Die young, live fast: The evolution of an underclass

"There is no reason to view the poor as stupid or in any way different from anyone else, says Daniel Nettle of the University of Newcastle in the UK. All of us are simply human beings, making the best of the hand life has dealt us. If we understand this, it won't just change the way we view the lives of the poorest in society, it will also show how misguided many current efforts to tackle society's problems are - and it will suggest better solutions."

I strongly disagree with this statement. This view means that humans are taking the passenger seat when they can in fact take control of their lives. If you live by the motto of "well this is what life gave me" you will never go anywhere.

Wanna proof? Visit Russia (or any ex. East block country)! ^_^

> because they don't clearly see the implications.

I think you hit the nail on the head.

A lot of policy makers who make rules and laws about how to fix poverty always assume they deal with rational, clearly thinking, autonomous agents. They assume there is some logical planning taking place in teenagers' heads before they get pregnant: "...Having sex will lead to pregnancy which will lead to having a baby, who, even though I can't support, the state will take care of it, my boyfriends will be forced to pay child support therefore it makes perfect sense to have a baby." Something like that.

A 16 year old guy will think he can support all the babies in the world when having sex. The girl might think it will make the boyfriend love her more, they'll get married, find jobs, move out and have a happy your family and live happily every after. That is a very different thought process than what policy makers usually assume goes on.

Teenagers who are privileged end up making a lot of stupid decisions as well, but their parents, hover over them, guide them, fix their mistakes for them and wait for the kids to mature and start thinking rationally and maturely.

Many poor teenagers never have that. They don't get a second choice, a do over for small mistakes. Many are from a single parent family, or their parents are working 12 hour days to make ends meet, perhaps one or more parents are drunk or on drugs and there is just nobody to guide, to teach and to iron out the consequences of small and large mistakes. Consequently the teenagers grow up but mentally never mature. Then they become the next generation of parents. Then the cycle repeats.

Overall I think all the teenagers would end up procreating as soon as they can if they just grew up in the wild without any parental guidance. The ones that lead privileged lives have parents who teach, guide and iron out mistakes ("read : trip to the abortion clinic"), and this leads to a delay in procreation until some arbitrarily chosen "life event" usually : marriage + first job + new house.

I think taking this problem and turning it into some kind of evolutionary / genetic issue is pointless if not plain dangerous.

And it happens very quickly, the area I grew up was reasonably prosperous working class. Then the mines, steelworks and shipyards closed - 20 years later the majority of people growing up there are never going to have a proper job. If you see a lifetime on the dole there isn't much point in waiting until you are 30 to have kids for the sake of your 'career' at a supermarket checkout or call center.

Unfortunately, in this case I would agree with the original poster.

Your hyperbole doesn't quite work because we are dealing with human experience here. Poverty is not just a lack of money, it is most of all a very powerful internal human experience. There is no words to describe it. Kind of like there is not words to describe effectively what falling in love or dealing with a loved one's death is. Understanding that is not just a matter of reading an equation, you have to experience it yourself in order to more effectively talk about or try to fix it.

Does that stifle debate? Perhaps. I think the original poster was highlighting that it is important to keep in mind the personal experience before engaging in theoretical discussions about the subject.

> So why do we accept such a statement when it is made about nothing but a different sort of human experience?

The answer is in your question -- because _it is_ a human experience.

It seems to boil down to "how important is human experience?" Well, that's a topic for a new thread or a new philosophical debate...