Is it better to sometimes let people starve?

TheInquisitor

Is it better to have 5 million people starve rather than 50 million a couple of decades later because this is the case of Ethiopia

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=sp_pop_totl&idim=country:ETH&dl=en&hl=en&q=population+ethiopia

In the 20 years before live aid the population of Ethiopia had increased by 39% from 25 million to 41 million and since live aid has increased and by 2010 it has doubled from 41 million to well over 80 million and yet every single year there has been starvation in Ethiopia. This is clearly a ridiculous situation . There has been pretty much no development in the country for 20 years and there is no way the country will ever be able to look after anything near this size of population for at least 100 years and yet there has been a constant line of growth that shows no sign of stopping.

Is it time to say no more . How much aid can the world give to a country like this. This is the simple case of if you give a man a fish he will eat for one night, if you give him a rod he'll eat for a lifetime.

Aid should be temporary relief to a country to help it back on its feet after a natural disaster etc not allowing massive population expansions in poor countries that always had drought as part of a natural cycle.

Wolfe Tone

If you are comfortable with leaving people to die.....


Sure why not nuke it?

me_right_one

The aid should have strings attached. Voluntary sterilization-for-aid after 1 child might be an idea

TheInquisitor

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

If you are comfortable with leaving people to die.....


Sure why not nuke it?

I'm not at all comfortable about leaving people die but the situation is utter madness. Throwing food at a population used to subsistence living. Too much food leads to a massive population explosion which is exactly what has happened over the past 20-30 years.

Wolfe Tone

me_right_one wrote: »

The aid should have strings attached. Voluntary sterilization-for-aid after 1 child might be an idea

Bloody hell!


"Here, want this food? Ok, queue up and be ready to exchange your balls for it!"

TheInquisitor

Its a horrible policy but in extreme circumstances

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy

me_right_one

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Bloody hell!


"Here, want this food? Ok, queue up and be ready to exchange your balls for it!"

Haha no, not that drastic! Although it still would be better than nuking them!

I mean implement no-nonsense long-term development plans. Feed the people, but set up schools, hospitals, towns etc. Use the money on capital stuff. And in return for these permanent benefits, seeing as the population situation is catastrophic, anyone who chooses to avail of them must voluntarily present themselves for castration, even temporarily, after the birth of one child.

I was reading the Ireland v IMF thread. Things like this sure put your problems in perspective.

Rev Hellfire

Long term aid just makes long term dependency.
Its about time people in west stopped simply sending aid to third-world countries and started looking at ways to reduce the aid by ensuring that it is invested wisely and in a manner which results in communities becoming self sufficient.
By offering an effective blank check we've simply fuelled corruption and reliance in these territories.

Digitaljunkie

I think in these poorer countries birth control tends to be the biggest issue. A large factor is the catholic church as it spreads the faith in these areas and instill the no contraception doctrine which increases unwanted pregnancies and diseases such as aids.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Digitaljunkie

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yea have to agree its the main factor alright...................

TheInquisitor

But its in a region of the world that doesn't support even "low" population densities.

*One sheep can survive on 10 acres in Australia
10 sheep can survive on 10 acres in Ireland

http://www.abareconomics.com/publications_html/economy/archive/industry_aus.pdf
Page 41

Different climates demand different densities.

Simply saying that because there's a less dense population compared to France or the UK is a null point because those countries are 10 times more productive than Ethiopia ever will be.

*Note before its brought up i was NOT comparing them to animals its just something i was always taught in school and use as an example

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

TheInquisitor

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Its actually 4th after Nigeria but that's beside the point.

They have 1.21% of the worlds population and for maize they produce less than .5% of the worlds production .

For all cereals they produce .618 of a % of worlds production. All of the rest is gotten through Aid.

The problem with the country is only 10% of the land is arable because of the harsh environment. Arable land in Ireland for comparison is roughly 35% and another 23% are forests.

caseyann

I have to say wrong to let people starve.But they will never get up and take responsibility for themselves if not given the tools to do so.
Millions sent in aid and they are still in crisis?
Time to get out of their way,give them the tools and leave em be.
I am curious were they starving before the western world went in there? I dont think so.


I seen on the news about Ireland might be cutting the aid and been criticized for it? I am stunned that they think we should be giving that money abroad in the amount still.

Personally, I can see that Aid given in the short term can be useful, but the continued use of Aid over a extended period of time created a dependency & laziness to change the status quo. Africa has learned that western aid will continue and actually increase during periods on instability. Therefore there's no incentive to reduce the civil disruptions or political instability. Due to Tribalism & religious persecution, Africa tends to turn to Violence for the slightest of reasons.

I'd be inclined that Aid have a limited period on it. No providing of Aid beyond three years regardless of the problems that crop up. It should be a boost rather than a resource to be drawn on all the time. For longer periods of peace, then various Aid would be provided as a gift for that peace. I'd also be inclined to remove all aid the moment political/civil instability cropped up. Give them an external reason to stop the infighting and bitching that should have stopped decades ago.

Simply put, African countries are not going to better themselves unless they can do it themselves. Until they can see the reasons why they should help themselves, and understand that they need to sacrifice their tribal bull**** to do it.

Jo King

Apart from a few dollars from the American Indians and a fiver from Queen Victoria, what help were we given when millions were starving in the 1840's and 50's?

Denerick

We can endorse some birth control measures that are voluntary and based on incentive.

It is NOT appropriate to tell a starving African that he can have his bowl of porridge once (As Mussolini rather eloquenty put it) 'he gets his balls chopped off'...

me_right_one

Digitaljunkie wrote: »

I think in these poorer countries birth control tends to be the biggest issue. A large factor is the catholic church as it spreads the faith in these areas and instill the no contraception doctrine which increases unwanted pregnancies and diseases such as aids.

Are you for real? Its all the Catholic church's fault is it? The same curch that doesn't promote sex at all, deeming it a sin?

Denerick wrote: »

We can endorse some birth control measures that are voluntary and based on incentive.

It is NOT appropriate to tell a starving African that he can have his bowl of porridge once (As Mussolini rather eloquenty put it) 'he gets his balls chopped off'...

Think you're a bit mixed up there denerick, Musso was being sarcastic.

me_right_one

me_right_one wrote: »

Are you for real? Its all the Catholic church's fault is it? The same curch that doesn't promote sex at all, deeming it a sin?

He said that the Catholic Church was a large part, not that it was all their fault.

If its anybody's fault, we'd have to blame colonialism (the speading of Tribalism), capitalism (western enterprise and exploitation), communism/marxist beliefs (rebellions, civil wars, destruction of productive areas), and blind ignorance. The Catholic Church has a place, but then so too does Islam and have a dozen other religions.

Africa is a mess. It always has been.

Denerick

Deleted User wrote: »

He said that the Catholic Church was a large part, not that it was all their fault.

If its anybody's fault, we'd have to blame colonialism (the speading of Tribalism), capitalism (western enterprise and exploitation), communism/marxist beliefs (rebellions, civil wars, destruction of productive areas), and blind ignorance. The Catholic Church has a place, but then so too does Islam and have a dozen other religions.

Africa is a mess. It always has been.

If its anybodies fault, surely its everybodies fault? You're blaming Imperialists, tribal leaders, capitalists, marxists, the catholic church... pretty much everyone on the spectrum

Denerick

Denerick wrote: »

If its anybodies fault, surely its everybodies fault?

You're blaming Imperialists, tribal leaders, capitalists, marxists, the catholic church... pretty much everyone on the spectrum

Pretty much. This is life. Its not some book of fiction where every mistake can be traced back to one person, organisation or action. The seeds of the problems throughout Africa are spread across centuries within the continent. TBH If Africa had a chance to grow out of its tribalism, then a lot of its problems would dry up. So If I had to pick the biggest problem, I'd attach the blame to Tribalism and the unwillingness to drop the primitive behavior. But that's still too simplistic. Africa is way too complicated for that kind of thinking.

Denerick

Deleted User wrote: »

Pretty much. This is life. Its not some book of fiction where every mistake can be traced back to one person, organisation or action. The seeds of the problems throughout Africa are spread across centuries within the continent. TBH If Africa had a chance to grow out of its tribalism, then a lot of its problems would dry up. So If I had to pick the biggest problem, I'd attach the blame to Tribalism and the unwillingness to drop the primitive behavior. But that's still too simplistic. Africa is way too complicated for that kind of thinking.

I find your attitude refreshing. Far too many are willing to just scream 'COLONIALISM! IMPERIALISM! THE CHURCH! AFRICA WOULD BE A LAND OF LOLLIPOPS AND MARSHMALLOWS IF IT WASN'T FOR THEM!'

Well said.

People these days are in love with convenience. The convenience of having one simplistic answer to suit everything. Colonialism is a convenient answer. Its a huge factor, but then you'd have to ignore almost everything that has happened since the natives regained power. Religion is a convenient answer, but that refuses to acknowledge the good that some missionaries have done, and also the dozens of other religions in the region that have just as much influence over Africans as the Catholic Church.

goose2005

Digitaljunkie wrote: »

I think in these poorer countries birth control tends to be the biggest issue. A large factor is the catholic church as it spreads the faith in these areas and instill the no contraception doctrine which increases unwanted pregnancies and diseases such as aids.

Ethiopia is 0.7% Catholic. Most are Muslim or Ethiopian Orthodox.

caseyann

http://www.timeslive.co.za/sundaytimes/article723531.ece/Why-aid-has-become-one-of-Africas-biggest-problems


The reasons can often be found in poor decisions, and their origins are in the vested interests of politicians. African leaders can get away with poor results, as Holman points out, because, in a perverse cycle, aid distorts the link of accountability between the populace and its leadership. It makes the latter more responsive to donors than their electorate since that is where the money is.

In Africa, there is seldom a cost to leadership's bad behaviour or bad decisions, in part because humanitarian agencies genuflect to backstop even the most egregious of governments and policies - such as their ongoing activities to feed Robert Mugabe's people despite the origins of their hunger in the Zimbabwean leader's actions.


I will say time and time again,Aid is not solution it is merely a plaster.

Lockstep

Miss me yet?

anotherfinemess

good topic. The planet's ecological problems are caused by overpopulation. What is so great about cultivating unsustainable numbers of people who are doomed to live in misery? Meanwhile other creatures are facing extinction. Stuff the never ending aid, lets go and plant trees instead.

southsiderosie

Jo King wrote: »

Apart from a few dollars from the American Indians and a fiver from Queen Victoria, what help were we given when millions were starving in the 1840's and 50's?

One of the biggest boosts to Ireland (and much of Europe in general in the 19th century) was the fact that the United States effectively had an open-door migration policy, and was in the throes of geographic and economic expansion. North America absorbed much of Europe's excess population; in turn this meant more resources for fewer people left behind. Some have argued that the greatest aid program the West could offer many poor countries would be the ability to emigrate, so they could do in the 21st century what Europeans were able to do for much of the 19th.

Given that this is politically not feasible, I would agree that the entire aid system needs to be re-evaluated because at this point it is good money being thrown after bad.

charlemont

Education is the key to getting the people out of poverty but the corrupt leaders etc dont want anything to change, education is not on their agenda.. pakistan and india are the same too, but fair play to china she went for hard policies and they work , plus the chinese are now educated too..

thebullkf

move to where the food is.

simples.

apsalar

It never fails to amaze me how population rise on the African continent is invariably linked to the Roman Catholic Church.

Is this a legacy of the heavy influence the chruch had here in Ireland?

Actually, it makes me laugh. In no way AT ALL has the RCC the kind of influence being attributed to it here. In fact, I think it's a disservice to the Church, which, questionable colonial involvment aside, has in fact been a large proponent of education, female sexual health and the independence of women from crippling tribal roles. A good read on the African synod of 1994 will show just how far the Church had to admit that accomodation of local mores/ traditions and tribal religions still influence the lives of many RC members in Africa. I doubt there are many RC Africans here in Ireland as compared to those belonging to protestant faiths but a chat with any of them will show that the relationship between church and custom is in fact, a very weak one. I think it's actually a pity so much of the rich cultural history that exists on the continent has been ignored for so long because a wider understanding would lead to the true culprit for so many children being being born in poverty: the weak position of women in matters of sexuality. I generalise this because the nuances of sexual power vary from tribe to tribe, as well as region to region (for example, female circumsicion to my knowledge is non-existant in Southern Africa as compared to the East and in fact is considered barbaric) and I can only speak with real authority if we have a discussion on countries in South-Central Africa.

To even suggest that adults living in the 21st century would geniunely agree with the RCCs stipulations on contraceptives is laughable and downright condescending. If you want to speak on centuries of defined bedroom roles and cultural marital roles, maybe then the real reason it gets hard for a woman to get a man to wear a condom or even, have a talk with her man about contraceptives without serious strife would make more sense.

As for "Africa being a basket case"!....oh dear.........
The same could have been said of Europe for much of the last 800 years if you use human suffering as a measure. Let's not forget the propeller for much of the Industrial age ( in my humble, one the best things that Europe has given to the world in one way or the other) were living conditions of such an appalling nature, population pressure and a need for improved food production that led to much misery and were also reasons that could equably be applied to the civilisations of East Asia and the Indian Sub-continent,.....conditions which were non-existent in Africa and thank God for that, else my mother's family tree would be untraceable to as far as the 16th century...an amazing feat for an oral history, no?

A poster above had a great post about how we cannot narrow it down to individual scapegoats. I think people are well aware how corrupt their governments can be. Kenya is currently in the middle of a nasty corruption scandal involving missing millions and dodgy overseas property deals. I doubt ordinary citizens want or demand aid. They know full well where it ends up. And that's why there is such a terrible brain-drain from the continent. The change has to start from within and I think it already has. I think in 50 years time there will be a marked difference as modern ideals of democracy (not the small chiefdoms and male heirarchies they currently masquerade as) take root properly. Aid does nothing but nake a few people richer. As the internet has taken off, so have people's greed. Nothing motivates so much as the "I want" factor. The "African" people want a life that includes as much of the trapping of the west as they can. There is a new generation that didn't grow up in the villages of their parents, with different ideas on where tradition and individuality begins. These are the people that will change things. In about 20 years I hope to see it begin.

Or at least, hope so.:cool:

JNA

Inquisitor - <snip> - You realise that argument was used by the English and wealthy Irish Catholics to justify the starvation of the Potatoe Famine. Malthusian economics I think it’s called. Sure never mind that with fair distribution there is more than enough food to feed the whole planet. By the way Ethiopia is extremely fertile, Indian and Chinese food companies are currently renting out great swaths of the country for market gardening. People are dependent on food aid because of the history of imperial exploitation (which hasn’t gone away you know).