Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And buckle up, 'cause I'm about to get kinda dark here, and I think many won't agree with me on this...
..... I include the option of ending one's own life. Humanely. ....a painless exit with some really nice drugs would be available. It would never be a punishment, but it would be available as a CHOICE to the incarcerated as much as to anyone.......
People may not be so far away from that personal option as some might think ..... here is a recent invention about to be launched in Switzerland. The 3D printed Suicide Pod that a suicider climbs into, lies down, closes the lid and pushes a button and that's it, game over real quick .... https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-59577162
I've long believed, and still do, that the nature of US society, particularly its brand of capitalism, will result in an enduring "housing crisis", but technology may soon ease at least one aspect of the problem.
Specifically, 3D printed houses in 22 hours, but they're hardly "affordable" compared to the 2021 median US house price. I don't know where economy of scale savings can be found.
Quote:
Habitat for Humanity handed over keys to its first 3D-printed home to a Virginia woman and her son on Tuesday, Joann writes.
The house in Williamsburg, Virginia, was built by a construction tech startup called Alquist, using a giant 3D printer.
It took just 22 hours to print the 1,200-square-foot, 3-bedroom, 2-bath home, which would take at least four weeks using standard construction methods.
It's the first home owned by April Stringfield, who invested 300 hours of sweat equity with Habitat to qualify.
The big picture: 3D-printing technology is transforming the homebuilding process to help solve an affordable housing crisis as well as a shortage of skilled labor and rising material costs.
Zachary Mannheimer founded Alquist in 2020 and partnered with Habitat for Humanity to help solve the rural housing crisis."
Well, and I've heard the virtues of "hemp-crete" being lauded for ages, as a sustainable building material that could solve all of our housing woes, but a big problem we've got in our capitalist country is that if it doesn't make anybody rich, if it cannot be gamed as an artificial scarcity, then it's not gonna fly.
I mean, ya'll know why cannabis became illegal in the first place, right? It wasn't really about the drugs, though that was the justification that was dumped out there to get Congress on board. It was the fact that industrial hemp would be a competitor to the Hearst interests in Northwest timber operations, and to Dupont's new baby, nylon.
That's why I believe that we do need some government intervention in business, because what we want for our capitalism needs to be more along the lines of competition and innovation and sniffing out the most promising technologies and adaptations that will make life better for humanity, and maximizing those....not the stifling of them because they compete with some powerful Megacorp's existing revenue stream.
But we definitely see the illumination of two conflicting mindsets in this thread (which I expected, really.) There are those who believe that most people won't do the right things unless a gun is held to their heads, like without the threat of suffering, why would anybody work?...and there are those who believe that most people would prefer the sense of purpose and relative freedom involved in working.
I think that most interventions should always be aimed at providing people with a path to a "normal" lifestyle.
But there should be some fallback for those who just can't get on that track or stay there. These alternatives may involve surrendering some of one's freedoms...but they don't have to be needlessly cruel just to prevent "everybody" from wanting to jump on board just because it's "freebies."
Like if you are in a group home, you will live in the middle of nowhere. You won't have access to a city, to night life, to whatever friends you might have made outside, to drugs you might otherwise have chosen, to ways in which to spend money or your time as freely as you might have on the outside. You'd have to follow the routines and live by the rules in order to continue to be there, if you're just trying to find a "free" place to live that is pleasant and safe, fine, but you are just as "free" to leave if you don't abide by the program. Like that's my thought for a fallback for those who are "average-abled" but who just don't seem to thrive in the wild of regular society....they would have the option to "go live on a farm."
Part of the purpose of places like that would be to provide a space that is not connected to technology, media, news, screens, it's right back to basics, down to earth. A place to try and find healing, as well as any kind of remedial learning that might help, for a time. With communal meals and singalongs in the evenings, too.
Personally, as someone who is able to live just fine the way that I do, I would never want to go do something like this. But you know what? My son sure would benefit from it.
But I think that we would need more flexibility than currently exists in the "social safety net" programs, and well trained people to engage with these cases. Because for me, the more important question is "Why?" I don't see most homeless or struggling Americans as people who just want to run wild like perpetual children. I've known plenty, and each one has a story...where they were trying to participate like everybody else, but something went wrong and they never bounced back from it.
I don't think that, as some here have said, they just have this rebellious impulse to reject all rules, structure and authority. I think that somewhere along the way, the "rules" of life put them in what seemed like a double bind, and they just could not see a path to prevent the dominoes from falling. Addressing the "Why?" could remedy their whole situation, though in plenty of instances it won't be easy to do.
I also, by the way, take a different view of the concept of "prison" than most. I no longer even like the whole notion of "criminal justice" as it stands. I don't like the way people think of it as justice meaning retribution, "punishment" for having been bad. I'm not saying that prison serves no purpose, but it should, I think, serve a different one as its main focus. Protecting society from the relatively few irredeemably broken human beings who are a persistent danger to others. You put them where they can't hurt other people. That is the point. Sure, if any of them can be "saved" or rehabilitated, that's great, but I can acknowledge that some probably cannot.
I'd love to see more solutions, but at every level I would want them to be more voluntary, more about autonomy, freedom, and personal choices, than not. So rather than FORCING people to do this or that, provide more and better options to make their lives better.
And buckle up, 'cause I'm about to get kinda dark here, and I think many won't agree with me on this...
I include the option of ending one's own life. Humanely. Though I believe that one should be a certain age (late 20's at least) and have regular interaction with a Social Services person to document their intentions over a period of time (maybe 2 years) and if they were offered every other possible route available to them and they still want out more than anything....a painless exit with some really nice drugs would be available. It would never be a punishment, but it would be available as a CHOICE to the incarcerated as much as to anyone.
I also believe that if the young who struggle with suicidal ideation knew that if they just hang in there and keep trying to live, then if nothing else a kind and painless exit is available at a certain point in their lives...they might be a bit less desperate to make it happen in their teens and they might give themselves the time to survive a tough period and possibly reach a better place. Especially if the other structures of American life have been shifted to offer more hope than they do now.
But most of my philosophies center on the reduction of SUFFERING, more than just life for life's sake. I am not so keen on the notion that anyone would feel like "No one wants me to die but no one will help me to live." And I've known too many people who feel that way.
I agree with pretty much most of what you say here, although as the mother of a mentally ill adult child who has experienced suicidal ideation and made at least one attempt, I would want to ensure that every effort is made to treat a potential mental illness and giving someone a shot at the possibility of quality of life. My daughter is currently well and happy. However.
I am currently living in another country, the one right above us. In the meantime, my home is occupied by a homeless person, aka as my youngest brother. He is in his early 50 and has a spine issue that causes him a lot of pain, but even more significant is the fact that he has always been depressed, always been off the edge socially and mentally. My S.O. once asked me if something precipitated his state of mind, and I replied, "Yes. Birth". He has been unhappy since he was a baby, and not too get too deeply into it, but he was the seventh child, born when our mother was 40 years old and our oldest sister was 19, and she made no bones about the fact that she was upset about being pregnant and didn't want another child. I believe he knew that from the womb. She loved him, of course, but I think the damage was done.
I would not want my brother to kill himself, but he has been miserable all his life and I have indeed felt that I would understand if he decide to end it. He is finally, at 52, seeking help and trying a medication other than marijuana as well as looking for social services, but I wonder if it is too little too late. He had a long-term relationship with a woman who remains friends with him, but she gave up after 17 years when his physical and mental state really began to deteriorate and he became unable to work but refused to apply for social services. He lived with our mother and cooked her meals and did her laundry until she died last year, and since then he has been just floundering. He has a few friends, and a couple took him in for a year, but he felt as though he was wearing out his welcome. Since I was not occupying my home at the moment, I offered it to him. I am putting off thinking about what happens if my situation here ends suddenly and I have to return, because I would have to tell him to find another place to live. I could not reside in the same house with him, yet I can't have my own brother living under a bridge, either.
This is one story of a person becoming homeless. There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of others. This one just happens to have a safety net in the form of a family member.
I agree with pretty much most of what you say here, although as the mother of a mentally ill adult child who has experienced suicidal ideation and made at least one attempt, I would want to ensure that every effort is made to treat a potential mental illness and giving someone a shot at the possibility of quality of life. My daughter is currently well and happy. However.
Yes, I am also the mother of a mentally ill son who has made multiple attempts. And that's why I say that I don't think that this option should be available until a person has at least entered their late 20s, so that they've reach the place where one's mind is more capable of longer term thinking. But I would like to think, if I could tell my son, "Look, I know it's really hard for you right now, but I ask you to just try and hang in there, hold on, and give yourself a chance to really grow up...and if you get there, and you still feel consistently like this, and you are sure, then there would be a way that did not involve the likelihood of a failed attempt, injury, or being locked up someplace. A painless end." I would hope that he would not need or want it by the time he got there...but at the end of the day, I have a respect for a person's right to own their own life, and to choose a dignified way out if they truly want that. I mean...we do better for our pets....
But I also think that having them spend 2 years or so regularly meeting with a professional, doing therapy, and checking in as to whether their desire to go is persistent, or mood related, would also be necessary.
So it's not a passing thing or the pain of a young person who cannot yet clearly see tomorrow, that would drive this.
Quote:
I am currently living in another country, the one right above us. In the meantime, my home is occupied by a homeless person, aka as my youngest brother. He is in his early 50 and has a spine issue that causes him a lot of pain, but even more significant is the fact that he has always been depressed, always been off the edge socially and mentally. My S.O. once asked me if something precipitated his state of mind, and I replied, "Yes. Birth". He has been unhappy since he was a baby, and not too get too deeply into it, but he was the seventh child, born when our mother was 40 years old and our oldest sister was 19, and she made no bones about the fact that she was upset about being pregnant and didn't want another child. I believe he knew that from the womb. She loved him, of course, but I think the damage was done.
I would not want my brother to kill himself, but he has been miserable all his life and I have indeed felt that I would understand if he decide to end it. He is finally, at 52, seeking help and trying a medication other than marijuana as well as looking for social services, but I wonder if it is too little too late. He had a long-term relationship with a woman who remains friends with him, but she gave up after 17 years when his physical and mental state really began to deteriorate and he became unable to work but refused to apply for social services. He lived with our mother and cooked her meals and did her laundry until she died last year, and since then he has been just floundering. He has a few friends, and a couple took him in for a year, but he felt as though he was wearing out his welcome. Since I was not occupying my home at the moment, I offered it to him. I am putting off thinking about what happens if my situation here ends suddenly and I have to return, because I would have to tell him to find another place to live. I could not reside in the same house with him, yet I can't have my own brother living under a bridge, either.
This is one story of a person becoming homeless. There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of others. This one just happens to have a safety net in the form of a family member.
Yep. And that's the thing, everyone has a story!
I was briefly homeless myself, though not on the street. My fledgling family utterly failed to thrive in Cincinnati, OH in the late 90s. And, well...my Ex. 'Nuff said there. But we lost our apartment and left everything behind but what we could carry, and I was carrying my 4 month old baby, and we got on a Greyhound to Iowa. There, my Ex's family lived, and his Mom put us up in a cheap motel for a few weeks until we could get "on our feet." Which at that point meant getting jobs and moving into a roach infested apartment (a terrible, run down place) where we lived for our first 2 years there in Des Moines.
I wonder if we abolished money and worked at something we enjoyed, whether the society would jell a little better.
It seems to me that money IS the root of all our problems across the world so it is greed, envy, and all the other 'sins' which are caused by money. If you imagine "Heaven", then there wont be money there so what would we do? We would find something we enjoy and learn how to do it.
If everything was just available to anyone who wanted it (like the "Replicator" on sci-fi movies,) then I think we would be more socially orientated and folks would find things to do which interested them.
I wonder if we abolished money and worked at something we enjoyed, whether the society would jell a little better.
It seems to me that money IS the root of all our problems across the world so it is greed, envy, and all the other 'sins' which are caused by money. If you imagine "Heaven", then there wont be money there so what would we do? We would find something we enjoy and learn how to do it.
If everything was just available to anyone who wanted it (like the "Replicator" on sci-fi movies,) then I think we would be more socially orientated and folks would find things to do which interested them.
I know, this is taking Fantasy to another level.
Money is merely an abstract medium for converting our work and talent into an easily traded commodity. Money in and of itself does not cause "sins" -- the "sin" is made by people who pervert the use of money in ways that cause suffering to others, such as using one's wealth to exploit the poor and desperate. In contrast, there are many who use their wealth to assist the poor and desperate.
You say that there won't be money in Heaven. That's because (for those who actually believe in Heaven) there won't be any need for trade in Heaven, as everyone will be blissfully focused on spiritual matters rather than on the material matters that naturally accompany life in this world.
I don't think that the instant gratification of having everything "available to anyone who wanted it" via a sci-fi "Replicator" (as you suggested) will make people "more socially oriented." If anything, I think that it would make people more self-absorbed and less motivated to achieve and create.
In my opinion, it would be a good start for everyone, on the very most basic need for existence, to have free access to health care. I don't think that it is right or moral for our citizens not to have the same level of access to health care that our government leaders automatically and freely receive.
I post this as a kind of thought experiment in order to avoid going down the political party rabbit holes.
If you had suddenly become in charge of this fictional U.S. with its very real homeless problem, what steps would you take to solve it? You have unilateral control, but similar budget constraints.
Finland solved their homeless problem, and the developing country we retired in, has no visible homeless.
What can be done in this most powerful, richest country in the world?
The US didn't have much of a homeless problem in the years when wealth was more evenly distributed, so that would be my biggest solution–spread the wealth. This strategy has been proven to work in many countries and societies over the centuries.
This seems to be a good general consensus. Three very general categories: mentally ill (bring back the institutions), drug addicts (forced rehab). Affordable housing for the third category, with assistance until they can get back on their feet at which time appropriate rent is charged. This is what Finland did. The housing could be in industrial areas if needed. Can't expect the best neighborhood for this.
My thought was as a first step, put all the homeless in an "emergency" center like they do for disasters. Then have social workers (must hire many more) go to each one, to determine their category.
Feral dogs or other animals aren't usually tolerated in modern cities, but now the U.S. cities have "feral" people endangering the public and businesses.
We took a cab from the airport in London, and passed some lovely old brick row houses. They looked like the very pricey brownstones in NYC. The driver told us they were used to house the homeless.
We took a cab from the airport in London, and passed some lovely old brick row houses. They looked like the very pricey brownstones in NYC. The driver told us they were used to house the homeless.
I took an "Alternative Amsterdam" walking tour. Part of the tour was looking at some newer housing that had been built by the government to house the poor. These houses were built among existing buildings where wealthier people lived. The rules dictate that the architectural style of the housing has to fit in with the older, traditional housing in the same area.
The woman giving the tour said that as a general rule, if you look down on the people next door because they live in "social housing", you are regarded as a jerk. The attitude is different, and that is likely something that has to change here before we make progress with helping the homeless. As long as a large chunk of the population looks at the homeless as losers and parasites and that way of thinking is seen as acceptable, the political will to improve their lives will not come about.
Last edited by Mightyqueen801; 12-23-2021 at 03:29 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
