Society and the poor, the weak, and the disadvantaged...

This is a separate post since I need to deviate from 6500 BC in order to discuss non-contributors. But in order to be complete...

I will stick with the survival theory... it is the basis for my argument and my instincts point that way.

Unless the poor, the weak, and the disadvantaged are able to increase the probability of survival, the set of present contributors has no reason to care.

The other question being, what kind of care is needed by these set of non-contributors.

I will propose that, in general, the set of non-contributors want to become contributors. This is sort of an untested hypothesis... I claim this hypothesis to be true based on the fact that the set of non-contributors who do not want to be contributors have no hope. Society will discard them. I will also make the claim here that the % of non-contributors who do not want to contribute is small.

Non-contributors who want to be contributors... they may know how, they may not know how to... but they do want it... that is the key.

Right so what is society's responsibility to them?

I believe that numbers and diversity increase society's ability to provide an increased probability of survival. I am not getting into details here but I think the argument would run along similar lines as genetics and mutation. Maybe I will elaborate on this in a later post.

Therefore, society (consisting of the present contributors) MUST, in their own benefit try to make these non-contributors into contributors. This is in their long term benefit.