Rich countries are the Predators and Poor countries are the Prey, Do you agree?

Use this forum to discuss the December 2021 Philosophy Book of the Month, A Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir by Dr.Ghoulem Berrah
Post Reply
Ecurb
Posts: 1425
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm

Re: Rich countries are the Predators and Poor countries are the Prey, Do you agree?

Post by Ecurb »

GE Morton wrote: January 26th, 2022, 2:23 pm

You're partly right there. When I said "Without that unchosen emotional response there would be no incentive to master that practice," that was too hasty, and incorrect. There could be other motives to engage in that practice, such as a sense of duty, as you mention. Or perhaps even a threat of legal action. And having commenced that practice, love for the child may well develop. But it also may not. Whether it does or not is beyond the control of the agent.

I said above that emotional responses and tastes can change over time. Those changes can well be triggered by experience. But they are unpredictable.

I'll grant that I overstated my case -- we don't always love those who love us, but we tend to. Also, I don't think that whether love develops is beyond the control of the parent. A parent who thinks it is his or her duty to not only care for the child but to love him as well will probably be more likely to love him. We may not be able to completely control whom we love, but I'd say we have some degree of control. Of course this is the Christian testimony as well: once you practice loving your neighbor (and your enemy) it begins to come naturally (in the case of Christians, with God's help). Agape (the Christians preach) is an act of will and a learned emotion. One doesn't need to be religious to agree.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 4597
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Rich countries are the Predators and Poor countries are the Prey, Do you agree?

Post by Belindi »

Belindi wrote:
What all religions simply are for, and always have been for, is social control. The religious myths are nothing but partly metaphysical explanations and justifications of social control.
GEM replied:
Well, not "nothing but." They also served other purposes, such as providing answers to "why" questions about the workings of the natural world, the cosmos, and the origins of life.
Yes, but these stories are part of the mythology of religions. Do you imagine that a people will support the enormous time and energy of a religion to satisfy the idle curiosity of two or three who have the leisure to sit and wonder about why they are here?
It is true that religions are needed to support early technologies that owe their existences to climate, terrain, water, fish, prey animals, domesticated animals, vegetation, seasons. However means of subsistence is closely bound up with social control and apportioning of the rewards for toil and danger.

Belindi wrote:
Now that religions are mostly defunct the social control is secular and the codified social control remains, including after political revolutions. There must be social control, and there must be theories of social control, and where else could social control possibly originate but from the institutions that were once the powerful and legitimate carriers of the moral code?
GEM replied:
How about from rational analysis and contemplation of the problem, just as we approach other problems, such as building a bridge or developing a COVID vaccine? Religions are no better equipped, nor any more likely, to provide answers to moral questions than they are to questions about why the sun shines, or why volcanoes erupt.
Religions ares better equipped to get people cooperating and not killing each other. Religions manage social control by means of mythologies i.e. stories of how and why things happen, may be caused to happen, and what iconic persons did about it all.


I think Sculpture wrote the following:
All of the "universal law" tenets I listed above were contained in the earliest known legal code, the Code of Ur-Nammu, which preceded Christianity by 2000 years. They are found in virtually every legal code and informal moral code on Earth, irrespective of religion.
Belinda replied:[/quote] which bears out that religions and other ideas are syncretistic, i.e. they aren't invented de novo. Indeed, it's somewhat doubtful if ordinary human affections, human reason, and human kindness can hold the fort in the absence of religious myths.[/quote]
Well, that is an amazingly pessimistic view of human nature, and one easily refuted by observation, since all those qualities can readily be found in non-religious persons.
Indeed it's pessimistic. What else would you have? You can find ordinary human kindness in religious and non-religious, but it takes coercion to ensure that the society as a whole benefits from the products of labour, or the defence of the realm against invaders and thieves.
Alfie is permitted by a capitalist society to retain $10,000. Capitalism and most other economic systems hold that Alfie deserves his rewards for his own work. Bruno has a few dollars from social welfare and if Bruno is able to work but refuses to work and turns to crime then he will be brought to justice. A civilised society will protect its basis as civilised by feeding and housing Bruno even if he has turned to crime, and even when everybody regards Bruno as nuisance or worse. A civilised society will protect its basis as civilised by ensuring that others don't learn laziness, or crime, but instead learn morality.
Well, you're begging the question again. You're also equating "civilized" with adoption of Christian ethics, when that term carries no such connotation. A "civilized" society is simply one characterized by cities, i.e., communities so large that most of their inhabitants don't know most of the others ("civilized" derives from the Latin civitas, for "city").

Civilized societies do require a morality, of course, but the question is whether it will be a rationally developed and justifiable morality or an archaic one left over from an extinct form of human society and buttressed by myth and superstition.
Certainly Bruno is a bad investment compared with the efficient and law abiding Alfie. But immediate returns is not the only reason to support Bruno. We support Bruno as , if we didn't , we would damage ourselves by allowing ourselves to be led by our resentment.
What damage would that be? Per the common definition of "damage," if the State seizes wealth from productive Alfie in order to support unproductive Bruno, then Alfie is damaged (his welfare is reduced). No one is damaged if it refrains from doing that, or if it prevents Bruno from doing that. Refraining from enacting laws forcing Alfie to support Bruno is not motivated by "resentment," BTW. It is motivated by the desire to avoid damaging Alfie. Keep in mind, of course, that nothing prevents Alfie from voluntarily supporting Bruno, if he has adopted a personal moral code which commands that.
We also see that Brunos are the repositories of as yet unused and potentially useful talents.
Well, no, Belindi, we DON'T see that, in 98 or so cases per 100. You've embraced a Panglossian fantasy of human nature which is quite at odds with the observable facts.
[/quote]

There is ample evidence that the lower classes contain the same distribution of qualities as middle ,upper middle, or upper classes. The difference in social class is education.
User avatar
mystery
Posts: 380
Joined: May 14th, 2021, 5:41 am
Favorite Philosopher: Mike Tyson
Location: earth

Re: Rich countries are the Predators and Poor countries are the Prey, Do you agree?

Post by mystery »

Belindi wrote: January 27th, 2022, 7:23 am There is ample evidence that the lower classes contain the same distribution of qualities as middle ,upper middle, or upper classes. The difference in social class is education.
While the larger topic is much more interesting, This statement is false.

The difference in social class is either money or blood. Education might lead to money or might be because of money. Blood stands on its own.
AmosMorrison
Posts: 30
Joined: October 28th, 2021, 8:43 am

Re: Rich countries are the Predators and Poor countries are the Prey, Do you agree?

Post by AmosMorrison »

GE Morton wrote: January 20th, 2022, 2:28 pm
AmosMorrison wrote: January 20th, 2022, 2:56 am
I agree with your point wholeheartedly and moreover, I appreciate the way you have brought the discussion to a good term and understanding. You see, everything in the modern world or the world we are living in presently deals in profits.
Well, no, "the world" doesn't, though business does.
If you see hospitals, they do not work through charities throughout. I mean, who will earn bucks from business and make sure that ICU works on his money throughout? But if the world works in this way, then we need to act accordingly too. If you consider the prey as innocent, then the predators need to offer a legitimate picture of society.
What would that be?
By investing in people, they can simply lay out some good foundations on which the nation will stand up and then begin to pay you back. By making hospitals and playing fields, you will be investing in two diverse and different aspects of nature. But in general, you will be opening a door to endless profits.
Well, no, you won't. Good health and playing fields don't produce wealth; skills and talents do.
Well, there is this never-ending debate that will continue until you consider the solution or answer to it through the eyes of the elite or through the eyes of the civilians. It is because you will never come to a constructive solution through the idea or the eyes of them all. Rather you will have to look for two distinct answers. I see that the debate is never-ending here and it never will until you think calmly and use the slightest of the IQs.
You’re saying that playing fields do not produce wealth then make sure where it comes from. I mean, if you remove the health factor, you will have to remove the medical science as a whole from the world and thus you will need to remove hospitals and every such remaining facility. Every top medical unit and professional is earning in bucks that you cannot possibly imagine. And there is no end here. Now consider the sports stuff through playing fields. A playing field promotes sports and thus it opens a world of sports medical study separately. It means you will have to understand how one relates to the other.
Why is the FIFA World Cup happening in Qatar in 2022 (this year) since everyone is asking to shift it to another country still? Why? Because they fear Qatar emerging as the best one on top of the world. Stadiums or specifically playing fields built in these countries have attracted local and foreign crowds and now will attract the top players. And soon, the medical unit will expand manifolds and then it will be the next hub for extraordinary wealth.
Why is there such investment of high record in Qatar by the top brands in the world? Because they sense Qatar is vulnerable to the world of modernism and they see an opportunity. Only if you know how to act and act smartly, there is less to comment and type here and more to act outside!
GE Morton
Posts: 3214
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Rich countries are the Predators and Poor countries are the Prey, Do you agree?

Post by GE Morton »

Ecurb wrote: January 26th, 2022, 2:38 pm
Also, I don't think that whether love develops is beyond the control of the parent. A parent who thinks it is his or her duty to not only care for the child but to love him as well will probably be more likely to love him.
That is probably true, because engaging in the care-giving practice allows a personal relationship to develop with the child, which may --- but may not --- elicit that emotional response. Consider that professional caregivers, such as nursing home and day care workers, engage in that practice on a daily basis, but don't develop a strong emotional attachment to most of their charges. If a parent calls her day care worker to say she is withdrawing her child because they are moving to Texas, the worker will say, "Have a nice trip!," and forget about that kid in a couple of days.
Of course this is the Christian testimony as well: once you practice loving your neighbor (and your enemy) it begins to come naturally (in the case of Christians, with God's help). Agape (the Christians preach) is an act of will and a learned emotion. One doesn't need to be religious to agree.
Well, the trouble with agape is that "all of mankind" are not your neighbors, or even your enemies. You have no personal relationship with 99+% of them, and thus developing any kind of emotional bond with them is not possible.
GE Morton
Posts: 3214
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Rich countries are the Predators and Poor countries are the Prey, Do you agree?

Post by GE Morton »

AmosMorrison wrote: January 27th, 2022, 10:28 am
You’re saying that playing fields do not produce wealth then make sure where it comes from. I mean, if you remove the health factor, you will have to remove the medical science as a whole from the world and thus you will need to remove hospitals and every such remaining facility. Every top medical unit and professional is earning in bucks that you cannot possibly imagine. And there is no end here. Now consider the sports stuff through playing fields. A playing field promotes sports and thus it opens a world of sports medical study separately. It means you will have to understand how one relates to the other.
Sports produces wealth for a handful of professional players, but they will not produce any wealth for 99% of the kids who use those playing fields. Nor will the wealth earned by those professionals contribute significantly to the county's GDP or median household income.

Health is a necessary condition for generating wealth, but far from sufficient.
GE Morton
Posts: 3214
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Rich countries are the Predators and Poor countries are the Prey, Do you agree?

Post by GE Morton »

Yikes, this is a tough post to follow. You attribute my comments to someone else, quote comments but don't respond to them, and repeat comments of your own which have already been addressed!
GEM replied:
How about from rational analysis and contemplation of the problem, just as we approach other problems, such as building a bridge or developing a COVID vaccine? Religions are no better equipped, nor any more likely, to provide answers to moral questions than they are to questions about why the sun shines, or why volcanoes erupt.
Religions ares better equipped to get people cooperating and not killing each other. Religions manage social control by means of mythologies i.e. stories of how and why things happen, may be caused to happen, and what iconic persons did about it all.
You seem to be saying that myths are easier to sell than scientific explanations and reasoned arguments because they are easier to understand, and you may be right. But that shouldn't recommend them to philosophers.
I think Sculpture wrote the following:
All of the "universal law" tenets I listed above were contained in the earliest known legal code, the Code of Ur-Nammu, which preceded Christianity by 2000 years. They are found in virtually every legal code and informal moral code on Earth, irrespective of religion.
No, that was my comment.
Indeed it's pessimistic. What else would you have? You can find ordinary human kindness in religious and non-religious, but it takes coercion to ensure that the society as a whole benefits from the products of labour, or the defence of the realm against invaders and thieves.
Again you beg the question: What duty does Alfie have to ensure that "society as a whole" --- or anyone except himself --- benefits from his labor? What are the moral arguments for this presumed duty? You can't seem to find your way out of the organic fallacy.
Alfie is permitted by a capitalist society to retain $10,000. Capitalism and most other economic systems hold that Alfie deserves his rewards for his own work. Bruno has a few dollars from social welfare and if Bruno is able to work but refuses to work and turns to crime then he will be brought to justice. A civilised society will protect its basis as civilised by feeding and housing Bruno even if he has turned to crime, and even when everybody regards Bruno as nuisance or worse. A civilised society will protect its basis as civilised by ensuring that others don't learn laziness, or crime, but instead learn morality.
Well, you're begging the question again. You're also equating "civilized" with adoption of Christian ethics, when that term carries no such connotation. A "civilized" society is simply one characterized by cities, i.e., communities so large that most of their inhabitants don't know most of the others ("civilized" derives from the Latin civitas, for "city").
Civilized societies do require a morality, of course, but the question is whether it will be a rationally developed and justifiable morality or an archaic one left over from an extinct form of human society and buttressed by myth and superstition.
Certainly Bruno is a bad investment compared with the efficient and law abiding Alfie. But immediate returns is not the only reason to support Bruno. We support Bruno as , if we didn't , we would damage ourselves by allowing ourselves to be led by our resentment.
What damage would that be? Per the common definition of "damage," if the State seizes wealth from productive Alfie in order to support unproductive Bruno, then Alfie is damaged (his welfare is reduced). No one is damaged if it refrains from doing that, or if it prevents Bruno from doing that. Refraining from enacting laws forcing Alfie to support Bruno is not motivated by "resentment," BTW. It is motivated by the desire to avoid damaging Alfie. Keep in mind, of course, that nothing prevents Alfie from voluntarily supporting Bruno, if he has adopted a personal moral code which commands that.
Long repeat of previous comments, but no response.
We also see that Brunos are the repositories of as yet unused and potentially useful talents.
Well, no, Belindi, we DON'T see that, in 98 or so cases per 100. You've embraced a Panglossian fantasy of human nature which is quite at odds with the observable facts.
There is ample evidence that the lower classes contain the same distribution of qualities as middle ,upper middle, or upper classes. The difference in social class is education.
Well, first, to address these issues you have discard the Marxist notion of "social classes." They are arbitrary and useless as explanatory devices. Societies consist of individuals, and they differ individually, with most measurable traits distributed along a bell curve, not into arbitrarily defined "classes." The traits that are conducive to producing wealth are NOT equally distributed among individuals, but also follow (roughly) a bell curve. Education, far from being a driver of social and economic differences, is itself dependent upon those traits --- they determine how much and what kinds of education people seek and how much benefit they derive from it.

"In New York . . . real per-pupil revenue has increased by a mind-boggling 68 percent between 2002 and 2019. Public schools in the Empire State are now shelling out more than $30,000 per kid. That's more than double the national average, and it doesn't even include the $16 billion extra that New York's system got in combined federal and state COVID-19 relief funding . . . Yet . . . only a third or fewer of students are up to grade level in eighth grade reading and math, according to their scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), widely considered the gold standard for judging school outcomes. Those scores aren't much different than they were 20 years ago."

https://reason.com/video/2022/01/26/ny- ... 000-a-year

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 4597
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Rich countries are the Predators and Poor countries are the Prey, Do you agree?

Post by Belindi »

GEMorton wrote:
-----discard the Marxist notion of "social classes." They are arbitrary and useless as explanatory devices. Societies consist of individuals, and they differ individually, with most measurable traits distributed along a bell curve, not into arbitrarily defined "classes." The traits that are conducive to producing wealth are NOT equally distributed among individuals, but also follow (roughly) a bell curve. Education, far from being a driver of social and economic differences, is itself dependent upon those traits --- they determine how much and what kinds of education people seek and how much benefit they derive from it.
There were social classes long before Marx's
lifetime .
Education advances the native abilities of individuals from all income groups.
GE Morton
Posts: 3214
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Rich countries are the Predators and Poor countries are the Prey, Do you agree?

Post by GE Morton »

Belindi wrote: January 27th, 2022, 4:21 pm There were social classes long before Marx's lifetime.
There will be social classes as long as there are ideologues to define them, according to whatever arbitrary criterion they choose.
Education advances the native abilities of individuals from all income groups.
That is probably true if "education" is understood in the broadest sense, i.e., as lifetime learning from experience.

The only native abilities to be found in any group are those possessed by the individuals who constitute that group. If "education" is understood in the usual sense, as that which is offered in public schools, the it does NOT advance the native abilities, or yield any palpable benefit, to all individuals. For many kids sending them to those schools is a waste of their time and taxpayers' money.
Ecurb
Posts: 1425
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm

Re: Rich countries are the Predators and Poor countries are the Prey, Do you agree?

Post by Ecurb »

GE Morton wrote: January 27th, 2022, 12:58 pm

Well, the trouble with agape is that "all of mankind" are not your neighbors, or even your enemies. You have no personal relationship with 99+% of them, and thus developing any kind of emotional bond with them is not possible.
Nobody ever claimed it was easy. But Christians claim that it is possible, with God's help. Agape refers to the kind of love God has for man, and saints have for God. It is sometimes translated as "charity", and sometimes as "love". It is an act of will, not a naturally occurring emotion.

The Christian view is that by practicing loving God, you will actually come to love God. The act of will produces the emotion. And by practicing loving mankind, you will actually come to love mankind. Of course, I can offer no personal testimony on behalf of this theory. But it makes sense. "Fake it 'till you make it."

If, instead of thinking of welfare as "theft", we think of it as an opportunity to practice agape we have taken the first step toward learning this kind of love and empathy. Instead of resenting paying our taxes, we feel grateful for the opportunity to help. "For there is none righteous, no, not one."

Your notion, GE, that we should get what we deserve (and that, for example, the creator or first discoverer somehow deserves control) is contrary to the Christian ethos. As Hamlet said, "Treat each man by his deserts, and who would 'scape a whipping?" Grace is that quality of God's (in Christian mythology) that treats people better than they deserve. Don't we all want to be treated better than we deserve?

The notion that we "deserve" rewards based on merit is egocentric and narcissistic. The fruit from the apple tree is a gift, not a just reward. The taxes you pay to help the poor are a gift -- not just to those receiving them, but to those giving them. We just have to learn to see them in that light.
GE Morton
Posts: 3214
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Rich countries are the Predators and Poor countries are the Prey, Do you agree?

Post by GE Morton »

Ecurb wrote: January 28th, 2022, 12:31 pm
Nobody ever claimed it was easy. But Christians claim that it is possible, with God's help. Agape refers to the kind of love God has for man . . .
Whatever that may be.
. . . and saints have for God. It is sometimes translated as "charity", and sometimes as "love". It is an act of will, not a naturally occurring emotion.
Oh, I think the former is indeed love, in the (normal) emotional sense. People can feel and express love for anything, including inanimate objects, pop stars in film, sports, music whom they know only via media; even imaginary entities. True believers' love of God is not an act of will; it it is genuine emotional response.
The Christian view is that by practicing loving God, you will actually come to love God.
What would be one's incentive for taking up such a practice?
The act of will produces the emotion. And by practicing loving mankind, you will actually come to love mankind.
Same question. I suspect the answer lies in some sort of unarticulated (and perhaps unconscious) belief that it is "the right thing to do." That, of course, is a moral claim, and thus requires a moral argument --- which cannot be "because God wills it," since that would be circular. It would also be unsound, resting as it does on supernatural premises.
If, instead of thinking of welfare as "theft", we think of it as an opportunity to practice agape we have taken the first step toward learning this kind of love and empathy.
Again, what is the incentive for taking that step? Careful not to beg the question. . .
The notion that we "deserve" rewards based on merit is egocentric and narcissistic. The fruit from the apple tree is a gift, not a just reward.
No, it is not a gift, because there is no giver. The tree just is, a natural feature of the world in which we find ourselves. The reward is for making the effort to find the tree and pick the apple, just as nectar is a bee's reward for searching for and gathering nectar, and mouse is a cat's reward for finding it, stalking it and pouncing on it.
The taxes you pay to help the poor are a gift -- not just to those receiving them, but to those giving them. We just have to learn to see them in that light.
We would only see them in that light if we'd embraced a moral principle which so commanded, a principle which so far is (rationally) undefended.
Ecurb
Posts: 1425
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm

Re: Rich countries are the Predators and Poor countries are the Prey, Do you agree?

Post by Ecurb »

GE Morton wrote: January 28th, 2022, 2:37 pm


We would only see them in that light if we'd embraced a moral principle which so commanded, a principle which so far is (rationally) undefended.
"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." This is the moral principle embraced not only by Christians, but by Confucius and many other moralists. It is defended on the principles of honor and justice. (I won't bother defending honor and fair play. We may be headed for infinite regress.)

Besides, it is possible to simply assert that loving and being loved promotes one's own well-being. So say the poets, anyway. So even from a selfish perspective agape may lead to a life well-lived.

By the way, the love for God is -- I agree -- more than an act of will. But it is generated by an act of will. So (I think) are other forms of love. Without the act of will, there would be no agape.

Where's Leon(somethingorother)? He probably knows more about the standard theological position than I do. My only knowledge of theology comes from reading C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton. Lewis wrote a book called "The Four Loves", but I haven't read it in years.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 6300
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Rich countries are the Predators and Poor countries are the Prey, Do you agree?

Post by LuckyR »

GE Morton wrote: January 28th, 2022, 12:11 pm
Belindi wrote: January 27th, 2022, 4:21 pm There were social classes long before Marx's lifetime.
There will be social classes as long as there are ideologues to define them, according to whatever arbitrary criterion they choose.
Education advances the native abilities of individuals from all income groups.
That is probably true if "education" is understood in the broadest sense, i.e., as lifetime learning from experience.

The only native abilities to be found in any group are those possessed by the individuals who constitute that group. If "education" is understood in the usual sense, as that which is offered in public schools, the it does NOT advance the native abilities, or yield any palpable benefit, to all individuals. For many kids sending them to those schools is a waste of their time and taxpayers' money.
I have to chuckle a bit observing this back and forth. It is like the battle between the lumpers and the splitters. One side claims there is no such thing as groups ie we are all individuals (they over emphasize differences) while the others put every individual into various groups (they over emphasize commonalities). News flash! You're both right, there are actual groups who share certain commonalities, while at the same time everyone, including group members, have certain unique properties that mark them also as individuals.
"As usual... it depends."
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 4597
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Rich countries are the Predators and Poor countries are the Prey, Do you agree?

Post by Belindi »

GE Morton wrote: January 28th, 2022, 12:11 pm
Belindi wrote: January 27th, 2022, 4:21 pm There were social classes long before Marx's lifetime.
There will be social classes as long as there are ideologues to define them, according to whatever arbitrary criterion they choose.
Education advances the native abilities of individuals from all income groups.
That is probably true if "education" is understood in the broadest sense, i.e., as lifetime learning from experience.

The only native abilities to be found in any group are those possessed by the individuals who constitute that group. If "education" is understood in the usual sense, as that which is offered in public schools, the it does NOT advance the native abilities, or yield any palpable benefit, to all individuals. For many kids sending them to those schools is a waste of their time and taxpayers' money.
It's true that public schools sometimes fail to deliver proper education. The fault is partly with the schools themselves and partly with the kids' backgrounds: overcrowded or other lack of proper shelter for families, hunger, local crime, culture of hopelessness, and lack of ancillary services such as health and legal care. To blame poorer children's lack of inherent wit is victim-blaming.

True, some kids are not natural intellectuals and these need other levels and styles of intellectual content . There are also children with learning difficulties, deaf kids, blind kids, kids in wheelchairs, and all of them need facilities tailored to their needs.

People viscerally and socially experience social class whether or not they give it that name 'social class'. Unless you understand this you will be unable to understand how publicly financed thorough education to tertiary level for all gives us social mobility.

Some markets, such at the East India Company ,exploited and exploit the native wealth of another country. Sometimes the ruling regime of country is the exploiter, such as King Leopold of Belgium, and sometimes a multinational corporation is the exploiter. To exploit is to use without paying back sufficiently to restore what has been taken, and typically with no intention of doing so. Exploited countries did not only lose out to companies that extracted their minerals, crops or wildlife. Labour was also exploited sometimes to the extent that native cultures were neglected as workers were moved to different social settings sometimes in faraway townships or camps; and sometimes to the extent that native workers could work only for the exploiters and pay taxes to them.

Bad public education at home and in the colonies is caused by lack of investment in educating labourers. Indeed, why invest in educating people who would not labour more if they were educated, and may even get stroppy if they were able to read and write good English and reason with their betters?
EricPH
Posts: 192
Joined: October 22nd, 2021, 11:26 am

Re: Rich countries are the Predators and Poor countries are the Prey, Do you agree?

Post by EricPH »

Ecurb wrote: January 28th, 2022, 12:31 pm The Christian view is that by practicing loving God, you will actually come to love God. The act of will produces the emotion. And by practicing loving mankind, you will actually come to love mankind.
How you love the poor and oppressed is how you love God.

Mathew 25
34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
Post Reply

Return to “A Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir by Dr.Ghoulem Berrah”

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021