Matias Haro

Someone is shy

Edit profile

Matias hasn't completed a profile. Should we look for some other people?

Comments & conversations

Noface
Matias Haro
Posted 6 months ago
Is Philosophy dead?
Yes, I admitted that philosophy is not useful to acquire new knowledge. As you expressed, it is about putting your brain to work. But while it can do no better than science, who will consider metaphysical questions, if not philosophy? As of now, it seems that science can't have an answer to everything. And as long as those questions keep coming up, humans are in their full right to ponder and analyze those issues. In other words, they are free to philosophize. Let me remind you that in spite of opposite evidence, there are still many religious people who follow their own philosophies. I'm not saying science is deceptive or anything, but like it or not science can't and will probably never resolve humanity's fundamental "conundrums". If we had all the answers, then there would be no more religion, or any kind of philosophy for that matter.
Noface
Matias Haro
Posted 6 months ago
Is Philosophy dead?
I believe, as many other posters have said, that philosophy will never die as long as humans are alive. Philosophy asks many questions which science is just unable to provide an answer to. For example; in metaphysics (where do we go after we die?); ethics (how should a member of society behave?); aesthetics (what is beauty, and why do we perceive it?) or politics (how should our societies be structured?); and probably many more I can't think of right now. However, philosophy has lost ground to science in some issues. It would pretty much be a silly thing now for a philosopher to ponder how the world, nature or our bodies work. And sadly, these were once philosophy's greatest and most fundamental questions: what lies out there in space? how did the universe come into being? what is the world made of? why do we catch diseases, and how can we be cured? Science has managed to make us understand our world, and based on empirical evidence - not just on rational (unprovable) conjectures. In summary, philosophy is not and will never be dead. But from a pragmatic point of view, it completely lacks the usefulness of scientific investigation. Philosophy just can't give you a definite answer to anything. Mind you, scientific discoveries are fallible, yes. Yet those theories which stand firm for a long time and seem able to predict our reality accurately, are the best humans can get to a definite answer. Anyhow, asking yourself philosophical questions is part of our nature. And to me, that makes philosophy worthwhile - it makes me feel human.
Noface
Matias Haro
Posted about 1 year ago
What can governments do to end poverty in their countries? Is a solution possible under capitalism?
Thank you guys for your opinions!! I've enjoyed reading them all :) Just wanted to share something else with you: Here's an article published by TIME Magazine in 2005, concerning poverty. It's a really interesting piece: http://www.earth.columbia.edu/docs/endofpoverty/time031405.pdf Basically, the most important views of the author are these: COMMIT TO THE TASK. Oxfam and many other leaders in civil society have embraced the goal of Making Poverty History. The world as a whole needs now to embrace the goal. ADOPT A PLAN OF ACTION. The U.N.Js Millennium Development Goals, approved by all of the worldJs governments at the start of the millennium, are the down payment on ending poverty. The MDGs set out specific targets for cutting poverty, hunger, disease and environmental degradation by 2015 and thereby laid the foundation for eliminating extreme poverty by 2025. The rich and poor countries have solemnly agreed to work toward fulfilling the MDGs. The key is to follow through. RAISE THE VOICE OF THE POOR. Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. did not wait for the rich and powerful to come to their rescue.They asserted their call to justice andmade their stand in the face of official arrogance and neglect. It is time for the democracies in the poor world - Brazil, India, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa and dozens of others - to join together to issue the call to action. REDEEM THE U.S. ROLE IN THE WORLD. The richest and most powerful country, long the leader and inspiration in democratic ideals, is barely participating in global efforts to end poverty and protect the environment, thus undermining its own security. It's time to honor the commitment to give 0.7% of our national income to these crucial goals. ...
Noface
Matias Haro
Posted about 1 year ago
What can governments do to end poverty in their countries? Is a solution possible under capitalism?
RESCUE THE IMF AND WORLD BANK. They have the experience and technical sophistication to play an important role. They have the internal motivation of a highly professional staff. Yet they have been used like debt-collection agencies for the big creditor countries. It's time to restore their role in helping all 182 of their member countries, not just the rich ones, in the pursuit of enlightened globalization. STRENGTHEN THE U.N. It is no use blaming the U.N. for the missteps of recent years. Why are U.N. agencies less operational than they should be? Not because of "U.N. bureaucracy," though that exists, but because the powerful countries fear ceding more authority. Yet U.N. specialized agencies have a core role to play in the ending of poverty. It is time to empower the likes of the U.N. Children Js Fund (UNICEF), the World Health Organization (WHO), the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), and many others to do the job - on the ground, country by country. HARNESS GLOBAL SCIENCE. New technology has led directly to improved standards of living, yet science tends to follow market forces as well as to lead them. It is not surprising that the rich get richer in a continuing cycle of growth while the poorest are often left behind. A special effort should be made by the powerhouses of world science to address the unmet challenges of the poor. PROMOTE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT. Ending extreme poverty can relieve many of the pressures on the environment. When impoverished households are more productive on their farms, for example, they face less pressure to cut down neighboring forests in search of new farmland. Still, even as extreme poverty ends, we must not fuel prosperity with a lack of concern for industrial pollution and the unchecked burning of fossil fuels. ...
Noface
Matias Haro
Posted about 1 year ago
What can governments do to end poverty in their countries? Is a solution possible under capitalism?
MAKE A PERSONAL COMMITMENT. It all comes back to us. Individuals, working in unison, form and shape societies. The final myth I will debunk here is that politicians are punished by their constituents for supporting actions to help the poor. There is plenty of experience to show that the broad public will accept such measures, especially if they see that the rich within their own societies are asked to meet their fair share of the burden. Great social forces are the mere accumulation of individual actions. Let the future say of our generation that we sent forth mighty currents of hope, and that we worked together to heal the world. What do you think about his ideas?
Noface
Matias Haro
Posted about 1 year ago
What can governments do to end poverty in their countries? Is a solution possible under capitalism?
Casey, we can't go back to the past, can we? Money was invented for a reason. It was the only way for people to satisfy people's different needs. Barter had so many faults. If you wanted to exchange your cow for, say, a horse, you were obliged to find a given person who had horses AND was willing to exchange it for a cow. Furthermore, what if this person was not at all against this possible exchange, but thought his horse had more value than my cow. What could we do then? I can't give him 1/2 a cow, can I? Money solves all these problems. That's why we need it. If not, getting food on a daily basis would be impossible. Money is not evil per say. I think it has just gotten way out of our hands. We weren't able to distribute it properly from the start, and nowadays you can make money just doing nothing (e.g. Derivatives). I wish I had the answer, but I don't. Maybe we've got ourselves into a big hole, but going back is not a viable choice now.
Noface
Matias Haro
Posted about 1 year ago
What can governments do to end poverty in their countries? Is a solution possible under capitalism?
I completely agree. Although Developed Countries help out the undeveloped countries through the UN and other NGOs, they could do more than that. They just get into trouble eventually after financial crisis, were the US Govt., for example, had to pay to shun the apocalypse while Wall Street investors got unbelievably rich during the boom of the housing-market bubbles. That is such a shame. For all the amount of wealth the industrial countries produce, too little is left to help the needy. We do have to stand up. Unfortunately, we are not the majority. Most people choose to ignore poverty, as if that didn't exist. Likewise, the Poor do not know they can change their situation. Imagine if they got together to change things... they would have to be heard. Quite obviously, that may be why the politicans don't care about improving education. Ignorant people are easier to manipulate.
Noface
Matias Haro
Posted about 1 year ago
What can governments do to end poverty in their countries? Is a solution possible under capitalism?
I agree that they should be given an incentive to progress, since the Poor do not realize their rights as a citizen and that they can do better than they are doing. The thing is, if you don't give them the means, they won't progress whatever incentive you give them. Think about it for a minute. You've lived in poverty your whole life, you've never gone to school, you are hungry, you are need to buy clothes because you are cold, you need a decent house... So there comes the Govt. and offers you some money, and tells you "If you make this grow, I'll give you more", what would you do? You've never gone to school, in fact, you don't know where money comes from. Your tummy growls. And you shiver. Do you really think you can find a way to invest your money or improve your position? No, of course, you don't even know how to handle money, and you'll eventually spend it all without getting one more cent. That is not a way to help them get out of poverty. You need to educate these people first, you need to help them get a job so they won't have to depend on the Government.. Lastly, I don't agree that unwed mothers and divorced families are the ones who mostly live below the poverty level. Nowadays, most women don't settle down and have kids until they are 30! So will you give extra money to well-off single women? It would be much simpler to just give money to the ones making below a certain amount a month. Just to ensure nobody gets any money they don't need.
Noface
Matias Haro
Posted about 1 year ago
What can governments do to end poverty in their countries? Is a solution possible under capitalism?
Drake, the thing is that if one country "innovates and develops" then consequently, another country is repressed. You asked if Argentina can invent a new manufacturing style? I don't really ever see that happening. Here there is no industrial development. Truth is, we can't compete with the First World's manufactures. We depends on the imports of capital goods, which means we need to produce competitive manufactures to get a fair amount of foreign currencies for our imports. This has been Argentina's (and many other Latin American countries) problem over its whole history. We just rely on the exports of primary goods, like soy, in our case. There would need to be a close control of the Government in global trade to bring about an industrial expansion here, kind of like what Peron tried to do in the past (incentivating the industries to produce manufactured goods to be consumed IN the country, at the same time taxing the primary goods' exports to get the amount of dollars needed to support the industries). That is why we can't progress. It's an unequal commercial distribution between the developed and "manufacture-creator" countries, and the undeveloped, primary-products exporting countries. It is essential to ask ourselves, what will happen when we have no more primary goods to sell? Erosion is a problem for us, for other Latin American countries like Venezuela, they will eventually run out of oil... I must admit that if I had lived in the past, I would've been a communist. Now I'm not so sure, however, after seeing its results. It's a shame we can't have communism without a dictatorship... people just don't have freedom anymore. Besides, it is clear that Freedom should be preferred over Equality. Take Cuba, for example. The citizens don't like to live there. They're not free, they can't have ambitions... I'm not sure what would be right, but at least in my opinion, communism isn't the answer.