The Future of Humanitarian Relief?

[frogstamper]

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

[soicky]

Originally Posted by Bender

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.

[mischievious]

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

[sollp]

Originally Posted by frogstamper

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

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

Originally Posted by sollp

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

Well it's totally missed the point of natural selection 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.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Bender

<misguided eugenic arguments snipped>

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.

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...

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.

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...

[frogstamper]

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

[idi banashapan]

Originally Posted by Damien

Well it's totally missed the point of natural selection Nature decides who is best adapted to the environment, not us.

precisely, which is why our interference is not helping.

Originally Posted by Damien

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Damien

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.

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.

[mischievious]

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....

[idi banashapan]

Originally Posted by danielf

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...

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.

Originally Posted by danielf

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...

agreed.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Bender

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.

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.

Originally Posted by bender

agreed

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.

[idi banashapan]

Originally Posted by danielf

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.

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 ----------

Originally Posted by danielf

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?

yes I would agree with that.

Originally Posted by danielf

If you do, you might actually find yourself in favour of aid.

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.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Bender

let them get on with it. nature will do the rest.

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

[idi banashapan]

Originally Posted by danielf

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

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

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