7 million dead children every year

[TimG]

Fact: this pisses me off

Pisses me off too.

But I still think you debase the language by calling it a 'crime against humanity'.

It is better called a 'stupid opinion which causes great harm'.

[waldo]

Not just globalization - fossil fuels have made it economic to transport food to the people that need it. A world without cheap transportation would be a world with many more children starving.

nice! So when you rally the cause for continued emissions growth, when you absolutely refuse to consider mitigation policies, when you repeatedly claim that climate change can simply be adapted to, you're just thinking of all those starving children! Think of the kids... think of the kids!

[Shady]

nice! So when you rally the cause for continued emissions growth, when you absolutely refuse to consider mitigation policies, when you repeatedly claim that climate change can simply be adapted to, you're just thinking of all those starving children! Think of the kids... think of the kids!

Don't worry so much about emissions growth. 20 years from now, or even less, the combustion engine will be a thing of the past.

[-TSS-]

Those girls will one day become mothers and there is also a clear correlation between educated mothers and reduced infant deaths.

That's why the islamists hate the idea of girls going to school because at school the girls could even develop some kind of ability to think for themselves.

[Rue]

Careprov I would agree guilt can be pointless. To me it has been waste of emotion and self indulgent but for some it is their moral compass and spurs them to do good thing so I leave it the individual to decide what it means to them.

I am not sure what you mean by not changing your life.

I regret every day I have not done more.

I have come to accept my limitations and learn it really takes very little energy to help and be positive-in fact it is so easy its shocking-far easier than the wasted energy that goes into hatred or allowing sheer sadness to envelop one's soul..

So I SAY IT it again the most complex problems can and are managed each day by heroes, just everyday people doing basic, simple acts of kindness and sharing and if a charity can encourage that I applaud their efforts and applaud people who share their time.

Some of them to me are soldiers who tried to do something to save others. and died or injured themselves trying.

To me they give the ultimate gift, their lives.

Others are trying their best doing one thing at a time and it heals the world and I applaud them..

If you see the pain of another it does change you. It can change you for the better or the worse.

Death is a smell I came to know. Others know it. It causes one to realize life wasted is the greatest of obscenities as inevitable as it is.

Edited February 15, 2014 by Rue

[carepov]

I am not sure what you mean by not changing your life.

To clarify, yes seeing such death would change me. But I don't see it redically changing my actions toward aleviating poverty, certainly not like MG who would, "Personally, if I saw such a scene I would sell every non-essential thing I owned to provide the food & medicine etc. for these kids."

I would still spend my $2-3 per day on my two cats while others live off less. I would still spend multiples of poor families' annual earnings on 2-week vacations and eat out at restaurants for the price of others' hard working monthly wages.

[Bonam]

I also would not change my behavior either. The issue won't be solved by donating money. The issue can be solved one way and one way only, by people building better lives for themselves. The best course we can take is non-interference, and the best help we can provide is free trade. Hundreds of millions around the world have been lifted out of poverty into a new middle class in the last several decades as a result of technological progress around the world, and this process will continue. Life expectancies have risen in almost every nation on Earth, and child mortality rates have dropped. While 50 years ago billions of people lived in countries with life expectancies in the 30s, today that number is far smaller. The progress that is being made is astounding, and there is nothing we need to do other than what we have been doing.

Edited February 15, 2014 by Bonam

[Rue]

Now I get you Care. Thanks for clarification. I get you and Bonam.Yah. No we can't change certain things in our lives like you said that would be pointless.

Now that you clarified it I got it. I mean I don't mean so say change other than its made me more grateful for being Canadian. Its hard to explain but when you travel and come back home its like a relief and you realize things we take for granted here are a big deal elsewhere.Just water Care. I always stook water for granted. You know-in every restaurant they serve water with ice. Then you go to places with no water and wow it dawns on you, the amount we flush down toilets would blow away the minds of people living in desert climates. Weird. Those showers I used to take that went on for hours (no I was not doing things in there stop it) and I took for granted then you go to some of these places and you go weeks without washing.

The only thing I would say to Bonam is I would like to see us cut down on our waste, use it for thermal energy like they do in Sweden, stop building disposable products with plastics that won't break-down and not waste so much. Not too long ago we didn't recycle and now we do. Its a start. I ever understood why we moved away from glass bottles to cans or plastic bottles.

I tell you one thing. The amount of money we spend on weapons is amazing.. Imagine if we found a way to take some of that money and used it on people instead of weapons. Yah yah wishful thinking I know.

[carepov]

I also would not change my behavior either. The issue won't be solved by donating money. The issue can be solved one way and one way only, by people building better lives for themselves. The best course we can take is non-interference, and the best help we can provide is free trade. Hundreds of millions around the world have been lifted out of poverty into a new middle class in the last several decades as a result of technological progress around the world, and this process will continue. Life expectancies have risen in almost every nation on Earth, and child mortality rates have dropped. While 50 years ago billions of people lived in countries with life expectancies in the 30s, today that number is far smaller. The progress that is being made is astounding, and there is nothing we need to do other than what we have been doing.

I disagree with the bolded parts of your post (by the way the last part contradicts the first part because we have been donating money and interfereing).

Aid to responsible and effective governments and organizations will help solve problems. Disaster relief is also usually positive.

Edited February 15, 2014 by carepov

[bush_cheney2004]

...Aid to responsible and effective governments and organizations will help solve problems. Disaster relief is also usually positive.

But these measures are only short term solutions that can actually delay sustainable development, creating a permanent dependency.

[carepov]

But these measures are only short term solutions that can actually delay sustainable development, creating a permanent dependency.

No, responsible and effective governements do not delay sustainable development and do not create permanent dependency.

One model of effective foriegn aid is Rwanda 1994-2014. The goal is to be independent by 2020.

[bush_cheney2004]

One model of effective foriegn aid is Rwanda 1994-2014. The goal is to be independent by 2020.

Easy to say now....check back in 2020.

[Bonam]

I disagree with the bolded parts of your post (by the way the last part contradicts the first part because we have been donating money and interfereing).

Aid to responsible and effective governments and organizations will help solve problems. Disaster relief is also usually positive.

You're right, I did make a contradiction. I would say it is a small one though... as the net effect we have had through aid is small, and we've done as much if not more harm by interfering than we have done good. I stand by the point that non-interference apart from allowing all nations to participate in a global free market economy is the best course of action (if the intent is to lift those in the developing world out of poverty).

In regards to responsible and effective governments... yes, aiding these may be effective. Of course, countries that do happen to have responsible and effective governments are able to rapidly improve their own standards of living, outside aid or not. It's the ones that have irresponsible, corrupt, destructive, incapable, etc, governments whose people live in the worst conditions. And providing aid to such governments is not particularly effective.

Edited February 16, 2014 by Bonam

[bush_cheney2004]

"Responsible and effective" government has not exactly been a ringing success for First Nations in Norte America, let alone the self serving humanitarian, military, and economic aid given to "developing" nations across the sea.

[On Guard for Thee]

I also would not change my behavior either. The issue won't be solved by donating money. The issue can be solved one way and one way only, by people building better lives for themselves. The best course we can take is non-interference, and the best help we can provide is free trade. Hundreds of millions around the world have been lifted out of poverty into a new middle class in the last several decades as a result of technological progress around the world, and this process will continue. Life expectancies have risen in almost every nation on Earth, and child mortality rates have dropped. While 50 years ago billions of people lived in countries with life expectancies in the 30s, today that number is far smaller. The progress that is being made is astounding, and there is nothing we need to do other than what we have been doing.

Your ignorance is astounding. How many billion people do you think there are? There are 7. Many of them are living in poverty because we raped them. Ever heard of the slaves in America. No don't change your behaviour, just stick your head further in the sand.

[Bonam]

Your ignorance is astounding. How many billion people do you think there are? There are 7.

Which part of my post implied to you that I thought there were more than 7 billion people, again?

Many of them are living in poverty because we raped them.

We? Speak for yourself. Whatever rapes you committed, I was not a part of. Nor do I accept any guilt for your deeds just because we live in the same hemisphere.

Ever heard of the slaves in America.

Slaves? In America? What? When?

[On Guard for Thee]

Which part of my post implied to you that I thought there were more than 7 billion people, again?

We? Speak for yourself. Whatever rapes you committed, I was not a part of. Nor do I accept any guilt for your deeds just because we live in the same hemisphere.

Slaves? In America? What? When?

We have these things called books! Go get one and read it. Can you read? The American economy was originally built of free labor from slaves.

[bush_cheney2004]

We have these things called books! Go get one and read it. Can you read? The American economy was originally built of free labor from slaves.

Really? Then like today, America's slaves must have been far more productive than Canada's slaves.

[Bonam]

We have these things called books! Go get one and read it. Can you read? The American economy was originally built of free labor from slaves.

Condescension and insult? Check.

Failure to answer question posed in quoted post? Check.

Failure to address any relevant point? Check.

3/3, not bad!

[On Guard for Thee]

Condescension and insult? Check.

Failure to answer question posed in quoted post? Check.

Failure to address any relevant point? Check.

3/3, not bad!

So you don't either understand or agree to the concept that we are living our lives with cars in every driveway and chickens in every pot because we went to Africa, for instance, and brought slaves here to pick cotton, and then we went back and got the minerals, the diamonds, and the oil, and left them with next to nothing whilst we drive around burning up that oil.

[Bonam]

So you don't either understand or agree to the concept that we are living our lives with cars in every driveway and chickens in every pot because we went to Africa, for instance, and brought slaves here to pick cotton, and then we went back and got the minerals, the diamonds, and the oil, and left them with next to nothing whilst we drive around burning up that oil.

Again, speak for yourself. I did none of those things, nor did my ancestors. Also, most mineral and oil resources do not come from Africa, and furthermore, the majority of the resources that have ever existed in the ground in Africa are still there, in the ground.

In any event, I don't see the relevance of your ill-conceived moral indignation to the topic of this thread. You feel guilty for raping Africa, fine, congrats. Go donate your dollar a day if that makes you feel better. Meanwhile the rest of us will be working to create a better world through the only way that works: free market growth and prosperity and technological progress.

Edited February 16, 2014 by Bonam

[On Guard for Thee]

Again, speak for yourself. I did none of those things, nor did my ancestors. Also, most mineral and oil resources do not come from Africa, and furthermore, the majority of the resources that have ever existed in the ground in Africa are still there, in the ground.

In any event, I don't see the relevance of your ill-conceived moral indignation to the topic of this thread. You feel guilty for raping Africa, fine, congrats. Go donate your dollar a day if that makes you feel better. Meanwhile the rest of us will be working to create a better world through the only way that works: free market growth and prosperity and technological progress.

I don't feel any congrats for raping Africa, altjhough I did spend a lot of time working there. Have you? Go read a book.

[Rue]

On Guard the problem with melting down history into simplistic concepts of good guy and bad guy to me misses the point. Since humans have existed there have been powerful packs and weak packs. we are apes. We are primal. Our evolution has been based on Alpha males leading packs and fighting for territory. Its what we do. Its human nature for the powerful to dominate the passive, in all societies.

For me I do not know of one perfect society. I am tempted to refer to some in the Pacific south-west but even those societies where food and shelter was never an issue had incest and violence.

You won't find a society in history that did not plunder, pillage and rape at one point or another. Whether we as humans evolve past our primal behaviour to a more enlightened way is debateable. Some believe if we are to evolve we will turn into a structure similar to insects as China has with a Queen Bee (Chair of the Communist Party).

Whether we exist on smaller pack levels or more elaborate insect like networks the power will always be concentrated and imbalances will come about..

Now it may very well be that at one time in history Christian civilizations plundered and raped and pillaged and had slaves but to snapshot history to just a specific era and omit the events leading to and after those empires makes no sense.

In the grand scheme of history civilizations have come and gone and subjugated Africa an everywhere else on this planet.

History has continued to mutate and evolve with all kinds of oppressors and oppressed being created. To do as you do and lock into but one part of the development of the collective human psyche and say that is what is responsible for what ails Africa is not accurate..

Yes multi-nationals go into third world countries and exploit the natural resources. Yes of course. No one would deny that. The point is though to say as you are suggesting it makes usall culpable for the failures of others is too simple.

Yes on one level we eat too much, use up too much energy, pollute and all this contributes to an imbalance. True. On the other hand it does not dismiss the fact that in much of the third and fourth world, it is greedy tyrants to exist they have to be willing to sell their people out.

No one forced Mugabe to become what he is. He became intoxicated by power. To simply suggest he was created by colonial imperialists is not accurate-this would mean he is not morally culpable for the decisions he has made.

Exploitation is not necessarily evil-the question is how do you exploit resources in a way that respects the environment and can build strong communities? Exploitation was hijacked to mean unfairly taking advantage of people but in its original usage it meant simply taking advantage-the unfairly taking advantage is what we now believe it means. One can exploit beneficially. Its possible.

That is why so many development charities go back to basics and teach that to help oneself you first need a certain amount of protein in your body to sustain the energy needed to think and do menial labour such as building schools, shelters, sewage ditches.

Look in Canada up North. Aboriginal peoples have been given now the political power to engage in business relationships with developers. They can as some of their leaders have done take kick-backs and rip off their own people-or stand strong and get good deals that benefit their communities.

Time will tell.

[carepov]

You're right, I did make a contradiction. I would say it is a small one though... as the net effect we have had through aid is small, and we've done as much if not more harm by interfering than we have done good. I stand by the point that non-interference apart from allowing all nations to participate in a global free market economy is the best course of action (if the intent is to lift those in the developing world out of poverty).

In regards to responsible and effective governments... yes, aiding these may be effective. Of course, countries that do happen to have responsible and effective governments are able to rapidly improve their own standards of living, outside aid or not. It's the ones that have irresponsible, corrupt, destructive, incapable, etc, governments whose people live in the worst conditions. And providing aid to such governments is not particularly effective.

Increased trade and foreign investment is not the only way to reduce poverty - aid has its place too (and the two approaches are not mutually exclusive).

Here are the words of the President of Rwanda:

"There is bad aid and there is good aid. The bad aid is that one which creates dependencies, but good aid is that which is targeted to create capacities in people so that they are able to live on their own activities."

http://www.povertycure.org/voices/president-paul-kagame/

Here is another example:

"In the absence of foreign aid, there is no doubt that

the degree of poverty in Papua New Guinea would be even greater than that prevailing"

p. 90: http://www.unescap.org/pdd/publications/apdj_10_2/feeny.pdf

Ghana is another good example of how effective aid can be delivered.

[carepov]

How many billion people do you think there are? There are 7. Many of them are living in poverty because we raped them. Ever heard of the slaves in America.

There are many places where poverty has nothing to do with colonialism. Zimbabwe is certainly one.

I would argue that colonialism is too far in the past to think that it is a cause of poverty today. There are examples of entire nations that were rebuilt and poverty greatly reduced in 30-50 years - even in post-collonial countries.

No, let's not forget the past but, yes, let's move on.