-- Edited by Fluffy on Wednesday 9th of July 2025 09:21:34 PM
I saw a documentary about this. That article states...
These experiments suggest that reality is not set in stone. Events may not have definite outcomes until the full context—including future measurements—is taken into account. Time itself may not be as linear or unidirectional as we think.
Now, I've always had a hunch that it's us that move through time not the other way around. Technically, there is no linear time apart from what we create. There's certainly no time in the spirit world. I believe in reincarnation and I think we can choose where in time we wish to live further lives.
Thankyou for replying as I was curious about your take on this. I used to think when I was young there is something we have to "learn" on our journey, and if we don't we will have to live that life again until we figure it out.
But when I considered those dying from famine in other countries I realised my theory sounded like first world entitlement. I'm surrounded by comfort so I have the luxury to even think about such things, people starving in the third world can only think about trying to get water and enough food to live. According to my adolescent theory, those people have chosen to live that life of famine ,despair and inequality. That sounded not just unlikely but condescending to so from then on I decided you are born, live your life and then you pass on. No meaning attached.
It's not what I want to believe though. I envy you for having personal experiences that gave you insight. Like you say, some people are receptive and others simply aren't.
Some of the brightest and most evolved souls have the hardest challenges in life. So who are you, or I, to pity them? There are no doubt people who might look at your life and choices or mine, and feel sorry for us believing we have terrible lives. Sadly, most of the bad things that happen on this planet are man made. Nothing to do with 'God'.
That's certainly true. Poverty could be ended quickly enough if the powers that be consider it a priority but they don't. Profit margins are the priority. I think people will look back at this time, Trump in charge, ditto Boris who couldn't actually govern and of course the Pandemic and genuinely wonder if we had all gone mad and just didn't know.
No "powers that be" can end poverty. Centralized planning has always been a disaster. The 20th century gave us lesson after lesson..The only thing that has lifted people out of poverty is the free market and a few government programs supported by taxes generated in the free market..
Fluffy said
Jul 13 5:16 PM, 2025
Well they can Maddog. If every actor and actress who earns millions of pounds like Brad Pitt , Tom Cruise etc decided to give a million to the cause. Ditto footballers shaved a hefty percentage off their monthly wage, if billionaires in big business all chipped in a million.
This would go a long way to improving resources in countries like Africa, making sure ALL water was finally clean and building schools ensuring girls can be educated. Fund organisations that will put an end to child brides. It costs a mere pittance to buy a tablet to purify unclean water.
No, world poverty wouldn't be over but we would be a dam sight closer than we are now. Not one of the actors or footballers would feel any worse off either, such is the fortunes the elite have acquired. Nobody wants to take it away from them but just ask them to consider giving what is a small amount to them for a cause that could change lives and they would stay changed.
Maddog said
Jul 13 5:22 PM, 2025
Fluffy wrote:
Well they can Maddog. If every actor and actress who earns millions of pounds like Brad Pitt , Tom Cruise etc decided to give a million to the cause. Ditto footballers shaved a hefty percentage off their monthly wage, if billionaires in big business all chipped in a million.
This would go a long way to improving resources in countries like Africa, making sure ALL water was finally clean and building schools ensuring girls can be educated. Fund organisations that will put an end to child brides. It costs a mere pittance to buy a tablet to purify unclean water.
No, world poverty wouldn't be over but we would be a dam sight closer than we are now. Not one of the actors or footballers would feel any worse off either, such is the fortunes the elite have acquired. Nobody wants to take it away from them but just ask them to consider giving what is a small amount to them for a cause that could change lives and they would stay changed.
Millions given to people lift people out of poverty for about 10 minutes..
African has 1.3 billion people Do the math. If the wealthy pooled their resources and contributed 1.3 billion a day, every day (which isn't possible), That's a dollar a day for each person in Africa..
They need fucking jobs not handouts
Vam said
Jul 13 7:19 PM, 2025
And of course, any humanitarian aid has to factor in what a country’s corrupt leaders will be skimming off the top.
-- Edited by Vam on Sunday 13th of July 2025 07:21:42 PM
-- Edited by Vam on Sunday 13th of July 2025 07:27:14 PM
Fluffy said
Jul 13 10:26 PM, 2025
Maddog wrote:
Fluffy wrote:
Well they can Maddog. If every actor and actress who earns millions of pounds like Brad Pitt , Tom Cruise etc decided to give a million to the cause. Ditto footballers shaved a hefty percentage off their monthly wage, if billionaires in big business all chipped in a million.
This would go a long way to improving resources in countries like Africa, making sure ALL water was finally clean and building schools ensuring girls can be educated. Fund organisations that will put an end to child brides. It costs a mere pittance to buy a tablet to purify unclean water.
No, world poverty wouldn't be over but we would be a dam sight closer than we are now. Not one of the actors or footballers would feel any worse off either, such is the fortunes the elite have acquired. Nobody wants to take it away from them but just ask them to consider giving what is a small amount to them for a cause that could change lives and they would stay changed.
Millions given to people lift people out of poverty for about 10 minutes..
African has 1.3 billion people Do the math. If the wealthy pooled their resources and contributed 1.3 billion a day, every day (which isn't possible), That's a dollar a day for each person in Africa..
They need fucking jobs not handouts
Why not both? There are more billionaires than ever before in history. The gap between rich and poor is positively dystopian.
The situation could at least be vastly improved but those with the means and power to do so don't care enough to do anything about it. We give very little in the UK to places like Sudan,even less now Starmer cut the Aid budget to fund..something that hasn't worked out or been implemented properly. The Tories threw away billions on the absurd Rwanda scheme but not a single person went to Rwanda because it wasn't deemed a safe country which everyone knew apart from the previous Government But those billions existed..and could have helped those in need in this country or others enormously.
Digger said
Jul 13 10:26 PM, 2025
Fluffy wrote:
Well they can Maddog. If every actor and actress who earns millions of pounds like Brad Pitt , Tom Cruise etc decided to give a million to the cause. Ditto footballers shaved a hefty percentage off their monthly wage, if billionaires in big business all chipped in a million.
This would go a long way to improving resources in countries like Africa, making sure ALL water was finally clean and building schools ensuring girls can be educated. Fund organisations that will put an end to child brides. It costs a mere pittance to buy a tablet to purify unclean water.
No, world poverty wouldn't be over but we would be a dam sight closer than we are now. Not one of the actors or footballers would feel any worse off either, such is the fortunes the elite have acquired. Nobody wants to take it away from them but just ask them to consider giving what is a small amount to them for a cause that could change lives and they would stay changed.
You do realise that this poverty exists because of corrupt Governments? You can chuck as much money as you like at them and it won't make a long term difference.
Fluffy said
Jul 13 10:36 PM, 2025
Vam wrote:
And of course, any humanitarian aid has to factor in what a country’s corrupt leaders will be skimming off the top.
-- Edited by Vam on Sunday 13th of July 2025 07:21:42 PM
-- Edited by Vam on Sunday 13th of July 2025 07:27:14 PM
I don't have Tik Tok Vam but sadly can easily believe it. I don't believe elitism is harboured only by those with low melanin. Many people who used to give to charity , albeit not a large amount, have had to cut down. It just saddens me what the world has become.
Fluffy said
Jul 13 10:42 PM, 2025
Digger wrote:
Fluffy wrote:
Well they can Maddog. If every actor and actress who earns millions of pounds like Brad Pitt , Tom Cruise etc decided to give a million to the cause. Ditto footballers shaved a hefty percentage off their monthly wage, if billionaires in big business all chipped in a million.
This would go a long way to improving resources in countries like Africa, making sure ALL water was finally clean and building schools ensuring girls can be educated. Fund organisations that will put an end to child brides. It costs a mere pittance to buy a tablet to purify unclean water.
No, world poverty wouldn't be over but we would be a dam sight closer than we are now. Not one of the actors or footballers would feel any worse off either, such is the fortunes the elite have acquired. Nobody wants to take it away from them but just ask them to consider giving what is a small amount to them for a cause that could change lives and they would stay changed.
You do realise that this poverty exists because of corrupt Governments? You can chuck as much money as you like at them and it won't make a long term difference.
I did in some countries yes but not all. If you give monthly to a charity that is meant to aid African children would the charity/ organisation not give the money to where it promises? Yes, I am very naive about this. I had not considered that at all.
Digger said
Jul 13 10:59 PM, 2025
Fluffy wrote:
Digger wrote:
Fluffy wrote:
Well they can Maddog. If every actor and actress who earns millions of pounds like Brad Pitt , Tom Cruise etc decided to give a million to the cause. Ditto footballers shaved a hefty percentage off their monthly wage, if billionaires in big business all chipped in a million.
This would go a long way to improving resources in countries like Africa, making sure ALL water was finally clean and building schools ensuring girls can be educated. Fund organisations that will put an end to child brides. It costs a mere pittance to buy a tablet to purify unclean water.
No, world poverty wouldn't be over but we would be a dam sight closer than we are now. Not one of the actors or footballers would feel any worse off either, such is the fortunes the elite have acquired. Nobody wants to take it away from them but just ask them to consider giving what is a small amount to them for a cause that could change lives and they would stay changed.
You do realise that this poverty exists because of corrupt Governments? You can chuck as much money as you like at them and it won't make a long term difference.
I did in some countries yes but not all. If you give monthly to a charity that is meant to aid African children would the charity/ organisation not give the money to where it promises? Yes, I am very naive about this. I had not considered that at all.
Charities differ greatly with the amount they actually give to their cause. There's so many countries that are corrupt so badly that any aid is useless. Somalia, Sudan and Syria being the worst
The Red Cross reported losing over $5 million in aid money during the Ebola outbreak in West Africa due to fraud and corruption.
In Liberia, overpriced supplies and salaries for non-existent aid workers were used to siphon off aid money.
In Sierra Leone, Red Cross staff reportedly colluded with bank workers to skim off funds.
-- Edited by Digger on Sunday 13th of July 2025 11:01:49 PM
Anonymous said
Jul 13 11:13 PM, 2025
It’s learning about the thieving and corruption that stopped me donating to charity. The only one I can’t give up on is Royal British Legion's Poppy Appeal, too close to my heart.
Maddog said
Jul 14 2:35 AM, 2025
Fluffy wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Fluffy wrote:
Well they can Maddog. If every actor and actress who earns millions of pounds like Brad Pitt , Tom Cruise etc decided to give a million to the cause. Ditto footballers shaved a hefty percentage off their monthly wage, if billionaires in big business all chipped in a million.
This would go a long way to improving resources in countries like Africa, making sure ALL water was finally clean and building schools ensuring girls can be educated. Fund organisations that will put an end to child brides. It costs a mere pittance to buy a tablet to purify unclean water.
No, world poverty wouldn't be over but we would be a dam sight closer than we are now. Not one of the actors or footballers would feel any worse off either, such is the fortunes the elite have acquired. Nobody wants to take it away from them but just ask them to consider giving what is a small amount to them for a cause that could change lives and they would stay changed.
Millions given to people lift people out of poverty for about 10 minutes..
African has 1.3 billion people Do the math. If the wealthy pooled their resources and contributed 1.3 billion a day, every day (which isn't possible), That's a dollar a day for each person in Africa..
They need fucking jobs not handouts
Why not both? There are more billionaires than ever before in history. The gap between rich and poor is positively dystopian.
The situation could at least be vastly improved but those with the means and power to do so don't care enough to do anything about it. We give very little in the UK to places like Sudan,even less now Starmer cut the Aid budget to fund..something that hasn't worked out or been implemented properly. The Tories threw away billions on the absurd Rwanda scheme but not a single person went to Rwanda because it wasn't deemed a safe country which everyone knew apart from the previous Government But those billions existed..and could have helped those in need in this country or others enormously.
Handouts aren't the solution, even if you can't grasp that financially they can't make a dent in the problem.
People need to produce something of value.
The wealthiest countries aren't those where the wealthy support the poor, but where most people produce enough to support themselves..
Fluffy said
Jul 14 12:49 PM, 2025
Maddog wrote:
Fluffy wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Fluffy wrote:
Well they can Maddog. If every actor and actress who earns millions of pounds like Brad Pitt , Tom Cruise etc decided to give a million to the cause. Ditto footballers shaved a hefty percentage off their monthly wage, if billionaires in big business all chipped in a million.
This would go a long way to improving resources in countries like Africa, making sure ALL water was finally clean and building schools ensuring girls can be educated. Fund organisations that will put an end to child brides. It costs a mere pittance to buy a tablet to purify unclean water.
No, world poverty wouldn't be over but we would be a dam sight closer than we are now. Not one of the actors or footballers would feel any worse off either, such is the fortunes the elite have acquired. Nobody wants to take it away from them but just ask them to consider giving what is a small amount to them for a cause that could change lives and they would stay changed.
Millions given to people lift people out of poverty for about 10 minutes..
African has 1.3 billion people Do the math. If the wealthy pooled their resources and contributed 1.3 billion a day, every day (which isn't possible), That's a dollar a day for each person in Africa..
They need fucking jobs not handouts
Why not both? There are more billionaires than ever before in history. The gap between rich and poor is positively dystopian.
The situation could at least be vastly improved but those with the means and power to do so don't care enough to do anything about it. We give very little in the UK to places like Sudan,even less now Starmer cut the Aid budget to fund..something that hasn't worked out or been implemented properly. The Tories threw away billions on the absurd Rwanda scheme but not a single person went to Rwanda because it wasn't deemed a safe country which everyone knew apart from the previous Government But those billions existed..and could have helped those in need in this country or others enormously.
Handouts aren't the solution, even if you can't grasp that financially they can't make a dent in the problem.
People need to produce something of value.
The wealthiest countries aren't those where the wealthy support the poor, but where most people produce enough to support themselves..
I can grasp that people need to produce something the market wants so they can continue to support themselves. But I don't think giving some money to help if people have and want to contribute those funds is a problem.
The wealthy have to support the poor to some extent as the disparity between rich and poor is huge. It's positively Dickensian. But they can do that through paying a little more in tax which everyone has to do and they possess such a fortune they wouldn't even note the difference.
-- Edited by Fluffy on Monday 14th of July 2025 01:32:13 PM
Fluffy said
Jul 14 12:52 PM, 2025
Anonymous wrote:
It’s learning about the thieving and corruption that stopped me donating to charity. The only one I can’t give up on is Royal British Legion's Poppy Appeal, too close to my heart.
We had to stop giving to charity monthly as we could no longer afford it .But like yourself we had one we couldn't abandon and continue to give to Save the Children.
Fluffy said
Jul 14 1:10 PM, 2025
Digger wrote:
Fluffy wrote:
Digger wrote:
Fluffy wrote:
Well they can Maddog. If every actor and actress who earns millions of pounds like Brad Pitt , Tom Cruise etc decided to give a million to the cause. Ditto footballers shaved a hefty percentage off their monthly wage, if billionaires in big business all chipped in a million.
This would go a long way to improving resources in countries like Africa, making sure ALL water was finally clean and building schools ensuring girls can be educated. Fund organisations that will put an end to child brides. It costs a mere pittance to buy a tablet to purify unclean water.
No, world poverty wouldn't be over but we would be a dam sight closer than we are now. Not one of the actors or footballers would feel any worse off either, such is the fortunes the elite have acquired. Nobody wants to take it away from them but just ask them to consider giving what is a small amount to them for a cause that could change lives and they would stay changed.
You do realise that this poverty exists because of corrupt Governments? You can chuck as much money as you like at them and it won't make a long term difference.
I did in some countries yes but not all. If you give monthly to a charity that is meant to aid African children would the charity/ organisation not give the money to where it promises? Yes, I am very naive about this. I had not considered that at all.
Charities differ greatly with the amount they actually give to their cause. There's so many countries that are corrupt so badly that any aid is useless. Somalia, Sudan and Syria being the worst
The Red Cross reported losing over $5 million in aid money during the Ebola outbreak in West Africa due to fraud and corruption.
In Liberia, overpriced supplies and salaries for non-existent aid workers were used to siphon off aid money.
In Sierra Leone, Red Cross staff reportedly colluded with bank workers to skim off funds.
-- Edited by Digger on Sunday 13th of July 2025 11:01:49 PM
That's disgusting and you have educated me here so I thank you for that.
I confess I assumed that registered charities would give all the money they received to the cause they claimed to be helping. The Red Cross Staff being in cahoots with bank employees to steal funds is particularly distressing.
I know there were brutal dictators who ruled over poor countries like Idi Amin. His political repression wouldn't allow any charity money to reach its destination. Human rights stats say up to 500,000 innocents were slaughtered under his regime.
But I assumed that people who worked for charities were innately moral and wanted to help the cause and assumed (clearly wrongly) that most money given to registered charities would be permitted to reach its destination. Sometimes it feels like human nature is beyond redemption(sorry to get too heavy but that's how I feel)
Fluffy said
Jul 14 1:28 PM, 2025
Anonymous wrote:
Fluffy wrote:
I do understand the double slit experiment but that's as far as it goes. It's exciting to know things are not what they seem.
You've raised an interesting philosophical question there, and it's not just at the quantum level that things aren't what they seem. Actually there's something similar happening with the normal world around us we think we're familiar with.
It seems there are all kinds of unconscious projections going on we're unaware of, that lead us to assume that objects have certain properties, whereas those properties are created within us even though they appear to be part of what we're looking at. Colour is just one example of that. There is no 'red' in a red rose even though it looks as if it's red. The 'red' is created inside us.
In fact for centuries there has been debate around whether we can ever know what external reality is, given that all we can know about it is a picture that's delivered via our limited senses - it's as if we see something on a screen but can never know what's behind the screen.
As Descartes said we cannot "climb outside our head" to observe what reality actually is. As you say we are limited by our own human perception. Shrimp and dragonflies can see 30 different colours so the world they perceive is far more accurate than the one our eyesight permits us to see. I would argue there IS a red, but that humans are restricted in seeing it as it really looks.
Your last observation is akin to Plato's cave, it's like humans only have the potential to see shadows of the truth. Science may find this frustrating but that gives me hope that there is so much going on we don't know which may mean there is not just nothing waiting at the end.
Sorry for late reply, I didn't see it. But your post was fascinating and thank you for sharing it x
Anonymous said
Jul 14 5:28 PM, 2025
Fluffy wrote:
As Descartes said we cannot "climb outside our head" to observe what reality actually is. As you say we are limited by our own human perception. Shrimp and dragonflies can see 30 different colours so the world they perceive is far more accurate than the one our eyesight permits us to see. I would argue there IS a red, but that humans are restricted in seeing it as it really looks.
The trouble is it becomes meaningless to talk about how something really looks because without it being looked at it can't look like anything! nor can it smell, sound, feel, taste like anything so you'd run out of words for how it might be described...
Barksdale said
Jul 14 6:53 PM, 2025
Fluffy wrote:
As Descartes said we cannot "climb outside our head" to observe what reality actually is. As you say we are limited by our own human perception. Shrimp and dragonflies can see 30 different colours so the world they perceive is far more accurate than the one our eyesight permits us to see. I would argue there IS a red, but that humans are restricted in seeing it as it really looks.
Your last observation is akin to Plato's cave, it's like humans only have the potential to see shadows of the truth. Science may find this frustrating but that gives me hope that there is so much going on we don't know which may mean there is not just nothing waiting at the end.
Sorry for late reply, I didn't see it. But your post was fascinating and thank you for sharing it x
The fact we don't all "see" reality in the same way is so interesting. I had always assumed that everyone sees the physical world in the exact same representation but our individual brains takes the raw visual data from the light that hits our retina and creates an image using it layered with approximation from past scenes, patterns, colour combinations etc. Our brains therefore construct a version of reality which differs from person to person. It's why those viral optical illusion memes create such a stir - seeing the blue dress as gold and vice versa.
Plato's allegory of the cave is good for helping us understand why we make cling to our delusions - the shadows flickering on the cave wall - rather than climb up to seek the light through our quest for knowledge.
PS: thanks for the article about the double slit experiment which I will check out. I got the wrong end of the stick. You might need someone else to explain it to you though as it is definitely thinking above my paygrade
Fluffy said
Jul 16 4:21 PM, 2025
Barksdale wrote:
Fluffy wrote:
As Descartes said we cannot "climb outside our head" to observe what reality actually is. As you say we are limited by our own human perception. Shrimp and dragonflies can see 30 different colours so the world they perceive is far more accurate than the one our eyesight permits us to see. I would argue there IS a red, but that humans are restricted in seeing it as it really looks.
Your last observation is akin to Plato's cave, it's like humans only have the potential to see shadows of the truth. Science may find this frustrating but that gives me hope that there is so much going on we don't know which may mean there is not just nothing waiting at the end.
Sorry for late reply, I didn't see it. But your post was fascinating and thank you for sharing it x
The fact we don't all "see" reality in the same way is so interesting. I had always assumed that everyone sees the physical world in the exact same representation but our individual brains takes the raw visual data from the light that hits our retina and creates an image using it layered with approximation from past scenes, patterns, colour combinations etc. Our brains therefore construct a version of reality which differs from person to person. It's why those viral optical illusion memes create such a stir - seeing the blue dress as gold and vice versa.
Plato's allegory of the cave is good for helping us understand why we make cling to our delusions - the shadows flickering on the cave wall - rather than climb up to seek the light through our quest for knowledge.
PS: thanks for the article about the double slit experiment which I will check out. I got the wrong end of the stick. You might need someone else to explain it to you though as it is definitely thinking above my paygrade
I've stopped trying to understand it! The takeaway is that even our atoms are deviant . It is highly cool that electrons do the"expected" behaviour when observed and when they think they are not being watched, do something else altogether.
I understand why this won a Nobel Prize as it given us so much insight. Things are not as science dictate, we know that now for sure.The more advanced our technology becomes however, we might learn why this is and not be so pleased by the outcome. I don't know if it will be in my lifetime but I think some discoveries will be made that may frighten people, deceptive electrons certainly suggest manipulation somewhere along the line.
R.e the dress, I always saw gold and blue together.. I might try and find that as my partner saw the opposite and I would be curious to know what people see.
Fluffy said
Jul 16 4:26 PM, 2025
Anonymous wrote:
Fluffy wrote:
As Descartes said we cannot "climb outside our head" to observe what reality actually is. As you say we are limited by our own human perception. Shrimp and dragonflies can see 30 different colours so the world they perceive is far more accurate than the one our eyesight permits us to see. I would argue there IS a red, but that humans are restricted in seeing it as it really looks.
The trouble is it becomes meaningless to talk about how something really looks because without it being looked at it can't look like anything! nor can it smell, sound, feel, taste like anything so you'd run out of words for how it might be described...
Yes, it's a shame we can't ask the dragonflies what we are missing! If you are the same Anon who has contributed a few times to this thread, thankyou..can I ask what you believe happens after death? You don't have to reply but you have given much food for thought and I'm interested to know your stance.
Anonymous said
Jul 16 5:52 PM, 2025
Fluffy wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Fluffy wrote:
As Descartes said we cannot "climb outside our head" to observe what reality actually is. As you say we are limited by our own human perception. Shrimp and dragonflies can see 30 different colours so the world they perceive is far more accurate than the one our eyesight permits us to see. I would argue there IS a red, but that humans are restricted in seeing it as it really looks.
The trouble is it becomes meaningless to talk about how something really looks because without it being looked at it can't look like anything! nor can it smell, sound, feel, taste like anything so you'd run out of words for how it might be described...
Yes, it's a shame we can't ask the dragonflies what we are missing! If you are the same Anon who has contributed a few times to this thread, thankyou..can I ask what you believe happens after death? You don't have to reply but you have given much food for thought and I'm interested to know your stance.
Yes I'm the same one.
I'd venture to say that the rose in and of itself is a 'pseudo-reality' where the concept of colour doesn't exist, given that the only reality we can ever know (including colour) is the one created by our own (or in its case a dragonfly's) senses. However we are taken in by the tricks and traps of how our language is structured when we say 'the rose is red'.
As far as the question of what happens after death goes, I'd say that just like the question of whether there's intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, the answer is that we simply don't know.
Having said that, it does seem to me that a person has a soul, or spirit, that seems distinct from their physical body (the ghost in the machine?). And there's no more reason to believe the soul is a product of the body than there is to believe that the body is a product of the soul, even if that runs contrary to modern thinking.
So on balance it might be more conducive to a better life to think our soul will carry on after we die?
No "powers that be" can end poverty. Centralized planning has always been a disaster. The 20th century gave us lesson after lesson..The only thing that has lifted people out of poverty is the free market and a few government programs supported by taxes generated in the free market..
Well they can Maddog. If every actor and actress who earns millions of pounds like Brad Pitt , Tom Cruise etc decided to give a million to the cause. Ditto footballers shaved a hefty percentage off their monthly wage, if billionaires in big business all chipped in a million.
This would go a long way to improving resources in countries like Africa, making sure ALL water was finally clean and building schools ensuring girls can be educated. Fund organisations that will put an end to child brides. It costs a mere pittance to buy a tablet to purify unclean water.
No, world poverty wouldn't be over but we would be a dam sight closer than we are now. Not one of the actors or footballers would feel any worse off either, such is the fortunes the elite have acquired. Nobody wants to take it away from them but just ask them to consider giving what is a small amount to them for a cause that could change lives and they would stay changed.
Millions given to people lift people out of poverty for about 10 minutes..
African has 1.3 billion people Do the math. If the wealthy pooled their resources and contributed 1.3 billion a day, every day (which isn't possible), That's a dollar a day for each person in Africa..
They need fucking jobs not handouts
And of course, any humanitarian aid has to factor in what a country’s corrupt leaders will be skimming off the top.
Some of the worst ‘elitism’ and the cavernous disparity between the haves and have-nots, is to be seen on the African continent. Have you ever watched a video of a Nigerian wedding?
https://www.tiktok.com/@brutamerica/video/7511444961213173034
-- Edited by Vam on Sunday 13th of July 2025 07:21:42 PM
-- Edited by Vam on Sunday 13th of July 2025 07:27:14 PM
Why not both? There are more billionaires than ever before in history. The gap between rich and poor is positively dystopian.
The situation could at least be vastly improved but those with the means and power to do so don't care enough to do anything about it. We give very little in the UK to places like Sudan,even less now Starmer cut the Aid budget to fund..something that hasn't worked out or been implemented properly. The Tories threw away billions on the absurd Rwanda scheme but not a single person went to Rwanda because it wasn't deemed a safe country which everyone knew apart from the previous Government
But those billions existed..and could have helped those in need in this country or others enormously.
You do realise that this poverty exists because of corrupt Governments? You can chuck as much money as you like at them and it won't make a long term difference.
I don't have Tik Tok Vam but sadly can easily believe it. I don't believe elitism is harboured only by those with low melanin. Many people who used to give to charity , albeit not a large amount, have had to cut down. It just saddens me what the world has become.
I did in some countries yes but not all. If you give monthly to a charity that is meant to aid African children would the charity/ organisation not give the money to where it promises? Yes, I am very naive about this. I had not considered that at all.
Charities differ greatly with the amount they actually give to their cause. There's so many countries that are corrupt so badly that any aid is useless. Somalia, Sudan and Syria being the worst
-- Edited by Digger on Sunday 13th of July 2025 11:01:49 PM
It’s learning about the thieving and corruption that stopped me donating to charity. The only one I can’t give up on is Royal British Legion's Poppy Appeal, too close to my heart.
Handouts aren't the solution, even if you can't grasp that financially they can't make a dent in the problem.
People need to produce something of value.
The wealthiest countries aren't those where the wealthy support the poor, but where most people produce enough to support themselves..
I can grasp that people need to produce something the market wants so they can continue to support themselves. But I don't think giving some money to help if people have and want to contribute those funds is a problem.
The wealthy have to support the poor to some extent as the disparity between rich and poor is huge. It's positively Dickensian. But they can do that through paying a little more in tax which everyone has to do and they possess such a fortune they wouldn't even note the difference.
-- Edited by Fluffy on Monday 14th of July 2025 01:32:13 PM
We had to stop giving to charity monthly as we could no longer afford it .But like yourself we had one we couldn't abandon and continue to give to Save the Children.
That's disgusting and you have educated me here so I thank you for that.
I confess I assumed that registered charities would give all the money they received to the cause they claimed to be helping. The Red Cross Staff being in cahoots with bank employees to steal funds is particularly distressing.
I know there were brutal dictators who ruled over poor countries like Idi Amin. His political repression wouldn't allow any charity money to reach its destination. Human rights stats say up to 500,000 innocents were slaughtered under his regime.
But I assumed that people who worked for charities were innately moral and wanted to help the cause and assumed (clearly wrongly) that most money given to registered charities would be permitted to reach its destination. Sometimes it feels like human nature is beyond redemption(sorry to get too heavy but that's how I feel)
As Descartes said we cannot "climb outside our head" to observe what reality actually is. As you say we are limited by our own human perception. Shrimp and dragonflies can see 30 different colours so the world they perceive is far more accurate than the one our eyesight permits us to see. I would argue there IS a red, but that humans are restricted in seeing it as it really looks.
Your last observation is akin to Plato's cave, it's like humans only have the potential to see shadows of the truth. Science may find this frustrating but that gives me hope that there is so much going on we don't know which may mean there is not just nothing waiting at the end.
Sorry for late reply, I didn't see it. But your post was fascinating and thank you for sharing it
x
The trouble is it becomes meaningless to talk about how something really looks because without it being looked at it can't look like anything! nor can it smell, sound, feel, taste like anything so you'd run out of words for how it might be described...
The fact we don't all "see" reality in the same way is so interesting. I had always assumed that everyone sees the physical world in the exact same representation but our individual brains takes the raw visual data from the light that hits our retina and creates an image using it layered with approximation from past scenes, patterns, colour combinations etc. Our brains therefore construct a version of reality which differs from person to person. It's why those viral optical illusion memes create such a stir - seeing the blue dress as gold and vice versa.
Plato's allegory of the cave is good for helping us understand why we make cling to our delusions - the shadows flickering on the cave wall - rather than climb up to seek the light through our quest for knowledge.
PS: thanks for the article about the double slit experiment which I will check out. I got the wrong end of the stick. You might need someone else to explain it to you though as it is definitely thinking above my paygrade
I've stopped trying to understand it! The takeaway is that even our atoms are deviant
. It is highly cool that electrons do the"expected" behaviour when observed and when they think they are not being watched, do something else altogether.
I understand why this won a Nobel Prize as it given us so much insight. Things are not as science dictate, we know that now for sure.The more advanced our technology becomes however, we might learn why this is and not be so pleased by the outcome. I don't know if it will be in my lifetime but I think some discoveries will be made that may frighten people, deceptive electrons certainly suggest manipulation somewhere along the line.
R.e the dress, I always saw gold and blue together.. I might try and find that as my partner saw the opposite and I would be curious to know what people see.
Yes, it's a shame we can't ask the dragonflies what we are missing! If you are the same Anon who has contributed a few times to this thread, thankyou..can I ask what you believe happens after death? You don't have to reply but you have given much food for thought and I'm interested to know your stance.
Yes I'm the same one.
I'd venture to say that the rose in and of itself is a 'pseudo-reality' where the concept of colour doesn't exist, given that the only reality we can ever know (including colour) is the one created by our own (or in its case a dragonfly's) senses. However we are taken in by the tricks and traps of how our language is structured when we say 'the rose is red'.
As far as the question of what happens after death goes, I'd say that just like the question of whether there's intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, the answer is that we simply don't know.
Having said that, it does seem to me that a person has a soul, or spirit, that seems distinct from their physical body (the ghost in the machine?). And there's no more reason to believe the soul is a product of the body than there is to believe that the body is a product of the soul, even if that runs contrary to modern thinking.
So on balance it might be more conducive to a better life to think our soul will carry on after we die?