40 billion? That’s it? Are you sh!tting me? Feed the world!

Right. So fighting hunger in your own country = good, but wanting to stop hunger in other countries = shortsighted stupidity. We shouldnt keep people in Africa from starving because that would undermine the "survival of the fittest", but when it comes to people freezing to death in one's own country, that principle is no longer important.

Or something.

<b>Alex Trebek</b> wrote:

Malthusian scares have been around for centuries, and the poverty of their predictive record has been unmatched this side of the nuttier doomsday cults. Adam Smith mentions them as an old hat in his Wealth of Nations, published 1776.

I gather then you do not have fire insurance on your home.

Cripple their economies through selfish and self-centred foreign policies, and you've created a dependent economy, meaning dependent on your economy.

If that was the intention of the foreign policy, then you clearly need a new foreign economic policy.

......(I'll leave it there because I don't want to derail O'Bill's thread any further than necessary.)

..........I own neither this site nor this thread...........Anyway, feel free to take the thread wherever it goes, as always.

an egyptian born every 23 seconds
----------------------------------------
Egypt's population has grown by more than 20% in the past decade and has doubled in the last 30 years, the government statistics agency says.
The population, including those living abroad, reached 76.5m in 2006 and one Egyptian baby was born every 23 seconds during the year, the census says.

Cairo's population rose to more than 18m, although figures suggest large-scale rural migration has ended.

The 1882 census, the first in modern times, showed a population of 6.7m.

Although nearly one-third of the population was under 15 last year, the average family size is falling from 4.65 people in 1996 to 4.18 in 2006.

Cripple their economies through selfish and self-centred foreign policies, and you've created a dependent economy, meaning dependent on your economy.

If that was the intention of the foreign policy, then you clearly need a new foreign economic policy.

Builder wrote:

Cripple their economies through selfish and self-centred foreign policies, and you've created a dependent economy, meaning dependent on your economy.

If that was the intention of the foreign policy, then you clearly need a new foreign economic policy.

nimh wrote:

Well yes, for sure. I think we are pretty much in agreement on that.

But how is the corrolary of that - "and by all means, dont give any money to keep people from starving or afford them an education"?

I didn't write that. If you think I implied that, quote my words that led to your assumption, please.

nimh wrote:

How is your suggestion for a changed foreign economic policy (I'm thinking: fair trade, lifting one's own trade barriers, not using their countries as dumping grounds) irreconcilable to Occom Bill's suggestion for an aid effort that would provide basic education, clean water, reproductive health?

It's irreconcilable simply because the power-mongers of your country are working directly against the aid effort through your foreign policy.

Government is supposedly by the people, for the people. But it isn't really. Just words on a page. The sickness and poverty is a product of our collective greed and capitalism.

I would hazard a guess that chronic narcissism is at the heart of the issue, and Occom Bill's suggestions of deigning to slip five bucks a week out of our greed-based narcissistic (almost solopsistic) monopolistic paychecks is neither charitable, nor a friendly kind gesture at all.

What it is, for mine, is an admission that our way of life is destroying their's, and we should feel guilty enough about that admission, to toss a few coins in the direction of those affected by our collective greed.

nimh wrote:

Those are all things that would make it easier for local economies to strengthen and develop. Once you have a population with basic education that does not need to worry about things as essential as clean water, it will be a lot better able to build a less dependent economy in the long run.

Negatory. The chronic famine being experienced by a large proportion of the currently destitute nations is a direct result of global warming and the resultant drought conditions. Not to mention regime change by the superpower in question, and the resultant dislocation and refugee status of those who are disempowered by the regime change. Look at Iraq. How much money has been "spent" on that regime change? Not to be forgetting that Saddam was a former CIA puppet. How many Iraqis fled to Syria after the "liberation" of Iraq? Who is feeding and housing them now?

nimh wrote:

Even when it comes to providing "basic health and nutrition", it does not have to mean, drop tons of our grain there (which indeed could actually harm rather than help the local economy), you know, there are other ways (supporting local farmers, improving infrastructure).

How about monitoring the actions of your own government? How about holding them accountable for abysmally bad foreign policy decisions? Like I've said; charity starts at home. In more ways than one.

Example; the eradication program for opium poppies in Afghanistan. How many billions were spent there? Now the crop harvest is actually larger than before the program started. How could that be?

nimh wrote:

You know, by now I really dont know what your argument here is any more.

Probably because the picture is so large, that it's hard to take it all in at one time. My only argument is, that Occom Bill is a narcissistic do-gooder. He knows that his own country is causing the bulk of problems in poor nations, and he feels guilty enough to want to donate a few coins to assuage his conscience. There's nothing admirable about that at all.

nimh wrote:

First, you basically say that stopping people from starving will only hamper the "survival of the fittest". You submit that giving them food and education will only lead to lethal world overpopulation.

If you had your finger on the pulse, you might notice that we are in a time of crisis ourselves. There will come a time when the food supplies for your own nation start to dry up, just like those you are proposing to help. Here in Australia, level 5 water restrictions are current, meaning you can't water your lawn, or wash your car, and the farmers in our food basin have just been told that they can no longer draw water from our major river system.

Our fresh produce prices are tipped to be five times what we have now, simply because it won't rain. Surprise surprise, sarge.

Charity begins at home. We are all in this together, but we must look to our own people's futures. Do you have children of your own? What will you be doing to protect their future lives, and the lives of their children?

nimh wrote:

When that argument is debunked, you say that the thing is to look in your own country. Save the freezing homeless in your own streets first. As if anyone here had said we shouldn't. No indication of why that means we should not help people elsewhere.

How was it "debunked"????? When nations become self-supporting and economically viable, birth-rates decline. So what does that have to do with people who are refugees from their own country, through displacement by destructive foreign policy and regime change? Are our meagre donations going to recreate their original nation out of a goddamned desert? Explain how that is going to happen, please.

nimh wrote:

And now your argument is that underlying foreign economic policies are to blame and should be changed. Well, thats true of course. But hardly an argument in itself not to also fight for O'Bill's idea.

If you want to feel good inside, relegating one percent of your income to some charity that purports to be saving people's lives, then go to it. It certainly can't hurt, but the bulk of your money will go to advertising, salaries for the do-gooders, and transport costs.

If you want to really make a difference, excercise your right to freedom of speech, and shout down your money-grubbing "leaders" for the corrupt charlatans that they are.

nimh wrote:

Not to mention the contradictions between these positions. (Survival of the fittest isnt important in one's own country?). But sprinkled with condescension about how the other posters, bar Set, didnt say anything much intelligent.

Setanta struck a few chords that didn't ring too well with some here. Survival is more to do with being left to your own devices, rather than being shunted from shanty town to refugee camp, because of some coup organised and orchestrated by some belligerent do-gooder nation under the false premise of "liberation".

nimh wrote:

You're all over the place.

And that matters how exactly?

Like I've said, this picture is waaaaaay larger than starving people in a desert situation. It's about why they are in that situation to begin with.

Give them your money. Send them food. Find them clean water. Educate them. Create another dependent nation. Maybe one day they will stop sucking your teat. Dream on.

nimh wrote:

By ways of one last try, can you try to summarise, in one short post, what your actual argument is on why O'Bill's idea is Bad?

It's bad because it is a backhanded admission of guilt.

Short enough for you? :wink:

nimh wrote:

You know, by now I really dont know what your argument here is any more.

Probably because the picture is so large, that it's hard to take it all in at one time. My only argument is, that Occom Bill is a narcissistic do-gooder. He knows that his own country is causing the bulk of problems in poor nations, and he feels guilty enough to want to donate a few coins to assuage his conscience. There's nothing admirable about that at all.

nimh wrote:

First, you basically say that stopping people from starving will only hamper the "survival of the fittest". You submit that giving them food and education will only lead to lethal world overpopulation.

If you had your finger on the pulse, you might notice that we are in a time of crisis ourselves. There will come a time when the food supplies for your own nation start to dry up, just like those you are proposing to help. Here in Australia, level 5 water restrictions are current, meaning you can't water your lawn, or wash your car, and the farmers in our food basin have just been told that they can no longer draw water from our major river system.

Our fresh produce prices are tipped to be five times what we have now, simply because it won't rain. Surprise surprise, sarge.

Charity begins at home. We are all in this together, but we must look to our own people's futures. Do you have children of your own? What will you be doing to protect their future lives, and the lives of their children?

nimh wrote:

When that argument is debunked, you say that the thing is to look in your own country. Save the freezing homeless in your own streets first. As if anyone here had said we shouldn't. No indication of why that means we should not help people elsewhere.

How was it "debunked"????? When nations become self-supporting and economically viable, birth-rates decline. So what does that have to do with people who are refugees from their own country, through displacement by destructive foreign policy and regime change? Are our meagre donations going to recreate their original nation out of a goddamned desert? Explain how that is going to happen, please.

nimh wrote:

And now your argument is that underlying foreign economic policies are to blame and should be changed. Well, thats true of course. But hardly an argument in itself not to also fight for O'Bill's idea.

If you want to feel good inside, relegating one percent of your income to some charity that purports to be saving people's lives, then go to it. It certainly can't hurt, but the bulk of your money will go to advertising, salaries for the do-gooders, and transport costs.

If you want to really make a difference, excercise your right to freedom of speech, and shout down your money-grubbing "leaders" for the corrupt charlatans that they are.

nimh wrote:

Not to mention the contradictions between these positions. (Survival of the fittest isnt important in one's own country?). But sprinkled with condescension about how the other posters, bar Set, didnt say anything much intelligent.

Setanta struck a few chords that didn't ring too well with some here. Survival is more to do with being left to your own devices, rather than being shunted from shanty town to refugee camp, because of some coup organised and orchestrated by some belligerent do-gooder nation under the false premise of "liberation".

nimh wrote:

You're all over the place.

And that matters how exactly?

Like I've said, this picture is waaaaaay larger than starving people in a desert situation. It's about why they are in that situation to begin with.

Give them your money. Send them food. Find them clean water. Educate them. Create another dependent nation. Maybe one day they will stop sucking your teat. Dream on.

nimh wrote:

By ways of one last try, can you try to summarise, in one short post, what your actual argument is on why O'Bill's idea is Bad?

It's bad because it is a backhanded admission of guilt.

Short enough for you? :wink: