Would you give up all of your possessions if the end result were to wipe out war, famine, disease?

[arcadian]

Would you give up all that you have, all of your material goods, if the end result were a peaceful world where everybody lived in harmony and at peace with one another? This would mean that everybody in the world was provided for meals, shelter, medicine, education and basic necessities.

[proud2BlibKansan]

1. Could I keep my iphone?

:)

[AlienGirl]

2. Of course! I'd give my life for that, too.

[gateley]

4. AlienGirl - god love ya. nt

[gateley]

3. Yes. In an instant. EVERYthing. nt

[Skittles]

5. it would be pretty easy for me to do - I have always lived simply n/t

[Political Heretic]

6. For some reason, in recent years I have become less attached to possessions

So, without any personal pride (meaning I don't feel like this has anything to do with me being some kind of "great" person or anything) I can say that yes, I think I would give up everything I have for that end result.

Probably most people would do that one time with the idea that they could build it all back. But I'm pretty sure I'd accept an oath of poverty if I could guarantee the outcome you described. Hell, I think I'd probably even just give my life up if I could guarantee the outcome you just described.

[rpannier]

7. I can't imagine why anyone would seriously vote no

You'd still be taken care of as the question said everyone would have shelter, medicine, food, etc

I'd have voted yes even if that meant I wouldn't necessarily have all of the necessities, but everyone else would.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

8. In a half a heartbeat. Possessions mean nothing,

except for some that have sentimental value.

[Cleita]

9. I said no because that means I would be trusting someone to do the right

thing and frankly, it's up to all of us to make sure that the right thing gets done. We don't need to give up our possessions for it.

[NeedleCast]

10. Probably Not

Humans are smart.

Groups of humans are dumb and prone to mob behavior. They'd just fuck it up again.

[madokie]

11. In an Okie heartbeat

[liberalmuse]

12. Nothing I have is worth more than a human being.

I think most people would.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

21. Then Kindly Read My Response Below.

The value of your computer itself could EASILY itself save at least one life, yet you do not sell it. Just something as simple as your computer is worth more than a human life to you when it comes right down to it. But don't feel guilty. We're all guilty of it. We all turn a blind eye to it every single day. We all want to think we're that decent, but at the end of the day we aren't. We block it out and fool ourselves because that's part of survival. But it is what it is. Downthread I explain further.

[arcadian]

34. Have you ever done any volunteer work?

Ever expended energy, with the understanding that you would not be compensated monetarily or otherwise, for a program that doesn't necessarily benefit you directly but benefits the community you live in and or other human beings?

[exothermic]

44. You are suggesting that altruism actually exists...it does not.

Even if you do something expecting nothing more than the satisfaction of doing something "selfless", that satisfaction (and self-approval) is the compensation that altruism would prohibit!

[LeftishBrit]

55. Yes. Often.

But giving time or money or possessions still doesn't equate with giving up *all* your possessions.

[hlthe2b]

13. Do I have to give up my beloved doggie girl?

Wrench out my heart, why don't ya...! :cry:

[Muttocracy]

25. oh, I don't count my dogs among my possessions - that would change my vote! nt

[NOLALady]

14. What possessions?

Don't have much, but yes I'd give it up.

[LostInAnomie]

15. For how long would this Utopia last?

Somebody is bound to throw it all away sooner or later.

[redstate_democrat]

16. What kind of commie shit is this?

Just kiddin' ya }(

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

17. No, I Wouldn't. Neither Would You And Neither Would 99% (Or More) Of The People Answering Yes.

I'm just simply one of the only ones to be honest about it.

Fact is, it's a dumb feel good poll in which the obvious answer would be to declare "Yes! Of course!", since who amongst us wouldn't want there to be peace and the poor fed, educated and disease free? But are those answering yes truly as decent as they want to convince themselves to be? Are they really so selfless to so easily throw away all that they have to accomplish this task? I say no. I say no because why is it only good enough if the whole world is war free and in harmony, with people fed and disease free? Is that the level of magnitude it takes for them to be selfless? Is that truly their being decent? What about if 100 people were able to be at peace, war free, fed and disease free from that act? Are 100 people not good enough? What about 1000? What about 10,000? What about just 10 people? No? Has to be the entire planet all at once to make it worthwhile for those answering yes to give up their possessions?

See, cause the way I see it, 99% of the people on DU have more than enough material possession, even if they find them to be necessitous, that they could easily sell and from that earning use that money in the poorest of 3rd world countries to take away war for a select few, rid the risk of disease for a select few, give shelter and food for a select few. Some of us have more possessions than others. Many of us by each selling all of our possessions, all that we have (as the OP states), could easily save a thousand in the poorest nations from the war they are used to, hunger they are used to, disease they are used to.

But is anyone who answered yes above actually in the act of selling their computer right now? Their cars? Their clothes? Their tv's or other possessions? Are they in the process of planning to use the income from that to then figure out how to bring peace, food and medicine to those people in the poorest regions of our planet? Are You? No? They're not? You're not?

Nuff said. It's all nicety and feel good shmeel good shit to say, but ain't a one of ya putting the money where your mouth is...

[NeedleCast]

19. Yup

[Fridays Child]

26. Did I miss something? Has someone, or some entity, implemented a plan for...

...world peace and freedom from famine and disease? Is it time to pony up our personal possessions to get the plan into action? Otherwise, simply giving up possessions and hoping it happens wouldn't be too bright.

Obviously, this is really just an exercise in hypothetical thinking. It's not going to happen. But, in theory, if the OP's goals could be attained by everyone rejecting the paradigm of private property ownership, who wouldn't do it?

[Matariki]

27. A deep thinker -

in the shallow end of the pool.

cheers.

[exothermic]

42. So...you will be donating your computer to a needy person tomorrow morning?

:eyes:

[Matariki]

56. No. I was agreeing w/ OMC

this thread is an empty feel-good gesture.

[On the Road]

28. Yes, It is a Feelgood Poll

but there's no reason to doubt the honesty any of the responses just because none of us have already taken a vow of poverty.

Nothing that we can do now with our money remotely resembles the proposition in the original thread. It is possible, in fact, to sacrifice all your money and time and not even see a blip in the large picture. That is why more people don't do it.

The poll question is very straightforwardly. It is about values and is purely hypothetical.

[exothermic]

41. You (like me) ain't much of a diplomat but you got yer shit together.

:D
:hi:

[PVnRT]

43. Thank you for saying it first

Everything you said is 100% correct.

I wonder what the responses would be if it included, say, your wedding pictures, or a cherished baby toy, or that quilt grandma made for you in the year before she died.

[exothermic]

45. I've noticed that OMC gets a lot of grief for posting Inconvenient Truths.

:D

[Deja Q]

46. Precisely.

Still, making a loud enough noise (while being a hypocrite) is enough for some people to get unduly deified. :(

I loved your response and you are right on the money.

Many of us DO donate, et cetera, and we can only hope they go to needy people as well.

But, as a whole, Americans do have it well off, even in spite of many articles that say we've declined -- we could still be exponentially worse off in the grand scheme of things (thank our fathers and grandfathers and an extra generation or two back but the last 70 or so years of progress; and especially the act of WWII, which reminded people that people, when they act as as society, should be treated reasonably well.)

[annabanana]

49. (there's a buttload of "ifs" in the OP)

That is what is prompting what I will presume to be honest yeses.

[cobalt1999]

51. You nailed it.

I admit I wouldn't.

I rather admit it than be a hypocrite.

[NV Whino]

18. Yes, except for the cats

But then they aren't really owned anyway so it's probably okay.

[Lorien]

40. The cats own us. n/t

[Firespirit]

20. Nope

1. "In harmony and at peace with one another"? That... actually sounds incredibly dull, far too much like the Christian version of an afterlife for the "good" people, which has always seemed like my idea of a perfect hell.

2. I would not want it on my conscience that I had single-handedly destroyed the free will of every human on Earth by some magical process that was activated by my giving up my stuff.

[BlueJazz]

22. Ha!..I'd give up my Life for that to happen. It would be the right thing to do.

[FedUpWithIt All]

23. Thank you for this post.

It gives me hope for us all.



I, like some posters above, am working toward this type of "simpler" way of life. Honestly, living toward this goal is the only time in my life that i have ever been TRULY happy.

Something has been happening in my life over the past few years. Perhaps it was the shock of seeing the brutal suffering that others in the world were forced to endure. So much of the suffering was under the pretense of "protecting our way of life". Our way of life is often stressful, exhausting, cruel, unhealthy, cumbersome, addictive, narcissistic... and yet people were cheering the death and unbelievable suffering of others because they mistakenly believed that it would somehow allow them to go on living this way. I could not continue to be a part of it all.

In the midst of my personal crisis i noticed that there are some that somehow survive among it all and still manage to maintain their good and loving and generous natures. These rare people seemed contented and at peace not only with themselves but also with the processes going on around them. I am inspired by them. The qualities these people exhibit are the "things" we ALL should be striving to protect and cultivate.

I would like to fully become a person who would... if necessary so that we could only get there. No more suffering at the hands of each other. It is a consuming dream.

[galledgoblin]

24. I'd need to know more details before making that choice

that description could easily be one of a 1984 dystopia.

[Iggo]

29. Yep, then I'd get more stuff. (n/t)

[LWolf]

30. Define possessions.

I would not give up the possessions that allow me to maintain MY life, along with my human and non-human dependents.

Outside of those, you can have them.

[The2ndWheel]

31. What would we have to give them up to?

Who is running the global infrastructure in this perfect state to existence that controls so much of life that it can wipe out war, famine, disease, makes sure everyone lives in harmony and at peace with everyone else(what is the penalty if someone doesn't do so?), and provides every single person with meals, shelter, medicine, education, and basic necessities?

Simple possesions seems to be a little too easy. What else would we have to give up? What's the catch?

[Javaman]

32. Sorry. Can't, old chap, been exorcised, don't you know! nt

[frogmarch]

33. Yes, yes, yes! nt

[knitter4democracy]

35. No, unless yarn, knitting needles, and books are basic necessities.

If I get those, then the rest can go. Oh, and my spinning wheels and drop spindles and fiber stash--if I'm allowed to keep those or am given an allotment of some sort, I'm good.

[scheming daemons]

36. This poll is basically asking this question:

"Would you deny your basic human nature in order to bring about a communist utopia?"


You see.... there is no way to PROVIDE for "meals, shelter, medicine, education and basic necessities" without giving people incentive to CREATE those things.

Human Nature.


Who will do the research to create new medicine WITHOUT an incentive?

Who will build the shelters?

Who will grow and cultivate the food for the meals?



The Poll of the OP asks basically... "are you a communist? Do you believe that communism works?"



OPERATIONMINDCRIME is EXACTLY correct.

[scheming daemons]

37. No... because I am a human being that understands human nature, and I'm not a communist

Marx was wrong.

He asked the same question as you.

[Lorien]

38. Yes, absolutely. As long the human race suddenly had trouble reproducing

and population growth stopped or reversed. The larger the population, the greater the chance of war, famine and disease. There's no way of getting around that. With education and access to contraceptives, women, in particular, will have a better chance of providing for themselves and their families while controlling the size of their families.As it is we are passing the point of sustainability for the planet.

[exothermic]

39. Not a chance. Few people are deserving of such largesse.

:shrug:

[LanternWaste]

47. I certainly would--

I certainly would-- regardless of how other posters may attempt to preempt, or redefine my agenda or my answer...

[annabanana]

48. In a New York minute,

(disciple of Lennon)

[slackmaster]

50. Anything that eliminates war, famine, and disease is bound to have unintended consequences

Like the creation of "better" war, famine, and disease.

[Romulox]

52. I would give up all my possessions to live in utopia, but I don't think it's possible.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

53. This poll smells of magic flying ponies. -nt

[LeftishBrit]

54. I would like to say yes...

but I fear I would not in the end: MANY of my possessions, yes certainly; pay huge amounts more in taxes yes certainly; but ALL my possessions - I fear I may be too flawed and selfish in the end. And so, I think, would most people. If this weren't the case, then we would be living in a much more just and decent world right now.

This reminds me - and I'm an atheist - of the story in the Bible about the rich young man who is prepared to do anything that Jesus asks in his service, *except* selling all his possessions and giving the proceeds to the poor. It's an age-old issue; and the answer is usually the same.

[leftofthedial]

57. not again!