Page 7 of 9

Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2008 5:01 pm
by WildCityWoman
Well, he does say in this chapter (or one of the others - not sure) that he admires the one who educates, trains and creates work for the poor, more than he admires the one who just 'gives'.

So I guess that's about the same thing as Shaw would say.

(Nice to see you again, Penelope)

Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2008 5:51 pm
by Saffron
Thomas Hood wrote:
Saffron wrote:How could anyone even suggest such a thing - withholding medications from all because a few might infect others. Even more offensive to me is singling out Africans.
Sorry to rub you the wrong way again, Saffron, but get real. I didn't single out Africans and there's no "might" about it. Infectious sexually-active persons stay sexually active. In much of Central Africa there is no law and order, so any kind of responsible health service is impossible.

But considering your reaction, maybe it would be imprudent for Robert to respond to my question. I will delete it.

Tom
First, sorry to Robert for somehow adding his name in my post. Now, to Tom, I am real. Yes, some or even most infected people will continue to have sex. Only a few will be irresponsible. Should we punish all because a few will be irresponsible?

Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2008 6:43 pm
by seeker
Robert,

I couldn't agree with you more that building the institutions of good government is the key to an improved quality of life. I have been especially interested in this subject with respect to Mexico, where I have spent a lot of time. I have come to the tentative conclusion that when the size of the middle class of a country reaches a critical level, it is then in a position (and has the ability) to demand better government and less corruption. The huge population of Mexico (or other countries, by extension) who live in poverty expend their energy on survival and grabbing for the meager amount of "gusto" that is available to them in lives they justifiably expect to be short and tragic. The wealthy have more incentive to undermine government than to build it. Only the middle class has the incentive to create institutions that build the infrastructure of a stable society. What do you think?

Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2008 7:02 pm
by WildCityWoman
DWill wrote: . . . he appears to realize that these inquisitive people won't be his true audience.
DWill
I know exactly what you mean by that - I find that in my day to day life as a self-appointed groundskeeper at the building where I live and my husband holds the position of superintendent.

The very people who ask a lot of questions of what we're doing with garden patches and trees on the lot (usually asked with judgment behind their questions), are the ones who wouldn't dream of following up by hitting 'google' and looking something up. They seem to have it in mind that nobody could possibly more about the subject of their questions, than they themselves . . . don't do that, do this . . . I asked one of them once - what kind of tree do you think this is?

The 'tree' in question, was the one I was leaning against while hearing her 'judgments' about how trees should be looked after.

She said she didn't know - then I pointed upward to where the smooth trunk went upwards, without a branch on it.

It was a hydro pole!

People that just want to 'know' something, are sincerely interested in the 'nature' aspect of it, are the kinds that will return home from the library with books in hand.

So I can see it now - people coming to visit Thoreau, wondering what he's doing and how he gets by. Yet I doubt any of them read anything he published on the matter. They were probably the people who had nine room houses, with a 'spare' for guests. And a couple of live-ins, just to do the housework and cook their meals.

The poor student, of course, would be intrigued . . . how to live economically. The poor student would be pleased as punch to pick up his works and actually read what Thoreau had to say, what he himself had learned from the experience of living in such a way.

Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2008 7:25 pm
by Thomas Hood
Saffron wrote:Now, to Tom, I am real. Yes, some or even most infected people will continue to have sex.
OK, we agree on something.
Only a few will be irresponsible.
How do you know this? My experience is that most conceal their infection and continue as before. People go to little trouble to protect others even from their colds or flu.

Tom

Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2008 1:00 am
by Robert Tulip
seeker wrote:Robert, I couldn't agree with you more that building the institutions of good government is the key to an improved quality of life. I have been especially interested in this subject with respect to Mexico, where I have spent a lot of time. I have come to the tentative conclusion that when the size of the middle class of a country reaches a critical level, it is then in a position (and has the ability) to demand better government and less corruption. The huge population of Mexico (or other countries, by extension) who live in poverty expend their energy on survival and grabbing for the meagre amount of "gusto" that is available to them in lives they justifiably expect to be short and tragic. The wealthy have more incentive to undermine government than to build it. Only the middle class has the incentive to create institutions that build the infrastructure of a stable society. What do you think?
Thanks Seeker, I think your comments are right on the money. You point to a further main problem with the NGO philanthropic movement, and that is the focus on "the poorest of the poor." The poorest have the greatest need, and lifting them from poverty seems at first to have the greatest social transformation potential. Work with the poorest serves the Christian mercy mission to make the last first. However, working with the poorest is a grossly inefficient way to reduce poverty, because the poorest also face major political and social and economic constraints to their advancement, they often live in very isolated and difficult places, and, most critically, local market based solutions are often more effective than external charity in helping them. Much effort and money can be expended to help them with little gain because of the intractable context. Philanthropists insist on helping the most down-and-out groups because this fits their religious ideology and because their donors fund them for this type of work. By contrast, few resources are provided to the middle class, despite the fact that established small firms can use help very effectively to build thriving businesses, providing jobs, goods, services, models, stability, customers and networks, all of which are of benefit to the whole society, including the poorest. It is much more efficient to use existing systems in partner countries (ie existing businesses) but this goes against the grain for givers of charity. The governance agenda for the middle class is improving regulation for doing business, to remove the constraints which hinder them from prospering. An excellent book on this topic is The Next Four Billion by the International Finance Corporation of the World Bank Group.

Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2008 2:11 am
by Penelope
Hi Carley :smile:

I have been pondering on the spread of aids in Africa. If you read the diaries of Samuel Peppys - about Georgian England - STD's seem to have been 'shared' around with impunity. It wasn't until forces spoke up for the lower classes and demanded that this was not acceptable, that people began to attend 'clinics'.

I also realise that it is a whole different ball-game organising government legislation in enormous countries like Africa (or even the USA) or Russia. It is comparatively simple in a small island.

I was interested in Seekers' hypothesis also. There have been some wonderful reforms to our Society by individuals of both the middle classes and also by the Wealthy and Aristocratic. Looking at our history, the work of social reform seems to have been carried out by the concern and compassion of the person, rather than the person's class, or position in society.

I do believe that things began to change radically for the better, in this country, when an education system was set into place for 'all' children. People, once educated, became 'aware' of 'how' to help themselves. And aware that there was no need to just accept the 'status quo'.

I have been reading about people in large parts of Indo-China, whose boy children get a very meagre education indeed, and for a little girl to receive any education at all, is unthinkable. I, personally, believe that overseas aid would be well-spent on setting up schools and colleges, but of course there are always those in power, who do not wish to see this happen.

Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2008 10:50 am
by WildCityWoman
Oh, well I didn't read all the posts yet, so I wasn't sure what sex/aids had to do with this chapter . . . I'll be listening to it over again, and reading through the text version as well.

Right now, I'm just enjoying the audio - listening.

I wasn't able to post here for a few days . . . finally got 'synchronized' or whatever.

I figured it just as well - I needed to listen to the story a while, forming my own reaction to it before I got caught up in discussion.

We're doing War & Peace at Barnes n' Noble, so that's kept me busy for a while . . .

But I couldn't resist 'Walden' . . .

B & N are going to do Walden and another one of his stories in their Classics section next month.

Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2008 10:56 am
by Penelope
Carley - Ophelia has tempted me with B&N a week or two ago. I must take a look.....

PS - I think I love you!! :kiss:

Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2008 11:11 am
by WildCityWoman
DWill wrote:
. . . he sees modern farming as step down from hunting/gathering and does not seem to favor keeping domesticated animals. I'm not sure I quite understand his attitude here. The yeoman farmer was Jefferson's ideal American, but not so for Thoreau. It would even seem that Thoreau is less in favor of farming than of commerce! And yet he had had ideas of buying farms himself, so he may have contradictory feelings. In "Economy" he presents his interest in farms as in the past and representing a narrow escape for him. Still, I wonder about a seeming lack of sympathy and support for the farmer.
DWill
Well, if Jefferson favoured farming, then everybody else should, right?

I wonder if society is any better for 'farming' really . . . I, for one, am glad I don't have to take up a gun and go out to shoot my meat and wouldn't want to work that hard for my vegetables.

But the thought's intriguing . . . what would it be like if (by some catastrophic event) there were only a few of us left on earth and we had to make do with what we could grow ourselves and hunt?

About his having been down on too much commerce . . . well, that's easy to figure why he felt that way.

Look at us today . . . we can't simply have one family growing the carrots to trade with he who hunts the buffalo . . . we've got to go out and tie our butt's to office chairs and create documents upon documents upon documents upon documents.

Seems kinda' silly when you think of it.

How many of our modern day jobs are really necessary?