I decided to write this post because I feel I didn't give enough information on what I said in class and confused, well everyone. So, I was saying that a lot of people feel homeless people could change their lives. I think a common misconception is that the homeless are lazy and don’t work, etc etc. Some also feel the people that are poor have problems like drinking or have made bad financial decisions. While I do believe the second half is somewhat true, I don't think that is always the case. Some people are born into it, and some people I can imagine just can't hold a job or some have a full time job and still can’t pick themselves up. So after thinking about this on the bus ride home, I did some research. According to the Almanac of Policy Issues, "66 percent of the homeless have problems with alcohol, drug abuse, or mental illness; 44 percent did paid work during the past month." This would then explain why a lot of people have these views. So then, should we feel obligated to help these people? Is it worth resources to try to get these people on their feet not the streets? I'm not sure I know where I stand. Part of me says we should because everyone deserves another chance and we should help those in need. The other part tells me if it is drugs or alcohol they chose their path and therefore need to live it out. Are they choosing not to work or can they not find work? If they are working hard to try and better themselves then I do think we should help them out. If these people are working and wasting their money on drugs and alcohol instead of necessities then I can't say I have much remorse for them. Overall, I feel we should help but help is only useful when those in need want help. If a drug addict doesn't want to change his ways, then no matter how much brainwashing we do, it's not going to help. I definitely think we should put more resources into our country to help the homeless.
The other topic then is I guess homeless lobsters. I don't really feel people compare lobsters to the homeless very often, if at all. But I do feel some people have more sympathy towards lobsters than the homeless, especially if they feel they're all lazy drunks, etc. It was mentioned in class about how people don't think about taking lobsters out of their "home" for food, we care about the suffering they endure. The question then comes as to why the suffering that homeless people endure isn’t looked at as much as a lobster? It's kind of weird how much emphasis our world puts on humane treatment of animals, not really humans. Granted, I feel it is more implied with humans that you only treat them in a certain way. I am definitely an animal lover, and I love to see efforts put towards public awareness. I feel aside from volunteers at homeless shelters there isn't much publicity on it. There are no commercials saying help the poor in your area like ASPCA or PAWS shelters do. Why do you guys think this is the way it is? Is it something people feel uncomfortable not talking about? Is it something we feel if we don't "know about" or maybe better wording would be don't hear about we don't have to care?
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Homeless People vs Homeless Lobsters
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'm glad you wrote this post because I was rather shocked in class when you said that poor people had chances to change their lives. But anyway, I think you brought up a very good point about little publicity of homeless shelters. I think that people feel very uncomfortable talking about the homeless and often avoid it. Spending a lot of time in Philadelphia, a homeless person is a familiar sight to me. But still, we roll up the window, dont hand out money, and often turn the other direction. As a child I always had a fear of homeless people, thinking they were dirty, harmful, drugs addicts. Now that I have a better understanding of homeless people and unfortunate circumstances I am more comfortable talking about the homeless. But when it comes down to it, I have never been to a homeless shelter and still feel uncomfortable seeing someone holding a sign begging for money.
ReplyDeleteI too am glad you wrote this post. I understood what you said in class but I disagreed. Homelessness is a serious problem in America and people tend to turn a blind eye. It is even more a problem now due to the economic crisis and it is a problem with students on our own campus! When it comes to spending money and resources on "saving the lobsters" and using what we know about animals being harmed for food production, I believe this it is of good use. However, I believe money and resources should first be spent on keeping our own species, people, neighbors and classmates alive with food to eat and a place to sleep!
ReplyDeleteI volunteer in homeless shelters during the summers and the people who need the services are all too misconceived. These are people who lost their jobs, who have no family, who perhaps once made bad decisions but they are still people who need the help of others. I can only speak from observation but I do not think homeless people seek sympathy, rather aid. Perhaps they too care about how lobsters are treated by humans or how cattle farms and chicken farms raise the animals in less than satisfying conditions but homeless people are not at fault for wanting to be helped before cows, chickens and lobsters!
I feel that people dont really want to hear about other people that are suffering because everyone is so consumed in their own lives and getting by in this world themselves that it doesnt really matter if someone is less fortunate than they are. However, when it comes to animals that hits a lot closer to home for most people because it is something they eat and they know that it is happening right in front of them because people eat things every day but people dont see homeless people every day or have to deal with on a regular basis. But, when it comes to animals it hits a lot closer to home for more people.
ReplyDeleteMany questions in class have arisen over the view whether to classify “lobsters” or “homeless people” as more important than the other and I have many problems with this. Why not value them both on the same level? I think as humans, we can remove actively remover ourselves from our natural anthropogenic viewpoint to an ecogenic view point, in which all things are interdependent on the interconnectedness of the biotic community. Therefore, humans at some point might rely on the living existence of lobster and lobsters might have a reliance on humans throughout the cycles of nature and the interconnectedness of species to species. Maly speaks that “ What underlies any ethic is cooperation, or the synergy of interconnectedness”. Therefore if we are at a loss of where human ethical standards should be centered – then maybe the ethical standards should not be centered, but instead delegated. Whilst some concern should be focused to homeless humans, I believe that an equal amount of focus should be geared towards the well-being of animals as well.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Tiffany.
ReplyDeleteI think big reason for a lot of the problems today is the result of humans being self-centered. When we focus on ourselves, we tend to only worry about things that directly impact us. "Why should I care what someone on the other side of the country is suffering from? I don't see that person, why worry myself about it." When we choose to remove ourselves from a problem, it's like it's not really there. Or is it? I don't really see why people "need" to figure things out alone. Helping others is not one-sided, it's a win-win!
The lobster-boiling argument is interesting and all, but there are bigger fish to fry here... pun!
I do believe homelessness is a real issue in America, and I also completely understood what you were getting at in class. I've heard rants on the subject one too many times. There is something that I never really understood. It is a general policy of most employers that you cannot hold a job unless you have a home, and thus the homeless can't even begin to attempt to help themselves because they have no address. It's a vicious cycle, but I think this particular aspect is the government's fault. All that's keeping these people from being able to get a job is failed logic on the part of the government. They say they want to lower unemployment rates, but policies like these are not helping at all. As far as the homeless to lobster things goes...I think lobsters are given more sympathy than homeless people because the lobsters have absolutely no way of fighting back. They are caught in a net, dragged to shore, and dropped in to a tank or pot of boiling water. Also the homeless people are not directly being killed. Yes, many are probably dying of starvation, disease, and exposure, but they are NOT being gathered up in a large net, dragged to somebody's kitchen, and being plopped in to their crock pot.
ReplyDeleteThe one thing that I would say to this is that I don't believe that how a homeless person came to lose his home is relevant. If someone became homeless because he is an addict, does that mean he deserves to starve to death on the streets? I don't think so. Every person is a person, and I don't think that there is a crack addict on the street who is happy to be addicted, and happy to be homeless. They deserve help. Most homeless addicts really have no way of "fighting back," just as the lobster. A person is a person no matter what kind of state they live in, and it sometimes takes meeting someone like that to understand. Saying that a homeless person chose his fate in most cases would be ludicrous. By that logic, one could say captured lobsters chose their fate as well by swimming in an area where fishers were looking for them. A human is a person, and a lobster is just a lobster.
ReplyDelete