The problem that no one talks about with this is there are no rules limiting procreation and there are limited resources. Because of religion's lies, which say "be fruitful and multiply" and things like fundamental rights to procreation in the US, in most countries anyone can procreate as much as they want in most countries.

What happens when really poor people procreate? Children go hungry and don't have adequate resources and then programs need to be established to help them. When you give people sufficient space and food, procreation is one of the first things that happens.

If you take everyone who is poor and give them a house, you are looking at a group of people who can't take care of themself and/or come from families that don't support their children, and those people will have children who may also not be able to or want to take care of their children.

I am not saying we should have homeless people. We absolutely should give homeless people housing, but we also need to have a rule that if the government takes care of you and you are in government housing, then it is a crime to reproduce while on government resources. Unfortunately, a rule like that is not politically feasible. People are taught in religions to be nice to poor people but also to be fruitful and multiply. Taking parents to prisons for procreating might lead to abortions, which people find morally wrong. It could increase birth control, which a select group of complete fucking morons also thinks is wrong.

The problem comes down to religion.

Even if someone becomes homeless through no fault of their own, for example they come from a family of alcoholics who never save anything and they personally are very careful and went to high school and suddenly at 18 have nothing and couldn't get a scholarship that pays for everything for school and can't get a job, it's still a tricky situation. If the government gives a male heterosexual 18 year old a home, soon a woman moves in and then in a year there's a kid. Two years later there are two kids. And at that point, with the government taking care of that male, does he want to work or does he become an alcoholic too?

Before society existed, women didn't always have enough food and when resources were low they wouldn't get pregnant. Infanticide would also take care of sick or damaged infants or be used in times of scarcity. Men would also sometimes kill the other men in tribal warfare and rape the women not killed in the war, which still left more resources for everyone.

So now, society has said that killing sick babies is bad, in times of scarcity we will help sick babies and poor families with food, and men only occasionally go to war over border disputes and things like that. The population has also gone up exponentially and the environment is changing in ways that are already a disaster.

So given this problem, how do you deal with things and keep people from being homeless and also not reproducing while they are on government welfare? Do you create laws that directly contradict all the religious lies people have been told? Is it politically feasible to create laws that contradict the irrational religious myths of people? The problem isn't a lack of money for housing or an inability to make it. The government prints the money. They can just print some more money and build some houses. The problem is what happens in 20 years, 50 years. Should there just be free housing indefinitely? Who takes care of the children of the people who are unlucky or irresponsible?

One of the things about homeless shelters is that because there is no space and people sleep on mats, people don't usually have sex in them (since there is no privacy) and so people don't have children. A man also can't trick a woman into saying he's doing well when he actually sleeps on the floor and with government housing, he may be able to do that. Someone sleeping in a car is much less likely to procreate.

I am not trying to be unsympathetic. Homelessness is a horrible evil of modern society. But there are resource implications for making choices in modern society and the fact is that people do not function well without religious myths. The world is harsh, atheism is a luxury that tends to increase when society is less harsh.

In a smaller society like Finland, housing first works. Does such a policy also work in a country like America? I could also be wrong about all of this and housing first can be duplicated everywhere with no impact on resource allocation or even a positive impact. It may be that this is less of a resource management issue (if housing first works in any society) and more about keeping the poor in line.