Why is systemic poverty intractable?

[XT]

[QUOTE=UY Scuti]
Ancient Greece was not a capitalist state. Relative poverty in ancient Greece was not as serious as it is in the USA.
[/QUOTE]

So what? Even if this assertion is true (you got a cite?), what matters is that absolute poverty in ancient Greece was higher than in the US today, since even the poor in the US today have higher standards of living and quality of life (and life expectancy) than did even the highest ranked people back then.

Afghanistan is poor due to its political issues, not because of the lack of capitalism. Capitalism is not the automatic choice of a free public. Free elections in Egypt, for instance, may bring to power a religious party that may institute a theocratic regime absolutely democratically.

You are confusing capitalism, which is an economic system, with democracy, which is a political system. Egypt isn’t a ‘capitalist country’, regardless of whether they have elections or not.

But as long as the relationships between nations in a globalist society are of capitalist nature, a non-capitalist state is forced to participate in the capitalist game willy-nilly. Which will maintain its levels of poverty because capitalism, to a great extent, is an economic war between all players, the big of which often create alliances to stifle the smaller ones, and especially their ideological enemies.

Oh, so it has nothing to do with the fact that non-capitalist states simply CAN’T compete, economically, but instead they are forced to? How are they forced to? How do capitalist nations stifle the internal economies of non-capitalist ones? Perhaps this is why North Korea is such an economic wasteland while the south thrives, because North Korea isn’t in the club?

Yugoslavia was not a democracy either, and there was no poverty.

None at all? :dubious:

China seems to accept capitalism, but it is only an impression. It has adopted capitalist measures under the pressure of the global market.

And by doing so they have reaped vast economic benefits and been able to raise a large part of their population out of abject poverty. It wasn’t pressure from global markets, since they weren’t IN any global markets until they actually started to have an economy and be a market worth trading with…which, ironically coincided with when they started to bolt on some capitalist-esque aspect to their economy.

If it becomes a more successful economy than that of the USA, its example may one day constitute the platform for an alternative economic model.

Seriously? What might this new ‘alternative economic model’ be, exactly? I mean, since it is the capitalist aspects that have let them be as successful as they have been, and it was their own, failed economic system that caused them to be so crushingly poor before, I’m curious as to what this new alternative economic model might look like and where it would come from.

[msmith537]

@PlaceboTarget

The fact that capitalism inexorably leads to wealth concentration is high poverty levels. What prevents this from happening in certain countries is democracy, not capitalism itself, which does its best to circumvent democratic mechanism even in these states. Democracy and capitalism are two different things. Wealth concentration caused by capitalism is happing as we speak. As businesses deplete any source globally (giving the temporary feeling that local populations have a chance to thrive and be better off), people are left with fewer and fewer chances to escape endemic poverty in the long run.

This is, of course, nonsense, not borne out by historical evidence. Democracy and capitalism are different things in that democracy is a form of government and capitalism is an economic system. Both are similar and tend to go hand in hand as they both hold individual freedom as core ideals.

Nations that have the strongest economies tend to be ones with democratic governments, capitalist economies, supported by rule of law and with adequate social safety nets.

Countries that move towards capitalism without strong rule of law tend to become corrupt kleptocrocies like Russia or Mexico. Countries that move towards capitalism without strong social safety nets tend to have huge wealth disparity like Brazil.

In most cases, they are all far better off than far-left socialized countries like Venezuela or Cuba.

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

It is really simple. In order to be wealthy, you depend on a system that encourages others to do things for you . We have a system that does that.

As a worker it behooves you to develop a skill that the wealthy can really want and pay handsomely for.

But the wealthy and most of us would like to get someone else to clean our toilets and there is a huge need for that. In order to get people to perform the ugly menial jobs we need a huge cheap labour pool and we are only going to find these people under the poverty line who for a variety of reasons are incapable of acquiring the means to encourage the wealthy to share their wealth.

To make matters worse, our social safety net sustains the idle poor who really don’t want to clean toilets, hence the need to welcome the undocumented poor foreign worker into our economies and swelling the ranks of the poor.

Simple, but without the poor we all would be cleaning our own toilets

[PlaceboTarget]

@The_Flying_Dutchman

Simple, but without the poor we all would be cleaning our own toilets

I admire your cynicism.

Not.

…

In case there is someone who has not realized it, the poor this thread refers to are poorer than the people who clean our toilets.

[Model_Citizen]

@Human_Action

I think it’d work quite well once implemented, but the odds of it being implemented are low. Perhaps if Switzerland gets their somewhat similar basic-income program off the ground and it goes well, it could happen here. The Swiss are rather conservative by European standards, and thought to be sensible and frugal bankers. Their positive experience might have more impact on American than a Swedish or Danish one would, because as we all know, they are hedonistic Marxists.

It had an impact in the '70s, with the Earned Income Tax Credit. It was a sort of Republican alternative to the War on Poverty programs. Nixon endorsed it as the “family assistance plan”, but it died in the Senate, where it had the support of many Republicans, but not enough Democrats.

As for right now?

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) supports it, but not many others. If you read that article, you can see the problem: it’s hundreds of words about Alexander’s scandalous and evil desire to remove the minimum wage, two mentions that he wants to replace it with an NIT, and zero words explaining what that is. The intended effect is to shake one’s head at the wicked Republican who hates the poor, instead of considering his ideas.

The modern Republicans are too radical and obstructionist to support an NIT, and the Democrats are too invested in the current system, almost defining themselves by it. I might live to see an NIT or a similiar program, but then again I might not.

I think you hit the nail on the head in regards to the obstacles facing implementation of a NIT. From the conservative view, these kinds of solutions are right at home in the minds of old guard, pre-Nixonian Republicans, but seem to be met with lukewarm response at best by the those in the Tea Party crowd. According to the article, even Sen. Alexander himself only advocates for the NIT while holding his nose:

The GOP lawmaker said he preferred a “negative income tax” system and an expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit, though Alexander added he opposes these ideas, too – he just sees them as less offensive than a minimum wage.

As a voter who is concerned with a high level of income inequality, I can’t really see myself voting for a politician who only advocated for a NIT – a conservative program with real merits – because he saw it as a stepping stone to complete abolishment of any and all minimum income programs. Even Friedman himself only offered the NIT as a fig leaf alternative to compromise with liberals who would never stomach complete abolition of income tax. With the healthcare system as well, Obamacare was created in the image of the Swiss program, but as we all know, the conservative response has been nothing but calls for repeal. A sane right-wing response would be to simply rework the law to more closely match Switzerland’s system, something that I’ve no doubt that the democrats would be infinitely more willing to work with than a bold-faced repeal attempt. Unfortunately, I fear the old days of rockefeller republicanism are behind us at this point, to be frank.

At the end of the day, programs like the NIT and the Swiss healthcare system are still primarily based upon the root notion of providing the poor with subsidies at the expense of the rich through taxation, an idea that is anathema to libertarian ideals. The main difference between these ideas and the current liberal concept of the welfare state lies primarily in the incentive structure. Under the conservative model proposed, the poor can only receive money (indirectly) from the rich by first performing work or contributing to society in some fashion, vice the liberal model where money is handed out indiscriminately.

I suppose my objection to your proposal is not on the grounds of it being a bad idea, but rather that it doesn’t count as being “conservative”, as judged by the political standards of the USA in the year 2013 (or 2014 if you’re reading this from the future ). Basically, conservative ideas like this don’t have much of a voice anymore. Most tea party republicans would chase you out of the room for proposing these kinds of programs. They see anyone who accepts money they didn’t directly earn as a shameless moocher. I think this is why we didn’t see Mitt Romney and 2012 republican congressional candidates running on a NIT platform, shouting its virtues from the mountaintops.

It’s a shame, really, because there are a lot of voters who might really resonate with the idea of a welfare system that rewards personal responsibility while still helping the poor in a meaningful way. Instead, people truly concerned with income inequality have to vote liberal every time.
Sorry for the slightly America-centric derail. Although I think it has implications for the rest of the world as well.

[PlaceboTarget]

@XT

You are confusing capitalism, which is an economic system, with democracy, which is a political system. Egypt isn’t a ‘capitalist country’, regardless of whether they have elections or not.

I’m the first to warn against this confusion. Where exactly am I confusing capitalism with democracy?

[XT]

@PlaceboTarget

I’m the first to warn against this confusion. Where exactly am I confusing capitalism with democracy?

That’s why I quoted you and then responded. The part I quoted from you just above what you quoted from me would be where I’m saying you seem confused. If you aren’t then perhaps you could clear up the part I quoted and let me know what you really meant.

[PlaceboTarget]

@msmith537

This is, of course, nonsense, not borne out by historical evidence.

Well, it is not my own idea. It a notion accepted in economics.

@msmith537

Nations that have the strongest economies tend to be ones with democratic governments, capitalist economies, supported by rule of law and with adequate social safety nets.

Countries that move towards capitalism without strong rule of law tend to become corrupt kleptocrocies like Russia or Mexico. Countries that move towards capitalism without strong social safety nets tend to have huge wealth disparity like Brazil.

I think that’s what I said. Accumulation of wealth would never stop if political centers of power did nothing to keep it in check.

[PlaceboTarget]

@XT

That’s why I quoted you and then responded. The part I quoted from you just above what you quoted from me would be where I’m saying you seem confused. If you aren’t then perhaps you could clear up the part I quoted and let me know what you really meant.

I think I was clear enough. I’m not the one confused.

[XT]

@PlaceboTarget

I think I was clear enough. I’m not the one confused.

Your clarity is on par with your confusion level, ‘clearly enough’.

[Human_Action]

@PlaceboTarget

Ancient Greece was not a capitalist state.

It was a slave state, the most unequal system one can imagine.

@UY Scuti

Relative poverty in ancient Greece was not as serious as it is in the USA.

Cite?

It’s not as serious in Afghanistan either. Are Afghans better off for it?

@UY Scuti

Afghanistan is poor due to its political issues, not because of the lack of capitalism. Capitalism is not the automatic choice of a free public. Free elections in Egypt, for instance, may bring to power a religious party that may institute a theocratic regime absolutely democratically.

Its political issues prevent it from embracing capitalism, so you’re partially correct there.

Feel free to name wealthy societies that are not capitalist.

@UY Scuti

But as long as the relationships between nations in a globalist society are of capitalist nature, a non-capitalist state is forced to participate in the capitalist game willy-nilly. Which will maintain its levels of poverty because capitalism, to a great extent, is an economic war between all players, the big of which often create alliances to stifle the smaller ones, and especially their ideological enemies.

No, they can be an autarky, like North Korea, or Afghanistan under the Taliban, or Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, or post-independence India. The practice of forcing trade through gunboat diplomacy occurred in a small area for a short period of time. No nation today is forced to participate in trade. They do so because they benefit from it.

Please cite examples of states that became more poor, or stayed as poor as they’d been, after opening to international trade.

@UY Scuti

Yugoslavia was not a democracy either, and there was no poverty.

Cite?

@UY Scuti

But indeed, dictatorship made things bad in China, and its incompetent management in times of trouble of various sorts (economic decline, social tensions, natural disasters, etc.) made things go from bad to worse.

That’s what central planning gets you.

@UY Scuti

China seems to accept capitalism, but it is only an impression. It has adopted capitalist measures under the pressure of the global market. If it becomes a more successful economy than that of the USA, its example may one day constitute the platform for an alternative economic model.

Sure, I suppose. Given that its model is nascent capitalism, though, I fail to see why it’s likely to be the source of an alternative model. But, who knows what the future may hold?

@PlaceboTarget

I think that’s what I said. Accumulation of wealth would never stop if political centers of power did nothing to keep it in check.

Taxation pre-dates capitalism, and is in no way incompatible with it. And why wouldn’t it stop? How many of the wealthiest families from Revolutionary War times are still amongst the wealthiest families?

[PlaceboTarget]

@XT

Your clarity is on par with your confusion level, ‘clearly enough’.

A gratuitous assertion for which you offer no argument.

[XT]

@PlaceboTarget

A gratuitous assertion for which you offer no argument.

What’s to argue? I pointed out why I said what I said and asked you to clarify. You chose to yet again simply assert that it was the way you said it was without bothering to even attempt civilized dialogue. shrug Seems to be your modus operandi…you simply assert stuff, then when asked to back it up or clarify you just handwave.

[Human_Action]

@Model_Citizen

I think you hit the nail on the head in regards to the obstacles facing implementation of a NIT. From the conservative view, these kinds of solutions are right at home in the minds of old guard, pre-Nixonian Republicans, but seem to be met with lukewarm response at best by the those in the Tea Party crowd. According to the article, even Sen. Alexander himself only advocates for the NIT while holding his nose:

True enough. I’m unclear what solutions the Tea Party crowd offers for any issue; they seem to be purely reactionary and obstructive.

@Model Citizen

As a voter who is concerned with a high level of income inequality, I can’t really see myself voting for a politician who only advocated for a NIT – a conservative program with real merits – because he saw it as a stepping stone to complete abolishment of any and all minimum income programs.

Do you mean Alexander? Has he said that?

@Model Citizen

Even Friedman himself only offered the NIT as a fig leaf alternative to compromise with liberals who would never stomach complete abolition of income tax. With the healthcare system as well, Obamacare was created in the image of the Swiss program, but as we all know, the conservative response has been nothing but calls for repeal. A sane right-wing response would be to simply rework the law to more closely match Switzerland’s system, something that I’ve no doubt that the democrats would be infinitely more willing to work with than a bold-faced repeal attempt. Unfortunately, I fear the old days of rockefeller republicanism are behind us at this point, to be frank.

I think the crazy-right’s days are numbered, myself. If Chris Christie gets the Presidential nomination without having to tack crazy-right in the primaries, it’ll be a great sign.

@Model Citizen

At the end of the day, programs like the NIT and the Swiss healthcare system are still primarily based upon the root notion of providing the poor with subsidies at the expense of the rich through taxation, an idea that is anathema to libertarian ideals.

Not necessarily; libertarians generally believe that the government should provide public goods (roads, military, etc), and as I noted above, public order through minimum income can be looked at as a public good.

@Model Citizen

The main difference between these ideas and the current liberal concept of the welfare state lies primarily in the incentive structure. Under the conservative model proposed, the poor can only receive money (indirectly) from the rich by first performing work or contributing to society in some fashion, vice the liberal model where money is handed out indiscriminately.

I’d be fine with a model of welfare-for-work, except for the fact that job seekers often outnumber available jobs. Given that reality, some sort of accommodation must be made, or we’ll have food riots.

@Model Citizen

I suppose my objection to your proposal is not on the grounds of it being a bad idea, but rather that it doesn’t count as being “conservative”, as judged by the political standards of the USA in the year 2013 (or 2014 if you’re reading this from the future ). Basically, conservative ideas like this don’t have much of a voice anymore. Most tea party republicans would chase you out of the room for proposing these kinds of programs. They see anyone who accepts money they didn’t directly earn as a shameless moocher. I think this is why we didn’t see Mitt Romney and 2012 republican congressional candidates running on a NIT platform, shouting its virtues from the mountaintops.

Fair enough. I can’t say you’re wrong. Like you, I’m curious to see what proposals other conservative posters will offer, if they do so.

@Model Citizen

It’s a shame, really, because there are a lot of voters who might really resonate with the idea of a welfare system that rewards personal responsibility while still helping the poor in a meaningful way. Instead, people truly concerned with income inequality have to vote liberal every time.

Sorry for the slightly America-centric derail. Although I think it has implications for the rest of the world as well.

I’m nothing if not America-centric. As for the rest of the world, like I said, Switzerland is flirting with the idea, and it bears watching what they do with it if it gets enacted.

[PlaceboTarget]

@Human_Action

It was a slave state, the most unequal system one can imagine.

We are discussing poverty. Of course, as a slave state, Greece was a terribly unequal society. In terms of relative wealth, slaves were better off than many of the poor in capitalist states. Slaves were allowed to pursue their own careers and save their wages, which allowed them to pay their freedom back.

@Human_Action

Cite?

I know Yugoslavia had an acceptable living standard from personal experience, but you consider me an unreliable source it’s okay, I won’t mind it.

@Human_Action

It’s not as serious in Afghanistan either. Are Afghans better off for it?

Afghanistan is an Islamic republic. There are Islamic republics whose economic problems are less serious. It would be an exaggeration to say that the Muslim way of life generates poverty.

@Human_Action

Its political issues prevent it from embracing capitalism, so you’re partially correct there.

Egypt was only an example of the fact that people can freely and democratically opt for something else than capitalism. It is fallacious to equate the lack of capitalism with the lack of freedom or democracy.

@Human_Action

Feel free to name wealthy societies that are not capitalist.

I’m not sure. Sweden? Qatar?

The difficulty to find one resides in what I asserted earlier:

But as long as the relationships between nations in a globalist society are of capitalist nature, a non-capitalist state is forced to participate in the capitalist game willy-nilly. Which will maintain its levels of poverty because capitalism, to a great extent, is an economic war between all players, the big of which often create alliances to stifle the smaller ones, and especially their ideological enemies.

@Human_Action

No nation today is forced to participate in trade. They do so because they benefit from it.

It’s the same as saying that no one is forced to breath. People do so because they benefit from it.

Trade existed before capitalism. But nowadays nations can rarely establish economic relationships at global level outside the capitalist framework because globalism has been instituted on capitalist principles. Its not the trade that harms smaller players, but the capitalist nature of it.

@Human_Action

Please cite examples of states that became more poor, or stayed as poor as they’d been, after opening to international trade.

Greece?

@Human_Action

Sure, I suppose. Given that its model is nascent capitalism, though, I fail to see why it’s likely to be the source of an alternative model. But, who knows what the future may hold?

I appreciate your answer. I don’t lean either to the left or the right, and I think it would be arrogant to believe that capitalism is forever an unparalleled summit of human civilization. An alternative model will arise one day, but I’m afraid it will come in the aftermath of a global riot over increasingly scare resources.

@Human_Action

Taxation pre-dates capitalism, and is in no way incompatible with it. And why wouldn’t it stop? How many of the wealthiest families from Revolutionary War times are still amongst the wealthiest families?

Taxation is not meant to prevent wealth accumulation. Wealth accumulation tends to spiral out of control when laws encourage it or when corruption allows businesspeople to appropriate chunks of the public funds and/or assets. Capitalism has no morals.

[PlaceboTarget]

@XT

What’s to argue? I pointed out why I said what I said and asked you to clarify. You chose to yet again simply assert that it was the way you said it was without bothering to even attempt civilized dialogue. shrug Seems to be your modus operandi…you simply assert stuff, then when asked to back it up or clarify you just handwave.

I myself stated that we should not continue debating, but you chose to pick the discussion with me again although my posts were addressed to someone else. I replied to you because I bear no grudge but it seems that I keep failing your standards. I’m not offended if you ignore me. Please, let’s end it here.
Respect.

[Voyager]

@Shodan

You have got to be kidding. I made no mention at all of a decrease in unemployment, and a decrease in unemployment is the same thing as an increase in employment, which I didn’t mention.

Get back to us when you want to debate things that have actually been said.

Regards,
Shodan

You mentioned a decrease in employment of former minimum wage workers, but as I said no increase in employment to counter it. Thus, you implied that raising the minimum wage reduces employment. In fact it does not, as my cite said. Giving a cite saying that unemployment does increase for certain segments in no way refutes the fact that net employment does not change.

Got it now?

[Human_Action]

@PlaceboTarget

We are discussing poverty.

Slaves tend to be poor.

Of course, as a slave state, Greece was a terribly unequal society. In terms of relative wealth, slaves were better off than many of the poor in capitalist states.

Again, cite?

Relative wealth is far less meaningful than absolute wealth. A society where everyone is poor is much worse than one where everyone is comfortable, but a few are wealthy.

Slaves were allowed to pursue their own careers and save their wages, which allowed them to pay their freedom back.

People in capitalist states are allowed to pursue their own careers and save their wages too.

I know Yugoslavia had an acceptable living standard from personal experience, but you consider me an unreliable source it’s okay, I won’t mind it.

I prefer numbers to recollections, yes. For one, Yugoslavia was a sizeable country. For two, memory is unreliable. For three, I have no idea what you consider to be an “acceptable” living standard.

Afghanistan is an Islamic republic. There are Islamic republics whose economic problems are less serious.

Such as?

It would be an exaggeration to say that the Muslim way of life generates poverty.

The ones with massive oil deposits and small populations do fairly well, sure.

Egypt was only an example of the fact that people can freely and democratically opt for something else than capitalism. It is fallacious to equate the lack of capitalism with the lack of freedom or democracy.

Sure. Capitalism and freedom & democracy do go hand-in-hand more often than not, but they are by no means joined at the hip, no.

I’m not sure. Sweden?

Sweden is capitalist.

Qatar?

Much closer to the mark, at least for native Qataris, as opposed to the army of migrant workers who actually perform labor there.

Is Qatar’s a model that can be emulated, though? It has 1.7 million people and 5% of the world’s oil.

The difficulty to find one resides in what I asserted earlier:

That’s one possibility. Another is that capitalism reliably produces wealth, and other systems do not.

It’s the same as saying that no one is forced to breath. People do so because they benefit from it.

Except many nations have become autarkies, and refrained from trade. No one refrains from breathing, at least for more than 5 minutes or so.

Trade existed before capitalism. But nowadays nations can rarely establish economic relationships at global level outside the capitalist framework because globalism has been instituted on capitalist principles. Its not the trade that harms smaller players, but the capitalist nature of it.

What would non-capitalist international trade even look like?

What smaller players are being hurt? Qatar?

Greece?

When are you referring to? When was Greece closed to international trade?

I appreciate your answer. I don’t lean either to the left or the right, and I think it would be arrogant to believe that capitalism is forever an unparalleled summit of human civilization. An alternative model will arise one day, but I’m afraid it will come in the aftermath of a global riot over increasingly scare resources.

As a voter in 2013, what matters to me is what the best system is right now.

Taxation is not meant to prevent wealth accumulation.

Sometimes it is, indeed, an explicit goal of taxation.

Wealth accumulation tends to spiral out of control when laws encourage it or when corruption allows businesspeople to appropriate chunks of the public funds and/or assets.

Now we’re back to the intersection between capitalism and government, though. There’s nothing inherent to capitalism that leads to permanent concretions of wealth.

Capitalism has no morals.

No abstract systems have morals, only people do.

[PlaceboTarget]

@Human_Action

Relative wealth is far less meaningful than absolute wealth. A society where everyone is poor is much worse than one where everyone is comfortable, but a few are wealthy.

This is where we disagree most. Relative wealth is the most important aspect in economic, political and social terms. It is a global world and the wealthy states that maintain their high living standards by means of the global market are responsible for the poverty in the parts of the world that happen to offer them either resources or customers. Denial will only worsen things and lead to a global crisis that may trigger the end of capitalism as we now it today.

On the other hand, I admire your arguing style although the points you make are not always right. To disprove them satisfactorily I should indeed research for some sources but I do have a life. Which brings me to the issue why I got involved in this to begin with. I’ll blame it on the winter holidays and withdraw with an honest bow.

[kanicbird]

@Lumpy

Of all human endeavors, with only possibly politics as a rival, the sphere of human activity we seem to have the least control over is prosperity. There are cities, regions, countries, even continents where under-development, unemployment and poverty are endemic. No one wants this, yet no one has a good answer of how to change it, and it goes on year after year, decade after decade. Many feel an uneasy sense that this is somehow needless- there **ought **to be some direct, workable way out of this; yet neither the magic of the free market nor simplistic socialist morality fables has proven the answer. Why is an answer so hard to come by? Is it simply that the economy is the single most complex system we know of? Or something else?

My answer to this is lack of the flow of love, the need to receive love in order to give it, the damage a person sustains that blocks off the channels of receiving love, and the turn to self and what you can ‘take’ instead of receive from other.

This is the cause of the ‘pyramid’ power structures on earth in all aspects (government, business, religion) The power of the few depends on those at the base, to keep the people at the base they must be denied the flow of true love. The people at the top are feeding off of the love denied to those beneath, the lower you are in a pyramid, the less you receive and more is siphoned off

Love must be freely given and on the other end freely received. ‘Basic human needs’ can not be freely given as it is already a human right, they are entitled to those, if they are not getting them it is being withheld, therefor giving them only a portion of what is theirs by birthright (such as ‘food stamps’) can not work, they must first receive all they are entitled to by birthright, then what is over and above that must be freely given and freely received for the flow of love to raise their circumstances.

Withholdong most of their portion and expecting gratitude for the meager portion they receive can be seen in things like the stockholm syndrome and only seek to place them in further bondage, not freeing them.

This has caused a perpetual underclass. People who it is very hard to reach with love, as they are so desperate, and have been deprived as to what is their’s, that you can’t give them anything without them ‘taking’ it as opposed as receiving it. They have been taught by circumstance that they live in a ‘mad max’ world where they must prey on others in order to survive.