Expecting people to rational about the deaths of friends and family is unlikely.
There are people who protect known murderers and serial killers because they're family.
Additionally, they no doubt can't help but wonder... "what if?"
| numonex said: Extreme gap between rich and poor continues to widen all the time. Be grateful that you were lucky to have been born in a prosperous country. Anyway to the insensitive morons who suggested killing the poor people off- STFU you are racists. Hitler and Stalin and other evil dictators carried out barbaric measures of genocide. A lot of measures need to be taken to fully eradicate worldwide poverty. Theoretically it could be done through redistribution of wealth but the political leaders and religious leaders being so corrupt would never let it happen. Donations to charities only a small amount of money ends up going to help the poor people in need. |
I hope you don't mean me in that statement.
I haven't suggested killing anyone, my argument was that the population is/has been artificially increased through giving large amounts of aid. Subsequently it will add to the problems in the future as populations continue to grow in an environment which is not capable of supporting it. To stop the problem in the future, the population needs to become dependent on what the environment can provide, instead of what others can provide them. Otherwise, the problem will only grow and will result in more and more aid needing to be sent.
The population should be left to become more natural over time. It is not like dictators who orchestrated genocides, like Stalin purposely withholding food, or Mugabe giving away farmland to soldiers and not farmers. It's leaving things to be as they would in a more natural way.
If you reduce the aid supplied then the population will gradually self adjust to a self-sustainable level. I know it's not a nice solution, but there is no nice solution in reality.
Bottom line of the argument: Increasing dependence on external aid results in more dependence in the future. Decreasing dependence on external aid results in no/little dependence in the future.
(I'm not saying that I agree with my argument, I condemn it morally. But I can see the logic)
HappySqurriel said:
Redistribution of wealth worked so well in Zimbabwe; after all, taking the farms away from the wealthy land-owners who knew how to produce food efficiently and giving it to uneducated and inexperienced individuals lead to a green-explosion of food production.
Wealth is a by-product of efficiency, and people who build wealth have demonstrated the reason why they’re the individual who is best suited to manage and control economic resources; certainly, there are individuals who inherit wealth but if that wealth is no managed well it tends to be lost rather quickly (where it can then be managed very efficiently by another individual). Extreme poverty (the kind of poverty requiring foreign aid to prevent starvation) tends to be the result of heavy government control, mismanagement of the economy, lack of economic freedoms, and lack of adequate credit for individuals to produce wealth. If you take a country like Zimbabwe, institute a legal system based on British Common Law, and convert foreign aid to micro-loans to build an economy starvation would become a distant memory. |
Yes, this is point that I would second. In a case like Zimbabwe it is very easy to see why the people are starving and why the economy is none existent. It is caused by Mugabe's complete mismanagement of the country. Giving the farmland to soldiers was a very bad move. They were innexperienced, it meant that Zimbabwe was no longer the bread basket of Africa. Removing someone like Mugabe and replacing him with a competent leader, with a government that is low in corruption and high in efficiency is a good move. But that is easier said than done.
The thing about Zimbabwe is that it is a country that could potentially thrive and become prosperous, what is holding it back is an extremely bad government.
Im catholic and I agree with HappySquirrel point that the money from the Vatican would only feed the hungry for a couple of years and we would be back at square one. Not only that, but simply pouring money on things dont fix them.
But, what I really wanted to mention and nobody here has is thta the most fundamental objwctive of the Catholic Church is to preach the Word of God. I know most of you dont believe or care, but we do. Sure, the catholic faith says that you need faith joined with good works, but we need to feed the soul as much as the body (too corny? I know, lol)
So we need an institution, churches, priests, etc. Could we do a better job in charity work (even though we are one of the biggest if not the biggest charitable instituion in the world)?
I dont know. In my church, they help over a hundred families every month with food, they give free medicine and doctor and dentiist consults also for free. They have drives to get clothes, toys, etc.
And we are a relativetely small neighbourhood.
Crap! Double post. But I am on the PS3 browser so I cant edit it.
Another thing I forgot is that a lot of what the Church has, specially the churches are historical. Since there is a lot of turism generated for example, no country would want the Church to sell everything and lose that revenue for the city. Not to mention the historical value of a lot of churches, statues, etc.
yeah this woudnt work at all....in fact someone wrote a VERY intresting article about giving food aid and how it deosnt work....you would need to get a less corruptable goverment and give education so that when some money comes it can be used to help people for long term.....http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6886167.ece
"They will know heghan belongs to the helghast"
"England expects that everyman will do his duty"
"we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender"
| numonex said: Extreme gap between rich and poor continues to widen all the time. Be grateful that you were lucky to have been born in a prosperous country. Anyway to the insensitive morons who suggested killing the poor people off- STFU you are racists. Hitler and Stalin and other evil dictators carried out barbaric measures of genocide. A lot of measures need to be taken to fully eradicate worldwide poverty. Theoretically it could be done through redistribution of wealth but the political leaders and religious leaders being so corrupt would never let it happen. Donations to charities only a small amount of money ends up going to help the poor people in need. |
lol that's communism and afwul.
| numonex said: A lot of measures need to be taken to fully eradicate worldwide poverty. Theoretically it could be done through redistribution of wealth but the political leaders and religious leaders being so corrupt would never let it happen. Donations to charities only a small amount of money ends up going to help the poor people in need. |
To be fair:
Redistributing wealth to Africa would never work. As others have said, any wealth would be hoarded by the leaders, and never allowed to go away from their soldiers and the rest in power. Redistribution is based on the (faulty) assumption that all people act equal when equal money is given to them, and this is furthest from the truth.
Of corse, if you want to re-distribute your wealth to the Africans, feel free to. See how far it gets you and them.
Back from the dead, I'm afraid.
mrstickball said:
To be fair: Redistributing wealth to Africa would never work. As others have said, any wealth would be hoarded by the leaders, and never allowed to go away from their soldiers and the rest in power. Redistribution is based on the (faulty) assumption that all people act equal when equal money is given to them, and this is furthest from the truth. Of corse, if you want to re-distribute your wealth to the Africans, feel free to. See how far it gets you and them. |
Can I add another point to this. Redistribution of wealth doesn't work unless you have the industry to back it up too.
When money is sent to Africa, where do you think it ends up? With that money they have to buy food, medicine and many expendable commodities that are bought from the developed world.The money goes there, but it will often end up back in the developed world because they produce what the undeveloped world requires. And everyone is back to square one.
The solution would be to try and keep the money in the local economy by using the money to try and produce what is needed.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2025 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
