The Future of Humanitarian Relief?
 

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/arc...e_future_of_h/

from the above:

Re: The Future of Humanitarian Relief?
 

I guess no one cares about aid workers then..... Red Cross pack your bags we want you home and safe.

Re: The Future of Humanitarian Relief?
 

Just because people don't comment, doesn't mean they don't care - it could mean they have nothing (of value) to add.....

Re: The Future of Humanitarian Relief?
 

Why should it be down to 'us' to police and help these people? it seems globally expected that 'we' should always run to the aid of these countries who seem intent on their own self distruction... perhaps we should just let them get on with it?

Re: The Future of Humanitarian Relief?
 

If we give them back all the people, minerals and other resources we removed during our Empire-building phase - fair enough.

Re: The Future of Humanitarian Relief?
 

Not just in the Empire-building phase, I heard a terrible statistic the other day that for every dollar we give in aid we take 4 out, presumably through high interest loans, unfair trade agreements and the continued pillaging of resources.

Re: The Future of Humanitarian Relief?
 

would that be yet MORE evidence to the theory that the 1st world is to blame for 3rd world issues? I think maybe....

Re: The Future of Humanitarian Relief?
 

Well you starting first then, what you going to start sending back? Everything we have and where we are is based on it, so lets send it all back.

Re: The Future of Humanitarian Relief?
 

This is a twist I hadn't considered ;)

From where I am, I was thinking that the conversation might focus more on Red Cross and other unarmed volunteers being targeted as the enemy by hostile military factions.....

Still the west being responsible for 3rd world issues is interesting.

Re: The Future of Humanitarian Relief?
 

Charity begins at home .. we should concentrate on aiding our own people first.

Re: The Future of Humanitarian Relief?
 

Seems quite a few people don't want to acknowledge that fact TheDaddy:shrug:

Re: The Future of Humanitarian Relief?
 

No one is seriously suggesting we hand over the entire resources of the country over, instead it's perfectly fair and logical that we provide aid. The levels of poverty are unimaginable and people may argue that it should be considered basic humanity to try and alleviate at least some of the burden.

Re: The Future of Humanitarian Relief?
 

And if that's not enough, some people may want to consider what'll happen if we don't. Already, many Africans are prepared to risk their lives in wretched little boats trying to get to Europe (and many die in the process). Without aid, this will only get worse.

Re: The Future of Humanitarian Relief?
 

Thought that is what we already do: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...g8-396477.html

How much of a debt do we owe to the ex Empire countries? Just keep pumping in money because we had an Empire years ago and we should feel guilty about? Of course it's because of the old Empire that these countries are in the mess they are in:rolleyes:

Of course the dictators of these countires will enjoy all this aid given by our governments and ohters, and of course red nose day money, gotta keep them in Saloons for there convoys.

Re: The Future of Humanitarian Relief?
 

what you seem to have neglected is the following;

3rd world is overpopulated, poor, starving and rife with disease. all these factors will kill a huge number of people. so what should we do?

1) send aid. help the overpopulated stay alive by giving vaccines and medicines. they will then require more aid to continue to keep them free from disease. this larger population will also need somewhere to live, but there is no money for shelter, so we could send more aid. with more people in poverty and dirty conditions, disease will flourish and food will become scarce with so many to feed. we could send them more money for food and more medicine and more shelter. but these people are still very poor, so they cannot support themselves. so we could send them more money for more food, more medicine, more shelter. being there are a larger number of poeople who are now slightly more protected from disease, and they have a hut to live in, and they are not as hungry as last year, the chances of their children surviving is higher. so the population will increase. so now we need to send yet more money for the extra people who need medicine, food, shelter. and so the cycle continues. our aid will continue to hamper the natural development of these people as they become more and more dependant on outside help.

2) let natural selection take it's course. the population will inevitably decrease, and so will the need for aid. these people can learn ways of standing on their own 2 feet and begin to make their own way. they are not dependant on us and become fully self sufficient in respect of dealing with issues and crisis that come their way.


harsh as it seems, ALL civilisations had to go through option 2, and we didn't turn out too badly for it. the difference is, no one came to our help on such a scale. we did it ourselves.

so tell me. how is our aid going to help in the long term? a short term fix, maybe. but we will only be making it worse for the future.

Re: The Future of Humanitarian Relief?
 

I really don't know how to respond to the above post...words have failed me.:shrug:

Re: The Future of Humanitarian Relief?
 

So basically from what you've said you'd rather money not been given to third world countries and let millions of people die. :rolleyes:

Re: The Future of Humanitarian Relief?
 

As a thought, instead of simply sending "aid"... why not a bargain?

UK: We need to support our existing lifestyle which our limited resources cannot possibly cover.

3rd World: Set up an industry and support it.

A thought, I am expecting flames as though I hadn't considered everything however for now gently, gently, work in progress ;)

Re: The Future of Humanitarian Relief?
 

Why should they fail you, as he says its a harsh view, but i dont think hes far wrong in what he says.

Re: The Future of Humanitarian Relief?
 

Well it's totally missed the point of natural selection :rolleyes: Nature decides who is best adapted to the environment, not us. Not to mention we are the same species anyway and your instinct should be to help those in need and not let them die, that is how we evolved as a species. Our brains, our ability to communicate, and our compassion and ability to feel empathy.

Then we get into the impracticality of abandoning a continent to die (not to mention the inhumanity which would be a massive stain of the soul of the Human race), and the misunderstanding of how decent aid can help towards a long term solution. Most aid is now targeted at education and health, two of the main barriers to helping those poorest in our world to work forwards a better future. These schemes are successful, but Africa is a big place.

Re: The Future of Humanitarian Relief?
 

Oh right, so third world countries just haven't finished the process? What exactly are you implying here?

Anyway, you are probably alive today thanks to the inoculations you had as a kid and because you live in a sanitised world. If you ever decide to visit the developing world (which I hope you do, as it seems you could learn a lot from seeing what poverty is like), you will probably be visiting the travel clinic and getting your shots against: Hepatitus, Diphteria, Tetanus, Polio, as well as your malaria prophylaxis. You'll be spraying on bug repellent against mosquitoes. During the day, if there's Dengue fever. Throw in Yellow Fever shots if you want to travel to Africa. When arriving at your destination: remember to not drink tap water. Use bottled water. Brush your teeth with bottled water. Yes, natural selection has really prepared you for the dangers of the world...



Obviously, nobody is helped in real terms if people become dependent on aid, which is why aid should be targeted at enabling people to better themselves. Create infrastructure. Educate people. Teach tem skills that will allow them to earn a living. Of course those pesky trade barriers that the 'free market' Western world applies don't exactly help...

Re: The Future of Humanitarian Relief?
 

Thankfully Damien and danielf are a lot more eloquent than myself on such an emotive topic, excellent posts lads.:tu::tu::tu:

Re: The Future of Humanitarian Relief?
 

precisely, which is why our interference is not helping.

societies morals dictate we should be compassionate. our instincts tell us to protect that which will benefit ourselves (our children for our genes, our friends for our troop, etc). giving money to charity does not benefit the giver in any way, thus instinct is irrelevent. compassion and empathy derive mainly from religious virtues and an evolved phsychological understanding for ethical thought.


by all means, set them up and support them, but aid work just seems to be in an endless cycle of bailing out to the point now that these people are dependant on aid to live. this is not building them a better future, this is setting them up to be in debt to the 1st world and forever in their pockets. inhumane it might be, but that comes back to my point on compassion.

regardless of what views are on this, this is the way of the world, the way of nature. and yes, natural selection is about survival of the fittest and those who adapt best to their environment, but what you have missed out is that as a race, humans now change their environment to suit their own needs, rather than changing ourselves to suit our surroundings. we have evolved from that, no denying it. you only need to look around your home to see that. so what benefit does the human race gain from keeping the weak alive and thus creating a burden for it's own back?

we all have the capacity to be compassionate. I want to see people die as much as the next person, but you cannot deny that we are defying nature. we are effectively jumping up and down on the finely tuned scales that nature has created over millions of years. so who are we to decide who lives and who dies? should we not let the old pro nature do that job? she's certainly had more practice at it than we have.

Re: The Future of Humanitarian Relief?
 

I spent "on off" 3 months in the malaysian Jungle for charity. I say "on off" because it was three weeks on two days off etc. til the end.

As far as all of this is concerened though, the countries in question can tend to make their own mistakes. Certainly in my experience, Humanitarian relief may be provided but not employed in the manner in which you would attribute nor expect.

Here is an excerpt of my experience:

We spent 3 weeks, digging to make 2-3 wells, concreted a school floor, painted the schoool, played volley-ball with the people and had a fantastic time of things. We were offered the use of a hut and tea for which we provided the tea bags, the lovely lady offered her companionship and hospitality. As well as making iced tea for us. When we had finished we had a leaving ceremony in which we all shared in. The locals somehow made some of us sing etc... It was a great experience

Then...

I got home, it then shortly after transpired they they had decided to charge the charity I was working for for the stone and concrete for the school floor. The lady whom offered us hospitality and tea from our own supplies was charging the charity for her time.

I'll leave it there to se what others make of this....

Re: The Future of Humanitarian Relief?
 

which is precisely why humans prosper so much fairer in areas that do not have these diseases. it's a way of controlling population. nature is so finely tuned it creates elements to cancel out others that are not necessary. we talk about economy in our everyday language, but compared to nature, we have no concept of it. nature is ruthlessly economic and efficient.



agreed.

Re: The Future of Humanitarian Relief?
 

Utter *******s. People die because they get ill (mostly due to poverty and mostly from completely preventable causes), not because there's too many of them in one particular continent.

Would you also agree that fewer people would try to come to these shores if life in their native country wasn't quite as bad as it is? If you do, you might actually find yourself in favour of aid.

Re: The Future of Humanitarian Relief?
 

no no no... not because there happens to be too many on a continent, but too many of us altogether... I'm trying to explain why disease is so rife in the first place. because nature has devised ways of controlling populations and species. it's the way it is. the fittest and smartest of the species survive. the weak and stupid will die out. disease is one such way that the unfit are removed from the equation. the problem is, as a race we have devopled ways to counter act nature and prevent disease from doing what it was designed to do. the fact you even pointed out things are preventable simply supports the point I am making that we are not letting nature do what is meant to do - keep the balance.

---------- Post added at 23:40 ---------- Previous post was at 23:36 ----------

yes I would agree with that.

whether I favour aid or not is irrelevent to the point I am making that as a species, we have evolved. if we did not dodge nature with our technological ways, such as aircraft, cars, ocean liners, then these people would not be able to make these journeys, and would therefore die, keeping the balance nature intended. as I said earlier, humans have put nature out by changing our environment to suit us. nature is therefore having issue with keeping up and will have to find new ways to keep us under control. the time will come, but it a meteorite, rising sea levels, drought, new diseases or whatever, we will have our numbers reduced in time. balance will be restored. as I said, nature is ruthlessly efficient and economical.

---------- Post added at 23:46 ---------- Previous post was at 23:40 ----------

for the record, I agree with Mischievious' post of setting up an industry or infrastructure, then support them, but on the whole, let them get on with it. nature will do the rest.

Re: The Future of Humanitarian Relief?
 

You really do not understand natural selection at all do you?

Re: The Future of Humanitarian Relief?
 

whereby 'favourable' traits are a defining factor when choosing a mate to breed with you mean? and the eventual canceling out of unwanted traits and genes through generations of reproduction. yes, I get that. but nature also has a balance that it will keep. the weakest will die, the strongest will survive. less about 'selection', more about balance. selection is obviously part of that process, but only a part. not the whole.

linky
another linky

Re: The Future of Humanitarian Relief?
 

Luckily the regular CF posters are not representative of the majority viewpoint if the recent Comic Relief results are anything to go by...;)

Re: The Future of Humanitarian Relief?
 

Are you for real Bender? What absolute tripe this is, what if for example you were put in a third world village, not a refugee camp but a normal third world say African village that relies on their own crops and ingenuity, how long would you survive?
Without the help, compassion, kindness and charity of the others you wouldn't last a week, by your reckoning that puts you in the camp of the "weak and stupid"!! A ridiculous claim, what if the villages crops fail? what then sod em let em die!!
Where ever any of us live in this world is a lottery, the likes of us in the western world have hit the jackpot as opposed to the poor sods who struggle to survive each day.
I'm just glad that views such as yours are in a very small minority, just to add a side point if you were to do a little bit of research into "human natural selection" you'll find some very odious people also shared these same views, getting rid of them cost millions of lives.

BTW compassion and empathy are not derived from religious virtues, they are derived from ones own humanity, they cannot be bestowed by religion.
Quite a claim considering the posters who've taken issue with your claims, I'd confidently say both were atheists.:)

Re: The Future of Humanitarian Relief?
 

What I find interesting in these type of threads is trying to guess who are the wind-up merchants and who are the dissocial personalities.

Re: The Future of Humanitarian Relief?
 

Yes, you got that bit right. What you don't seem to grasp is the timescale. Evolution doesn't have any noticeable effects over a couple of generations (not in humans anyway). Genetically, there really is very little that sets you and me apart from people in the developing world. If anything, they are hardier for having survived the odds which given the difference in wealth and hygiene are firmly in our favour, not theirs.

In the short term, there is no relation between people dying and their level of fitness or stupidity. People don't die because they are weak. They die because they are poor and don't have access to proper sanitation.

Have a look at the top ten killer diseases in the developing world.

http://www.alertnet.org/topkillerdiseases.htm

Number four is bloody diarrhoea, responsible for around 7 to 8 percent of all deaths in the developing world. Yes, you'd have to be really stupid to die from that, particularly if you're five years old, and there's no clean drinking water around.

The truth of the matter is that you are alive and healthy (presumably) not because of your superior genes that result from the favourable evolution of the Western world, but because you were born on a continent that is rich. Leaving the developing world to their own devices because that's just natural selection at work is not only misguided and immoral, it's also stupid because it's not in our interest.

Aid, or more particularly, increasing wealth in the developing world is going to benefit us for two main reasons. It will drive down the population as people will feel less compelled to have many children as they do right now because they will be dependent on them in old age. It will reduce migration, as there will be less to flee from.