0
   

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

 
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Apr, 2007 04:36 am
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.
0 Replies
 
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Apr, 2007 04:43 am
nimh wrote:
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.


It's that old adage, nimh; feeding starving people will help them live today.

Stop feeding them, and they die anyway.

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.

If certain sections of your elite are benefitting from that economic policy, then why the hell should their policy result in them profitting, and you having to donate en masse to support the poverty created by that policy?
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Apr, 2007 05:24 am
Chumly wrote:
<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.

That's different. I know that a certain number of houses will burn next year. The only thing I don't know is whether my own house will be among them. Since fire is as likely to strike my house as any other, it makes sense for me to cover the case with an insurance policy.

With Malthusians, or with Christians believing the Second Coming is imminent, the case is different. I don't know if there will be a Second Coming, nor whether it will bring the world to an end. But I do know that some Christians of every generation, beginning with Paul, have beem predicting it to happen Real Soon Now (TM). Their predictive records, again beginning with Paul's, have all proven dismal. Similarly, Malthusian scares have been out there since even before Malthus. In my lifetime, their most distinguished proponents have been Paul Ehrlich, Lester Brown, Steven Schneider, the Club of Rome, and other environmentalists and futurists. Their predictions, too, have fallen flat on their faces within few decades. If they are right this time, it will be a first in over 200 years.

And that's why I'd buy fire insurance if I had a house, but won't buy into scare stories about overpopulation, resource depletion, and global environmental catastrophe. (I'll leave it there because I don't want to derail O'Bill's thread any further than necessary.)
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Apr, 2007 10:21 am
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.

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"?

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?

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.

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).

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

You're all over the place.

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?
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Apr, 2007 11:12 am
... and to help increase the population of australia/the world , the government of australia has a announced a new "policy" ( Shocked ) :
"...one for mum , one for dad and one for australia..."
(why not also one for "uncle charlie" Question :wink: ) .

perhaps they've been listening to the quebec government ?
or perhaps to the "former" german government (1933 to 1945) , which honoured deserving mothers with a "mutterkreuz" (mother's cross" ) .
http://www.dhmd.de/neu/fileadmin/template/dhmd/images/uploads/pressefotos/DEME_PRESSEFOTOS/PF_Mutterkreuz.jpg

what is old is new again ?
we live in interseting times .
hbg

Quote:




...AUSTRALIA : ONE FOR MUM ... ...
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Apr, 2007 01:26 pm
Thomas wrote:
......(I'll leave it there because I don't want to derail O'Bill's thread any further than necessary.)
OCCOM BILL wrote:
..........I own neither this site nor this thread...........Anyway, feel free to take the thread wherever it goes, as always.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Apr, 2007 05:11 pm
the BBC reports :

Quote:
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.


i think it's interesting to note that while the total population has doubled in the last year 30 years , the average family size has now started to drop .
that seems to confirm the observation that as nations and families become even somewhat more prosperous , the birthrate starts to decline - ever so slowly .
hbg.


link to full report :
...AN EGYPTIAN BORN EVERY 23 SECONDS...
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Apr, 2007 03:22 am
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.

When Occom Bill started this thread, it was about charitable donations by individuals, not foreign policies by governments. As an individual, you can choose between charities with different priorities. Some charities focus on feeding people. Some focus more on developing infrastructure, educating children, and generally helping people help themselves.

Since you can pick and choose charities that fit your political views, you can either help people on your own terms or decline to help at all. But whatever decision you make is yours, not your government's. You can't hide your individual choice behind any destructive policies your government may or may not be pursuing.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Apr, 2007 08:19 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jEnTSQStGE
0 Replies
 
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Apr, 2007 02:05 am
nimh wrote:
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:
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Apr, 2007 10:16 pm
Builder wrote:
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.
Where do you come up with this nonsense? The bulk of problems in poor countries has nothing to do with my country's policies. Growing food is tough without water. If you think my country's lack of attention to global warming is the main reason other country's are poor; you are an idiot. If you think my country's meddling in foreign governments is the main reason other country's are poor; you are an idiot. Any damn fool can point out the fact that my country could do a whole lot more to solve the world's problems, with changes at home as well as abroad, but to let that convince you that we are responsible for causing the world's problems is indicative of idiocy.

Builder wrote:
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.
Ooh, level 5 water restrictions... rough stuff. (Much of Florida is going through the same, btw).Desalination costs less than twice as much as more traditional water treatment facilities. Do you know what that means in places like Australia and Florida? It means current water shortages are a the product of short sightedness; NOT short water supplies. This can easily be corrected, not just in Florida and Australia; but EVERYWHERE ON EARTH if people actually gave a sh!t.

Builder wrote:
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?
"Charity begins at home" has ZERO to do with the topic at hand. Solving domestic problems in the U.S. or Australia, in no way diminishes the need or effect of solving basic problems abroad. This isn't a one or the other decision... or shouldn't be.


Builder wrote:
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.
Wtf are you talking about? Focus. Your BS about feeding hungry people being harmful in the long haul was thoroughly debunked; so now you're going to try to switch gears to Iraq? Rolling Eyes

Builder wrote:
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.
Shocked So standing on a soap box and shouting idiotic accusations like you do will somehow be more of a benefit to starving people than food, water and healthcare would be? Are you on crack?

Builder wrote:
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?
Shocked How could you not see that you're all over the place?

Builder wrote:
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. Rolling Eyes

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.
How deliberately obtuse can one person be? Do you think a bowl of rice and a gallon of clean water is going to put people on easy street? Boy, no need to work here... hell... I've already got some rice and some water to choke it down with.

Builder wrote:
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:
Shocked Even if it were, which it isn't, why would that make it a bad idea?

If we were 100% responsible for poverty in Sierra Leone, for instance, than according to you we shouldn't help them because that would be a backhanded admission of guilt? Rolling Eyes Wtf is that supposed to mean? Help is help, whether we are ultimately responsible or not... and under what twisted logic would responsibility for the problem be used as a reason not to work towards solving it?
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2008 02:58 am
I ran across an interesting cost clock a few minutes ago... and remembered this thread. The cost of the Iraq War, it seems, has outpaced the proposed cost of providing every suffering human being on this planet basic education, water and sanitation, as well as reproductive health for all women by a significant factor. Shakes head vigorously in disbelief.

Hmmm. Would providing those things for a billion or so people make more or less of an impact on the hearts and minds of those who wish to do us harm than trying to free the 25 million or so Iraqis from the chains of oppression? (<- I'm not saying that's a bad thing, and don't wish to argue that point here.)

Seriously though... we can afford to help a single country in the Middle East, who may or may not have ever become a threat to us... but we can't afford to spend less to feed, provide water, basic medicine and education to the whole friggin planet? Really?

Meanwhile; the Nation's attention was just fixated on whether or not Obama's use of the age old adage "lipstick on a pig" was related to Palin’s joke for a couple days. What the hell is wrong with us?

End World Hunger? Impossible they’ll tell you. You must be a hippie idealist nutcase to believe something like that, right? Ummm… no. Collectively; the world spends a trillion dollars a year on Military expenditures… which is roughly 20 times more expensive (Don’t feel too bad, Americans; your spending is only a little less than half of the total.) Do average Americans know this? I think not… but why not?

I have no choice but to believe that the “evil doers” might have some justification in judging us harshly for spending 10 times more preparing to kill people than it would cost to lift 1/6 of the world’s population out of the abyss of deadly poverty.

(At the time of this post; the War Clock Cost was at: $578,550,053,566... what is it now?)
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/24/2021 at 09:55:20