I suppose they should be commended for the effort, but the other issue is that the experimental group is unlikely to represent what things would be like under a truly universal basic income. Incentives throughout the economy will shift and cause reactions none of us can predict, except in very broad strokes. For example, €1000/mo for a tiny experimental group will probably not have the same buying power as the same amount given to millions.
It is worth distinguishing between first world poverty and third world poverty with statements like this. They're different things.
I can easily believe third world poverty causes permanent IQ deficiencies. First world poverty, I'm sure there are cases, but I'd expect much less significantly. I'd like to hear more details.
Especially with first world poverty, it is not enough to point to a bad outcome associated with poor people and call it an effect of poverty. If it is financially possible to give your kids proper nutrition, but you don't know how to do it, or you just don't care about doing it, it isn't poverty that is causing your kids to suffer. But you would still expect to see this more in poor families than well off ones.
But the poverty IS effecting the ability for these parents to feed their kids right, even if technically money isn't the limitation. I see where you are coming from, but my argument is that the effects of being poor are preventing these parents from the tools, time, education, patience... and so on to properly feed their kids. So yeah, it's direct and indirect.
My main point is that poverty is creating an interconnected web of issues for kids. What might seem like a parent not caring about feeding their kids right might be connected to that parent living in an unsafe neighbourhood where a bus ride to the best food source is impractical compared to the corner store's junk food.
> But the poverty IS effecting the ability for these parents to feed their kids right, even if technically money isn't the limitation.
> my argument is that the effects of being poor are preventing these parents from the tools, time, education, patience
This is assuming the conclusion all over again, one level further out. How do you know that the lack of education, patience, etc is caused by lack of money?
> My main point is that poverty is creating an interconnected web of issues for kids.
There is a web of issues, that much I agree with. Lots of outcomes are worse for poor people, and one bad result interacts with another. But the fact that it is an interconnected web means it is harder, not easier, to indisputably assign all those effects to a single cause.
food only effects mental abilities when they are extremely deficient in them, which is virtually impossible in the united states. it may not fit your world view, but even junk food isn't going to destroy their brains - i grew up on junk food.
it really just comes down to one thing: valuing education. most people who are poor don't value education, and those values are passed on to children.
these types of studies are dangerous because they measure one thing (poverty) and try to garner one outcome from it and suggest claims of causation.
Education's financial value is only seen over long time scales, i.e. It takes many years to finish your degree and start making money with it. When you have been living your whole life paycheck to paycheck and the timescales you're used to are weeks and months, things like dedicating years to a degree simply feel out of reach and not worth consideration.
My point is, even if families with low SES don't "value education" as you've described it, it doesn't mean it's something within their control.
yes, it takes many years to harvest the value of education, it is moot point to argue that they choose to ignore the benefits regardless of what is going on around them.
the point is, just because they don't have access to trader does doesn't ruin them. their genetics probably don't make them stupid, and what ever umpteen dozen excuses you can come up with does not permanently seal their fate in a class.
what does change things is valuing education. being born poor is usually the situation of people prior making bad decisions, most usually not valuing long term benefits such as education. staying poor is continuing those beliefs.
and it is totally within their control. it doesnt sit well with many, because its hard to believe people cant be fixed, that they have to fix themselves. its hard to believe that people in a bad situation need to start making better decisions for themselves. its hard to believe this isn't something this can be fixed by throwing more money at bad, by taxing more, etc etc
in many places, this isnt always true. In the Philippines for example, you can value education all you want but opportunities are rare. but not in the US, there are ample opportunities for those who want to take them, and now with the internet it is even easier for those to find the resources they need.
I'm sure you're not the only one, but you're pretty unusual.
Eating meat doesn't bother me, but if I imagine myself attaching more moral value to nonhumans, I would rate insects a lot lower than chickens a lot lower than pigs, and switching to insects being a net gain morally.
Does it bother you to eat plants? Things made with yeast? Do other activities that kill lots of insects bother you?
Not trying to needle you and I hope I am not setting off your scrupulosity, I'm just wondering how far it goes. I am also curious if this is a "thing" in the West now, I know something similar is sometimes practiced in India.
I know insects and plants are not "at the same level" as mammals or birds, but I always have the thought that squashing insects or eating plants is still killing living beings and I can't help being bothered by it. Yes, I also do have a thought for the yeast I'm using when baking bread, waking it up from stasis just for baking it in the oven soon after... but unicellular beings seem much less important as they're mostly clones, they don't have the same individuality.
I grow plants as a hobby, and having a few small trees that have grown from seeds, in pots where they entirely depend on me for their life, makes me really see them as individuals - especially since the genetic variation that comes with growing seeds also means they have observably different behaviours.
On the other hand... I do eat some meat, and for some reason I don't have a single thought for the pigs that have to get killed to make the dry sausages or cured ham I eat. I guess that is because I am just so used to eating these, and they are less recognizable as animal parts than, say, chicken wings.
In the end, you just can't live healthily by only eating things that don't harm any living being, so I just live with it, knowing that I have to kill things to eat.
About the India thing, I have thought like this for a very long time, I remember in kindergarten trying to stop other kids from stomping on ants, and (a bit later of course) my parents being amused when I talked about plant being like ununderstandable aliens. So I don't think this has much to do with trends, it's just a thinking you can come up with on your own.
I agree with this, mostly, but I am also optimistic about what we'll see in the future. There are lots more little studios making niche games and trying out new ideas than there were just a few years ago. I bet we'll see some RPGs with less spoonfed choices in them.
Roughly speaking, it looks to me like younger people do not want to get married, and are in fact choosing partnerships that are expected to be only semi permanent instead. The idea of traditional, permanent marriage is taking on stuffy and backward-thinking connotations.
Some will still get married, even forward thinking secular people. There's a big difference between trying to build a family with someone who wants to partner up for as long as they're not unhappy, and having kids with someone who at least aspires to a permanent commitment. Marriage is pretty messed up in the U.S., but I still think it makes more sense to get married if you want to have kids.
Some won't. I don't think a culture built around transitory relationships is a good one for either parents or children. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a backlash in time, though I think another possibility is people just give up on having kids altogether. We'll have to see.
It is stuffy, but I wouldn't call it backward-thinking, unless mindless hedonism is what passes for forward-thinking these days. Raising children without marriage would be akin to starting a business without incorporation or contracts. Strong bonds, group loyalty, and long-term planning/character are what let man build something larger than himself.