healthcare, one of the world's highest literacy rates)
d) as a result of b) (to inject some balance ) paranoia on the part of the new government so that society is tightly controled and political dissent supressed. (Although with human rights abuses *relatively* mild compared with those in some parts of the world...With the exception of part of the island leased to a foreign power who carry torture and unlawful imprisonment there)
e) Following on from c) occasional migrations in dangerous conditions by people seeking economic betterment elsewhere.
f) Despite all else, the population struggling on, basically supporting their government's intentions while remaining unhappy in their poverty.
g) Spurious claims by the governmenmt of a neighbouring country that they atre engaged in terrorism, despite overwhelming evidence that they are in fact the *victims* of terrorism sponsored by that same government.
h) Romanticisation of the new regime by starry-eyed half-baked leftwingers who don't have to live there. And the former finance minister being played by Benicio del Toro in a successful movie.

Talking to them, all well and good, but most of the time when I try that, they either threaten me, make lewd comments or try to make me feel ashamed for having a job and going to Uni!

Maybe if you gave them some money they'd treat you nicer

<> (Malabarista)

That's a shame. I've not had this experience.


az

As I said, I don't give money, I give food. And especially the full-time regulars seem to think that anyone with a job exists for the sole purpose of fuelling their addictions; needless to say, that's turned me off...

Where do you live, Malabarista?

I think that a lot of us here might be talking at cross-purposes depending on where they live and what sort of street beggars they regularly come across.


az