Reflections Week XI

Friday’s simulation, through a black and white approach to solving poverty, through a consensus of the groups as to how the funding should be utilized, allowed for dramatic controversy. Through my groups debate over the most effective use of funds to make the most significant impact on poverty, it became apparent that most of our group could agree on a set of objectives, yet the flip to their agreement was the idea of spending all the funds on education. Ian and I saw this as more of a long-term solution, as it would more effectively reach the root of the problem. While we realized the necessity of immediate aid in the form of water and shelter, in a black and white situation where singular decisions must be made, we felt it best to “pull the root out” than “trim the growth,” despite the consequences of many not surviving during the time with which a few would manage to be educated and eventually help the rest of the population. While both sides of the argument understood the same concepts, each of the theories as to how they should be attacked could not be fully grasped by either side because each party simply “doesn’t see it that way.” There is a point that is reached where every path to explain one’s reasoning is exhausted and while a compromise might be reached, opposing parties must “agree to disagree” on their differing perspectives, as each theory can only be open to new to new evidence to such a point, assuming the theory still defines the belief system of the supporter.