NationStates Jolt Archive

One of my fave bits of lit of late in Nancy Kress' "Beggars in Spain" trilogy.

The primary question of the books is sumarized in the titular problem:

"What if you walk down a street in Spain and a hundred beggars each want a dollar and you say no and they have nothing to trade you but they're so rotten with anger about what you have that they knock you down and grab it and then beat you out of sheer envy and despair?"
Leisha didn't answer.
"Are you going to say that's not a human scenario, Leisha? That it never happens?"
"It happens," Leisha said evenly. "But not all that often."
"Bullshit. Read more history. Read more newspapers. But the point is: what do you owe the beggars then? What does a good Yagaiist who believes in mutually beneficial contracts do with people who have nothing to trade and can only take?"
"You're not--"
"What, Leisha? In the most objective terms you can manage, what do we owe the grasping and nonproductive needy?"
"What I said originally. Kindness. Compassion."
"Even if they don't trade it back? Why?"
"Because..." She stopped.
"Why? Why do law-abiding and productive human beings owe anything to those who neither produce very much nor abide by just laws? What philosophical or economic or spiritual justification is there for owing them anything? Be as honest as I know you are."
Leisha put her head between her knees. The question gaped beneath her, but she didn't try to evade it. "I don't know. I just know we do."

Who's read the books and can comment?

We owe them absolutely nothing. If we do something for them, it's because of our selfih motives. For example because watching them suffer causes our suffering.

in my half-educated opinion as a psychology student, people who think everything we do has a selfish motive need to live a little longer. I really loathe the answer above.

my question is this: if there are 100 beggars on one street, it's extremely doubtful that anything other than circumstances entirely beyond their control created them beggars. is this after a war or something? social circumstances create poverty, and informed charity is a perfectly legitimate means of dealing with the problem. we owe them respect as human beings and help as people who invariably had fewer resources to begin with than we did. anyone who thinks that laziness creates poverty has never studied sociology seriously. social scientists do not, by and large, disagree on this issue. wealth and social standing are self-perpetuating...as is poverty.

We owe them absolutely nothing. If we do something for them, it's because of our selfih motives. For example because watching them suffer causes our suffering.Why would the sheer fact of their suffering cause me suffering if I were selfish? If I were only interested in my own wellbeing, it would mean absolutely nothing to me.
It seems like a bit of a stretch calling anything anyone does selfish. It's a rather awkward way to try to explain away people's desire to help those around them; because that desire isn't selfish, even if satisfying it were.

in my half-educated opinion as a psychology student, people who think everything we do has a selfish motive need to live a little longer. I really loathe the answer above.


You wouldn't do something if you got nothing out of it.
Hence selfish motive.

You wouldn't do something if you got nothing out of it.
Hence selfish motive.I do plenty things for reasons other than getting something out of it. Most people do.
Which isn't to say I may not get something out of it occasionally, but that isn't what motivates me.

And considering some people are willing to die for others, and in fact do, I find it hard to see what they can get out of it. Dead people don't tend to get much out of life in general.

I do plenty things for reasons other than getting something out of it. Most people do.
Which isn't to say I may not get something out of it occasionally, but that isn't what motivates me.
Really?
I'll take anectdotal evidence on this one, so if you want to specify an instance you may.
And considering some people are willing to die for others, and in fact do, I find it hard to see what they can get out of it. Dead people don't tend to get much out of life in general.
Rather easy to explain.
They would despise living if said person was not alive and decide to help a person out in the process?

People would not commit suicide if they got nothing out of it. Perhaps nothing is what they are trying to get.

You wouldn't do something if you got nothing out of it.

Maybe you wouldn't. But don't speak for the rest of us. ;)

Maybe you wouldn't. But don't speak for the rest of us. ;)

I will speak for the rest of you as long as I have no evidence to the contrary. For example: You would not have posted that if you got nothing out of it.

I will speak for the rest of you as long as I have no evidence to the contrary.

That's a poor standard. The burden of proof is on you.

Lots of people commit acts that appear, at first glance, to be non-selfish. We don't have to list those acts for you. You already know what they are. I'm sure you're creative enough to invent selfish explanations for all of them, but I highly doubt that you can demonstrate that your explanations actually hold.

How do you know that when I help someone in need I am responding to some selfish impulse, rather than to a convincing moral argument that I should do so?

For example: You would not have posted that if you got nothing out of it.

So? Posting on NS does not encompass all behavior. And while it may be true that this time I posted on NS because I got something out of it, it does not follow that that must be the case.

That's a poor standard. The burden of proof is on you.
Perhaps. However, why is the burden of proof on me?
Lots of people commit acts that appear, at first glance, to be non-selfish. We don't have to list those acts for you. You already know what they are. I'm sure you're creative enough to invent selfish explanations for all of them, but I highly doubt that you can demonstrate that your explanations actually hold.
Yes. I am creative enough however and I am sure the individuals involved would realize that there was a 'selfish' desire there all along. Since I am not exactly conducting a study, that will remain unproven.
How do you know that when I help someone in need I am responding to some selfish impulse, rather than to a convincing moral argument that I should do so?
Human instinct. It goes against basic self-preservation/survival instincts to commit an entirely and completely selfless act.
So? Posting on NS does not encompass all behavior. And while it may be true that this time I posted on NS because I got something out of it, it does not follow that that must be the case.
What? No, it does not encompass all behavior, but it does follow that you will always get something out of an action you commit or you would not commit it. I cannot exactly link to a source because we are talking about human nature and intangibles here.

Feeling good or felling that you have made a difference counts as getting something out of it.

Perhaps. However, why is the burden of proof on me?

Because you made the claim.

I am creative enough however and I am sure the individuals involved would realize that there was a 'selfish' desire there all along.

Not me. I do not "realize" any such thing because I see no reason to believe that. Certainly that isn't the way I experience making such decisions.

Human instinct. It goes against basic self-preservation/survival instincts to commit an entirely and completely selfless act.

We are not bound by instinct. I might do something because I have been convinced it is right, even if it contradicts my natural inclination.

In making a decision, I need not ask myself "Which inclination is the strongest?" and do whichever course of action fits. I can abide by a different standard. Indeed, if I am rational, I will recognize that merely wanting to do something does not mean that I actually should do it.

What? No, it does not encompass all behavior, but it does follow that you will always get something out of an action you commit or you would not commit it.

It follows from what? Why?

We are not bound by instinct. I might do something because I have been convinced it is right, even if it contradicts my natural inclination.
In making a decision, I need not ask myself "Which inclination is the strongest?" and do whichever course of action fits. I can abide by a different standard.

Im ignoring the rest because either you are right, I agree, or I'm too lazy to bother with an attempt at refutation.

Anyway.

You may do something because you are convinced it is right, because you wish to uphold the standard, because you wish to remain true to yourself. It would be hard to convince me that you would gain nothing from that. If this were true, honour would not be such a big deal.

You may do something because you are convinced it is right,

Indeed.

because you wish to uphold the standard,

It has nothing to do with "wishing."

I might wish to do wrong. Every inclination in me may demand that I do wrong. But my reason will tell me that it can never be that I should do wrong, and thus in attempting to decide what I should do, I will be obligated to do what is right. Even if I get absolutely nothing from it.

because you wish to remain true to yourself.

Right action need not have anything to do with remaining true to yourself. Indeed, sometimes right action might demand that you abandon your long-held beliefs and behavior.

It would be hard to convince me that you would gain nothing from that.

It doesn't matter whether or not I gain nothing. What matters is whether I do it because I gain whatever I gain from it.

A lot of this is semantics - do I 'owe' anyone, do I have a 'duty' - well, not really, these are not things I can provide.

There's plenty of things I've done that made me feel better, from picking up litter to providing money with no timetable nor need to pay back.

You might say that was selfish because I made myself feel better but the impetus to do such things were not to make me feel better, that was a side-effect, the impetus was to help my fellow man, to be a good person.

Do I owe the beggars, no, do I owe it to myself, no - but I feel like I owe it to humanity to be a good person - I'm generally not, but on rare sunny days I certainly am.

Human instinct. It goes against basic self-preservation/survival instincts to commit an entirely and completely selfless act.

which is why no one has ever in the history of humanity thrown themselves onto a grenade or into the line of fire.

oh, wait...

Why would the sheer fact of their suffering cause me suffering if I were selfish? If I were only interested in my own wellbeing, it would mean absolutely nothing to me.
It seems like a bit of a stretch calling anything anyone does selfish. It's a rather awkward way to try to explain away people's desire to help those around them; because that desire isn't selfish, even if satisfying it were.

Well, just look at the example given : Poverty is one of the major driving forces behind violence in any society.
I'd rather live in a society with low levels of violence, and without constant threat to my safety.

Human instinct. It goes against basic self-preservation/survival instincts to commit an entirely and completely selfless act.


I love it how people continue to misunderstand human behaviour as inherently selfish in biological terms.

Humans aren't selfish. And humans aren't altruistic. Humans are both. Every human being has a strong instinct to survive, and a strong insticnt to live life at the same levels as the people around him/her. Or maybe a bit better. It's what allows the individual to thrive.

But every human being also has instincts to protect family, friends and other members of whatever group that particular human happens to live in. There's an instinct to care for others, an instinct to help others at great expense to oneself sometimes. It's what allows the group to thrive.

Most humans balance selfishness and altruism in their daily life, being selfish in some decisions and altruistic in others. The balance is different for each individual.

Oh god we've been reduced to yet another argument on whether or not altruism exists. Circles, anyone?

Anyway, taken as a discussion point re: welfare etc, the example in the OP seems to use the classic Ayn Rand trap of viewing the "productive members" as superior specimens, weighed down by the parasitic demands of the inferior.

If this is simply sci-fi philosophy then we can talk. If there's an attempted analogy here then it comes across as libertarian propoganda.

I see I unnecessarily used the term "selfish" in my post, it's too loaded with negative connotations. I wanted to point out that whatever we do, we do it because we have chosen that option as the best one (or the least bad) based on our own motives. Even someone who throws himself on a grenade makes this choice. If he was given a minute or an hour to ponder it, he might choose differently... or not.

Essentially, what it means is we are free to make decisions, with all the responsibilities such freedom creates. And there is nothing we OWE other human beings just because they are human. There are things we should NOT do to them, but there is nothing...

Aw crap. I just thought of the drowning child example form another thread.

All right, there is something we owe other human beings – saving them from easily preventable death. So we are not entirely „free as long as our freedom doesn't restrict others' freedom”.

I see I unnecessarily used the term "selfish" in my post, it's too loaded with negative connotations. I wanted to point out that whatever we do, we do it because we have chosen that option as the best one (or the least bad) based on our own motives. Even someone who throws himself on a grenade makes this choice. If he was given a minute or an hour to ponder it, he might choose differently... or not.

Essentially, what it means is we are free to make decisions, with all the responsibilities such freedom creates. And there is nothing we OWE other human beings just because they are human. There are things we should NOT do to them, but there is nothing...

Aw crap. I just thought of the drowning child example form another thread.

All right, there is something we owe other human beings – saving them from easily preventable death. So we are not entirely „free as long as our freedom doesn't restrict others' freedom”.

We're social animals. Total freedom to do as we like will always remain an illusion to us. Sorry.

And when you get down to it... not even solitary animals are entirely free, they need to eat, they've got the urge to mate and must therefor find a mate and get rid of competitors, once they've mated there's caring for the young....
I'd say freedom on the whole is an idealistic, unrealistic concept ;)

All right, there is something we owe other human beings – saving them from easily preventable death.

I'm pretty sure you get a great feeling of reward when saving someones life, so it could be argued that it's a selfish act. Mostly we do things because they are in some way rewarding to us, this is not bad. Being altruistic can be rewarding to, this doesn't make it bad, I'd say it only makes it better. (although the reward can come in other forms than material reward)

Like Cabra West said, we're social animals. Alone we're pretty weak, together we're quite successful. It wouldn't surprise me that during our long evolutions certain systems originated which gave us some reward for being altruistic. The same way we get a reward from eating and having sex etc.

What an incredibly weak tool. Have your "liberal" person in the book so stupid that they can't put together one coherant answer of the many on answer to the question of why we should help our fellow man, even if they can't help us.

You'll see this in literature occaisionally. I hope you are a bit smarter than to fall for such a weak device by the author.

I have a response to this. It is not one that libertarians like, but that's their problem.

We live in a world that is fundamentally deterministic. I'm not talking about any sort of spiritual concept here; on a purely physical level, every action that occurs has a single choice of outcome based on the variables involved at the time. Even in Quantum mechanics, the behaviour of events is well defined given the waveform as a unit element of matter.

Out of this determinism comes a number of social notions.

Decisions are never random. The self is responsible for arriving at all decisions you make. Even if you cannot consciously rationalise any sort of order behind the choice you decided upon, there is some psychological reason for choosing what you did.
Who you are now as a physical state is some function of your previous states, given that personal growth is about making decisions in response to experience. Since your initial state and the experiences to which you are exposed are beyond your design, although you are partly the cause of your own failings in life due to the fact that it was you that made these decisions, your environment has also contributed to your misdevelopment, and thus responsibility for yourself is not entirely your own.
This is true for Social constructs as well. The environment of our society is the way it is at the minute because of how it was before and what happened to change it. It does not generate homeless people, poor people or even lazy people without a cause. Neither does it generate successful or rich people without cause. Members of a society are the way they are in part because of deterministic processes within that society that are responsible for particular environmental influences being impressed upon them. Of course, as with the human, social constructs too can be influenced by external forces beyond their design, and thus are not wholly responsible for themselves either.
The one and only thing solely responsible for itself is the universal, and as members of this universal, we share in this responsibility. As an individual human being, we might not owe much to anyone else, but that sense in which we exist as a component entity of the universal body, we carry the burden of contributing to and maintaining it. That is where our sense of duty lies.

Sigh. With the overwhelming no responses in the poll and the replies, it seems nobody here's really able to discuss the books.

my question is this: if there are 100 beggars on one street, it's extremely doubtful that anything other than circumstances entirely beyond their control created them beggars. is this after a war or something? social circumstances create poverty, and informed charity is a perfectly legitimate means of dealing with the problem. we owe them respect as human beings and help as people who invariably had fewer resources to begin with than we did. anyone who thinks that laziness creates poverty has never studied sociology seriously. social scientists do not, by and large, disagree on this issue. wealth and social standing are self-perpetuating...as is poverty.

The beggars question is more a thought experiment.

It boils down to:
Productive and responsible members of society are a minority, especially as technological knowledge and advanatges (portayed in the book via genetically engineering) speed up, and most people are not able to compete productively


Kress states spercifically that she's looking for an answer to Rand's Atlas Shrugged and Le Guin's Dispossesed, representing the twin extremes of socio-politico-economic organizational she considers have failed.

Oh god we've been reduced to yet another argument on whether or not altruism exists. Circles, anyone?

Anyway, taken as a discussion point re: welfare etc, the example in the OP seems to use the classic Ayn Rand trap of viewing the "productive members" as superior specimens, weighed down by the parasitic demands of the inferior.

If this is simply sci-fi philosophy then we can talk. If there's an attempted analogy here then it comes across as libertarian propoganda.

I'll reccomend the books to you. They aren't Randian diatriabes. In fact, they don't give an answer.

What an incredibly weak tool. Have your "liberal" person in the book so stupid that they can't put together one coherant answer of the many on answer to the question of why we should help our fellow man, even if they can't help us.

You'll see this in literature occaisionally. I hope you are a bit smarter than to fall for such a weak device by the author.

Tell you what: go read the books. If you still think they are bad lit along those lines, I'll buy you lunch or something...

[QUOTE=Daistallia 2104;13405362]
I'll reccomend the books to you. They aren't Randian diatriabes. In fact, they don't give an answer.
[QUOTE]

So it's just sci-fi philosophy? Then it's not really surprising that no answer is provided.

I'll reccomend the books to you. They aren't Randian diatriabes. In fact, they don't give an answer.


So it's just sci-fi philosophy? Then it's not really surprising that no answer is provided.

Not quite sure what you mean. If you're asking if they're bad didact screeds that are all too common in SF, then no, they aren't. But if you're suggesting that any SF infused with philosophical or political ideas are simply bad, then I'll have to disagree.

Tell you what: go read the books. If you still think they are bad lit along those lines, I'll buy you lunch or something...

Unfortunately they only have the second one in my local library network :(


But lunch is good :)

Sigh. With the overwhelming no responses in the poll and the replies, it seems nobody here's really able to discuss the books.



The beggars question is more a thought experiment.

It boils down to:
Productive and responsible members of society are a minority, especially as technological knowledge and advanatges (portayed in the book via genetically engineering) speed up, and most people are not able to compete productively


Kress states spercifically that she's looking for an answer to Rand's Atlas Shrugged and Le Guin's Dispossesed, representing the twin extremes of socio-politico-economic organizational she considers have failed.



I'll reccomend the books to you. They aren't Randian diatriabes. In fact, they don't give an answer.



Tell you what: go read the books. If you still think they are bad lit along those lines, I'll buy you lunch or something...


your book sounds quite wrong. most people ARE productive. they work, they take care of their homes and families, they go to school in order to be more productive later on.

the incidence of completely unproductive people who are uninterested in supporting themselves is pretty small.

so for those few who are not interested in lifting a finger to support themselves society owes a kick in the ass to get them out of this self destructive pattern and the opportunity to get some kind of work when they come to their senses.

Not quite sure what you mean. If you're asking if they're bad didact screeds that are all too common in SF, then no, they aren't. But if you're suggesting that any SF infused with philosophical or political ideas are simply bad, then I'll have to disagree.

What I'm saying - well, asking - is that it's a philosophical question that, in its hypothetical, alters the world as we know it through, in this case, sci fi. Whilst such questions may be interesting philosophically in an abstract sense, there's not enough of a relationship with the world that we inhabit to match up with ideas of libertarianism or socialism or whatever enough for there to be any real answers to the question.

Sigh. With the overwhelming no responses in the poll and the replies, it seems nobody here's really able to discuss the books.

yeah, haven't read them myself.

however, i would say that the obligation to the beggars actually precedes their beggardom. we have an obligation as social beings to do what we can to prevent people from finding themselves in situations of dire need. it is only once some base level has been met that we can even begin to have free and just relations with each other.

It boils down to:
Productive and responsible members of society are a minority, especially as technological knowledge and advanatges (portayed in the book via genetically engineering) speed up, and most people are not able to compete productively

If you accept that there is a society then by being part of that group a bond is formed and some form of obligation from that bond. Without the poor there would be no rich.

in my half-educated opinion as a psychology student, people who think everything we do has a selfish motive need to live a little longer. I really loathe the answer above.

my question is this: if there are 100 beggars on one street, it's extremely doubtful that anything other than circumstances entirely beyond their control created them beggars. is this after a war or something? social circumstances create poverty, and informed charity is a perfectly legitimate means of dealing with the problem. we owe them respect as human beings and help as people who invariably had fewer resources to begin with than we did. anyone who thinks that laziness creates poverty has never studied sociology seriously. social scientists do not, by and large, disagree on this issue. wealth and social standing are self-perpetuating...as is poverty.

You need to read "Atlas Shrugged". They may not be poor because they're lazy, but they're poor because they don't produce. They're paid for what they produce and you can't consume more than you produce. They're poor because they haven't earned wealth.

You need to read "Atlas Shrugged".

no one ever needs to read atlas shrugged

How do you know that when I help someone in need I am responding to some selfish impulse, rather than to a convincing moral argument that I should do so?

You're convincing moral argument that you should do it means you would feel bad if you didn't, so you did it out of the selfish desire to not feel bad. What makes everyone assume morality includes donating to charity? I consider that immoral.

What makes everyone assume morality includes donating to charity? I consider that immoral.

lol wut

in my half-educated opinion as a psychology student, people who think everything we do has a selfish motive need to live a little longer. I really loathe the answer above.

my question is this: if there are 100 beggars on one street, it's extremely doubtful that anything other than circumstances entirely beyond their control created them beggars..

I'll address the second point first. If you've ever walked down some streets in San Francisco, Oakland, or any of the other big cities...you'd see a hundred beggars at least. Sometimes more. It's not circumstances beyond their control, it's simply that it's easy money, especially in an ultra-liberal town like San Francisco.

Now, back to the first point. Selfishness is the only reason anyone does anything. I'm not talking about the selfishness that people see as a bad thing, but rather the underlying cause of all of our actions. It doesn't have to be an actual, physical type of selfishness...money, goods, etc. might have nothing to do with the cause of your actions. In many cases, a person does something simply for the good feeling (or in the case of some rather more masochistic individuals, a bad feeling) received when the action is performed.

There is no such thing as a truly selfless act, at least not on this planet.

There is no such thing as a truly selfless act, at least not on this planet.

what would you expect one to look like?

You're convincing moral argument that you should do it means you would feel bad if you didn't,

Not necessarily. Indeed, it may be that it convinces me to do something that makes me feel bad.

What it means is that I must recognize that I should do the relevant behavior, and in making my decision I will recognize, rationally, that "I want"--however strong and however one-sided--is not an answer to a question of "should."

so you did it out of the selfish desire to not feel bad.

No, I didn't. Not necessarily, anyway.

What makes everyone assume morality includes donating to charity?

Because the moral arguments for donating to charity are strong and generally accepted.

I consider that immoral.

You're wrong.

Anyway, taken as a discussion point re: welfare etc, the example in the OP seems to use the classic Ayn Rand trap of viewing the "productive members" as superior specimens, weighed down by the parasitic demands of the inferior.

If this is simply sci-fi philosophy then we can talk. If there's an attempted analogy here then it comes across as libertarian propoganda.

In the book the classic Rand trap is quite literal and obvious. The Sleepless, genetically engineered humans designed not to need sleep that comes with a number of advantageous side effects, are generally superior beings whose sucess breeds resentment withing the population. This leads to a backlash of legislation and bigotry which causes most of the Sleepless to isolate themselves in a community called Sanctuary.

There is a lot of irony in that the Sleepless of Sanctuary, who loathe the unproductive "beggars" aka sleepers, are extremely collectivistic in outlook.

Decades later. further into the book, the notion of parasites is even more extreme when American society becomes a de facto caste system. Around 80% of the population are "Livers" who live off the very generous Dole in exchange for votes. Most of the rest of the population are Donkies, genetically engineered non-sleepless who run the government and business infrastructure. Last are the Sleepless whose organization is taxed at a 98% rate.

The symapthy of the author does not lay with Rand, even though from the above it would seem so. In some ways, especially in the second book, the series is the antithesis of Atlass Shrugged.

What an incredibly weak tool. Have your "liberal" person in the book so stupid that they can't put together one coherant answer of the many on answer to the question of why we should help our fellow man, even if they can't help us.

You'll see this in literature occaisionally. I hope you are a bit smarter than to fall for such a weak device by the author.

A large part of the book concerns itself with the question of what we owe the so called beggars in spain. Kress' sympathies do not lie with Rand or libertarians in general.

Has anyone noticed that, in books with an obvious political underpinning, characters are stumped or defeated by ridiculous questions or scenarios that absolutely nobody in real life would be unable to answer?

In the book the classic Rand trap is quite literal and obvious. The Sleepless, genetically engineered humans designed not to need sleep that comes with a number of advantageous side effects, are generally superior beings whose sucess breeds resentment withing the population. This leads to a backlash of legislation and bigotry which causes most of the Sleepless to isolate themselves in a community called Sanctuary.

There is a lot of irony in that the Sleepless of Sanctuary, who loathe the unproductive "beggars" aka sleepers, are extremely collectivistic in outlook.

Decades later. further into the book, the notion of parasites is even more extreme when American society becomes a de facto caste system. Around 80% of the population are "Livers" who live off the very generous Dole in exchange for votes. Most of the rest of the population are Donkies, genetically engineered non-sleepless who run the government and business infrastructure. Last are the Sleepless whose organization is taxed at a 98% rate.

The symapthy of the author does not lay with Rand, even though from the above it would seem so. In some ways, especially in the second book, the series is the antithesis of Atlass Shrugged.



A large part of the book concerns itself with the question of what we owe the so called beggars in spain. Kress' sympathies do not lie with Rand or libertarians in general.

Finally, someone who's read it. :)

Thanks for the synopsis.

The beggars in Spain
are really quite a drain
giving up your change
yet still they are in pain

One of my fave bits of lit of late in Nancy Kress' "Beggars in Spain" trilogy.

The primary question of the books is sumarized in the titular problem:



Who's read the books and can comment?
We owe them nothing? Isn't that something Ayn Rand has said over and over? I may like this Nancy Kress... I'll have to investigate.

We owe them nothing? Isn't that something Ayn Rand has said over and over? I may like this Nancy Kress... I'll have to investigate.

Well, it's certainly not as simple as that. And I'll certainly recommend the books. :)

And nice poem SB. ;)

Nietzche said that the best moral character of someone is how they treat someone/thing that has absolutely nothing to give back.

Most people let their Entrophy,Atrophy.

(if I saw 100 beggers coming towards me,I'd be running for the first police station! Thats not a collection of down and out people,looking for assistance. Thats a MOB!)

Has anyone noticed that, in books with an obvious political underpinning, characters are stumped or defeated by ridiculous questions or scenarios that absolutely nobody in real life would be unable to answer?
Quite.

The answer is, of course, "so as not to be a complete prick, fuck off you selfish bastard, if you don't want to give the poor money, then that's your choice, and the fact that they don't get to eat because of your sheer lack of compassion is something that will go with you to your grave".

Finally, someone who's read it. :)

Thanks for the synopsis.

You're most welcome. It is one of my favorite novels of all time.

Well, it's certainly not as simple as that. And I'll certainly recommend the books. :)

And nice poem SB. ;)
If it _were_ simple, it wouldn't be any fun... Looking forward to reading her.

By the way, how is the Probability series?

By the way, how is the Probability series?

It has some good stuff in it, but I wouldn't recomend it overall.

Nietzche said that the best moral character of someone is how they treat someone/thing that has absolutely nothing to give back.

Indeed.

Most people let their Entrophy,Atrophy.

(if I saw 100 beggers coming towards me,I'd be running for the first police station! Thats not a collection of down and out people,looking for assistance. Thats a MOB!)

Indeed, that is in part the point.

Which reminds me...
Productive and responsible members of society are a minority, especially as technological knowledge and advanatges (portayed in the book via genetically engineering) speed up, and most people are not able to compete productively

your book sounds quite wrong. most people ARE productive. they work, they take care of their homes and families, they go to school in order to be more productive later on.

the incidence of completely unproductive people who are uninterested in supporting themselves is pretty small.

so for those few who are not interested in lifting a finger to support themselves society owes a kick in the ass to get them out of this self destructive pattern and the opportunity to get some kind of work when they come to their senses.

That wasn't meant to imply that most people produce nothing at all, but that the vast majority of people are either net consumers in idustrial societies or net producers in non-industrial societies who produce trivial amounts of goods and services.

You're most welcome. It is one of my favorite novels of all time.

:) It certainly ranks up there for me, especially since I happened to pick it up at a time when I was starting to undergo a rather techtonic shift in my own political views. I've always been surprised that it hasn't been discussed more here, as NSG is home to lots of very political and SF loving people. I suspect it might be an age thing...

If it _were_ simple, it wouldn't be any fun... Looking forward to reading her.

:D Excellent. I look forward to hearing back from you.

By the way, how is the Probability series?

Haven't read it.

It has some good stuff in it, but I wouldn't recomend it overall.

Alrighty, I may pick it up if I see it, but won't go actively looking for it.