Fight for the Homeless

Homelessness and poverty, which strike us both locally and globally, can be seen as being tied directly to ancient dilemmas of humanity. These issues are not new. Humankind has been suppressing it's own for millennia. My little first year research paper is about this:

Contextualist historians have asserted that Darwin’s theory is as social as it is natural. This is not a subject upon which one may, in all seriousness, be brief. The aim of this paper, beginning with the following quotation, is to discuss this claim with reference to the theory and language of Darwin as presented in his Origin of Species, and to tie evolutionary theory to some of humanity’s most pressing social and political tribulations

"The amount of food for each species of course gives the extreme limit to which each can increase; but very frequently it is not the obtaining [of] food, but the serving as prey to other animals, which determines the average numbers of a species." (Pp. 120)

This line in Darwin’s Origin of Species can be almost literally interpreted in a social-political context. In this case, the species would be divided into the classes, with the upper classes being the “species” to whom the lower classes would be “prey”. As well, this can be seen in a global context, with wealthy nations “feeding” off of impoverished nations, thus bettering their own situation and continuously subduing the situation of their prey. It is through these interpretations that become obvious the dynamics behind the extreme schism in human societies, between the impoverished and the wealthy. This schism, which can be observed both locally and globally, seems to directly have evolved from the natural tendencies of beings to strive for dominance.

Dominance means ensured survival. The dominant species, class, nation or individual is most likely to survive the mitigating conditions of climate, war, or other conflicts against which there can be said to be struggle. The following quotation is especially effective in metaphorically conveying the struggle faced by impoverished peoples, in conflict against the wealthy who subdue them – once again, in both a local and global sense – and usurp their resources

"The action of climate seems at first sight to be quite independent of the struggle for existence; but in so far as climate chiefly acts in reducing food, it brings on the most severe struggle between the individuals . . . which subsist on the same food. Even when climate . . . acts directly, it will be the least vigorous, or those which have got the least food . . . which will suffer most. (Pp. 121)"

The aptness of this quotation in describing the struggle of the poor against the rich is especially acute when considering that in fact climate does affect the food supply of humans, and that, because of their unfavorable living conditions, the poor are more likely to suffer in times of scarcity, such as times of drought or winter, than are the rich. Although the shortage of food in times of tribulation would certainly affect both the wealthy and the impoverished, it is by their capacity to take from the poor that the rich could then be sustained.

Wealthy nations, for example, use the arable land of less fortunate nations to grow insubstantial crops – such as coffee grown in South America, for North American pleasure, for example – and furthermore the wealthy utilize the citizens of less fortunate nations for labor on these crops. Conceivably, the wealthy nations could, in times of local scarcity, use the arable land of impoverished nations to feed themselves. Already the impoverished are not benefiting directly from their own land, and it would be extremely easy for those dominant over them to further rob the poor of their resources in times of personal need.

Finally, Darwin’s view was heavily influenced by the state of European society during the Victorian age, which was very prominently divided into rigid class systems. Although our societies, as they are today, still depend on competition, on “getting ahead”, and on – often grotesquely and perversely – undermining others in the competitive struggle to get ahead, it is no longer necessary for us to limit ourselves in this way. It is through cooperation, rather than competition, that balance could be achieved between and within human societies. Although in a state of nature it seems that both competition and cooperation are necessary for survival – particularly in cases of carnivorous pack animals, who have not any choice beyond cooperatively killing for food – it cannot be said that humankind is still in need of this competition. It is actually more accurate to say that humankind’s dominance over nature, and over others of its own kind, is to the human species’ overall detriment.

By subduing nature through advanced technological means, we are creating a poisoned planet that will eventually no longer sustain us. By subduing one another, we live in worry, hate and fear, as well as in uncertainty and in a state of great division. For harmony to come to our life as a species, it would be in our benefit to stray from our natural inclinations towards competition and to come to embrace our also natural capacity for cooperation.

Particularly because we are conscious on a level that other animals are not, and because we are generally secure where the survival of our species is concerned, it is detrimental for us to continue in so feral a way. Our species is secure. It is possible, especially now that our ideas about nature and ourselves have developed beyond arcane guesses, for us to focus on the survival and benefit of the individual. That is, it is possible for us to come to understand that we can work together, rather than against one another, for the benefit of each individual, as opposed to working for the benefit of only ourselves. This, of course, would include the consideration of not only human societies and individuals, but would also include the consideration of all that with which humanity comes into contact. It means recognizing our place in nature as highly evolved beings rather than assuming that evolution separates us from nature, or that it grants us special rights over nature.

Human nature is in direct conflict with human reason at this point in human evolution, and it is only through understanding of the former through the utilization of the latter that we may come to truly realize our natural potential.

The demand for affordable housing was always somewhat vague. To put to the city so vague a demand may not be in our favour. The city may interpret such a vague demand unjustly. It is the same as the demand for uniform shelter conditions.

For example, the demand for uniform shelter conditions may be [likely intentionally] mis-interpreted as the demand for minimal standards to be met in all shelters, which standards, although uniform, may not be favourable. Even with the specific concerns that are stated - poor ventilation, not enough space, poor sanitation - it may make all the difference to indicate precicely how these problems ought to be remedied; the powers that be tend to need to have such demands clarified.

The recent investigation into the shelter system is a small step towards the long sought-after goal.

As I am sure you realise, this investigation is of great significance, for it is a concrete analysis of the situation rather than a general-sounding concern.

The problem with the demand for affordable housing is that the housing, when it is finally provided [and I am confidant that it will be provided] may also be of poor quality. Already the houses that sell for $170,000+ are made practically from cardboard, [pressed sawdust, in fact]. It is highly in our favour to continuously clarify our vague demands to the powers that be, and to publicise the issue strongly and unrelentingly to the people. Of course, I am sure it is already clear to you that the exposure of perverse injustice needs to continue, and that it is not enough to just repeat our concerns. All of the ugliness that plagues the unfortunate afflicted population needs to be revealed.

The so-called higher powers are not unlikely to interpret our demands in whatever way suits them. If the houses that sell for thousands are made from cardboard, I am not eager to see out of what the houses that the powers that be understand as "affordable housing" would be constructed. Condoes or regular, good housing should be cheap and made accessible to everyone, and of course workers ought to earn their fair share, and NO houses should be built from flammable dry-wall.

Demand the best; everyone deserves no less.