[kevincarter]

I saw a commercial the other day of one of those charities. They said “every three seconds a child dies in the third word”. And they asked for help and donations to help saving this kids. As gentleman as this can be, the thing is, what if a child didn’t die every three seconds? There would be unsolvable famines in five or then years. You have no food, no land, no job, no money, lots of debts and you decide to have ten kids “because its your culture”. Aha, and we have to feed each one of them and make sure they all can live and have ten kids each right?

People talk about helping third world countries, they say that it is our fault that they are poor. I think that’s completely wrong, visit in deep one of this countries and you’ll find how their governments consider their populations just as inferior animals. Next to them North American and European leaders are like pretty cool guys helping its own people. I don’t think it’s our fault at all, nor our responsibility. Sure we can try to give a hand every now and then but they just can’t f*** everything up for the benefit and ask for help. For example, during the 2002 Ethiopian famine (remember watching the skeleton like Ethiopians dieing of starvation in front of the camera while you where having dinner with your family? News channels thought you had to see it in that particular time) during that time, Ethiopia exported 442 millon in coffe, qat, leathers and oilseeds. Didn’t it occur to anyone there that instead of growing coffe, oilseeds, qat and leather for exporting they could grow food and eat it? International aid flew in a massive scale. And thanks to that Ethiopians realized that the best thing they can do is keep up with the exports and delegate its own people survival into us.

[Heineken]

Sorry, you don't get off that easily. Your analysis completely overlooks history.

The colonial era is what wrecked most of the regions to which you refer (particularly in Africa and Latin America). Europeans destroyed proud and successful native cultures, introduced terrible diseases, and raped the natural resources. When the colonial powers pulled out they left disorganized societies that never recovered and that have remained easy pickings for outsiders (esp. the US Empire), aided and abetted by the tinpot dictators these outsiders have propped up.

Dah White Man created the Third World. It wasn't a "Third World" until we started milking it for slaves, ivory, gold, timber, etc.

Another key to the creation of the Third World was the introduction into it of the Catholic religion, which doomed ignorant and vulnerable peoples to overpopulation.

[master_rb]

you can't help them until their culture changes, look at the muslim culture, they only care obout their closest family and the pride or shame associated with it, the outside doesn't matter, until they change their view about others you will poor millions of dollars into one of those countries and only a few will benefit, the rest won't see anything from it so the point is that every county's economic situation is reflection of their culture, there are exceptions but for most part that's what is is

my favorite example is japan and their success, no natual resources and other problems, they still manage to outperform others because of their culture where they see stealing and other form of "cheating" to other (not just their closest family) as a serious offence

on the other hand nigeria is my favorite in the opposite direction, oil fields in the villages where people go hungary, saudi arabia another one with so much oil and 30% unemploment - it's almost as winning "Win For Life" and still being poor

Heineken, you're analysis is just off, there is some truth in it but you can't just blame everything on white man and catholic religion, you seem as these two take 100% responsibility for current situation in my opinion 1% or maybe less

[Concerned]

I saw a commercial the other day of one of those charities. They said “every three seconds a child dies in the third word”. And they asked for help and donations to help saving this kids. As gentleman as this can be, the thing is, what if a child didn’t die every three seconds? There would be unsolvable famines in five or then years. You have no food, no land, no job, no money, lots of debts and you decide to have ten kids “because its your culture”. Aha, and we have to feed each one of them and make sure they all can live and have ten kids each right?

It's nobodys culture to have ten kids. I would suggest lack of birth control mainly due to financial and religious constraints.

I think if you investigate these charities you will find that they are in the process of building sustainable communities. They are NOT in the business of taking your money and attempting to breed up more people so they can feed more people. Yes some of any money you do decide to spend will go to immediate relief of starving people. Whats the alternative let them die?

In the past these people led a sustainable and subsistient way of life. They had land, they had food, their work was their farm, goats, maintaining their mud brick or other type of simple dwelling. They lived for hundreds of years their simple lives.

Everyone knows that these people must be unhappy right? What they need is a 1-2hr commute to work each day, a high pressure job , diabetes, obesity, gymnasium, stock markets, massive debt and everything else so they can be just like us right?

So in the rush to create societies in our image, people are pushed off their lands to make way for export oriented growth industries. Hence they grow coffee and other commodity for export rather than maize and vegetables for their own consumption.

Instead of small villages farming their lands (like they had for hundres of years prior) and extracting the economic benefit for themselves you have a minority of owners either foreign or local how usurp the means of production for themselves. Some locals do live well in the cities in nice housing most are pushed even closer to the edge of survival living in shanty towns, with seasonal work at harvest time and no prospect for other work or upward mobility.

Then you have the arms trade which has even less to do with the man on the street but alot to do with ruling elites in northern industralised countries and the ruling elites in the local countries.

There could be (and probably are) books written on the subject. Needless to say that a few lines on peakoil.com will hardly do the topic justice.

If I could sum it up in one line or paragraph I would say, don't blame the small guy on the street. These people lived a far more sustainable way of life for hundreds of years and now their lives have been changed some for better and many more for the worse.

[rwwff]

It's nobodys culture to have ten kids. I would suggest lack of birth control mainly due to financial and religious constraints.

Ummm. No. These populations weren't out of control before birth control existed; and for the most part, its not their population that is causing the problem. Even if they had 1/10th the numbers they do, the problem would still be exactly the same.

Fact, the world produces plenty of food. The fact that 2 hours work at McDonalds will buy enough rice to feed a family of four for almost a week on rice alone is proof enough of that. And the big picture numbers also agree.

The real answer is something no one likes to think about, because it is heartess, and cruel beyond measure. Starvation and dehydration are weapons of warfare. In all of these places, there's plenty of food, even in the drought stricken areas, loading docks receive more than enough food to keep people from starving. Problem is, the people controlling the farms and loading docks, want all of those hungry people dead, and dead in hopefully the most painful, tortuous way they can imagine.

[Jack]

As gentleman as this can be, the thing is, what if a child didn’t die every three seconds? There would be unsolvable famines in five or then years. You have no food, no land, no job, no money, lots of debts and you decide to have ten kids “because its your culture”.

Good points. I have never seen any reason to waste money on the third world. First, it would only serve to increase the already excessive population. Second, there's nothing in it for me.

I compliment you for having the courage to take a position that some might describe as politically incorrect.

[MacG]

Dah White Man created the Third World. It wasn't a "Third World" until we started milking it for slaves, ivory, gold, timber, etc.

What I have read, already the Romans bought slaves from Africa. It might have still earlier roots since the arab world was the hub of the slave trade. Apparently africans sold conquered tribes as slaves to the arabs, who sold them to anyone who payed. The only important thing that happened in the 1600's-1700's was that the scale and turnover of the thing increased.

There must have been some compelling reasons for people to start to migrate out of Africa some hundred thousand years ago. If it was such a nice, harmonic and joyful place, why leave? In the middle of the ice-age?

[Andrew_S]

In the past these people led a sustainable and subsistient way of life. They had land, they had food, their work was their farm, goats, maintaining their mud brick or other type of simple dwelling. They lived for hundreds of years their simple lives.

The population of sub-Saharan Africa is much bigger than it was in the 19th century and earlier. Like most places until a couple of generations ago the population was limited primarily by food production levels.

There was a thriving slave trade in sub-Saharan Africa before the Europeans started getting slaves from there. The arabs bought them. 19th century African chiefs described how things changed. Before if they had no slave-buyers they killed their prisoners captured in war. Afterwards they woud sell them as slaves.

The slaves taken from Africa were essentially no loss to Africa, but would affect the lands they were transported to.

The idea that everything is the fault of the "evil white man" is fallacious. The net effect was the introduction of knowledge and technology which increased food production and allowed populations to increase. Eventually the populations must stabilize: either by deliberate limitation of births as happens now in first world countries or by famine, disease and war as tends to occur in some third world countries.

Famine, disease and war did in fact exist before Europeans found these places. And food supplies as always limited the population.

[emailking]

Personally, I think it is inhumane to let people die like this. It doesn't matter if saving them might make a greater problem later. The sensible solution there is to focus on a lower birth rate, not letting people die because they have nothing to eat or were born with AIDS. I think you would probably have a different opinion if this were already happening in the first world. There may be a dieoff that cannot be controlled (maybe it's already started), but we must do whatever we can to make it as minimal as possible, no matter where we are in the dieoff.

[EarthGamePlayer]

I can't believe what I am reading here. I would think that a board such as this would attract a strain of enlightened visionaries. A group of people who will likely be involved in creating the next era of human experience. A group of people that might be able to, in the midst of destruction, create a better place.

With self centered, ignorant, and callus comments such as these I have to admit that I might be wrong. If these are our visionaries, we will live in a very dark future.

We may not be able to help the people in the developing world, for it is a very complex issue with no simple solutions, but we can have compassion. And with compassion we move one giant step to creating a better world without PO, and certainly with it.

I hear absolutely no compassion from some of the posters here, who are obviously too busy staring at their own navels, to really have concept of what they are talking about

I suggest that they spend a few months of their life living in an African Village in Mali - maybe then they would think before making such ignorant comments.

[Heineken]

Dah White Man created the Third World. It wasn't a "Third World" until we started milking it for slaves, ivory, gold, timber, etc.

What I have read, already the Romans bought slaves from Africa. It might have still earlier roots since the arab world was the hub of the slave trade. Apparently africans sold conquered tribes as slaves to the arabs, who sold them to anyone who payed. The only important thing that happened in the 1600's-1700's was that the scale and turnover of the thing increased.

There must have been some compelling reasons for people to start to migrate out of Africa some hundred thousand years ago. If it was such a nice, harmonic and joyful place, why leave? In the middle of the ice-age?

The Romans barely scratched the surface of Africa and of course never reached the New World. And, although it's true that there was a slave trade in Africa before the white man's invasion, it had developed organically over thousands of years. We mechanized the process on a huge scale and introduced massive, sudden discontinuities into those societies that were terribly destructive. I still think that the most damaging influence in Africa was the Catholic Church.

[Heineken]

EarthGamePlayer:

Agree completely. Alas, many of us POers are (like Americans everywhere) products of a declining civilization and a worthless educational system. We were suckled at the rancid breast of crass commercialism like everyone else.

[rwwff]

I can't believe what I am reading here. I would think that a board such as this would attract a strain of enlightened visionaries. A group of people who will likely be involved in creating the next era of human experience. A group of people that might be able to, in the midst of destruction, create a better place.

1. You come to a board full of end of the world conspiracy theoriests all chanting repent the end is near, and were looking for folks who wish to create a Paradise in the Hills??? A bit of a disconnect if you ask me.

2. As far as compassion for Africans in trouble, yes, they have my greatest sympathies, but I have yet to come up with a good way of neutralizing the warlords and the use of hunger as a weapon without sending in 500,000 soldiers and marines. No amount of wishful thinking, kind words, or diplomacy is going to change the end-game struggle they are currently engaged in. No self-flattering sacrifice any of us could make will have even the tiniest impact on the real problems over there.

3. The world is a harsh place. Its about to get a lot harsher. My energies and focus are exclusively there to insure the survival of my daughter and my extended family. That, I must admit, is more important to me than the survival of a bunch of other people engaged in a civil war over each side's right to breath and eat. If they all want to eat, all they have to do is put down their weapons and play nice.

[emailking]

Rwwff,

I do not know about the others, but I am not saying that you personally need to contribute money to Africa. I am saying that the decision for your money to support Africa (and all places in hardship, including Haiti and homeless people in the US even) be made for you through your tax dollars.

Of course it would be nice if you did support some people that need help as I'm sure you, like just aout everyone on here, has way more than you really need to ensure your family's survival, at least for now. Personally, I actually do contribute money to a village in Mali. It was ironic to see that brought up.

If you have an issue with giving money, you can also give the gift of time. Volunteer at a soup kitchen, even once a year. These people need help. We can argue about how they got into this situation and whose fault it is, but they are there now and cannot be allowed to just suffer.

[Jack]

I am saying that the decision for your money to support Africa (and all places in hardship, including Haiti and homeless people in the US even) be made for you through your tax dollars.

I'd rather have a tax cut. I see no reason to let the Government give away the money.

If you have an issue with giving money, you can also give the gift of time. Volunteer at a soup kitchen, even once a year.

Why?

These people need help. We can argue about how they got into this situation and whose fault it is, but they are there now and cannot be allowed to just suffer.

Why not?

[emailking]

"I'd rather have a tax cut. I see no reason to let the Government give away the money. "

Yes, I can see that. This is why I am glad it's not your decision, as I do not think you would use your resulting tax cut to help the needy, given what you have said.

"Why?"

Because they need help and it's a good thing to do. Jesus, why hold the door open for somebody? It wastes time and energy!

It was just a suggestion.

"Why not?"

Because it's morally wrong to let people suffer.

[EarthGamePlayer]

Rwwff:

I didn't come here looking for anyone to cheer me and make me feel good. I probably have less hope for the human race than most on this board.

I will argue however the selfish and crass points that continue to be made on this thread make it quite clear to me that even many of those who are PO aware will flounder with the rest. Lacking the empathy and trust of other humans, they will barricade themselves in their PO bunkers, eating instant noodles, and dehydrated water, while awaiting the inevitable.

Without compassion at least towards the people around us, we will not survive in a post PO world. Community will mean everything.

Without compassion for others in the world, we will become ignorant, squabbling bands afraid of everything.

With great upheaval comes the potential for great change. The world will not end - it will just likely end as we know it.

I have hope that in the ugly transition we as humans might be able to try version 2.0 of civilization. Unfortunately I don't think that many here will be able to contribute anything useful at all.

I would also argue that if many of you really thought it was truly the end of the world, you wouldn't waste your time posting on somewhat obscure, end of the world site. One of the fundamental traits of human nature is to have hope against all odds - but we all know it is totally uncool to have hope. (where did I put that black eyeliner?)

So to all you self centered, PO aware people out there - enjoy living in your caves and squabbling over the scraps in the future. I doubt I can create something better out of the chaos that will likely come, but I will probably die trying.

[Jack]

"I'd rather have a tax cut. I see no reason to let the Government give away the money. "

Yes, I can see that. This is why I am glad it's not your decision, as I do not think you would use your resulting tax cut to help the needy, given what you have said.

Fortunately, I and many others like me vote.

"Why?"

Because they need help and it's a good thing to do. Jesus, why hold the door open for somebody? It wastes time and energy!

It was just a suggestion.

I agree. Which is why I don't open doors for people. Nor do I want them to do so for me.

"Why not?"

Because it's morally wrong to let people suffer.

Here we get to the heart of your argument.

Sometimes, helping people harms them.

For example - give free clothing to Africa, and those who produced that clothing within Africa are put out of business. Give free food, and those who used to produce it no longer have a livlihood - they become penniless refugees.

Charity applies a band-aid that gives cancer.

The charitable giving you advocate will merely increase the population and defer - but increase! - the suffering.

Thus, the most immoral thing one can do is to provide charity.

[emailking]

"Fortunately, I and many others like me vote."

Fortunately, I and many others like me vote as well. Who's winning? America is largest donor in the world. Now I'm sure you can point to example where the money was used to arm warlords or stage coups. Nonetheless, our government gives a hell of a lot of money.

"I agree. Which is why I don't open doors for people. Nor do I want them to do so for me."

Ok. It was an example. Unless you are trying to make the point that you are entirely self centered.


"Here we get to the heart of your argument.

Sometimes, helping people harms them.

For example - give free clothing to Africa, and those who produced that clothing within Africa are put out of business. Give free food, and those who used to produce it no longer have a livlihood - they become penniless refugees.

Charity applies a band-aid that gives cancer.

The charitable giving you advocate will merely increase the population and defer - but increase! - the suffering.

Thus, the most immoral thing one can do is to provide charity."

If you give food to someone who is starving, that does not hurt those who would otherwise produce their food because they aren't getting that food anyway. Please think about this for 2 seconds. Your argument is nonsensical.

Let's take Mali for example. 80% of the population is involved with agriculture. Most are lucky if they can produce enough food to feed themselves.

So who exactly am I hurting by giving money to Mali? Money that will help them get cleaner water, vaccines, and better education. I suppose you would say I am putting the African water and innoculation companies out of business (sarcasm), and that I am destroying their education system, even though they don't really have one. 70% of the country is illiiterate.

This is different than spoiling your child. Perhaps we could stand to improve our focus in terms of helping Africa become able to help itself. Personally I think this will even out with Peak Oil.

In any case, it is not immoral to help others.

Edit: I mistakenly wrote 30% is illiterate when that is the literacy rate.

[Dukat_Reloaded]

Giving people aid is a counterproductive activity. In many of those countries, farmers who grow the grain go bankrupt because they can't compete with free grain given by the aid agencies and they therefore leave the land empty and collect free food from the agencies themselves. It's a vicious cycle that ultimatly leaves the country dependant on foriegn aid.