Your_Construct wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 9:16 amAs of now, there is a lot of suffering in this world due to economic inequality.
I wouldn't say that's the case in the first world. I consider income inequality to be somewhat of a red-herring; Sure, the average person may not have as much as say Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates, but after a certain point, you don't
need that amount of wealth. For one person in the US, about $30k a year is all you really need to live a comfortable life. It's easy to compare your wealth with those that are in your immediate vicinity, but when you look at wealth globally, first worlders are like in the top 5%.
As for other countries, wealth is not a finite resource. As the world economy grows, the people at the bottom of the economic pyramid will gain wealth, as well as trading with them to circulate more money and jobs into their economies (Look at countries in Asia like India and China when we opened up trade with them). The sweatshop jobs they have now suck, but it's a necessary part of the solution so they can work their way towards being a developed country and work better and more comfortable jobs.
Your_Construct wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 9:16 amThere are a lot of homeless everywhere, not just in America.
As I implied, these issues will eventually be worked out. It's just a matter of time.
Your_Construct wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 9:16 amIt seems immoral to bring in even more suffering. Unless you are very rich, you cannot guarantee that your children will not suffer. Not having enough economic resources can greatly stress an individual and more often than not this individual does take it out on his or her children.
In the first world, where basically everyone is rich and presented with many oppurtunities, it's just a matter of being able to budget yourself. A big cause of financial concern is generally because people made bad decisions, like having kids without being financially secure, or taking on debt or buying a new car.
Also in the US where not everyone has healthcare, I think a lot of money and hospital trips can be saved if people just ate better diets given how heart problems and various cancers are the leading causes of death (I will say a downside of wealth is more meat consumption, but there are also more available vegan options too), which might help save a lot of countries on healthcare too.
I do agree in a way that having a child in a poor country can be seen as immoral, but again, think about what I said about utopias. If none of them have kids, no one in their countries will be able to enjoy the benefits of a wealthy country. Like, life until about the late 1800s was dangerous and uncomfortable, but if none of them had children we wouldn't be here to bask in comfort. In some way, it's actually the ethical thing to do long-term.
Your_Construct wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 9:16 amI feel that at the very least, all homelessness should be eliminated and
all orphaned children be adequately taken care of before having your own children. I am aware that orphaned children in some type of foster care program are often abused physically and sexually.
That's pretty difficult to pull off. People will have kids whether or not they are financially secure; I think step one would be having more educational programs to encourage people to use more protection and make sure women have access to abortion clinics (which may be a problem in some parts of the States).
If we lived in an ideal scenario, you'd probably be right.
Your_Construct wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 9:16 amThis aspect of foster care also needs to be fixed.
I agree with this, but it's a matter of how.