Users can then read the profile of the beacon-wearer, and donate money if they’re so moved. Donations can be redeemed at select stores and restaurants. They cannot be used to buy alcohol. The beacon-wearer must check in monthly at a participating nonprofit, or else their beacon is disabled.
Soon there will be multiple agencies that helps homeless individuals build the most marketable profile and increase "Donation conversions".
I don't know much about homelessness and I don't have a solution to the problem but this whole process of only being able to redeem donations at selected locations feels inhuman. We can't trust the homeless so we'll donate this amount but we say what you can use it for because we know better.
Again, I admit my naivety but I can't help feeling there's something fundamentally wrong with this approach.
To play devil's advocate here, why don't you think we do in fact know better? They're homeless as a result of their life choices and we're in a position where we could help them as a result of choices we made in our lives. It may not be their fault, but do you think in their current state they can make the most rational, logical choices? Would it be better for us to enable these people's bad habits/mental illness and let them destroy themselves further with alcohol and/or other drugs? If we are going to make the case that we shouldn't blame them for their state of being, and that they're victims, then we need to accept that a lot of them need help from themselves. If on the other hand you want to respect their free will and self-determination or whatever, then hey, they made their bed. I'm certainly not going to fund their lifestyles if they have agency and self-determination and this is what we get.
Comments
Soon there will be multiple agencies that helps homeless individuals build the most marketable profile and increase "Donation conversions".
I don't know much about homelessness and I don't have a solution to the problem but this whole process of only being able to redeem donations at selected locations feels inhuman. We can't trust the homeless so we'll donate this amount but we say what you can use it for because we know better.
Again, I admit my naivety but I can't help feeling there's something fundamentally wrong with this approach.
To play devil's advocate here, why don't you think we do in fact know better? They're homeless as a result of their life choices and we're in a position where we could help them as a result of choices we made in our lives. It may not be their fault, but do you think in their current state they can make the most rational, logical choices? Would it be better for us to enable these people's bad habits/mental illness and let them destroy themselves further with alcohol and/or other drugs? If we are going to make the case that we shouldn't blame them for their state of being, and that they're victims, then we need to accept that a lot of them need help from themselves. If on the other hand you want to respect their free will and self-determination or whatever, then hey, they made their bed. I'm certainly not going to fund their lifestyles if they have agency and self-determination and this is what we get.
that's just false. the same as people in privileged circumstances claiming to have gotten to where they are due to their 'hard work'
There's some positive results coming out of Helsinki:
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/jun/03/its-a-miracle...
Worth exploring.