|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Can you be both rich and Christian?
|
PilgrimVagrant
Shipmate
# 18442
|
Posted
So, for me, the challenge of our age is to eradicate absolute poverty, while respecting the environmental constraints of spaceship earth.
My first, naive pass at this issue notes that poor people have very little impact on the environment, compared to rich people.
My second observation is that, if the brute fact about the global economy is that their are X amount of $, and Z amount of people, a 'fair' distribution would involve everyone getting $X/Z
You can play the same principle into global production, so that if the total Gross Domestic Product of the world is $Y, then everyone is entitled to an annual income of $Y/Z
Instead, we currently have a situation where 1% of the world's population owns more than 50% of the world's wealth, with a similar statistic relating to annual income.
So, is it Christian to support the status quo, despite hunger, malnutrition and starvation, not to mention deaths by preventable disease, or is it Christian to seek a radical redistribution of wealth? For reference purposes, $X/Z is around $20,000 total net worth per individual, and $Y/Z is around $20,000 per year income.
Interested in your take on social justice, in respect of these political choices.
Best wishes, PilgrimVagrant
--------------------
Omnes Qui Errant Non Pereunt
Not all who wander are lost
Posts: 210 | From: In Contemplation | Registered: Jul 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
I think I would argue that you're starting in the wrong place (and are, indeed, being somewhat naive and over-simplistic in approach).
You're using a lot of terms with heavily assumed meanings that aren't necessarily clear or defined: "rich" and "fair" for starters. And I'm about to use another one: "wealth", which can be a slippery blighter.
More fundamentally, simply redistributing wealth generally does very little to alter the underlying causes of the wealth inequality in the first place. Although that assumes that you are operating on some kind of global command economy basis with everything mediated through a world government that would apportion all wealth equally on a per capita basis. Something that has a number of practical problems, nevermind the philosophical ones.
However, all that said I would argue that yes, it's fairly clear that the current neo-liberal, post-capitalist economic mantra beloved of TPTB in the West (if not globally??) is not working; is generating more not less inequality; and is potentially heading for an accelerating race to the bottom as far as near- to medium-future dystopia goes.
Unfortunately I suspect that the only viable long term solution isn't to adopt some kind of centralised pocket money distribution system, but instead to fundamentally change the values upon which we base and operate our societies. And that's arguably even trickier than achieving pure global communism with no corruption or power plays.
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
PilgrimVagrant
Shipmate
# 18442
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
No, it isn't possible. So where now?
I'm inclined to agree with you. Where now? We either need to prove it so, or prove it not so. A bald assertion will not persuade, I fear.
Best, PV.
--------------------
Omnes Qui Errant Non Pereunt
Not all who wander are lost
Posts: 210 | From: In Contemplation | Registered: Jul 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
Anyone reading this is 'rich' by virtue of having access to a computer.
I irks me that fundamentalists who take everything literally change tack when it comes to Jesus telling a rich man to give away his wealth - it was specific to THAT man and doesn't apply to other people, they say. They don't show the same subtlety when it comes to issues of human sexuality.
The 'proper' Christian shoujld live light to wealth, give to charities, join a socialist political party and repent of any dealings with the Conservative Party.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
The title of the thread is provocative. We are told how difficult it is for a rich man to be saved (as in, pass a camel through the eye of a needle). Nonetheless, some of the followers of Jesus were wealthy: Joseph of Arimathea and Lazarus of Bethany come to mind, along with some tax collectors. (One wonders about Mitt Romney.)
The notion of equally dividing wealth among all persons is a place to start talking, but not a place to stop. It seems clear that even if such a distribution could occur, inequalities would spring up quickly. Suppose John and Marsha marry. Each has been allotted $20,000. They have one child, who is also allotted $20,000. John and Marsha die and the child inherits their estates and now has $60,000. You could prevent this by having a 100% estate tax. I doubt if that will fly.
More realistically, you run into the problem that some people will need more than others because of long-term developmental or medical problems.
Of course, as soon as you distribute all this money, criminals of various kinds will be hard at work to take it away from others.
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
I'm inclined to agree with you. Where now? We either need to prove it so, or prove it not so. A bald assertion will not persuade, I fear.
Best, PV.
I don't need it proven to me. The problem is knowing how, then, to live.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
And suppose John and Marsha have not one child, but twenty. Each of them gets the allocated sum. If we all do this, the carrying capacity of both the financial systems and the very Earth will collapse -- a Malthusian disaster.
If you can't increase the size of the pie -- and short of space travel we cannot -- then we must limit the number of people eating pie. It is clear that the first thing to do, to achieve more economic equality worldwide, is birth control and lots of it.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
If you can't increase the size of the pie -- and short of space travel we cannot -- then we must limit the number of people eating pie. It is clear that the first thing to do, to achieve more economic equality worldwide, is birth control and lots of it.
Humbug. The problem is the few who use too many resources. The planet could carry several times the population of the poorest 80% of the planet.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
hosting/
PilgrimVagrant: welcome on board! It's good to have a new voice!
On a technical point, we ask members to limit their signature to a total of four lines. With a little rearrangement and if needs be, messing around on the UBB practice thread, you should be able to adjust yours to fit nicely. Thanks in advance!
/hosting
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
PilgrimVagrant
Shipmate
# 18442
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
And suppose John and Marsha have not one child, but twenty. Each of them gets the allocated sum. If we all do this, the carrying capacity of both the financial systems and the very Earth will collapse -- a Malthusian disaster.
Uh huh. But Brenda, you fail to appreciate the cunning subtlety of the plan. If $X stays the same, and Z increases, then $X/Z diminishes. We all get poorer as the population increases. I'm not against birth control, indeed, I'm in favour. A clear indication of how an increasing population diminishes wealth per person might even help that cause.
Cheers, PV.
--------------------
Omnes Qui Errant Non Pereunt
Not all who wander are lost
Posts: 210 | From: In Contemplation | Registered: Jul 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
It seems clear that even if such a distribution could occur, inequalities would spring up quickly.
That's putting it mildly. As soon as one person wanted something another person had (or had produced), a transaction would have to take place, resulting in the seller having more money than the buyer. What happens then?
Or, if you're going to include every conceivable type of good (including food, clothing and so forth) in each person's $20k, then the first time someone eats some of their own food or rips one of their garments they will become poorer than everyone else. What happens then?
Or perhaps someone could take some of their allocation in the form of iron and smithing equipment, fashion the iron into tools and sell them for more than the initial materials and equipment were worth. What happens then?
quote:
Suppose John and Marsha marry. Each has been allotted $20,000. They have one child, who is also allotted $20,000. John and Marsha die and the child inherits their estates and now has $60,000. You could prevent this by having a 100% estate tax. I doubt if that will fly.
Even if it would fly, would that 100% estate tax be distributed evenly between every human on the planet? If not then someone would be getting richer, even if it wasn't John and Marsha's child.
I haven't even started on the issue of how most workers would be remunerated for their efforts, or indeed how any work would reasonably get done in a situation where nobody has the means to pay anybody else a salary worthy of the name.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og, King of Bashan
Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
if the brute fact about the global economy is that their are X amount of $
Is this a fact?
--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy
Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
But Brenda, you fail to appreciate the cunning subtlety of the plan. If $X stays the same, and Z increases, then $X/Z diminishes. We all get poorer as the population increases. I'm not against birth control, indeed, I'm in favour. A clear indication of how an increasing population diminishes wealth per person might even help that cause.
So every time anyone has a baby, the family concerned gets richer and the rest of the global population gets a little bit poorer? That would certainly make things interesting!
For that matter, every time someone dies the rest of the population gets a bit richer. I can't think of any way that could work out badly...
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
if the brute fact about the global economy is that their are X amount of $
Is this a fact?
Not in any way, shape or form.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
I think a lot of the arguments justifying being rich start from two false, or at least partial, premises:
(1) Becoming poor is all about the good you do to other people by giving them stuff, and
(2) If you can't fix the whole world, it's better to do nothing.
I believe, rather, that my attitude to wealth is primarily about me. To begin with, Jesus doesn't say much in favour of wealth in the gospels (except in parables, where I think we can assume he's usually talking about something else). And what he does say about it suggests to me that he believes that wealth is toxic to a person's relationship with God. So beyond just saying "what leo said", I'd say:
(1) Live simply,
(2) Leave a light footprint on the Earth,
(3) If you can't imagine living without a certain possession, give it away.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
if the brute fact about the global economy is that their are X amount of $
Is this a fact?
Not in any way, shape or form.
Actually, it is. It's just that X changes on a constant basis.
But at any given moment of time, there is a finite number of dollars in the economy.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
PilgrimVagrant
Shipmate
# 18442
|
Posted
Just for clarification.
I think it would be a horrible, as well as impractical, thing for the $X/Z distribution to be enforced by law.
But the Kingdom of Heaven is a voluntary space. If we acknowledge the logic, and appreciate the justice, in a more equal distribution of wealth, then we each get to decide how best to contribute to that end. And if we don't, well, maybe we get to contribute to the Christian mission in other ways, like flower arranging in church, or distributing tracts, or being expert in brass-rubbings, or something.
Cheers, PV
[ 16. July 2015, 16:25: Message edited by: PilgrimVagrant ]
--------------------
Omnes Qui Errant Non Pereunt
Not all who wander are lost
Posts: 210 | From: In Contemplation | Registered: Jul 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Anyone reading this is 'rich' by virtue of having access to a computer.
I irks me that fundamentalists who take everything literally change tack when it comes to Jesus telling a rich man to give away his wealth - it was specific to THAT man and doesn't apply to other people, they say. They don't show the same subtlety when it comes to issues of human sexuality.
The 'proper' Christian shoujld live light to wealth, give to charities, join a socialist political party and repent of any dealings with the Conservative Party.
Let me get this straight...
All people with computers are wealthy.
Leo has a computer.
Therefore Leo is wealthy.
As long as Leo owns a computer, Leo remains wealthy and has not sold all that he owns and given it to the poor. Only when Leo is himself poor will he have followed Jesus command to sell all that he owns and give it to the poor. For as long as Leo remains wealthy, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of needle than for Leo to enter the kingdom of heaven. Giving to charity and voting socialist seems easy not hard. Cheap grace that is. Claiming Jesus is really talking to conservatives is far less defensible that the claim that Jesus was talking only to the rich young ruler which can actually be supported by the text.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
if the brute fact about the global economy is that their are X amount of $
Is this a fact?
No. In theory wealth is not a zero sum game. Of course, that does depend on how one measures wealth, and the presuppositions one brings to the table.
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
And suppose John and Marsha have not one child, but twenty. Each of them gets the allocated sum. If we all do this, the carrying capacity of both the financial systems and the very Earth will collapse -- a Malthusian disaster.
If you can't increase the size of the pie -- and short of space travel we cannot -- then we must limit the number of people eating pie. It is clear that the first thing to do, to achieve more economic equality worldwide, is birth control and lots of it.
The size of the pie has varied over time thanks to economic growth and improvements in agricultural techniques and they have prevented a Malthusian apocalypse. When there has been a recession or depression it is difficult to provide for the population which shows (to me at any rate) that the root cause is economic. Even famine has its roots in economic depression or war.
On that basis everyone needs to have a stake in the economy but that has never been he case: most of the population are deliberately kept on the breadline and I would suggest that the political philosophies that result in this are the cause of the evil. If individuals subscribe to those philosophies then they are complicit.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
My first, naive pass at this issue notes that poor people have very little impact on the environment, compared to rich people.
Definitely naïve.
It is poor people in the Amazon who are obliged to practice slash and burn agriculture--not those who can afford to use better and more expensive agricultural practices that let them stay on the same piece of land.
It is poor people in big U.S. cities who live on take-out and heavily processed, packaged foods from the corner market, thus producing huge amounts of waste and adding to the burden on the food transportation systems and eventually the healthcare system, after they get sick--because they don't have the money to live somewhere where fresh vegetables etc. are readily available.
Poverty sucks for a lot of reasons, and one of them is that you have so few choices--including choies to do things that are more ecologically/economically sound.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
It is poor people in big U.S. cities who live on take-out and heavily processed, packaged foods from the corner market, thus producing huge amounts of waste and adding to the burden on the food transportation systems and eventually the healthcare system, after they get sick--because they don't have the money to live somewhere where fresh vegetables etc. are readily available.
Check out http://www.growingpower.org/
A guy named Will Allen got it going. It looks like living in a city is no reason to have fresh vegetables available to folks.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
no reason to NOT have fresh vegetables, I mean
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
And it is poor people who have no health care, forcing them to go to emergency rooms or to let things slide until the only possible treatment is very expensive. It is cheaper, long run, to give health care to children, to have preventative medicine and assessments widely available, to have cavities filled and vaccinations administered.
it is also cheaper to send kids to preschool and school, so that they may grow up to be employable rather than on bread lines.
We all know this. It just doesn't happen, mostly.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
PilgrimVagrant
Shipmate
# 18442
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
So every time anyone has a baby, the family concerned gets richer and the rest of the global population gets a little bit poorer? That would certainly make things interesting!
For that matter, every time someone dies the rest of the population gets a bit richer. I can't think of any way that could work out badly...
Ha Ha. That made me giggle. But, seriously, so many of the poor are dying out of the neglect of the rich, as it is, without much in the way of moral outrage evident, I wonder if we could make the situation any worse by simply apportioning wealth more justly.
Cheers, PV.
--------------------
Omnes Qui Errant Non Pereunt
Not all who wander are lost
Posts: 210 | From: In Contemplation | Registered: Jul 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
bad man
Apprentice
# 17449
|
Posted
Clement of Alexandria addressed this question in about 200 AD in his perennially topical "Who is the Rich Man Who is Saved?".
Wikipedia's summary:
quote:
Besides the great trilogy, Clement's only other extant work is the treatise Salvation for the rich, also known as Who is the Rich Man who is Saved?. Having begun with a scathing criticism of the corrupting effects of money and misguided servile attitudes towards the wealthy, Clement discusses the implications of Mark 10:25. The rich are either unconvinced by the promise of eternal life, or unaware of the conflict between the possession of material and spiritual wealth, and the good Christian has a duty to guide them towards a better life through the Gospel. Jesus' words are not to be taken literally – we should seek the supercelestial [ὑπερουράνιος] meaning in which the true route to salvation is revealed. The holding of material wealth in itself is not a wrong, as long as it is used charitably, but men should be careful not to let their wealth dominate their spirit. It is more important to give up sinful passions than external wealth. If the rich man is to be saved, all he must do is to follow the two commandments, and while material wealth is of no value to God, it can be used to alleviate the suffering of our neighbor.
There are various full translations available free on the internet, such as this one.
Or, for a full paraphrase in more contemporary and accessible English, there is Charles White's version, available online here.
Posts: 49 | From: Diocese of Guildford | Registered: Nov 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
PilgrimVagrant
Shipmate
# 18442
|
Posted
Uh huh, that was all helpful, bad man. So the question is, can we truly be said to love God, and love each other, all the while hanging on to more than our fair share of wealth, while those others clearly suffer in their poverty?
There is, I think, no simple answer to this question, even put in such partisan terms. It may be that a rich individual can do more good by remaining rich than by giving his wealth away to people who need it more than he does. It may be like that. But it is not a case I would like to have to defend, come Judgment Day.
Best wishes, PV.
[ 16. July 2015, 18:46: Message edited by: PilgrimVagrant ]
--------------------
Omnes Qui Errant Non Pereunt
Not all who wander are lost
Posts: 210 | From: In Contemplation | Registered: Jul 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
In your opinion, do you have more than your fair share, less of your fair share, or just your fair share? How did you determine your answer? Who should ultimately make the determination?
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
PilgrimVagrant
Shipmate
# 18442
|
Posted
I assume that was aimed at me, but I think it so pertinent that each of us, perhaps, should answer it as honestly as we can.
So, I get less than half the income suggested by the $Y/Z formula per year. My net worth, in purely money terms and not including my bits of clutter, is negative.
I am working hard to rectify both these issues! By this time next year, barring catastrophes, I hope to be round about $X/Z net worth, and $Y/Z income per year. And I think I will be content with that.
Who should make the determination as to what is fair? I think we all should for ourselves, as influenced by discussions like this one.
Thanks and best wishes, PV.
--------------------
Omnes Qui Errant Non Pereunt
Not all who wander are lost
Posts: 210 | From: In Contemplation | Registered: Jul 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
No, it isn't possible. So where now?
I'm inclined to agree with you. Where now? We either need to prove it so, or prove it not so. A bald assertion will not persuade, I fear.
Best, PV.
Award-winning economist Jeffrey Sachs laid out a very well-regarded
plan for ending extreme poverty (as well as some of those definitions of terms requested above) more than a decade ago. It's the basis of the millennium goals-- and evidence shows they are beginning to have an impact. (I've had a chance to see some of that impact in my work in central Africa). So yeah, it is possible. "All" it takes is the political will to do so. There's the rub.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
And it is poor people who have no health care, forcing them to go to emergency rooms or to let things slide until the only possible treatment is very expensive. It is cheaper, long run, to give health care to children, to have preventative medicine and assessments widely available, to have cavities filled and vaccinations administered.
it is also cheaper to send kids to preschool and school, so that they may grow up to be employable rather than on bread lines.
We all know this. It just doesn't happen, mostly.
Blackadder: Baldrick - is there any reason you're still here?
Baldrick: I haven't anywhere to go.
Blackadder: But surely you'll be allowed to starve to death in one of the royal parks?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Humbug. The problem is the few who use too many resources. The planet could carry several times the population of the poorest 80% of the planet.
Well, not completely true. The many of the people deforesting the Amazon are not using many other resources. Many are not supplying the few with resources either. Your metric was more relevant before the industrial growth of China and India.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
The wealthiest 20% of the world population consume more than 85% of global output, more than 60 times more than those in the bottom 20%.
If those estimates are even vaguely accurate and the top 20% did not exist, the other 80% could double consumption and still use less overall.
That is not to say that the poor are doing no damage, but overall they are not responsible for the excesses of environmental degradation but are forced to deal with the consequences of it.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
bad man
Apprentice
# 17449
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
Uh huh, that was all helpful, bad man. So the question is, can we truly be said to love God, and love each other, all the while hanging on to more than our fair share of wealth, while those others clearly suffer in their poverty?
I think Clement's answer is it depends on your attitude to your wealth, if you have it. This is like Chaucer's lesson from 1 Timothy 6:10: the root of all evil is the LOVE of money, not having it (radix malorum est cupiditas - where cupidity is the lust for wealth, not the possession of it). It also depends on what you do with it. So if you are "Hanging on" in the sense of clutching it to yourself and not using it as a Christian should, then you're in trouble. But the fact of being rich, richer than most, is not in itself fatal, although it is an obstacle to the Christian life - which is why, not only in the Acts of the Apostles, but also in the monastic tradition, giving everything away and moving towards a communal life of personal poverty is highly valued.
Posts: 49 | From: Diocese of Guildford | Registered: Nov 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
...There is, I think, no simple answer to this question, even put in such partisan terms....
But I think there is a simple starting point, and that is that the Christian should regard wealth as a spiritual poison, or perhaps rather as an addictive drug. Sure, there might be strong individuals who can survive a large dose - but do you want to take the chance? Or maybe your soul will end up cowering in a corner stinking of its own urine, with frightened red-rimmed eyes and shaking hands, saying, "Wealth? Yeah ... I could give it up any time I want ...".
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
PilgrimVagrant
Shipmate
# 18442
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
...There is, I think, no simple answer to this question, even put in such partisan terms....
But I think there is a simple starting point, and that is that the Christian should regard wealth as a spiritual poison, or perhaps rather as an addictive drug. Sure, there might be strong individuals who can survive a large dose - but do you want to take the chance? Or maybe your soul will end up cowering in a corner stinking of its own urine, with frightened red-rimmed eyes and shaking hands, saying, "Wealth? Yeah ... I could give it up any time I want ...".
LOL. Maybe we could offer the wealthy, at a duly commercial rate, a boot camp rehabilitation course, in which they get to live on $2.00 per day indefinitely, and learn to cook lentils and rice, and drink insanitary water, and watch their children blinded by bilharzia and wracked by malaria, play in open sewers. Surely there is a business opportunity here, for the billionaires to fund, as a service to their peers.
Best, PV.
--------------------
Omnes Qui Errant Non Pereunt
Not all who wander are lost
Posts: 210 | From: In Contemplation | Registered: Jul 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
So if I own an average house in a major Canadian city I'm a millionaire. On paper. Same is true of many of our countries.
If I want to retire and have no pension plan, I better have 1 or preferably $2 million saved.
So define rich please. It depends on context, i.e., where you live, doesn't it
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
...There is, I think, no simple answer to this question, even put in such partisan terms....
But I think there is a simple starting point, and that is that the Christian should regard wealth as a spiritual poison, or perhaps rather as an addictive drug. Sure, there might be strong individuals who can survive a large dose - but do you want to take the chance? Or maybe your soul will end up cowering in a corner stinking of its own urine, with frightened red-rimmed eyes and shaking hands, saying, "Wealth? Yeah ... I could give it up any time I want ...".
The addiction metaphor is, I think, a helpful one. Money (and the power it brings) really is dangerous but even more insidious in the way I think it gets ahold of us. Just like with any addictive drug, you start out choosing it: you choose when to acquire/ hoard/consume just like you choose when to drink/shoot up/light up. But just like at some point-- whether after the 2nd hit or the 5th or the 20th a drug addict is no longer choosing the drug, but the drug is choosing him/her-- similarly, I think there comes a point in our consumption when we are no longer in control, the consumption is. When our stuff is no longer making our lives easier but rather is owning us, as we work more & more hours to have big enough houses/ insurance policies/ bank accounts to store/ maintain/ insure/ repair/ replace all that stuff. And yes, this is more obvious with the multi-billionaires but I don't think it's something that happens only to the uber-rich. I think it happens to most all of us.
In a recent sermon, a friend noted this reflected in 1 Tim. 6:9, in which Paul's description of those who seek after wealth sounds precisely like a description of the course of an addiction:
"people... fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction."
[ 16. July 2015, 22:18: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
PilgrimVagrant
Shipmate
# 18442
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
So if I own an average house in a major Canadian city I'm a millionaire. On paper. Same is true of many of our countries.
If I want to retire and have no pension plan, I better have 1 or preferably $2 million saved.
So define rich please. It depends on context, i.e., where you live, doesn't it
I think this is a valid question. I'm interested in how the forum would define 'rich'. My own interpretation would probably involve several ideas, like not needing to work, through having independent means, or owning or earning in the higher percentile ranges, or just having a surfeit of money at the end of each month. As for house prices, and expensive areas, well, I suspect if money were more equitably distributed, then house prices would reflect that more sensible economic reality.
Cheers, PV
--------------------
Omnes Qui Errant Non Pereunt
Not all who wander are lost
Posts: 210 | From: In Contemplation | Registered: Jul 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
So if I own an average house in a major Canadian city I'm a millionaire. On paper. Same is true of many of our countries.
If I want to retire and have no pension plan, I better have 1 or preferably $2 million saved.
So define rich please. It depends on context, i.e., where you live, doesn't it
Hmmm. So, you retire at 65. Ask a 65 year old homeless person how much they have.
Yeah, it is relative, but you do not have to go to another country to do a comparison.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
My first,... poor people have very little impact on the environment, compared to rich people.
My second observation is that, if the brute fact about the global economy is that their are X amount of $, and Z amount of people, a 'fair' distribution would involve everyone getting $X/Z
Your #1 is often but not always true. I've known poor people (by USA standards) who are very destructive. Disdain for proper care of physical things might be part of the reason they are poor.
Like the guy who begs for yard work when he's hungry. He had a small piece of land, sold it to buy a riding lawnmower to do his yard jobs with; he so abused the machine within 4 months it was ruined. He said the way it was broken was not covered by warranty. Then he used my lawnmower to cut my grass and broke it. (I told him not to use mine, he pointed out all 3 of his were broken so he had no other choice; I said the day he breaks mine is the last day he works for me. So he hasn't been back. What am I supposed to do with the 4 broken abandoned lawnmowers in my back yard? One mine three his.)
Not many rich are so careless with material things that working equipment quickly and unnecessarily becomes trash.
Yes rich use more stuff, but poor aren't necessarily using gently whatever they get their hands on.
#2. The idea that the world's dollars should be divided equally would make for interesting redistribution. Rich become poor, poor become rich, because the dollar's value differs so much in different countries. What I have to pay for a month's rent on a simple apartment is more than a year's wages in some countries. If there are places where people can build a hut free out of local materials, but that is illegal here even if the materials were available, is it right to compare the cost of housing as if we lived in the same economies?
Does the West waste an unfair amount of resources? Probably. And part of that is the legal system's insistence on health and safety features unknown in some other parts of the world.
Poverty is criminalized here in USA, in many ways. For example, it's illegal to sleep in the open or in your car, but legal housing is required to meet so many health, safety, sanitation, and space rules it's unaffordable. Good rules, but expensive. Is there a dollar value you can assign to being able to sleep on a grassy spot without fear of being arrested?
My day laborer yard guy works for $15-20 an hour the days he can find work. I've visited countries where a common wage is $1 an hour and a good meal can be had for less than the price of a Coke here. Is my yard guy really 15-20 times richer than the day laborer in that poorer country? Aren't they living comparable lives?
We be using a different measurement when comparing lives - not dollars but functional measurements, maybe like how many hours you have to work to provide yourself with food and housing?
Questioning the mis-distribution of resources and opportunities is valid. Using per capita of world assets or income as the measure, as if a dollar has the same purchasing power for food, water, shelter in every country, is not valid.
Can you find a better way to tell me it's wrong/abusive/wasteful for me to have the air conditioning on when it's 100+ degrees out today and will only briefly get below 80 at the very lowest tonight? I'm genuine puzzled about how to live in my culture but is a less resource consuming way.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
My first,... poor people have very little impact on the environment, compared to rich people.
My second observation is that, if the brute fact about the global economy is that their are X amount of $, and Z amount of people, a 'fair' distribution would involve everyone getting $X/Z
Your #1 is often but not always true. I've known poor people (by USA standards) who are very destructive. Disdain for proper care of physical things might be part of the reason they are poor.
Like the guy who begs for yard work when he's hungry. He had a small piece of land, sold it to buy a riding lawnmower to do his yard jobs with; he so abused the machine within 4 months it was ruined. He said the way it was broken was not covered by warranty. Then he used my lawnmower to cut my grass and broke it. (I told him not to use mine, he pointed out all 3 of his were broken so he had no other choice; I said the day he breaks mine is the last day he works for me. So he hasn't been back. What am I supposed to do with the 4 broken abandoned lawnmowers in my back yard? One mine three his.)
Not many rich are so careless with material things that working equipment quickly and unnecessarily becomes trash.
Yes rich use more stuff, but poor aren't necessarily using gently whatever they get their hands on.
Sure, the poor can use stuff poorly, or, as noted above, may not have access/able to afford the most environmental-friendly versions of many products/food. But I haven't noticed the rich using their material goods in particularly careful ways-- quite the opposite. A poor person will drive their old Chevy truck til it his 200,000 miles-- the rich guy discards his phone, car, computer (and trophy wife) as soon as the newer flashier version comes out. Both poor and rich probably have about the same percentage of careful v. reckless users, but by virtue of their greater consumption alone, the rich are causing far more environmental impact.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Can you find a better way to tell me it's wrong/abusive/wasteful for me to have the air conditioning on when it's 100+ degrees out today and will only briefly get below 80 at the very lowest tonight? I'm genuine puzzled about how to live in my culture but is a less resource consuming way.
Many talk about people being trapped in the cycle of poverty (which, I think, speaks to the ignorant comments that sometimes one hears from people who like to make out poor people would not be poor if they worked harder, would be able to access fresh vegetables if they were more enlightened, etc) but I think there is a lot of evidence that there is also a similar wealth trap.
Our whole lives are arranged with certain assumptions being taken for granted, so even beginning to question these is a very difficult task.
To me this just underlines the stupidity of the oft trotted out lines about how we can 'all simplify our lives' and be more sustainable. As the system is currently set up, we can't and just saying the words does not magically make our lives sustainable.
I am not very familiar with the air-conditioning issue, but I am sure it is a very energy inefficient system. I'm sure there are passive systems which could be developed which would produce the same effect for less energy cost, but of course there is no real will to do so, so as an individual it is almost impossible to see any way to change or any urgency to do so.
And even if one did manage to see a way out of this problem, there are a myriad of other issues our wealthy, unsustainable lives take for granted.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
So, I get less than half the income suggested by the $Y/Z formula per year. My net worth, in purely money terms and not including my bits of clutter, is negative.
I am working hard to rectify both these issues! By this time next year, barring catastrophes, I hope to be round about $X/Z net worth, and $Y/Z income per year.
Clearly, in purely financial terms you are poor (relative to the global average - and probably by the sound of it within the local context of your life). But, you are also confident that you are able to improve your financial situation.
A big part of the issue of poverty isn't directly related to how many dollars one has, or even how much one can purchase with your income (eg: whether someones income is above or below the local 'living wage'). I think the biggest scandel of poverty is that there are vast numbers of people who are incapable of improving their financial situation - they don't have access to education to gain new skills, they're prone to illness (and, hence, loss of productivity) due to poor health care provision, they work hard but can't sell the products of their labour at a price that actually reflects the costs.
In addition to poverty of income, food, housing there is a poverty of opportunity. There are, of course, many causes of poverty. But, those causes include the actions of the wealthy seeking to maintain their privilage - through trade deals that screw the poor, through the support of corrupt governments because they're willing to support unfair trade or oppose another government we don't like, etc.
Certainly as Christians (heck, as decent human beings) we should question our part in maintaining institutionalised poverty, and do our utmost to break the systems that keep so many people at the bottom of the pile in abject poverty. Does that require that we actually give away our wealth? Should we all become Mother Theresas? I'm not sure. But, it certainly means we need to radically address our priorities and values. Something far more than buying Fair Trade and checking if the new shirt we want to buy was made in a sweat shop (though, those are both good things).
And, of course, I'm a hypocrite living in a warm, dry flat, eat and drink more than I need to, possess more stuff than I need, earn more than is necessary to meet my daily needs, don't give away enough, don't take the time to choose the most ethically sound groceries or investments ...
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PilgrimVagrant
Shipmate
# 18442
|
Posted
Yes, Alan, I think that is all correct. I should not like to be so rich that I lost all contact with people who struggle to feed themselves and their families, can't afford a water-tight corrugated iron roof, can't happily pay for the medications they need, have no sanitation, and so on. I count myself lucky, even in my precarious financial position, that I too, eat healthily and live in a warm, dry, secure flat.
Best, PV.
--------------------
Omnes Qui Errant Non Pereunt
Not all who wander are lost
Posts: 210 | From: In Contemplation | Registered: Jul 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
I think the example of slash and burn farming in rainforests is not a good one to raise. I know someone who researched the issue in Thailand. S&B agriculture does not produce permanent deterioration in the land, which is recolonised and returned to forest when the farmers move on. The farmers leave behind them the composting waste matter of their living to contribute to the future.
More advanced methods destroy the forest permanently. The soil in the forests (and I'm switching to another scientist and Amazonia now) is very thin, and the forest exists on the recycling of litterfall by detritivores (and the soft dust of the Sahara). When the trees are removed, the thin soil is not restored, and farming becomes increasingly dependent on artificial fertilisers, while the texture is lost. For the years when the process works, no-one needs to move on, but when it fails, there will be nowhere restored to move to.
The Amazon forest sustained huge numbers before the Europeans arrived, and the soil of their gardens can still be found.
It's not the best example.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
A big part of the issue of poverty isn't directly related to how many dollars one has, or even how much one can purchase with your income (eg: whether someones income is above or below the local 'living wage'). I think the biggest scandel of poverty is that there are vast numbers of people who are incapable of improving their financial situation - they don't have access to education to gain new skills, they're prone to illness (and, hence, loss of productivity) due to poor health care provision, they work hard but can't sell the products of their labour at a price that actually reflects the costs.
In addition to poverty of income, food, housing there is a poverty of opportunity. There are, of course, many causes of poverty. But, those causes include the actions of the wealthy seeking to maintain their privilage - through trade deals that screw the poor, through the support of corrupt governments because they're willing to support unfair trade or oppose another government we don't like, etc.
Certainly as Christians (heck, as decent human beings) we should question our part in maintaining institutionalised poverty, and do our utmost to break the systems that keep so many people at the bottom of the pile in abject poverty. Does that require that we actually give away our wealth? Should we all become Mother Theresas? I'm not sure. But, it certainly means we need to radically address our priorities and values. Something far more than buying Fair Trade and checking if the new shirt we want to buy was made in a sweat shop (though, those are both good things).
This. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Let me get this straight...
All people with computers are wealthy.
Leo has a computer.
Therefore Leo is wealthy.
As long as Leo owns a computer, Leo remains wealthy and has not sold all that he owns and given it to the poor. Only when Leo is himself poor will he have followed Jesus command to sell all that he owns and give it to the poor. For as long as Leo remains wealthy, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of needle than for Leo to enter the kingdom of heaven. Giving to charity and voting socialist seems easy not hard. Cheap grace that is. Claiming Jesus is really talking to conservatives is far less defensible that the claim that Jesus was talking only to the rich young ruler which can actually be supported by the text.
Guilty as charged - we are all caught in original sin/structures.
However I did say 'live LIGHT to wealth'
And I'd amend 'give to charities' since they only paper over the cracks and don't get to the causes of inequality. Better to give to pressure groups and political parties.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
