When you have to deliver food aid via armed guard because the Haitians can't behave themselves, I'm tempted to just let them starve.

You're comparing human technology and capabilities with human social behavior. Sounds like a flaw in YOUR logic to me.

One is an accomplishment in technology. Worldwide communication at fast speed is accomplished through things such as telephones, the internet, etc. These things are technology. All of the nations helping each other all the time and providing aid is an example of a social accomplishment, one which will never be effectively possible. While we do currently have things like the United Nations, free trade, and a general collaboration between nations, the type of thing you mentioned will never happen. Humans are simply not the creatures you described.

Your argument seems to be like an old Disney line. "ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE" sounds like what you were getting at, but I'm not sure. I'm sure that one day we'll have travel across the stars, and a greater understanding of microscopic organisms, with the cures for every virus and disease and condition that ravage the world today. But that's technology. Technology has been constantly progressing for thousands of years now, but social progress has been progressing much more slowly. And even though social progress has been great from say...10,000 years ago, we still have the same pack mentality.

Another thing. I don't think anyone was really treating the Haitians as inferiors. I think most people were indifferent to Haiti before the catastrophe (I know I couldn't really have cared less). If you asked the average person about Haitians, they'd either tell you that they don't even know who they are, or something vague ("they're alright, I guess..."). Few people, except for racists and bigots, would call or consider them inferior.

Human nature, above all else, is to find a group to belong to and fight the groups that oppose you. And while this instinct has been muddled somewhat by our complicated nature and higher intelligence, we still always have that element of a beast within us. That's why you see so much pride in nations, religions, race, etc. People want to feel like they belong to a group, because people are social. But ultimately, different groups will always clash, especially groups with millions of people and similar interests.

Also consider that so much of technological progress in the past has been because people were studying new ways to kill each other for their own best interest (metal forging, study of new elements with gunpowder, etc.). We may one day see a collaboration between nations where every one is always helping each other out, but no nation will do it unless its in their own self interest (making themselves look good, opening up new trade partnerships). People are selfish, and we can only change our nature so much.

I could rant on and on about how what you described would never work, but I think I've explained it enough by now. So next time you claim I'm making a mistake in my logic, check your own please. Thank you!

Zucas,
You act like Haiti never had any aid or help prior to the earthquake. The fact is, Haiti was up to its neck in debt by the world bank. Haiti owed 13% of its entire GDP to the world bank due to loans it had taken out. I believe it even had its debt cancelled because it was too poor to pay back the half a billion dollars that was owed.

The problem is that humanity sucks. They are very flawed, therefore you can't always use idealistic caring for people and assume that it will relieve them of all debt and poverty. After all, if that were true, Western nations would not have so much poverty.
The key to human development isn't giving aid, but giving education and influencing cultures to become smarter and better with resources. It's like the old adage 'Give a man a fish, and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he eats for a lifetime'. The issue with Haiti and other countries is that many people merely give them fishes and assume that helps them. It does far from it - it merely encourages the status quo of corrupt government, and lack of productivity by citizens.

Furthermore, in some countries, you can even go as far as teaching a man to fish, only to have corrupt leaders take the fish, the means of life, away from the populace. Zimbabwe is a great example of that - murdering white farmers to give the land to political cronies and assume they have the means to produce from the land.

Ultimately, the key to developing poor countries is, as I said, through encouraging them to remove corrupt leaders, improve government and business practices, enhance education, and improve farming and the climate for basic needs. In the case of Haiti, the cause of the destruction wasn't entirely a 7.0 earthquake. It was the lack of building codes, corrupt builders, and a poor infrastructure. A 7.3 earthquake hit Landers California in 1992. Two died from heart attacks. 

And I got to ask this on a personal note, Zucas, when was the last time you:

• Worked at a soup kitchen
• Helped at a homeless shelter
• Donated to the Salvation Army
• Worked at a food pantry or food bank
• Taught a financial management class to low-income people
• Donated to a clothing shelter

Just curious.

It's like the old adage 'Give a man a fish, and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he eats for a lifetime'

 

We already tried that in Haiti and it failed. It isn't about teaching a man to fish, it's about MAKING him actually fish after you taught them.

I'd offer the Haitians a choice. Either fix your own problems, or disolve your government and become a ward of the "state". I'd be all for shipping Alan Keyes down there as dictator for life to straighten that country out.

Well no need for damage control but you did make a mistake and I proved it quite easily.  It happens, try not to take it so personally.  But arguing with logic is not a good thing to do. 

Second, I did say it was an idealist rant.  But it's more than that.  It is a question of why the idealist rant has to be the impossibility while the brutal reality is common acceptance.  Basiically, why accept what we know is bad when we can achieve something far greater.  We strike my argument down as childish thoughts or the impossible, but none of those are true whatsoever.  Maybe it's man's willingness to accept the status quo that is the issue. 

Now as I stated, if you want to get into a human nature argument, you have to do better than that.  A sense of belongingness doesn't necessarily constitute human nature.  You could state that due to being born and raised in a family, that it is "nurtured" into you that you need to belong to something.  That you need to be a part of something.  However, using that argument, to confirm the validity of it as a human nature idea isn't logical. 

Well I'm curious because if you had read what I stated, I did go on to say that I feel kinda like a hypocrite making the argument.  Now what is funny, the first person who replied to this noticed I said that yet you were unable to.  There is only one thing I ask when debating with me, and that is don't reply if you haven't read what I stated. 

The criticism of the topic, wasn't everyone BUT me.  The criticism was of humanity in general.  There's a reason I included myself because I go along with not doing anything about it either.  Only difference between me and most others, is I recognize I'm not doing the right thing.  People wil make excuses or illogical arguments on why what we know is right doesn't happen.  I make no excuses.  I am a fault of it.  How about you?  Is there anyone else in this world that is actually ready to state they are doing thigns wrong?

There's a good quote from the movie network that I think really puts it well:

"I don't have to tell you things are bad. Everybody knows things are bad. It's a depression. Everybody's out of work or scared of losing their job. The dollar buys a nickel's work, banks are going bust, shopkeepers keep a gun under the counter. Punks are running wild in the street and there's nobody anywhere who seems to know what to do, and there's no end to it. We know the air is unfit to breathe and our food is unfit to eat, and we sit watching our TV's while some local newscaster tells us that today we had fifteen homicides and sixty-three violent crimes, as if that's the way it's supposed to be. We know things are bad - worse than bad. They're crazy. It's like everything everywhere is going crazy, so we don't go out anymore. We sit in the house, and slowly the world we are living in is getting smaller, and all we say is, 'Please, at least leave us alone in our living rooms. Let me have my toaster and my TV and my steel-belted radials and I won't say anything. Just leave us alone.' Well, I'm not gonna leave you alone. I want you to get mad! I don't want you to protest. I don't want you to riot - I don't want you to write to your congressman because I wouldn't know what to tell you to write. I don't know what to do about the depression and the inflation and the Russians and the crime in the street. All I know is that first you've got to get mad."

And that's all I'm really saying.  When are people going to get mad and do something about it? 

I think that does describe Haiti. Bitch about the problems and expect someone else to magically fix it for you while sitting around doing nothing.

Alan Keyes?!

Doesn't Haiti have enough problems as it is?

Okay then,

If you say your at fault for the issue, why are you posting here? Why aren't you spending your time helping in a homeless shelter instead of posting a rant on a message board to people that probably don't even understand the situation?

If you want to understand the problem and solution, a good place to start is usually.....Working with people that are in the problem you discribe to understand how their situations can actually be alievated. That is why I find your rant so hypocritical, you are essentially saying 'Why does humanity not help people when I don't even understand their situation, either?'.

As for me, I've done all the things I asked of you. That is why I know the good and bad sides to charity and helping the less fortunate. There is a reason that Johnstons 'great society' hasn't helped the poverty any more than when the government spent no money on poverty. When you work with those that are less fortunate, you do understand why some people are in such dire situations. You also see the great value in making a personal effort to helping people, as well, so as I said it has its good and bad sides.