The Georgia Guidestones

TalkieWalkie

I'm interested in thought from both sides on this. No need to be bitchy, nothing is being suggested, yet. Obviously the focus is on number one of the, shall I say, commandments. Who wrote it, who commissioned it, does it relate to depopulation (agenda 21) and so on.
Enjoy, be nice


The Georgia Guidestones is a large granite monument in Elbert County, Georgia, USA. A message comprising ten guides is inscribed on the structure in eight modern languages, and a shorter message is inscribed at the top of the structure in four ancient languages' scripts: Babylonian, Classical Greek, Sanskrit, and Egyptian hieroglyphs.



History
In June 1979, an unknown person or persons under the pseudonym R. C. Christian hired Elberton Granite Finishing Company to build the structure. One popular hypothesis is that the patron's pseudonym may be a tribute to the legendary 17th-century founder of Rosicrucianism, Christian Rosenkreuz.

Inscriptions
A message consisting of a set of ten guidelines or principles is engraved on the Georgia Guidestones in eight different languages, one language on each face of the four large upright stones. Moving clockwise around the structure from due north, these languages are: English, Spanish, Swahili, Hindi, Hebrew, Arabic, Chinese, and Russian.

1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
2. Guide reproduction wisely - improving fitness and diversity.
3. Unite humanity with a living new language.
4. Rule passion - faith - tradition - and all things with tempered reason.
5. Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
6. Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
7. Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
8. Balance personal rights with social duties.
9. Prize truth - beauty - love - seeking harmony with the infinite.
10. Be not a cancer on the earth - Leave room for nature - Leave room for nature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order_%28conspiracy_theory%29

espinolman

Pleiadians are into maintaining population to certain limits on their planet , from what i have read , so maybe they have something to do with it .

Jeboa Safari

Sounds like the work of an idealist hippy did, to me. Nice sentiments

Mahatma coat

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055489323&highlight=georgia+conspiracy&page=4

heres a thread we had about this before, there is some information in there, but mostly like a lot of threads from that time it descended into a bickering mess rather quickly, I think it gets back on track somewhere areond page 6

Darlughda

First heard about the Georgia guidestones on this forum.
Fascinating and creepy. I tried having a gander through the thread that MC linked but only got through about 7 pages.

Does anybody know what is the significance of the site/area they are located? Is there any particular history there?

Supposing they were funded by an individual or group for the purpose of giving guidelines to people in the future, rather than being erected as some kind of artistic hoax, what is the significance of the location?

Yitzhak Rabin

I have no clue who put the stones there. But I can't say I disagree with them.

Obviously the first stone is going to be a contentious issue. But, I think its an inevitability. So we either try and put measures in place to reduce the population, or we will be forced by the environment, through famine and starvation to reduce to around that figure anyway.

And no, that does not mean I am in favour of culling populations. It simply means putting incentives, monetary, or otherwise, to people who have only one child, or don't have children at all.

Also, I wouldn't, necessarily, be against the sterilization of extremely violent criminals and rapists.

espinolman

Why not go to space , build space cities , put them in orbit around the sun !

Yitzhak Rabin

espinolman wrote: »

Why not go to space , build space cities , put them in orbit around the sun !

Yes, that seems logical and feasible. I can't think of 1000 things wrong with that statement.

The attached rolleye emoticon isn't enough.

espinolman

But you just have to set up on the moon and use the materials on the moon to build the space cities .

Yitzhak Rabin

espinolman wrote: »

But you just have to set up on the moon and use the materials on the moon to build the space cities .

I can't tell if you are being serious or not?

Regardless, its off topic. What do you think about the guidelines on the georgia guidelines stones?

Richard tea

1.Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.

Where did they get that bull**** figure from. Open to correction here but is it true that every man, woman & child could be given an acre of land to live on and that total land mass could fit into a space the size of Texas?

I view the guide stones along the same lines as the Denver airport situation

Undergod

Richard tea wrote: »

Where did they get that bull**** figure from. Open to correction here but is it true that every man, woman & child could be given an acre of land to live on and that total land mass could fit into a space the size of Texas?

A quick google and online convertor seems to indicate not.
Texas is 268,820 sq miles, which is 172,044,800 acres. Not nearly enough.

The Continental US is 3,119,884 sq miles, which works out to be 1,996,726,201 acres; still under 2 billion.

alastair

Richard tea wrote: »

Open to correction here but is it true that every man, woman & child could be given an acre of land to live on and that total land mass could fit into a space the size of Texas?

Not quite - Texas is 268,601 sq miles. you would need to fit 24,000 people per square mile assuming a world population of 6.5 billion. If there's 640 acres in a square mile, that's 37.5 people per acre. - which would further suggest that you'd need something in the ballpark of the landmass of the USA and Canada (with all the lakes etc removed) combined to provide an acre for everyone on the planet. And each of those acres would need to be fertile - so you'd need to swap the deserts and high mountains for something a bit more productive.

Richard tea

Ah I see, Maybe I got the equation wrong, ill try and dig it out.

Yitzhak Rabin

Irregardless. Space isn't the problem. Its resources. I would say we could support a population of more than half a billion indefinitely. However, the situation we have now of a population of almost 7 bn increasing almost exponentially is completely unsustainable. Even if we weren't increasing, a stable population of 7 billion is probably unsustainable with the current levels of technology.

I think as a species we need to seriously look at the problem and not just accuse anyone who brings it up as a mass-murdering nazi who wants to murder all the citizens of earth except the elite.

Richard tea

Ok got it wrong, skip to 58 sec for the Texas bit http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZVOU5bfHrM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBS6f-JVvTY&feature=channel

Richard tea

So lets assume 7 billion is unsustainable. How many years would it take to get that figure down to 500 million. 50 years, 100, 300 500 a 1000 years

Somebody really does not like the stones http://exatanews.blogspot.com/2008/12/georgia-guide-stones-vandalized.html

Yitzhak Rabin

Richard tea wrote: »

So lets assume 7 billion is unsustainable. How many years would it take to get that figure down to 500 million. 50 years, 100, 300 500 a 1000 years

Well, if we take a really simplistic and rough back of the envelope model, whereby couples only have one child, and anyone who has two children, is cancelled out by those who have none. Lets say that each generation from birth to death is 100years.

Then we would be down to a population of 3.5 billion in 100 years, 1.75 billion by 200 years, 850 million or so by 300 years, and would reach the "target" of 500 million by about 375 years or so.

Now, obviously this is an extremely simple model.

There is a far quicker way to reduce the population, which is to do nothing about it, and bury our heads in the sand, and await for the environment to do its work and reduce the population drastically through famine.

This has happened innumerable species in the past. We are lucky in the fact that we have the ability to foresee these problems and try and deal with them less savagely than nature.

Richard tea

yekahs wrote: »

Well, if we take a really simplistic and rough back of the envelope model, whereby couples only have one child, and anyone who has two children, is cancelled out by those who have none. Lets say that each generation from birth to death is 100years.

Then we would be down to a population of 3.5 billion in 100 years, 1.75 billion by 200 years, 850 million or so by 300 years, and would reach the "target" of 500 million by about 375 years or so.

Now, obviously this is an extremely simple model.

There is a far quicker way to reduce the population, which is to do nothing about it, and bury our heads in the sand, and await for the environment to do its work and reduce the population drastically through famine.

This has happened innumerable species in the past. We are lucky in the fact that we have the ability to foresee these problems and try and deal with them less savagely than nature.

I knew I should have paid more attention in maths class:rolleyes:

TalkieWalkie

Richard tea wrote: »

So lets assume 7 billion is unsustainable. How many years would it take to get that figure down to 500 million. 50 years, 100, 300 500 a 1000 years

Somebody really does not like the stones http://exatanews.blogspot.com/2008/12/georgia-guide-stones-vandalized.html

Lol, the stones said so, so it must be ?

RGDATA!

yekahs wrote: »

I think as a species we need to seriously look at the problem and not just accuse anyone who brings it up as a mass-murdering nazi who wants to murder all the citizens of earth except the elite.

well said. the issue comes up often here, whether its supposed agendas of Bill Gates/WHO/NWO etc.
I don't know enough about it to put a figure on it but I don't find the idea of population control inherently sinister, which some people seem to do.

Obviously I don't think we should kill people to keep the population down (I've seen it interpreted on here before that Bill Gates etc. wants people *dead* rather than he believes a limit on the population).

To the people who find the idea of population control instantly sinister - how long do you think the planet will have enough resources to support a human population which continues to grow at roughly the same rate as it is now?

TalkieWalkie

RGDATA! wrote: »

To the people who find the idea of population control instantly sinister - how long do you think the planet will have enough resources to support a human population which continues to grow at roughly the same rate as it is now?

1000, 10,000, 100,000 years, who knows. It's more likely we will extinct our own race through war (nukes), through greed.
If we used the money/energy which we currently use for war, into solving issues facing humanity, we would never have to be concerned about the size of our population.

Population control only sounds like a good idea if war and greed sound like a better idea. It's pathetic that some folk think it's fine. In fact, it's sick.

Yitzhak Rabin

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

It's pathetic that some folk think it's fine. In fact, it's sick.

No whats sick is to completely ignore a problem until it results in mass exstinctions through starvation. I can tell you it is far more humane to exercise birth control than to allow a child be born into a world where this is his future.



I agree with you that war is wrong, and that in a more ideal world, we should not be wasting our valuable resources on it.

However, that does not change the fact that our population is and probably already has spiraled out of control, and its high time we made a concerted effort to overt a disastrous future.

Incidentally, besides religion, almost all war has comes down to a fight over resources, be that, food, territory, women, security. How exactly do you think that by increasing our population, will somehow lead to less war?

And just in case you try a strawman I AM NOT ADOVCATING THE MURDER OF LIVING HUMANS

TalkieWalkie

So, what should be our number 1 priority ?

Work toward population control ?

Or work toward, eliminating war ?

EDIT:

Thought you were talking about me, I use the name strawman on another forum, LMFAO

The pic you posted relates to GREED, not over population.

Yitzhak Rabin

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

So, what should be our number 1 priority ?

Work toward population control ?

Or work toward, eliminating war ?

Both. What's sick about population control?

And what the hell is the following ? I didn't quote you, and I never suggested anyone here advocated murder

That was in case. Because often the response when someone raises the issue is to say something along the lines;

"The population is c.6.5 billion, how do you propose we reduce that number. I think I know how! :rolleyes:"

or "Will you be voluntaring to be culled"

or something along those lines, despite me never having suggested that I would advocate murder.

Jeboa Safari

If you want to eliminate war would you not support the nwo you bang on about so much, seen as they'd bring in a one world government, and so have nobody to fight with?

The population will fall naturally anyway if the countries get richer, people will have less children. Although I'd say at 500m people the earth would be underpopulated. I don't see how you think population control is sick, it's just as bad for people to be born into poverty and starvation and low life expectancy. What's wrong with trying to educate these people?

espinolman

The pleiadians claim they engineered the earth for five hundred million people .

Yitzhak Rabin

espinolman wrote: »

The pleiadians claim they engineered the earth for five hundred million people .

Is there any point asking how you know this?

TalkieWalkie

At first the idea of depopulation was a conspiracy theory, skeptics said "no way, impossible". Now it is proven they say "i agree with it".

I read recently that if all the money that is put into developing weapons for war was spread out into the population we could all live the lives of multi-millionaires.

Truth is, we don't need that. We need to educate people and eliminate greed and war. Depopulation should not come into it, it's a last resort due to mistakes made by a few greedy feckers behind the scenes.

Bankers build up depths, we bail them out. Are we to bail them out again by subjecting our children to restrictions on pro creating, as they do in China. Make it a crime. (and that's looking at it in a nice way. Sterilisation is more of a reality).

TalkieWalkie

espinolman wrote: »

The pleiadians claim they engineered the earth for five hundred million people .

I have a feeling, if that was the intentions of the Pleiadians, the population would be at 500,000,000.

Yitzhak Rabin

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

At first the idea of depopulation was a conspiracy theory, skeptics said "no way, impossible". Now it is proven they say "i agree with it".

No the conspiracy was always, and still is "OMFG TEH ELITES ARE POISONING OUR WATERS TO KILL US/INFECTING US WITH AIDS/FORCING US TO TAKE VACCINES" etc.

None of the theories put forward have become true.

I read recently that if all the money that is put into developing weapons for war was spread out into the population we could all live the lives of multi-millionaires.

Truth is, we don't need that. We need to educate people and eliminate greed and war. Depopulation should not come into it, it's a last resort due to mistakes made by a few greedy feckers behind the scenes.

Bankers build up depths, we bail them out. Are we to bail them out again by subjecting our children to restrictions on pro creating, as they do in China. Make it a crime. (and that's looking at it in a nice way. Sterilisation is more of a reality).

I have no way to verify if that is true about the arms trade and millionaires. Highly highly doubt it. That still shouldn't take away from the fact that vast sums of money are wasted on arms and munitions every year.

But this is not about war. Ending war is a separate issue. And in any case an end to war would only exasperate the the problem of over population.

WakeUp

yekahs wrote: »

No whats sick is to completely ignore a problem until it results in mass exstinctions through starvation. I can tell you it is far more humane to exercise birth control than to allow a child be born into a world where this is his future.



I agree with you that war is wrong, and that in a more ideal world, we should not be wasting our valuable resources on it.

However, that does not change the fact that our population is and probably already has spiraled out of control, and its high time we made a concerted effort to overt a disastrous future.

Incidentally, besides religion, almost all war has comes down to a fight over resources, be that, food, territory, women, security. How exactly do you think that by increasing our population, will somehow lead to less war?

And just in case you try a strawman I AM NOT ADOVCATING THE MURDER OF LIVING HUMANS

I agree with talkie I think it is sick that some folks think like that.

WakeUp

yekahs wrote: »

Now, obviously this is an extremely simple model.

There is a far quicker way to reduce the population, which is to do nothing about it, and bury our heads in the sand, and await for the environment to do its work and reduce the population drastically through famine.

This has happened innumerable species in the past. We are lucky in the fact that we have the ability to foresee these problems and try and deal with them less savagely than nature.

Are you saying we should turn a blind eye and let people die of starvation Im not saying you are saying that Im just asking? I agree with you we have been able to do our "best" and try feed everyone I reckon though in this day and age nobody should go hungry there is no reason for it, its a human tragedy.

WakeUp

yekahs wrote: »

Both. What's sick about population control?

No human being has the right to decide who lives and dies or who is born and who isn't born for whatever reasons you care put forward, nobody has that right.

TalkieWalkie

yekahs wrote: »

No the conspiracy was always, and still is "OMFG TEH ELITES ARE POISONING OUR WATERS TO KILL US/INFECTING US WITH AIDS/FORCING US TO TAKE VACCINES" etc.


None of the theories put forward have become true.

That's a matter of opinion. I believe Aids was created in a lab. Polio vaccine was infected with cancer causing viruses. (i have witnessed the creator admit it). Can dig it up if you wish. Many vaccines in given out Africa have sterilised many woman.

And the conspiracy I was talking was agenda 21.

yekahs wrote: »

I have no way to verify if that is true about the arms trade and millionaires. Highly highly doubt it. That still shouldn't take away from the fact that vast sums of money are wasted on arms and munitions every year.

But this is not about war. Ending war is a separate issue. And in any case an end to war would only exasperate the the problem of over population.

I year global military spendings.

WakeUp

yekahs wrote: »

I have no clue who put the stones there. But I can't say I disagree with them.

I disagree with them.

MingulayJohnny

I think that responsible management of population levels should be practised. This could prove to be very difficult as people can become very hostile to the idea of being restricted to having 'x' amount of children. Population levels should be in line with the availibility of resources. My issue is with the mentality of elites that regard the vast majority of humanity as being disposable and less deserving of life on earth. I get disillusioned and weary of peoples behaviour too but I don't think extermination is a solution.

I'm not referring to the rich people that you encounter day to day ,( although they may secretly harbour such beliefs ). I'm talking about the super rich and more importantly the super rich who have real power. I have nothing against people wanting to have some material comfort in their lives but there are people who deliberately want to separate themselves from the general populace. Why would you need hundreds of millions and even billions in personal fortunes?. To secure a safe place when the great changes come maybe?. I just think that if and when the really harsh times come you wil see these elites either segregated from the general poplulace or given a place on the arks\underground bases.

The native peoples of the planet from the Navajo to the Australian aboriginies are already convening tribal councils on the great changes ahead. Even if I was offered a place in one of their bunkers I'd rather take my chances in the high grounds. The people who really run this world don't give a damn for so called 'Regular' people , they think nothing of regularly poisoning and experimenting on us like lab rats. To see us washed away in the floods would mean that they've got the playground for themselves as is their birth right. They have the technology now so the worker ants are no longer needed.

I know it's grim , but this is my perspective at the moment.

WakeUp

yekahs wrote: »

That was in case. Because often the response when someone raises the issue is to say something along the lines;

"The population is c.6.5 billion, how do you propose we reduce that number. I think I know how! :rolleyes:"

or "Will you be voluntaring to be culled"

or something along those lines, despite me never having suggested that I would advocate murder.

How do you propose we "reduce" the numbers?

WakeUp

yekahs wrote: »

But this is not about war. Ending war is a separate issue. And in any case an end to war would only exasperate the the problem of over population.

You are obviously for population control, so does the above comment mean that you think war is a good thing with regard to controlling the population?

Yitzhak Rabin

@Wakeup

You've asked me a number of questions in different posts. I'll do my best. If I miss one, just ask again.

Do I think we should let people starve to death?

Absolutely not. No way. I think starvation and famine is one of the most horrific ways someone can die (and live) and is one of the main reasons I think we need to exercise control over our bulging population. Anyone who is alive already has basic humans rights and I think that they should all be entitled to life full, and healthy lives.

Ironically, it is the people who oppose trying to control population who are indirectly in favour of famine. As it is inevitable that if the number of people continues to rise, then we will not be able to feed everyone.

Am I in favour of war as a method of population control, or otherwise?

I am opposed to war (ironic from a soldier, I know). Unfortunately, as a species, humans are greedy and violent. We have evolved to be like this. Resources have always been scarce. People have always fought over them. The more violent ones survived and had more children, and as a result we have evolved to be fiercely loyal to our own tribe and to kill the other one and take their resources.

Again, being against war, and in favour of population control are completely compatible. If there is a lower population, it will mean that there will be more resources available for us, and less of a reason to fight with one another.

Now the million euro question...
If I am not in favour of mass cullings, then how would I reduce the population?

I would incentivise people to only have one child, or no children at all. I would educate and improve the standard of living of those in the third world*. I would ensure better healthcare for the third world.

But the biggest one would be to try and convince people to stop having so many children. We have evolved with a strong desire to reproduce, as it was a great strategy at passing on your genes.

Before the advent of modern agriculture and technology, the world was a lot more hostile and not everyone got to live until reproductive age. Now however, pretty much everyone does, and as a result our population is spiralling out of control. So before we advance to the stage where we can no longer feed ourselves, I think we should take measures to reduce our population.

If everyone on the planet, only had 1 child, then we could half our population within 100 years without killing a single person. In fact it would save lives, as those born would have a much better chance of living a full happy life, instead of one which is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short

espinolman

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

I have a feeling, if that was the intentions of the Pleiadians, the population would be at 500,000,000.

They left earth a thousand or so years ago and came back in the twentieth century , i hear they have left again .

NotInventedHere

This is without doubt my favourite conspiracy theory. I'd love to have put them up myself

WakeUp

yekahs wrote: »

@Wakeup

You've asked me a number of questions in different posts. I'll do my best. If I miss one, just ask again.

Do I think we should let people starve to death?

Absolutely not. No way. I think starvation and famine is one of the most horrific ways someone can die (and live) and is one of the main reasons I think we need to exercise control over our bulging population. Anyone who is alive already has basic humans rights and I think that they should all be entitled to life full, and healthy lives.

That is no excuse at all for advocating population control Im sorry. How about we lessen the burden of third world debt where most current day famines happen so as that they can afford to import whatever food source they cant produce themselves. And failing that lets just give them surplus food stocks for nothing there is plenty to go around for everyone, nobody should go hungry in this day and age. That would help end starvation and famine.

Ironically, it is the people who oppose trying to control population who are indirectly in favour of famine.

Nonsense. With all due respect that is one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever laid eyes on.

As it is inevitable that if the number of people continues to rise, then we will not be able to feed everyone.

We haven't been able to feed people for years. Lets deal with the here and now and sort that out first instead of looking to the future. There is plenty of food to go around but for numerous inhumane reasons people go hungry.

yekahs wrote: »

I am opposed to war (ironic from a soldier, I know). Unfortunately, as a species, humans are greedy and violent. We have evolved to be like this. Resources have always been scarce. People have always fought over them. The more violent ones survived and had more children, and as a result we have evolved to be fiercely loyal to our own tribe and to kill the other one and take their resources.

Thats called capitalism, imo. fcking each other over for a percentage.

Again, being against war, and in favour of population control are completely compatible. If there is a lower population, it will mean that there will be more resources available for us, and less of a reason to fight with one another.

So all these wars are over what resource/s exactly? It certainly isnt food, and if you are to stay consistent with the argument you are putting forward i.e lower the popualtion and we end famine then the above comment contradicts your initial position, imo.

Now the million euro question...
If I am not in favour of mass cullings, then how would I reduce the population?

I would incentivise people to only have one child, or no children at all. I would educate and improve the standard of living of those in the third world*. I would ensure better healthcare for the third world.

But the biggest one would be to try and convince people to stop having so many children. We have evolved with a strong desire to reproduce, as it was a great strategy at passing on your genes.

Before the advent of modern agriculture and technology, the world was a lot more hostile and not everyone got to live until reproductive age. Now however, pretty much everyone does, and as a result our population is spiralling out of control. So before we advance to the stage where we can no longer feed ourselves, I think we should take measures to reduce our population.

If everyone on the planet, only had 1 child, then we could half our population within 100 years without killing a single person. In fact it would save lives, as those born would have a much better chance of living a full happy life, instead of one which is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short

Yeah but what are the causes of not leading a healthy, happy fullfilling life there is much more to it than the above. Are you trying to tell me that being born is the reason for this? What if you want to have more than one child? It is one of the most sacred things known to humans, what gives anybody the right to decide who is born and who isnt born. Ok lets say your "idea" was implemented what would happen to people who broke the "rule", what would happen to the child either born or in the womb, what would you do then?

Jeboa Safari

What I dont get in the nwo conspiracies that people bandy about, is why would they want to reduce population. On the one hand you say they're motivated by greed, so you'd assume if there was more people they could make more profit. Then you say they want to reduce population, which means less profit for them.

And wakeup, handing out free food to Africa wont help them in the long run. It'll just lead to population spiraling even more, until medicine can't handle it and we see mass deaths. It would probably lead to a collapse in the food market too if people can't profit from producing it.

WakeUp

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

And wakeup, handing out free food to Africa wont help them in the long run.

So we shouldn't help them out in the here and now is that what you are saying to me?

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

It'll just lead to population spiraling even more, until medicine can't handle it and we see mass deaths. It would probably lead to a collapse in the food market too if people can't profit from producing it.

So again we just let them starve?. Medicine is hardly helping the third world out at the moment now is it largely due to the fact the countries cant afford simple medicines that we take for granted. Mass deaths have been happening for years and all we have done about it here in the West is organise a fcking live aid concert every twenty years or so, Nothwithstanding the work real charity organisations do like GOAL. And please dont talk to me about markets and profit bs when peoples live are at stake and when so many die or will die in the future. Lets change the rules so everybody wins?? Why does somebody always have to go with out, the powers that be could change the game if they wanted to but they choose not to.

Jeboa Safari

WakeUp wrote: »

So we shouldn't help them out in the here and now is that what you are saying to me?

No, but there are more effective ways of helping them than to keep donating food. Nearly a trillion dollars has been donated to Africa since the 1960s, so its clearly not working, if anything Africa has gone backwards. Africa used to be richer than South Asia at one point in the last century, but has since over took. The main problem I believe is govetnmence.

So again we just let them starve?. Medicine is hardly helping the third world out at the moment now is it largely due to the fact the countries cant afford simple medicines that we take for granted. Mass deaths have been happening for years and all we have done about it here in the West is organise a fcking live aid concert every twenty years or so, Nothwithstanding the work real charity organisations do like GOAL. And please dont talk to me about markets and profit bs when peoples live are at stake and when so many die or will die in the future. Lets change the rules so everybody wins?? Why does somebody always have to go with out, the powers that be could change the game if they wanted to but they choose not to.

There are more effective means

Obviously in natural disaster, aid is needed. But long term, how is making them dependent on foreign aid going to help them? And medicine does help, if you had the same situation even 100-200 years ago, there would have been far deaths. Look at the impact the famine had on Ireland, with a quarter of the population killed or emigrated. You don't see those kinds of numbers now.

And how do you propose the modern world functions without profits and markets? If the powers that be as you call them simply gave away all the food, the food market would collapse and you'll end up causing an even bigger disaster.

Corruption is the main problem that needs to be tackled in Africa, before you can do anything serious to improve its long term prospects.

WakeUp

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

No, but there are more effective ways of helping them than to keep donating food. Nearly a trillion dollars has been donated to Africa since the 1960s, so its clearly not working, if anything Africa has gone backwards. Africa used to be richer than South Asia at one point in the last century, but has since over took. The main problem I believe is govetnmence.

But we dont keep donating food this is the point and when they are clearly starving to death what would you suggest we send them then? Third world countries are in so much debt that any food or products they produce in the main are sold off to pay for that debt so why dont we just wipe the debt completely? Give them a fresh start that would be the human thing to do wouldnt it so why dont they do it? Africa was pillaged and raped by colonial powers until it suited them otherwise and in modern times the West has turned a blind eye to mass murder for example in Rwanda. Why didnt the west lead by Captain America step in there and spread "freedom"? Because behind it all Western governments dont give a fck about Africa, imo.

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Obviously in natural disaster, aid is needed. But long term, how is making them dependent on foreign aid going to help them? And medicine does help, if you had the same situation even 100-200 years ago, there would have been far deaths. Look at the impact the famine had on Ireland, with a quarter of the population killed or emigrated. You don't see those kinds of numbers now.

And how do you propose the modern world functions without profits and markets? If the powers that be as you call them simply gave away all the food, the food market would collapse and you'll end up causing an even bigger disaster.

Corruption is the main problem that needs to be tackled in Africa, before you can do anything serious to improve its long term prospects.

For a start leave Ireland out of it we are talking about Africa. There was plenty of food in Ireland at the time, but the British stole it and shipped it to the four corners of their empire whilst Irish people went hungry, the British had a major hand in the famine,imo.

I propose we change the rules and start again so that nobody goes without, rules, markets, profit margins, economics all these things are figments of the human imagination so next time the so called learned people are coming up with these "rules" make the rules so that they are fair to everyone and everyone is a winner and nobody is left out, thats what I propose.

Jeboa Safari

Would the debt relief even work? Like I said, many of these countries are led by corrupt leaders, so it may not benefit the poorest, and only the rich. It also penalises countries that have managed to pay back their debts successfully, and rewards those that have been reckless, and encourage to overspend in the future in anticipation of debt being cancelled again. However, if a stable government, that wasn't corrupt, I could see merit in cancelling some or all of the debt, possibly with conditions that its spent on infrastructure or education. And there has been some debt relief.

And the British didn't 'steal' the food, the food was sold on the market and the Irish couldn't afford it. Their policies and the situation they had Ireland with the majority of the population surviving on subsistence agriculture was a major factor alright.

How do you propose you carry out your suggestion?

WakeUp

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Would the debt relief even work? Like I said, many of these countries are led by corrupt leaders, so it may not benefit the poorest, and only the rich. It also penalises countries that have managed to pay back their debts successfully, and rewards those that have been reckless, and encourage to overspend in the future in anticipation of debt being cancelled again. However, if a stable government, that wasn't corrupt, I could see merit in cancelling some or all of the debt, possibly with conditions that its spent on infrastructure or education. And there has been some debt relief.

I actually agree with some of what you are saying there, I would be against giving corrupt leaders any help what so ever to further themselves and their cronies at the expense of normal needy people. But I still think we should wipe out all third world debt and give them a chance to get on their feet, especially to countries we would consider as "friendly". And after we end the debt we should help them out in other ways, it can not be just an issue of money. We need to supply them with machinery, people with skills, educate them like you pointed out, have people on the ground with them that have the know how and experiece to make it work, keep an eye on them and help them until they are able to do it for themselves, it has to be one big coordinated concerted effort and we get it right first time around. Then if after that leaders in certain countries start abusing certain things, well then obviously look at each case as it presents itself and decide what should/could be done about it.

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

And the British didn't 'steal' the food, the food was sold on the market and the Irish couldn't afford it. Their policies and the situation they had Ireland with the majority of the population surviving on subsistence agriculture was a major factor alright.

Listen lets not get into a debate about that, when I referred to the British I meant colonial Britain in occupied Ireland way back in the day, the world is a very different place today we have all moved on I dont really want to start dragging history up. It is up for deabte though imo I feel colonial-Britain were responsible in many ways but that is just my opinion.

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

How do you propose you carry out your suggestion?

We need to rewrite the rules and start from scratch. If the people in power can come up with policy and rules to suit a certain way of thinking, then surely they can come up with a certain set of rules to suit a universal way of thinking. i.e nobody goes without food and everybody eats everywhere. I except money is a fact of life and people need to make money or nothing will get done, nothing will be produced/ manufactured etc etc.. but surely we can imagine rules and ways of doing things if not for all products then certainly when it comes to food, the most basic of human needs. We need a UN conference soley about food and how we can make sure nobody goes hungry. Countries should make proposals as human beings leavind differences aside and find ways, there is always a way, to sort the issue of hunger out once and for all. Poverty has many tangents and is a seperate issue but food can be focused on and hunger eradicated if leaders got together and genuinely decided to do something about it, there has to be a way. First of all, countries and leaders would need to come together, all of them, and decided they want to do something about it. It can not be achieved without a universal consensus so that would be the first step.

Jeboa Safari

The current economic system we have is the best we know of.
There is a consensus that has been agreed on by the world governments, the Millenium Development Goals. How successful this is we'll see in over the next decade, but those living in extreme poverty has fallen. It commits developed countries to pledge 0.7% of gdp to overseas aid, and work towards 8 goal, including erradicating poverty and achieving universal primary education. I still think that corruption should be challenged first, before anything else can be done effectively. Also, you may not know this, and I know you're probably not a big fan of Bush, but American aid to Africa tripled under his presidency.

WakeUp

It may well be the best we know of although some would disagree with that me inlcuded, but that doesn't mean it is the best it can be look at the state of our economy for example and the wrold in general, everything can be improved on and should be improved on - looked at and changes made where required.

I'm familiar with the Millenium development goals and if governments are genuinely working toward those goals then I applaud them for it. But I still think more should be done in the here and now,there is a lot of red tape involved in the MDS and people are still starving and going hungry everyday, in this day and age I find it unacceptable that people die of starvation there is no excuse in my opinion. It is a stain on us as a species and A tragedy at the same time. All our technology, all the great sh1t we can do humans buzz around space in shuttles, yet we can't feed everyone it just isnt right to me it doesn't make sense.

I agree corruption should be challenged but should it be challeneged at the expense of people lives? I would say no, I would offer them help, if these corrupt governments where in a position to feed their populations and still have some left over, you would have to hope as humans that they would distribute the food to their people and we should at least give them the opportunity to show the world what they are about. We have to try and help people who go hungry regardless of the situation more needs to be done and it needs to be done today not tomorrow.

I didn't know that actually, and I am a big Bush critic and US policy in many instances, nothing to do with the average person in the US obviously, just their politicians and policy. If he trippled aid to Africa I can hardly critisise that so fair play. Again though, I think more needs to be done not just by the US but by everyone else aswell.