[tn135]

> In the end, is it truly that much different than the prevailing economic structure disproportionately forcing the poor into high-risk or hard-labor occupations that result in significantly degraded lifespan and/or quality of life?

You are right but I am unable to see why might think it is bad. Poor people taking more risks to come out of poverty is very natural and should be encouraged. Why do you think I left my homeland, left my parents, friends and Gods to come to Silicon Valley ?

If you are not going to allow poor people to take risks and make hard choices you are keeping them in perpetual poverty.

[anigbrowl]

You're taking risks to advance your own economic power by serving the interests of a system that is an aspect of the very thing that keeps you poor int he first place. Liberation is something that begins in the mind, not the pocketbook; economics is a useful theory but it's far from being a totalizing philosophy.

[tn135]

> interests of a system that is an aspect of the very thing that keeps you poor int he first place.

Seems other way round to me. It is the restrictions on organ trade that is keeping poor.

[coldtea]

>If you are not going to allow poor people to take risks and make hard choices you are keeping them in perpetual poverty.

Only in a world where getting rich is about "taking risks" and not about being ruthless, luck, connections, and inheritance.

[tn135]

> being ruthless, luck, connections, and inheritance.

All those are important but then risk is also one way to get rich faster.

[awkwardtortoise]

> Poor people taking more risks to come out of poverty is very natural

Poor people don't take more risks to come out of poverty... Poor people take risks because they have no choice and they remain in poverty.

> Why do you think I left my homeland, left my parents, friends and Gods to come to Silicon Valley ?

That's not the type of risk we are talking about. We are talking about things like coal miners.