Are homeless a fair measure of a society?

[Yenn]

Why do we have so many mentally ill people in society. In much harder times we didn't have so many as we have now. Could it have any bearing on the intake of recreational drug use?

What does a psychologist know of mental health, surely that is the area of expertise of psychiatrists?

[Bruce Tuncks]

Yenn, a psychiatrist is a psychologist with a medical degree.They can prescribe drugs which is what psychologists can't do. If anything, they may have had less psychology training.

I have known 2 psychiatrists socially and they were both crazy.

[Bruce Tuncks]

And of course homeless peope need all sorts of services. I just reckon some shelter from the elements tops the list and as a practical bloke it is what I understand.

[old man emu]

Our needs were classified into a hierarchy by the behaviorist Abraham Maslow in 1943. Maslow's hierarchy of needs is a motivational theory in psychology comprising a five-tier model of human needs, often depicted as hierarchical levels within a pyramid. Needs lower down in the hierarchy must be satisfied before individuals can attend to needs higher up. From the bottom of the hierarchy upwards, the needs are: physiological, safety, love and belonging, esteem, and self-actualization.

 

 

 

Unlike most scientific theories, Maslow's hierarchy of needs has widespread influence outside academia. The continued resonance of Maslow's theory in popular imagination, however unscientific it may seem, is possibly the single most telling evidence of its significance: it explains human nature as something that most humans immediately recognize in themselves and others. Academics argue the details of Maslow's theory, but to the rest of the population, it works.

[Bruce Tuncks]

That Maslow's pyramid reinforces my argument OME. Basic needs such as shelter come first. Thanks.

[facthunter]

What's it really matter? .They are flimsy in a cyclone and burn in a fire and on good sites get pushed over to build another modern Gloria Some of the modern style that ALL look the same. Match sticks underneath and thin concrete floors. Is that ALL there is, to spend a major part of your life paying off? What an aspiration? Nev

[facthunter]

Needs are what someone else decides you need. You are either keeping up with the Jones' or a proponent of conspicuous consumption to show your success or have compulsive wealth accumulation addiction. If you think about it the Aborigines had none of these .They respected the environment because they understood that without it, they perish. They personally owned nothing. What they had they shared with the tribe.

We are the ones out of step with reality, who have great differences of lifestyle and seek to further the differences instead of addressing them and we fight nature and each other and are to eventually be swallowed by the problem we created. . Overpopulation exaggerates it. Population growth must eventually apply a limit, if it hasn't already. ALL life on earth must be revered and respected as it's part of us and we are a part of it.. Nev

[spacesailor]

HOW ABOUT,

A Pacific island Long house, that holds a lot of people. For a dormitory style sleep out of the weather.

spacesailor

[Yenn]

Nev. There is a difference between needs and wants. Needs are decided by us and wants are decided by the advertising gurus. A lot of what other people consider to be needs are just wants to me, or in many cases don't wants.

[Bruce Tuncks]

Well I want a million bucks but I NEED a warm place to sleep. I don't think the aborigines were thinkers at all, and they regarded the environment just as we regard the atmosphere. Something that is just there and we can't own it.

[facthunter]

WE regard the atmosphere as we regard rivers and the sea. Somewhere to DUMP Waste.. We have no respect (collectively) for the environment .They did, and for a very long time.. say 60,000 years. That's quite a while. What's 60,000 years of OUR actions going to look like. The last 250 isn't much of an indication of success for a fragile environment. Nev

[Bruce Tuncks]

I reckon that aborigines, far from respecting the environment, simply lacked the ability to mess it up like we are.

As proof of this, I offer the mass extinction of Australia's megafauna, which occurred shortly after the arrival of aborigines.

I also reckon their typical lack of interest in collecting rubbish from around their dwellings is also proof. Yes, it is whitefeller manufactured rubbish but purchased,  brought there, discarded and ignored by the aborigines themselves.

Another proof is the use of poison for desert waterholes. Gosh, if whites did that, they would be rightfully prosecuted. How that supports " respecting the environment " is a mystery  to me.

[Yenn]

If you are too stupid to know, how can you disrespect anything?

[spacesailor]

NOW AUSTRALIAN POVERTY is advertised on the tv,

Can we get " food parcels " from those First world countries  ?.

spacesailor

[Jerry_Atrick]

You mean likke those lobsters on a Chinese tarmac?

[onetrack]

What I find amusing, is the Chinese bought up all the lobster-processing facilities in W.A. (not so sure about their investments in other States). So it's a real "kick-yourself-in-the-nuts" move. And I hate to think what those Australian-lobster-loving Chinese think of their Govts move, depriving them of their finest delicacy. The upside is perhaps, now, Australian companies will be able to buy back the processing facilities off the Chinese, at a major discount.

[onetrack]

What is probably even better, the decision of the Chinese to stop buying so much of our agricultural produce will now mean we can more easily get local produce of good quality, in substantial volumes.

 

Prior to the Chinese shenanigans, 98% of W.A.'s lobster catch of 6,300 tonnes was flown directly to China. The W.A. Govt tied itself in knots trying to introduce a system in the lobster industry that ensured there was enough of the lobster catch available, to meet local demand. But the Govt's efforts were hamstrung by the fact the Chinese were paying huge money for lobsters, that the fishermen and lobster processors didn't want to lose out on.

 

However, when you become reliant on one customer for 98% of your income, alarm bells should be sounding like a fire station. But people have short memories, and all too-often, hard lessons learnt, are rapidly forgotten, until the next crunch.

[old man emu]

Looks like Primary Producers are making money hand over fist from Australia's natural resources and not sharing their good fortune with the rest of us. That's Mateship ... not.

[Yenn]

Do you really believe primary producers are making money hand over fist. It is not what I see from prices at the supermarket. The only ones in the food supply chain who are doing well are the middle men, Coles and Woolies. It is only in primary production that the buyer sets the price.

Some primary producers are not far from the homeless.