View Single Post
Old 20-03-2009, 21:30   #17
soicky
Inactive
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 606
soicky is a name known to allsoicky is a name known to allsoicky is a name known to allsoicky is a name known to allsoicky is a name known to allsoicky is a name known to allsoicky is a name known to allsoicky is a name known to all
Re: The Future of Humanitarian Relief?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bender View Post
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.
So basically from what you've said you'd rather money not been given to third world countries and let millions of people die.
soicky is offline   Reply With Quote