#poor English
3 messages in this thread
Well, first you would have to define "better".
Is a man/woman who was happy living in the rain forrest better off, after
they have been introduced to polluting technology, and have burned off the
trees, to try to make money to by gadgets, by farming the poor soil?
At the same time, is a child who was saved by modern technology and
medicines better off, than if it had been left in its "unspoiled" jungle
environment, and died a slow miserable death?
Neither lifestyle is perfect, and both have their costs.
Alex, I thought that was my point, i.e., that you really can't define "better".
What's better for one person is not necessarily better for another. What's
important to some isn't important to others. Most things really come down to
point of view. Even in your scenario, suppose we save this child from his or
her "slow miserable death" only to have them live a slow miserable life?
Life is what we make of it….
Some have an easier time than others, because of ability or priveledge.
However, given enough drive, a modicum of ability, and the teeniest bit of
luck….
A slow miserable life is lived, only if one accepts the slow miserable
life.
I was not blessed with a wealthy family, or public education beyond high
school. It took two seperate trips into two seperate services, to get the
education I needed. I've been down, more times than I care to remember.
However, I've always gotten back up, and did whatever needed to be done.
When worst came to worst, and there wasn't a job I was trained for,
anywhere, I moved furniture for minimum wage.
However, I believe the statment was that North America would have been
better off if left to the hunter gatherers that were here when the folks
from Europe showed up.