"Saying "our planet is overpopulated" or "our planet isn't overpopulated" is so bizarre to me. Overpopulated compared to what? All those other planets we've studied that have life on them?"

Overpopulated as in we're taking up too much of Earth's space and squeezing out nature. As more people are born, more farms must be created to feed them, and more lumber must be cut to house them. We might not run out of space in the near future, but we are certainly causing hundreds of thousands of species to go extinct.

wjessop, poverty in third world countries may indeed not be the result of individuals, but poverty in first world countries are certainly, at least to some extent, caused by laziness.

LOL sorry Leon1122 but your statement of "fact / certainty" could not go unchallenged .

A severely disabled person who is incapable of getting a job and climbing the corporate consumer ladder may live in extreme poverty in any country. Also within " 1st World Countries " the level of poverty is increasing" despite the efforts of all the lazy peoples. many people in first world countries have barriers to wealth imposed by society ie colour/values and beliefs. simple location ( well move you say ..if ya broke ya cant afford to move . if you do ya cant afford to get yourself fed or dressed respectably enough to get work..ever tried getting a shower clean clothes when you live on the streets..and go for an interview ..thought not..

It is a flat fact that 63 people ( 63 individuals) are as wealthy as the poorest entire 1/3 of the worlds population ..source is Oxfams report 2015.

we have the capacity to feed and house many more people than we currently have on earth we simply do not have the " humanity or will to do it"

hey I'm not saying I know how to change things but at the very least acknowledge that every cent you have is one that someone else doesn't and not enough of us are really willing to share it. I know I'm one of those who wont..

leon..."To some extent" is such a lovely bit of hand-waving vagueness. No one disputes that there are lazy poor people in the first world, or anywhere else. No one (I hope) disputes that there are hardworking poor people in the first world, or anywhere else. So the entire question is what "some extent" is.

OTOH, Smokey Gem's reduction of wealth to a zero-sum game is pretty damn simplistic. So there's that.

It's easier to convince everyone to sacrifice a bit and work together when everyone is well off. When the economy contracts and everyone is feeling the pinch, no one wants to give up anything to save the country.

Its overpopulated with idiots.

Well don't act like an idiot then.

Then there'll be one less :)

Smokey Gem:

Disabled people should be given support, as they already are. However, many people exploit disability claims, so the screening process must be improved. Your claim that poverty is increasing is simply untrue. In fact, it is falling faster than ever (http://ourworldindata.org/data/growth-and-distribution-of-prosperity/world-poverty/). Racial employment discrimination likewise is fabricated by the left to suit their agenda. Yes, African Americans are, on average, paid less, but that is because they are, on average, less educated and have more testosterone (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3455741). I cannot say that religious employment discrimination does not exist, but there are laws in place to prevent it, and those who believe a company practices discrimination should sue. Your last statement about poor people being unable to advance their social status has some veracity, but they can start with themselves and begin improving their future and those of their descendants one step at a time. This is a far better solution than taking away from those who earned their money legitimately.

Sure, Earth has the "capacity" to feed and provide for a few billion more people, but have you thought of the consequences? Where the Amazon stands today might be replaced with farms and wasteland, and the cars that these extra billions of people will drive will melt away are glaciers. Moreover, Earth's resources ARE finite. Eventually, as more people are born, the average standard of living will go down. Poverty in the US increased sharply following industrialization partially because millions of Europeans moved here. It's a simple matter of supply and demand. If there are only 10 people seeking employment at a company, they are far more likely to all be taken in than if 100 people seek employment. Sub-Saharan Africa experienced such a drastic increase in poverty because the desert simply couldn't support the population boom caused by medical aid.

John D. Rockefeller was the son of a lumberman. He is the model of what America should aspire towards. He lifted himself from poverty with hard work and became one of the first billionaires in the world.

If everyone lifts themselves from poverty to become billionaires, who will serve the coffee, who will take away the trash, who will clean the streets, who will change your linen in the hotel, who will wipe away tables in restaurants, who will work 12 hour shifts in hospitals, who will teach your spoilt children, who will work in the factories to make all the clothes, who will clean the toilets?

What's more realistic, your concept of capitalism where we can all be billionaires?

Or our socialism, where everyone who is able to contributes and works and everyone receives a fair provision of society's production?

The suggestion that people simply need to "lift themselves from poverty with hard work" is an insult, patronising, and ignorant.

Tell that to the millions of teachers, the nurses, the mid-wives, to the waiters and waitresses, to the cleaners, all working their fucking asses off for crap 'basic' pay.

"You just need to work harder and you will be billionaires". FUCK OFF. :)

do you know that much about Rockefeller? leon? The original robber baron. not the greatest role model.

it's called making a living, not making a killing. everyone should have enough, and that's it.

Of course there will still be menial laborers. Differences do exist between the strength in desire of poor people to escape from their predicament. Those who do and put in the effort to make their goal a reality can succeed. Those who don't will remain wiping tables.

Your concept of socialism is completely unrealistic. If one could get the same revenue being a librarian as being a professor, we would experience a sharp decline in number of professors. That wouldn't be a problem, though, because we would also experience a sharp decline in college students. Why go to college when I could be earning 4 extra years of salary equivalent to those who graduate from college?

That's not my concept of socialism. As Marx said "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".

But, it is your thinking that is unrealistic, you think like a capitalist: " If one could get the same revenue [...]".

It's not about 'revenue'. It's simply about what we need as human beings.

Teachers and nurses do not live in poverty. That is what I would call insulting. People can lift themselves from poverty. That is the truth, and if you can't face it, then so be it. And of course, there comes the classic liberal personal attack when they have no argument.

ishirkmywork, your name represents your economic philosophy quite well. Robber baron is a label put on him. Tell me what he did wrong rather than giving me his labels. And no, those who earned higher wages should live better than those who slacked off earlier in life.

"Why go to college when I could be earning 4 extra years of salary equivalent to those who graduate from college?"

You are thinking like a capitalist.

All you want to do is make money.

Why?

You are defined by your pursuit of money. Think about that. Think about what that means, leon.

In a socialist system of economic organisation, human beings won't be defined by their monetary value and will not be fettered to capital.

So to answer your question: people will go to college if they so wish to better themselves and better society.

Need is not all there is. People must also satiate some of their want, or we would be no different than other animals. You do not see people dropping dead on the streets in large quantities. Sure, they may be homeless, but they are alive. A home is also a "want", not a "need". See the problem with your logic there? If we all only satiated our "needs", we might as well go back to hunting and gathering.

wjessop, humans are by nature selfish. Your idealist world where everyone would do what is best for society does not exist and can never exist on this mortal world. The few people who are indeed so selfless would suffer financially for their selflessness. Do you think that is fair?

No, I don't agree with that. A home is a need. The concept of the human right to housing is widely accepted.

this has now crossed multiple threads leon, and you keep pushing the same reasoning: basically that "menial" or manual labor is a lesser form of work, which is offensive, and short sited. manual labor is honorable, satisfying, and healthy. why does it have to be a lesser choice economically too? I would much rather pay someone money to grow and prepare good food for me, then pay atm and banker fees to someone for conjuring something out of thin air.

we would all be a better, healthier, and well rounded people if we considered all trades and professions worthy of respect and decency.

also, you should try manual labor sometime. it's requires more skill, knowledge and straight up art then you see to realize.

Leon, I just don't agree with that simplistic view of humans.

Humans have the capacity for selfishness, yes.

Humans also have the capacity for kindness, love, compassion, communion, family, and solidarity.

Indeed, I think most humans would define their family as a key aspect of who they are. We are not individualistic animals by nature, we are highly social and have always observed kinship with other humans.

Individualism has been spearheaded under capitalism, where ultracompetitiveness pits people against each other for jobs and money.

wjessop, a home is not a right. If, say, a gambler gambles away their home, are they then entitled to a new home? No, he/she would just gamble it away again.

ishirkmywork Revenue in a capitalist society is determined by need. We do not need so much manual labor anymore, and therefore they are paid less. If you wish to pay them more, that is your choice. I respect them for their hard work, but if they wish for higher revenue, then they should have gone to college. If they are happy with manual labor, then they must accept the reality that the job will be paid less.

what is a right then?

i have to say at the moment i am desperate to know what line of work you are in ;-)

ishirkmywork, It is about demand, not skill. Manual labor and intellectual labor take different types of skills, and currently, intellectual skills are more valued.

wjessop, Yes, there will be kind people and selfish people. As I said, selfish people outnumber kind ones, and they will be the ones to suffer under communism.