Although this is quite relevant in public discourse today, this is really an ageless question.
What do I mean and why does it matter?
When I visited Niger West Africa years ago, I found this question to be a matter of life and death. Periodically, drought would come and famine would result because agricultural practices could not produce the food society needed. Food would come form various government's around the world to feed the people. This became a main mission of the United Nations. We were introduced to a missionary from Australia, who knew how to grow food in sub Sahara conditions. He was raised in the Outback. What was his story in West Africa?
He found that tribes would naturally cut trees down as soon as they would grow big enough for firewood. Wood was the major source of energy. The immediate need for energy meant trees never grew to any size. No trees meant serious soil erosion when hot windy days arrived. Instant gratification was the root cause of failed agriculture during droughts, resulting in famine. This missionary convinced some tribal leaders to NOT CUT the trees and let them grow. He would build trenches around the base to hold more water when it did rain. Trees stopped soil erosion and crops grew 10 fold over what the traditional methods were producing. Better choices along the way produced better long term outcomes.
Were the tribes better off over time making better choices about farming or relying on govt aid to rescue them in times of need? This question plays itself out all the time in places not as desperate as Africa.
Recently I read two news articles. One said the govt had failed seniors in the US because Social Security did not provide enough income for many to live as they needed. The other article said that the over 70 crowd in the US had accumulated a record $35 trillion in net worth. Their challenge was how to give it away before they die.
Which is it? Is life for US citizens in their 70's a result of a failed system where govt must respond to fix injustices of an economic system or is it the result of choices people made over many years to build financial security?
WHICH IS IT?
Society divides over the answer ... That's why it matters .....
Worth some collective pondering I would think...
P.S. The two choices I've discussed here do not take into account people who fall victim of health and peril not of their own making. Certainly society through its government should provide safety nets for people who are true victims. The difficulty comes in distinguishing between those who are the victims of their own choices and those who are not. These two groups often get lumped together and understanding the difference also belongs in collective societal pondering.
