Jump to content

Feeding Those Who Can't Support Their Families Or Self


Recommended Posts

Soma recently said in a post.

 

 

No one in the world should go hungry, but we don't have the will to feed everyone,

 

This got me to thinking.... What is the real problem that keeps hunger alive? While i believe we have the resources so that none should go hungry in the world and i am now and have been for many years a part of some large organizations that give monthly to feed the children and families of the world, the problem of hunger persists.

 

Not long ago i wrote to one company called Child Fund International in which i sponsor a number of children. They use the money to help provide food to feed , clothed and shelter and provide medical to children and families from some of the poorest countries around the world.

 

Some families i helped support had 4 children or more and over time i noticed they started having additional children which they could not support by themselves. I wrote because i was concerned that the real issue was overpopulation and all the money in the world buying food would not solve it. Why, because while i wanted to help the food problem without action on the part of the recipients, i was actually contributing to more hunger. I was told that while we could help with food and medicine we were limited in that procreation training was beyond the scope of our giving and there was nothing they could do.

 

Obviously, i was not pleased. In my view, i could see giving all your money to feed the poor will not solve the problem of poverty. That is no reason not to give but it seems to me that if people continue to procreate beyond the means they have of supporting children the poor will always be with us and perhaps the money could be better spent. Education and an enforcement policy to limit population seems to me to be more important than just feeding everyone.

 

What do you think?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is multi-dimensional. It involves the entire worlds economic system/systems which contribute to gross inequalities. It involves world climate (warming, cooling or whatever) that relates to floods, droughts and more. It involves our human greed and lack of a will to solve the problem. It involves the cultures of the people - who hunger - themselves, where only an extended family can be looked upon as a help in old age.

 

So an approach that merely offers the "charity" of food aid at each and every famine, is not adequate.

 

To be honest, in many ways I could despair. Listening to the opinions of those around me I hear, more often than not, the voice of ignorance and the seeds of tomorrows famines.

 

There are other seeds. All sorts of "seeds" are in all of us. Really what is new?

Edited by tariki
Link to post
Share on other sites

Derek,

 

It does even to me appear to be a multidimensional problem with no simple easy answer. There are many factors as you have mentioned that contribute.

 

Still i wonder if the root of the problem is not mostly due to basic overpopulation as we sometimes see in the animal kingdom which in time maintains a natural balance. In the US we now have births by minorities and single family mothers that can least afford feeding their children that outnumber the majority. Sure human greed and a lack of resolve to solve contributes to the problem. We do have the technology and resources already present to feed the world even in times of floods and droughts. But if, population continues to explode beyond our ability to support it, it seems to me, nature will seek a balance even among humans through starvation, disease and other means. Otherwise we will have to join Elon Musk's goal which is retirement on Mars. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Joseph,

 

Nature "seeking a balance" often collaborates with humans. The Black Death that has ravaged the European population in wave after wave through the centuries, the native populations of both North and South America decimated by disease when invaded by the European colonists. Each time the population was so reduced there remained hunger, maybe if you were of the wrong colour or class.

Edited by tariki
Link to post
Share on other sites

Derek,

Yes,if i were, i would no doubt be no different than the other.

 

Still, from where i stand i am willing to help and with our advancements in all the areas concerning agriculture, medicine, etc i don't think we would see a repeat of hunger like you posted above if population were kept in check barring any great wars or new diseases beyond our scope of medicine. But who can say for sure of the future?

 

PS HERE is a good example of overpopulation that money alone will not fix

Link to post
Share on other sites

Joseph you have a point, a lot has to do with culture and insecurity. In many 3rd world countries children are their social security so when they get old, they will be taken care of. Corporations who would rather destroy their food for price control rather than donate it contribute to this insecurity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, but my inner and outer socialist is going to show here. IMO the problem is Capitalism period in the case of world hunger the issue is "factory farming" or more accurately Corporation farming. Farms whose sole purpose and the driving force is making their major shareholders richer. The owners of these farms have never worked on a farm or possibly anywhere a day in their lives they have made all their money via inheritance and by moving money around. They haven't gotten into farming to feed their neighbors they do get up before dawn and quit after dark like farmers historically have. Farming to them is not a calling it's just a business venture. This is what happens when the producers do not own the means of production.

I wish I can remember the following in more detail, but I was reading somewhere in the last couple weeks and the person made the point that subconsciously that one reason poor people continue to have more children is to increase the odds that their DNA will not die out or something to that effect - was for the survival of their kind so that if most of them starved to death there would be at least one to carry on their DNA. It has to do with the survival of the human species. This idea really hit home with me. I believe it was in the same article that the point was made that where people prosper they reproduce less.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I still see only the multi-dimensional. To zero in on just one problem - hunger or anything else - is to miss the point. The "answer" to "hunger" becomes "food". But is "hunger" as such a problem? Are all "hungry" people totally discontented? More discontented than an obese New Yorker looking forward to his next 16oz steak? Happier or less happy? Is being "happy" a worthy goal anyway? Of course, when famine strikes, we give. The UK's record for donations on Red Nose Day - and all the other days - is second to none. Long may it continue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The "answer" to "hunger" becomes "food". (snip)

The UK's record for donations on Red Nose Day - and all the other days - is second to none. Long may it continue.

 

Thank you UK. The US record is not bad either. :)

 

Seriously, i would politely differ concerning the answer to hunger 'food' if that's what you really meant. (i'm guessing) i don't think its that simple. While i also want to see no one to go hungry and i contribute to such a goal, i have come to consider that food alone will only create more hunger and i am part of the problem.

 

Population 101:

When a population lives in an ideal environment with no predators, no disease, and unlimited resources (such as food), that population will show a type of growth pattern called exponential growth.

 

In my view, IF that population is educated and realizes the limitations of resources and other related things and acts within the scope of that knowledge that would sustains a healthy population, i think exponential growth would not continue. It seems to me that large populations especially concentrated promotes, food shortages, crime, and other societal problems that would be at least more manageable with some form of population control. It may not make people happy to limit the number of children or where they can live but if we don't do something the problems will get worse and ..... The consequences of Nature will step in and it may not be pleasant.

 

Tom, interesting post. Perhaps the tendency for more children is subconscious as you might suggest with the poor. And yes i would agree that Capitalism unbridled prospers the rich at the expense of the poor and uneducated.

Soma, Good point on 3rd world country and their reason for more children (SS system)

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Seriously, i would politely differ concerning the answer to hunger 'food' if that's what you really meant

In my context, I was just saying that the problem must be recognised as multi-dimensional. The "answer" I offered was an example of not recognising that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my context, I was just saying that the problem must be recognised as multi-dimensional. The "answer" I offered was an example of not recognising that.

 

oops ... so sorry... next time i'll read more carefully.... thanks for clarifying for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

tariki I agree with the multi-dimensional. My spiritual practice takes me to a place where there are no problems, no food, no hunger and it is enjoyable just being, but my spiritual growth seems to come in the physical dimension with cause and effect. My spiritual practice keeps me unattached so I do the best I can without the emotional buy in. It might be old age because when I was young I was active, attached and got in a lot of trouble. I feel unattached I am more effective.

 

Trump has 3 White Houses so how many do we have to pay for so he is happy, how many cars does Romney need? I feel on this plane where numbers matter we just need balance so we are all moving up together and not just the 1%. I am sorry for them grabbing everything in reach in their suffering while others can't get anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 years later...

I somehow missed this thread …  

The thought has crossed my mind too, that providing just more food and shelter can exasperate the famine and hunger. Contraception is one answer, but if children are subliminally our OAS, this is not going to work either.

Of course education and work are a part of the answers.

I remember my brand new 1996 Ford Escort station wagon, I got hold of it on Christmas Eve …  I liked that car. It was made all over the world but assembled in Mexico. Even back then there was the rhetoric of why could it not be made in the Canada (or the States). Having reasonably well paid jobs in Mexico (perhaps not as well paid as in Canada or the States) to me seemed like a win-win. We get cheaper cars and a needy country gets employment and helps minimize poverty.

So I would not necessarily berate capitalism for this, but perhaps our lack of socialist (lower case) tendencies to share our good fortune. It  summarizes to:

It is OK to give aid, but not our jobs.

Another thought. The adage of teaching a man to fish works up to a point, The man might get good at it and empty the lake.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm wondering if part of the problem, and solution, of over population leading to hunger could actually be in architecture. That is a person's ability to live as a single person, without a partner, and be able to afford a roof and four walls, (and a good door).

This gives people more conscious choice as to whether they procreate or not. They can start creating families later in their adult lives, can live as single persons for as long as they choose, and can separate if need be In order to maintain a balance here.

Just a few thoughts

Edited by Elen1107
to change 1 word
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Elen1107 said:

I'm wondering if part of the problem, and solution, of over population leading to hunger could actually be in architecture. That is a person's ability to live as a single person, without a partner, and be able to afford a roof and four walls, (and a good door).

I don't know if you had in mind, or have heard of, the Tiny House Movement so to speak.  I see that as becoming very popular and a good way for people to live cheaply, safely, comfortably, and with or without a partner until such a time as they need to enlarge a little.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, PaulS said:

I don't know if you had in mind, or have heard of, the Tiny House Movement so to speak.  I see that as becoming very popular and a good way for people to live cheaply, safely, comfortably, and with or without a partner until such a time as they need to enlarge a little.  

I have heard of the Tiny House Movement, and have seen a number of them on the internet. I have wondered how really safe and secure they are, and how easily an average person could break in. It also depends on how they are situated and if someone could commit an unlawful entry by meeting a person at or near their door.

In places where things are very poor or desperate  (both culturally and monetarily) people will do anything to steal anything, or commit assault(s). 

What does safe, secure housing really look like and what does it take to construct and maintain them? That's a big subject. If you or other people want to give it a go, I guess we can do that. Something that would function in areas that are not real safe to begin with and could keep people going so they could take care of themselves and perhaps also prepare and save up a bit for the future.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Elen1107 said:

I have heard of the Tiny House Movement, and have seen a number of them on the internet. I have wondered how really safe and secure they are, and how easily an average person could break in. It also depends on how they are situated and if someone could commit an unlawful entry by meeting a person at or near their door.

In places where things are very poor or desperate  (both culturally and monetarily) people will do anything to steal anything, or commit assault(s). 

What does safe, secure housing really look like and what does it take to construct and maintain them? That's a big subject. If you or other people want to give it a go, I guess we can do that. Something that would function in areas that are not real safe to begin with and could keep people going so they could take care of themselves and perhaps also prepare and save up a bit for the future.

I agree - tiny houses aren’t necessarily secure in themselves and much would depend on where one was set up.  I was thinking more about the affordability factor.  Having been a police officer for 13 years (I left 20 years ago) I had a lot of experience with burglary, but you don’t need to be a cop to recognise the correlation between crime and lower socio economic areas.  Happy to discuss architecture or design in another thread.  A mix of concepts such as layered security (physical layers like an onion) and CPTED (crime prevention through environmental design) can play a part, but these will probably always be limited to some degree depending on the community.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, PaulS said:

I agree - tiny houses aren’t necessarily secure in themselves and much would depend on where one was set up.  I was thinking more about the affordability factor.  Having been a police officer for 13 years (I left 20 years ago) I had a lot of experience with burglary, but you don’t need to be a cop to recognise the correlation between crime and lower socio economic areas.  Happy to discuss architecture or design in another thread.  A mix of concepts such as layered security (physical layers like an onion) and CPTED (crime prevention through environmental design) can play a part, but these will probably always be limited to some degree depending on the community.

 

This all got me thinking about early Dutch architecture. We can save it for another thread but just thought I'd mention, it was built with relatively simple technology, but still managed to create safe, though smaller, top floor apartments that are suitable and affordable for one or two people.

Your being an ex-police officer I bet you could contribute a lot to these ideas and this subject.

Where would you want your sons and grandsons and daughters to be living when they get out on their own and have to make their way in this world?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

Where would you want your sons and grandsons and daughters to be living when they get out on their own and have to make their way in this world?

I would say “somewhere near me” but my wife might say “bugger that - we’re travelling!”

I like the corner of the world where I live.  It’s clean, relatively safe, we’re near the beach, town of only about 75,000 and an hour away from the state capital.  So if they lived around here, I think that’d be good.

But that said, they’re going to be their own selves, so all I really wish for is that they live in the place that makes them happiest - whatever that should look like.  There’s always the risk of harm, but clearly there’s a lot more risk in some areas over others.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, PaulS said:

I would say “somewhere near me” but my wife might say “bugger that - we’re travelling!”

I like the corner of the world where I live.  It’s clean, relatively safe, we’re near the beach, town of only about 75,000 and an hour away from the state capital.  So if they lived around here, I think that’d be good.

But that said, they’re going to be their own selves, so all I really wish for is that they live in the place that makes them happiest - whatever that should look like.  There’s always the risk of harm, but clearly there’s a lot more risk in some areas over others.  

I'm also asking what kind of building would you like them to be living in where you feel they could be safe and free from harm?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Elen1107 said:

I'm also asking what kind of building would you like them to be living in where you feel they could be safe and free from harm?

Ideally I'd like them to live in a building that doesn't need to be locked, windows can be left open at night, not be afraid people might be lurking in the backyard etc, but that's probably not the real world, even in 'good' suburbs.

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking - I live in a reasonably crime-free area but I lock the doors at night, and to some degree our windows, but am more relaxed about them.  We have a little dog (who's blind) but he's got good ears so I think he'd bark if somebody was forcing their way through a window flyscreen and timber slatted blind.  I shut my front garage, we tend not to leave bikes or other property lying around out front, we have security lights that come on with movement and we have a security screen on the front door so you can open it without risk (unless they've got a gun!).  I'm happy enough with that - it's probably just your standard basic security type stuff.

Is that sort of what you're asking?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there is any place or building that someone would want to live that would be completely safe from harm. It would be more like a prison with much freedom given up. In my view, the vast majority of US citizens are  law abiding citizens that would do you no harm. Of those who are not, they seem to congregate in the highly populated cities or poorer area of large cities. But of course no place is completely safe from harm of some kind. I would like my children to live in more rural areas (where as a figure of speech) everybody knows everybody, most all are well educated and capable of supporting themselves. I lived in such an area of Kentucky where everyone looked out for the other and most people neither locked their doors nor worried about leaving their equipment out . I didn't even have a lock on my garage or barn doors.  That is no guarantee but nothing is at least in this life except for this physical body to eventually decay so it no longer supports life.

Doesn't matter to me whether its a tiny house or well anchored and strong. It seems to me the area is more important considering all factors including general makeup of people, weather, crime rate, population, etc.    The  violent crime rate in Florida is significantly higher than the national average, at 43.92 vs. 38.63 violent crimes per 10K residents. (data may not be current) Where i live in Florida the violent crime rate is significantly lower with our current population over 100,000+ .With a crime rate for both violent and property crime combined of 8 per 1,000 residents, the crime rate in The Villages is one of the lower rates in America among communities of all sizes (lower than 68% of America's communities). One's chance of becoming a victim of crime in The Villages is one in 118

I guess it pays for people to do their homework to feel safe when picking a place but there is no guarantee that one will not be that 1 in 118. 🙂

---------------------------------------------------------

More on topic, we are a retirement community and there are literally thousands of clubs here and many have worthy causes they support including the one addressed by this thread. (feeding the poor) My one smaller club of 18 members contributes over $2000 a year to a local food kitchen outside our community. Other clubs  do much much more in that area yet poverty still exists all around us.There is no easy answer. Poverty seems to be a sickness that money and food alone won't heal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, PaulS said:

Ideally I'd like them to live in a building that doesn't need to be locked, windows can be left open at night, not be afraid people might be lurking in the backyard etc, but that's probably not the real world, even in 'good' suburbs.

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking - I live in a reasonably crime-free area but I lock the doors at night, and to some degree our windows, but am more relaxed about them.  We have a little dog (who's blind) but he's got good ears so I think he'd bark if somebody was forcing their way through a window flyscreen and timber slatted blind.  I shut my front garage, we tend not to leave bikes or other property lying around out front, we have security lights that come on with movement and we have a security screen on the front door so you can open it without risk (unless they've got a gun!).  I'm happy enough with that - it's probably just your standard basic security type stuff.

Is that sort of what you're asking?

Well, what I'm asking is if one of your sons decided to live alone as a single person, what kind of building and architectural security would you want him to have? Would you want him to live on the first floor where it's perhaps easier to break in. Would you want him to have a locked entry way to the building, or even double doors and double locks to enter the building? Would you want it to be in a place where the tenants are well screened so there'd be less chances of crime? Would you want good doors to the entryways to the actual apartment or place, with good locks on the doors too? Would you want the fire exits to be built in a way that would make them hard for a person to use to break in? Where would the building be located? Would the area be well lit or situated so people are less likely to commit crimes in front of or near it? What else is involved? I'm not sure.

I guess I'm assuming that if a person goes out on their own as a single individual, that they will be renters or if they are lucky condo owners and not owning an entire house. What should these places be like and be built like in order for them to be safe for everyone living there?

 

6 hours ago, JosephM said:

I don't think there is any place or building that someone would want to live that would be completely safe from harm. It would be more like a prison with much freedom given up. In my view, the vast majority of US citizens are  law abiding citizens that would do you no harm. Of those who are not, they seem to congregate in the highly populated cities or poorer area of large cities. But of course no place is completely safe from harm of some kind. I would like my children to live in more rural areas (where as a figure of speech) everybody knows everybody, most all are well educated and capable of supporting themselves. I lived in such an area of Kentucky where everyone looked out for the other and most people neither locked their doors nor worried about leaving their equipment out . I didn't even have a lock on my garage or barn doors.  That is no guarantee but nothing is at least in this life except for this physical body to eventually decay so it no longer supports life.

I think I disagree with you where you say, "I don't think there is any place or building that someone would want to live that would be completely safe from harm. It would be more like a prison with much freedom given up." I myself would love to live in a place or a building that is completely safe from harm. I think I would just love it. I don't see how this would be giving up any freedom at all. In fact I think that the freedom would be tremendous. The freedom of being able to live somewhere and not worry about a thing. No crooks, no crime, no violence, no hardships and no harm. Myself I would just love it, and it's something that I've been looking for all my life. How possible and feasible it is and what it takes is another question all together.

6 hours ago, JosephM said:

Doesn't matter to me whether its a tiny house or well anchored and strong. It seems to me the area is more important considering all factors including general makeup of people, weather, crime rate, population, etc.    The  violent crime rate in Florida is significantly higher than the national average, at 43.92 vs. 38.63 violent crimes per 10K residents. (data may not be current) Where i live in Florida the violent crime rate is significantly lower with our current population over 100,000+ .With a crime rate for both violent and property crime combined of 8 per 1,000 residents, the crime rate in The Villages is one of the lower rates in America among communities of all sizes (lower than 68% of America's communities). One's chance of becoming a victim of crime in The Villages is one in 118

I guess it pays for people to do their homework to feel safe when picking a place but there is no guarantee that one will not be that 1 in 118. 🙂

---------------------------------------------------------

More on topic, we are a retirement community and there are literally thousands of clubs here and many have worthy causes they support including the one addressed by this thread. (feeding the poor) My one smaller club of 18 members contributes over $2000 a year to a local food kitchen outside our community. Other clubs  do much much more in that area yet poverty still exists all around us.There is no easy answer. Poverty seems to be a sickness that money and food alone won't heal.

I agree with you that a good neighborhood and having people living there with a sense of good citizenship is the most important thing. Far and away it is the most important thing. Then one doesn't have to worry about things like doors and locks or how easy it might be to break in.

You started this thread mentioning how you have been helping poor folks who had like four children that they themselves could not really feed and afford. You said, what ends up happening is that they then end up having more children, again that they can't afford or provide for. My thinking is that whether it's in Florida, or any other state, or in a third world country, one of the things that would help in not creating these really large families that the parents cannot provide for, would be enabling people to live separately and as single individuals. If men and women are able to live separately, especially before they are married, they are less likely to have so many children that they cannot provide for and are much less likely to have such large families.

I used to live in an older renovated farm house, converted into five one bedroom apartments. It was in a good neighborhood with a relatively  low crime rate. It was pretty ok. Thing is I was driving at least two hours to get to work and two hours back in order to be able to afford this one bedroom apartment, and earn the salary that I would need to pay for the rent. The young woman next door told me flat out that she would not be able to afford the apartment that she lived in next door, which was exactly like mine, without her boyfriend. She just couldn't do it. She basically felt forced to live with this man because she couldn't afford anything else. This is much more likely to cause unwanted pregnancies, and children to be brought into this world,, that people are unprepared to take care of and provide for. This seems to be how the cycle often starts. People can't afford to live independently so the cohabitate, when they cohabitate they are much more likely to have children. When they start having children they end up with even less resources and need to do things like accept charity and go on welfare. Now they are even more dependent on cohabitation as well as charity, and more children and more births are that much more likely to occur. 

Safe, affordable apartments, that people can live in and afford as single individuals, I think is an important step in curtailing these chains of events. Safety and security is also an important consideration here, because the single individual has more safety concerns and safety needs than the people who are living with someone else and cohabitating. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Elen1107 said:

Well, what I'm asking is if one of your sons decided to live alone as a single person, what kind of building and architectural security would you want him to have? Would you want him to live on the first floor where it's perhaps easier to break in. Would you want him to have a locked entry way to the building, or even double doors and double locks to enter the building? Would you want it to be in a place where the tenants are well screened so there'd be less chances of crime? Would you want good doors to the entryways to the actual apartment or place, with good locks on the doors too? Would you want the fire exits to be built in a way that would make them hard for a person to use to break in? Where would the building be located? Would the area be well lit or situated so people are less likely to commit crimes in front of or near it? What else is involved? I'm not sure.

It seems like a bit of a "how long's a piece of string" question.  Meaning that all of the 'higher security' things you mention could be appropriate in some areas, but perhaps are less necessary is others.  I think one should take a risk management approach - i.e. consider the credible likelihood against the potential consequences.  And the likelihood or consequences could indeed change if one was male or female, elderly or young adult, value of possessions, etc.

I was single when I bought my first house which was on a reasonable sized block of land in suburbia.  Burglaries did occur in the area but most people were happy with a home alarm system, locks on doors, security screens on doors (some on windows but they're pretty ugly), and be smart about locking things up when you're out.  Where I live now we had somebody murdered in an apartment block around the corner a couple of years ago - the offender was high on drugs, used to live in the apartment and went back there in his delusional state to collect his guitar.  Instead he killed the man who had since moved in there.  That's about as random in these parts as getting eaten by a shark, but it can happen.

12 hours ago, Elen1107 said:

I guess I'm assuming that if a person goes out on their own as a single individual, that they will be renters or if they are lucky condo owners and not owning an entire house. What should these places be like and be built like in order for them to be safe for everyone living there?

I mentioned previously about a security concept called CPTED (crime prevention through environmental design) which, very briefly, touches on things like designing areas which have high visibility to passersby and neighbors which discourages crime (cos they can see the bad guys too easily), well lit areas, clearing bushes away from driveways and doorways (so nowhere to hide in ambush), and yes of course, having neighbors in your condo that in themselves act as a deterrent or extra set of security eyes.

12 hours ago, Elen1107 said:

I think I disagree with you where you say, "I don't think there is any place or building that someone would want to live that would be completely safe from harm. It would be more like a prison with much freedom given up." I myself would love to live in a place or a building that is completely safe from harm. I think I would just love it. I don't see how this would be giving up any freedom at all. In fact I think that the freedom would be tremendous. The freedom of being able to live somewhere and not worry about a thing. No crooks, no crime, no violence, no hardships and no harm. Myself I would just love it, and it's something that I've been looking for all my life. How possible and feasible it is and what it takes is another question all together.

I'm not sure if this is what Joseph had in mind when he said that, but I was thinking that about the only place I could imagine where one would be 'completely safe from harm' would probably resemble some sort of prison with razor wire and security gates or some sort of concrete fortress, all dark and dinghy.  From what I've seen, where there is a will there is a way - meaning that just about any security arrangements can be defeated if one has the will and resources to do so.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, PaulS said:

I'm not sure if this is what Joseph had in mind when he said that, but I was thinking that about the only place I could imagine where one would be 'completely safe from harm' would probably resemble some sort of prison with razor wire and security gates or some sort of concrete fortress, all dark and dinghy.  From what I've seen, where there is a will there is a way - meaning that just about any security arrangements can be defeated if one has the will and resources to do so.  

 

My sentiments exactly. It seems we do have to manage risk as you pointed out in your previous post as best we are able within our own acceptable limits of freedom. It seems to me wise at that point to resign ourselves to be content (not worry) about the things we have no control over and  to live peaceably in this world that is filled with a level of uncertainties.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service