Add new comment

A: In theory, I'd go for choice (b.), Sharkull -
It's not easy to apply the argument globally, though - it might provide some benefits at a local level but, generally speaking, I'd say a more equitable society is a more caring society..
- the way you describe it is odd, though - nobody actually gives you a fish these days, they're much more likely to sell you one instead! I think what's meant by the phrase, is that you create a more self-reliant person by teaching him to fish - he's freed from the financial obligation of having to pay to get one...
It's surely a great honour to be able to share one's wealth - an honour we're not encouraged to achieve these days, society has been more benevolent in the past than it appears to be today - the motivation seems to have become more self-centred in recent years...
The rate at which the earth's natural resources are currently being depleted, means that it's becoming less and less likely that self-reliance will be the natural goal that it always was... it's no good teaching a man to fish if there are no fish left to catch! In this sense even prosperity itself is at risk... democratic capitalism has it's flaws - power tends towards the most vociferous, and there are those who don't (or won't) participate in the vote and therefore have no say...
One needn't apply the premise solely to the provision of food though, what about nuclear power - is it wise to teach someone how to create such a thing in the hope that he will become more self-reliant - or is this just asking for trouble?
I'd like to think that humanity will have a more balanced approach to these matters as resources dwindle - but history seems to show that a free-for-all will ensue when the going gets tough!

BTW, Sean Connery's oirish accent in The Untouchables was absolutely hilarious..
- though I don't think it was meant to be!!

Q: What's the funniest thing on TV where you are?