Concern Nothing but Money Whores

XxMCRxBabyxX

Grayson wrote: »

Never any harm in reminding people that in a continent ravaged by aids, the catholic church is still telling people that condoms don't work.

As has already been said the Catholic Church hsve very little influence in Africa.

Grayson

1ZRed wrote: »

And then what's going to happen when you raise them up to our level? They're just going to add substantially more to our problem because their populations dwarf ours as it is! Look at India and how it's developing rapidly and burning massive amounts of fossil fuels.That's 1 billion right there, imagine how all of them living as we do will affect the planet.

Now I don't deny we are the ones to blame but look at how expensive the alternatives are for us to be greener, how will they ever manage?

And political slowness is a massive problem, that's why I just see things getting worse and worse because no one will bother their ass to do something quickly, so I can't see how a massive new population boom in Africa where they'll seek massive amounts of energy won't have an equally massive negative affect on our planet already. If anything it could be the straw that breaks the camel's back when our efforts to change just won't be enough to reverse the harm we're already doing and what does developing countries will continue to do for the foreseeable future.

So your solution is slavery and or genocide.

Grow up. You're just being sick.

Grayson

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

As has already been said the Catholic Church hsve very little influence in Africa.

185 millions Catholics. That's very little?

And the church is still running clinics and hospitals there. Where they tell people that condoms don't work. But it's ok if it's 185 million people, but wrong when it's 200 million? 300 million? What's your tipping point for something to become wrong.

XxMCRxBabyxX

Grayson wrote: »

185 millions Catholics. That's very little?

And the church is still running clinics and hospitals there. Where they tell people that condoms don't work. But it's ok if it's 185 million people, but wrong when it's 200 million? 300 million? What's your tipping point for something to become wrong.

Take a look at the countries with the highest AIDS rates. Very few, if any, are Catholic countries. Mostly Anglican. The AIDS problem is down to lack of education, tribal myths and beliefs and a belief that contraception is not 'manly'. Not to mention high incidences of rape.

woodoo

1ZRed wrote: »

I think people are afraid to say it but sending money to Africa is akin to throwing it in the fire.

After how many decades of billions and billions going out to them has there been any progress made? Nope.

Population of Ethopia in 1984 when Bob Geldof brought the hunger plight there to our attention was 39.4 million. Population in 2010 was 91 million.

1ZRed

Grayson wrote: »

So your solution is slavery and or genocide.

Grow up. You're just being sick.

I never said any of that and you know it. Of course I'd like them to have a better life but that will have a cost on the planet, as we already do.

I'm happy to let them be and for them to develop as they rightfully should, but there has to be very rigorous rules set in place like china's one child policy (or similar) because there are far too many of them which is hugely unsustainable as it is, never mind when their life expectancy gets as high as ours.

Say what you will, but it's going to be extremely difficult to get Africa to develop without massive amounts of negative environmental consequences and it'll only take massive amounts of money to avoid that which I don't believe people will do because we'll only do the bare minimum as with everything unless we have to.

*I also believe that we should look into child limit restrictions in some developed countries and an agressive push towards greener, less destructive lives as well, I'm not just singling out 3rd world countries.

7 billion is far too many as it, and out of the 3 billion or so who do live as well as we do, that's already too unsustainable as it is. It's not as straight forward as saying "give them whatever it takes to get up to our level" because that comes at a price as well. The earth can only take so much of us and we need to start planing very intensely beit 1st or 3rd world.

Stereomaniac

So how are things in Ethiopia these days and when is Bob Geldof going to fly in to save the day?

Grayson

1ZRed wrote: »

I never said any of that and you know it. Of course I'd like them to have a better life but but that will have a cost on the planet, as we already do.

I'm happy to let them be and for them to develop as they rightfully should, but there has to be very rigorous rules set in place like china's one child policy (or similar) because there are far too many of them which is hugely unsustainable as it is, never mind when their life expectancy gets as high as ours.

Say what you will, but it's going to be extremely difficult to get Africa to develop without massive amounts of negative environmental consequences and it'll only take massive amounts of money to avoid that which I don't believe people will do because we'll only do the bare minimum as with everything unless we have to.

*I also believe that we should look into child limit restrictions in some developed countries and an agressive push towards greener, less destructive lives as well, I'm not just singling out 3rd world countries.

7 billion is far too many as it, and out of the 3 billion or so who do live as well as we do, that's already too unsustainable as it is. It's not as straight forward as saying "give them whatever it takes to get up to our level" because that comes at a price as well. The earth can only take so much of us and we need to start planing very intensely beit 1st or 3rd world.

The earth can support more than 7 billion, if it's managed properly.
It's strange your post starts with

I never said any of that and you know it. Of course I'd like them to have a better life but but that will have a cost on the planet, as we already do.

BUT. That's the key word there.
I'm not racist but...
I don't have any problems with islam but...
Sure, that Jew's allright but...

It's a horrible ****ing word and is used to justify all typed of evil.

So you'd like them to have a better life but.....

I'm happy to let them be and for them to develop as they rightfully should, but there has to be very rigorous rules set in place like china's one child policy (or similar) because there are far too many of them which is hugely unsustainable as it is, never mind when their life expectancy gets as high as ours.

You want them to have children but... after one child what? You kill the next one? mandatory abortions? Mass sterilisations? Of course you'd apply the same to the west but... we aren't the problem or as much of a problem as them? We don't produce more carbon than the whole developing world. And it's not like we don't try to shackle them in debt and take all their resources anyway. And then use that to pollute even more. Rather than change our ways, we should force them to live in the dark ages? No, of you'd like to see us take some responsibility, but not as much at the darkies. Right?

Grow up and quit trying to place problems you contributed to at the feet of people who had nothing to do with it.

Grayson

Stereomaniac wrote: »

So how are things in Ethiopia these days and when is Bob Geldof going to fly in to save the day?

They're going to get worse. Ethopia needs the waters of the nile. But thanks to a colonial era document the egyptians have full rights to all the water. This means that there's a bloody big river they can't tap for irrigation or hydro electric power. And they (along with the rest of the countries the nile flows through) need to. This means there's been an arms build up. Which the west is financing quite nicely. Egypt, even after the revolution kept buying loads of aircraft and missiles. And they've said they will use all options available to protect their interests in the nile. So the next time he goes out there, it'll probably be a war zone.

Grayson

woodoo wrote: »

Population of Ethopia in 1984 when Bob Geldof brought the hunger plight there to our attention was 39.4 million. Population in 2010 was 91 million.

So what you're saying is that the potato famine and the mass immigration in ireland were good things?

crockholm

Grayson wrote: »

So what you're saying is that the potato famine and the mass immigration in ireland were good things?

Mr. Grayson...I like you,maybe you know this-I have said before that I enjoy your contributions, but on this subject you are acting hysterical.You are labeling posters to be evil,racist and anti-semitic amongst others.Firstly the country with the highest HIV-AIDS infection rate is Botswana, Botswana is 5% Catholic, of the next 5 highest, Lesotho would have the highest % of Catholics at 45 %, S.A. has 7 % and so on, it is clearly cultural.The chinese have done more for Africa in the past decade that well meaning caucasians and bono in the last century. To finish,in the words of the bard,Shakira- "It's time for Africa"(to start paying it's own way,or the Chinese)

Stereomaniac

Grayson wrote: »

They're going to get worse. Ethopia needs the waters of the nile. But thanks to a colonial era document the egyptians have full rights to all the water. This means that there's a bloody big river they can't tap for irrigation or hydro electric power. And they (along with the rest of the countries the nile flows through) need to. This means there's been an arms build up. Which the west is financing quite nicely. Egypt, even after the revolution kept buying loads of aircraft and missiles. And they've said they will use all options available to protect their interests in the nile. So the next time he goes out there, it'll probably be a war zone.

Woah. Sounds interesting. Well, we have already seen what Egypt is capable of over the last couple of years, or at least hints of it I think, what with the social unrest at the beginning of 2011 I think it was. Anyway, I guess people do need that water, but if Egypt own it, that's their interest.

1ZRed

Grayson wrote: »

The earth can support more than 7 billion, if it's managed properly.

And please go on to tell me how you plan on doing that?
Where will all the food come from, where will all the water come from, where will all the resources come from that we devour so hungrily? The world could support more than 7 billion but live our lives in the first world and that will cause a massive, massive strain on the earth. It's not just saying once your fed and watered that's all that matters, where is all this material going to come from? We have an insatiable appetite that doesn't look like it will diminish.

I'd actually like for us to live in symbiosis with our planet, not turn it into some mega city and farm where we exploit it to the last just to support our own gain. What about our forests and wildlife? They'll be eradicated or pushed to edge of survival just because we want to have our planet and eat it too.

You're well aware of our deforestation, extinction, pollution and overfishing problems as it at the moment. Are you seriously telling me that freeing up the planet to 7 billion more+ won't cause those problems to grow far, far worse?

You told me to grow up bit I think it's you that's being far too shortsighted.

It's strange your post starts with


BUT. That's the key word there.
I'm not racist but...
I don't have any problems with islam but...
Sure, that Jew's allright but...

It's a horrible ****ing word and is used to justify all typed of evil.

So you'd like them to have a better life but.....




You want them to have children but... after one child what? You kill the next one? mandatory abortions? Mass sterilisations? Of course you'd apply the same to the west but... we aren't the problem or as much of a problem as them? We don't produce more carbon than the whole developing world. And it's not like we don't try to shackle them in debt and take all their resources anyway. And then use that to pollute even more. Rather than change our ways, we should force them to live in the dark ages? No, of you'd like to see us take some responsibility, but not as much at the darkies. Right?

Grow up and quit trying to place problems you contributed to at the feet of people who had nothing to do with it.

Cop the fuck on. Is this your argument? Putting words in my mouth because I really said I'd want slavery, I really said I'd have mandatory abortions and killings. Yep, I really said all those things.

I'd like education and contraception to play a major role in decreasing population there as education is a clear link to decreasing brith rates. I think a 2 child limit is reasonable but if you went over that you could be fined. I do not advocate genocide as you love to make up.

I made my argument clear. We can change, and are changing our ways in ways of producing carbon dioxide, but that is going to cost us a huge amount of money because fossil fuels are dirt cheap by comparison. My argument is how will these developed countries do the same if it's costing us so much to do, where are they getting all that money to be able to develop without tearing their country apart for resources and to do it cleanly? I fail to see where, for them to grow so quickly,so rapidly, it'll be with cheaper and dirtier fuels. There's no arguing that.

It's true, we already exploit their resources, and it's shameful, but if they want to develop, are they not going to do the same on top of that?

So you can take your bullshit about me enforcing slavery and mandatory abortions off with you because with the way you're thinking we can keep growing and growing without any consequences like competition for space, food, water and resources.

So when the world is straining under all of our demands where do we draw the line? You tell me because like it our not, nothing is infinite and the time will come when our earth just can't support us all. It could be in 100 or 200 years time but it'll come.

Doom

galwayrush wrote: »

I gave a fiver to a drunk homeless dude in Galway yesterday, I know where 100% of that charity donation will go.

To a global alcohol company keeping crop prices manipulated....well done

woodoo

Grayson wrote: »

So what you're saying is that the potato famine and the mass immigration in ireland were good things?

I've never seen anyone that puts words in peoples mouth like you. What are you at. Try dealing with what people actually say and not your overactive imagination.

Itwasntme.

1ZRed wrote: »

I don't even want to think of the chaos that's going to come from Africa over the next few decades. Once they start developing and living longer once diseases like HIV is cured as others are treated, their population will absolutely explode and their demand for food, water, space and other resources will be massive -already when we are a population of 7 billion that consume 1.5 earths of reasources already, which is expected that we will be consuming 3 earths of resources in just 25 years. That's a crazy demand for resources that are finite. We are living far too unsustainably already!

I can't imagine the toll an explosive burst of population of this magnitude will have on the earth. Demand for energy and food will ravage the environment and we will all have to deal with the consequences of that. Rapidly developing countries are big contributors to our environmental problems because they love cheap, dirty energy. Who could blame them? They need so much that expensive alternatives are out of the question.

Call it an extremely unpopular opinion but if I had to choose them or the sake of the whole planet, I'd pick the planet without hesitation.
There are far too many of us at it is, the only difference is that our populations in developed countries are levelling out, even falling in some case and we are in a position to (admittedly slowly) implement more environmentally friendly energy alternatives.

We have food, water, space and the resources to carry the population increases. It is not about the lack of resources but the absence of capabilities. As for the second bit in bold, the earth's carrying capacity is yet unknown as certain regions have been seen to flourish with population gains after what seemed like an initial decline in the land's carrying capacity. These Malthusian population theories have been debunked time and again.


The third bit in bold: Africa, even though it's home to 15% of the world's population, consumes just 3% of the energy. And yes, while the 54 countries in Africa are collectively exhibiting fast paced economic gains and the consequent exponential demands for energy, Africa also has untapped energy resources from both finite and infinite sources, more so than almost any other continent on the planet.

1ZRed wrote: »

And then what's going to happen when you raise them up to our level? They're just whengoing to add substantially more to our problem because their populations dwarf ours as it is! Look at India and how it's developing rapidly and burning massive amounts of fossil fuels.That's 1 billion right there, imagine how all of them living as we do will affect the planet.

Now I don't deny we are the ones to blame but look at how expensive the alternatives are for us to be greener, how will they ever manage?

And political slowness is a massive problem, that's why I just see things getting worse and worse because no one will bother their ass to do something quickly, so I can't see how a massive new population boom in Africa where they'll seek massive amounts of energy won't have an equally massive negative effect on our planet already. If anything it could be the straw that breaks the camel's back when our efforts to change just won't be enough to reverse the harm we're already doing and what those developing countries will continue to do for the foreseeable future.

Please explain how they are going to add to your problem. Second bit in bold- yes, 'political slowness' is a problem but it's not just the problem of politicians in developing countries. It's the problem of politicians the world over. This entire post is rife with over simplified explanations of a complex issue.

1ZRed wrote: »

I never said any of that and you know it. Of course I'd like them to have a better life but that will have a cost on the planet, as we already do.

I'm happy to let them be and for them to develop as they rightfully should, but there has to be very rigorous rules set in place like china's one child policy (or similar) because there are far too many of them which is hugely unsustainable as it is, never mind when their life expectancy gets as high as ours.

Say what you will, but it's going to be extremely difficult to get Africa to develop without massive amounts of negative environmental consequences and it'll only take massive amounts of money to avoid that which I don't believe people will do because we'll only do the bare minimum as with everything unless we have to.

*I also believe that we should look into child limit restrictions in some developed countries and an agressive push towards greener, less destructive lives as well, I'm not just singling out 3rd world countries.

7 billion is far too many as it, and out of the 3 billion or so who do live as well as we do, that's already too unsustainable as it is. It's not as straight forward as saying "give them whatever it takes to get up to our level" because that comes at a price as well. The earth can only take so much of us and we need to start planing very intensely beit 1st or 3rd world.

"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing" - This quote could not be more true with regards to your posts. If you genuinely care about the issue, then please inform yourself. In terms of energy consumption, carbon footprints and ecological damage, core and semi-periphery countries take the lion's share. Even with Africa's economic growth and rising population, we are nowhere near those levels of damage.

corktina

Technoprisoner wrote: »

i dont give to any charity's for this simple fact....most the ceo's are on rock star wages.

I don't either, most charities exist to provide jobs for their emplyees ,whether it be the CEO or chuggers. They like to give the impression they are voluntary organisations, but they are not.

And don't get me started on the fake charities collecting outside the local supermarket....

Foxhound38

Grand Moff Tarkin wrote: »

Africa is a black hole for money and it will be a cold day in hell before i ever send anything to that part of the world.

I'd say you're great craic at parties

woodoo

Foxhound38 wrote: »

I'd say you're great craic at parties

Better craic than some dogmatic liberal bore i'd say

tadcan

Why not lend money directly to finance microloans for a business, which will earn enough money to feed, clothe and educate their family.

http://kiva.org/i/s0784LOnwnU

Death and Taxes

tadcan wrote: »

Why not lend money directly to finance microloans for a business, which will earn enough money to feed, clothe and educate their family.

http://kiva.org/i/s0784LOnwnU

Because thanks to the barriers to free trade put in place by the EU who would these business export to?
Barriers include tarriffs, subsidies to EU producers, an insistance that EU "aid" is often given not in money but rather with flooding the place with cheap EU exports that actually make it harder for the local producers to trade effectivley.

somefeen

Grayson wrote: »

So your solution is slavery and or genocide.

Grow up. You're just being sick.

Whether 1ZRed has his facts correct or not at least he is emotionally removed from the problem. And he hasn't actually suggested either genocide or slavery.

You on the other hand are getting far to emotive. You can't tackle such a difficult problem as how to feed 7billion people if you are emotionally invested in it.

Paramite Pie

Grand Moff Tarkin wrote: »

Africa is a black hole for money and it will be a cold day in hell before i ever send anything to that part of the world.

Sounds like it's already cold enough where you are.....:rolleyes:

tadcan

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Because thanks to the barriers to free trade put in place by the EU who would these business export to?
Barriers include tarriffs, subsidies to EU producers, an insistance that EU "aid" is often given not in money but rather with flooding the place with cheap EU exports that actually make it harder for the local producers to trade effectivley.

The businesses are local. A person or a collective buying food from a market and brings it too their village. Or they make clothes, or their a farmer buying seeds and fertilizer. We have access to credit that allows people to start, expand in a way that is very underdeveloped in parts of Africa and around the world. Microloans help to move people away from subsistance living by developing a basic economy from the ground up. Which gives their children a foundation to further improve their lives.

UCDVet

Is there any empirical evidence that suggests these charities actually help in a measurable way?

I mean, I know giving money to a charity is a really popular thing that we all assume is good - but I really question it's long-term viability. From what I can I tell, the same impoverished countries in the 70s and 80s are *still* the same ones that we keep hearing charities wanting to help. Starving kids in X? Okay - but the population has tripped since the 80s....

I remember reading about traffic studies in big US cities....they'd add in a new lane, but the traffic didn't decrease. The lane did increase throughput - but all it meant was more people ditched public transportation to drive. In just a few short weeks, more people were sitting in traffic and the average commute time was unaffected..

I've also heard some compelling arguments about how it negatively impacts the local economy. Someone there is growing food and trying to sell it. Transportation costs are big deal, these are just local people. What happens when a charity comes in and starts handing out free food? It's great, for a short period of time, for the people who aren't selling food - but it means nobody is going to buy from the guy growing and selling food locally. What happens to him? He goes out of business. And when the charities stop getting the same level of support because of a recession or more popular cause or even just the same charity decides to give support to another area.....there are no local farmers. Leaving the community worse off than they were before.

Instead of 'helping' them, we're making them more dependent.

fussyonion

I'll probably be labelled a heartless cow but I am really sick of the ads on telly, asking us to "save the children" and that "no mother should witness her child die".

They purposely put them on at dinner time and they're relentless.
Maybe if it was one or two ads during the day, but every channel at every break time has about four or five of them and I'm sick of them.

Doe eyed kids looking painfully at the camera, which also makes me question how the camera people made them do it.

I KNOW they need help, I KNOW we're better off than them but is this really the way to go?

Paying millions to put ads on telly and force it down people's throats?
Use that money to bloody donate!

tfitzgerald

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

As has already been said the Catholic Church hsve very little influence in Africa.

I agree. But it never ceases to amaze me that the church gets blamed for everything. Most of these people are dying of hunger but its the church's fault that they won't buy condoms. Also have you noticed how the people that never have a good thing to say about the church. Always know plenty about it

fussyonion

UCDVet wrote: »

Is there any empirical evidence that suggests these charities actually help in a measurable way?

I mean, I know giving money to a charity is a really popular thing that we all assume is good - but I really question it's long-term viability. From what I can I tell, the same impoverished countries in the 70s and 80s are *still* the same ones that we keep hearing charities wanting to help. Starving kids in X? Okay - but the population has tripped since the 80s....

I remember reading about traffic studies in big US cities....they'd add in a new lane, but the traffic didn't decrease. The lane did increase throughput - but all it meant was more people ditched public transportation to drive. In just a few short weeks, more people were sitting in traffic and the average commute time was unaffected..

I've also heard some compelling arguments about how it negatively impacts the local economy. Someone there is growing food and trying to sell it. Transportation costs are big deal, these are just local people. What happens when a charity comes in and starts handing out free food? It's great, for a short period of time, for the people who aren't selling food - but it means nobody is going to buy from the guy growing and selling food locally. What happens to him? He goes out of business. And when the charities stop getting the same level of support because of a recession or more popular cause or even just the same charity decides to give support to another area.....there are no local farmers. Leaving the community worse off than they were before.

Instead of 'helping' them, we're making them more dependent.

Totally agree.
My elderly Aunt said they were the same countries back in the day, needing help, and it seems nothing's changed.

Grayson

UCDVet wrote: »

I've also heard some compelling arguments about how it negatively impacts the local economy. Someone there is growing food and trying to sell it. Transportation costs are big deal, these are just local people. What happens when a charity comes in and starts handing out free food? It's great, for a short period of time, for the people who aren't selling food - but it means nobody is going to buy from the guy growing and selling food locally. What happens to him? He goes out of business. And when the charities stop getting the same level of support because of a recession or more popular cause or even just the same charity decides to give support to another area.....there are no local farmers. Leaving the community worse off than they were before.

That's mainly an issue with US charities. Most US governmental aid is tied to buying US. So they'll distribute food, but only if it's food bought from the US. So what they are really doing is subsidising US producers and dumping it on foreign markets.
Now, there are many charities that do this, but the reason I mention the US is because all US governmental aid is like this (BTW, the biggest reciever of US aid is israel. And it's in the form of weapons. So the US tax payer is essentially subsidising a foreign conflict under the guise of charity). The same went for gulf war reconstruction. Local firms could have benefited, but if so much as a light bulb needed changing an external US contractor was brought in at massive cost.

So by that you are correct. Governments and the charities that are funded by them do sometimes do damage. But that is not an argument against charity. That's an argument against bad charity. It's not an argument against giving money to charities. It's about giving money to charities that you know can help.

And all third world charity should be in two forms. Emergency relief and development. I know people say that just throwing food at starving people won't solve the problem. Theach a man to fish and all that. But to be honest, I'd like to see them fed before we try teaching them about development. It's all well and good saying it won't solve an over arching problem, but it's better than telling them they're unimportant and watching them die.

Grayson

tfitzgerald wrote: »

I agree. But it never ceases to amaze me that the church gets blamed for everything. Most of these people are dying of hunger but its the church's fault that they won't buy condoms. Also have you noticed how the people that never have a good thing to say about the church. Always know plenty about it

I never said that. But go ahead make stuff up/lie. In fact, can you see anywhere that anyone here said people are dying of hunger because the church told them not to buy condoms?

Grayson

fussyonion wrote: »

I'll probably be labelled a heartless cow but I am really sick of the ads on telly, asking us to "save the children" and that "no mother should witness her child die".

They purposely put them on at dinner time and they're relentless.
Maybe if it was one or two ads during the day, but every channel at every break time has about four or five of them and I'm sick of them.

Doe eyed kids looking painfully at the camera, which also makes me question how the camera people made them do it.

I KNOW they need help, I KNOW we're better off than them but is this really the way to go?

Paying millions to put ads on telly and force it down people's throats?
Use that money to bloody donate!

So, they should not tell anyone about what's going on?

Next time you see that ad, look at the photo of the kid and ask yourself, if you were in their position and saw all the devestation around you, how would you feel about some spoilt woman saying it put her off her dinner.

If you want to stick your head in the sand and avoid thinking about children that are dying, change the channel.

IM0

if the marketing department had any brains they would have called it 'horrified' rather than 'concern' , it only sounds like they 'kinda' care...but not really

fussyonion

Grayson wrote: »

So, they should not tell anyone about what's going on?

Next time you see that ad, look at the photo of the kid and ask yourself, if you were in their position and saw all the devestation around you, how would you feel about some spoilt woman saying it put her off her dinner.

If you want to stick your head in the sand and avoid thinking about children that are dying, change the channel.

I'm far from spoilt and have my own problems. I can't afford to donate to charities and while I DO understand why they advertise, my issue is with the frequency of it and the time of day.

Nothing to do with it being on as I'm eating my dinner-that bit isn't the issue.

Why can't they show the ads at night? Do adults not watch telly at night?
Why dinnertime?

What if a person is only home from work at night time? They won't see the ads will they?

They should show them at all different times, not just mealtimes!

scoey

Their marketing bombardment over the last decade or so meaning that you can't turn on tv or walk down the street without having them in your face, their massive use of chuggers having a negative effect on the atmosphere of our cities, along with their CEO salaries etc has really made me despise Concern as an organisation.
Although their disgusting marketing tactics clearly pay off in the short term monetarily, I hope the people of Ireland will eventually wise up/get sick of them and give their money to organisations who care about the effect they have in the country that lines their pockets as well as the one they want to send some of that money to.

Grayson

1ZRed wrote: »

And please go on to tell me how you plan on doing that?
Where will all the food come from, where will all the water come from, where will all the resources come from that we devour so hungrily? The world could support more than 7 billion but live our lives in the first world and that will cause a massive, massive strain on the earth. It's not just saying once your fed and watered that's all that matters, where is all this material going to come from? We have an insatiable appetite that doesn't look like it will diminish.

I'd actually like for us to live in symbiosis with our planet, not turn it into some mega city and farm where we exploit it to the last just to support our own gain. What about our forests and wildlife? They'll be eradicated or pushed to edge of survival just because we want to have our planet and eat it too.

You're well aware of our deforestation, extinction, pollution and overfishing problems as it at the moment. Are you seriously telling me that freeing up the planet to 7 billion more+ won't cause those problems to grow far, far worse?

You told me to grow up bit I think it's you that's being far too shortsighted.



Cop the fuck on. Is this your argument? Putting words in my mouth because I really said I'd want slavery, I really said I'd have mandatory abortions and killings. Yep, I really said all those things.

I'd like education and contraception to play a major role in decreasing population there as education is a clear link to decreasing brith rates. I think a 2 child limit is reasonable but if you went over that you could be fined. I do not advocate genocide as you love to make up.

I made my argument clear. We can change, and are changing our ways in ways of producing carbon dioxide, but that is going to cost us a huge amount of money because fossil fuels are dirt cheap by comparison. My argument is how will these developed countries do the same if it's costing us so much to do, where are they getting all that money to be able to develop without tearing their country apart for resources and to do it cleanly? I fail to see where, for them to grow so quickly,so rapidly, it'll be with cheaper and dirtier fuels. There's no arguing that.

It's true, we already exploit their resources, and it's shameful, but if they want to develop, are they not going to do the same on top of that?

So you can take your bullshit about me enforcing slavery and mandatory abortions off with you because with the way you're thinking we can keep growing and growing without any consequences like competition for space, food, water and resources.

So when the world is straining under all of our demands where do we draw the line? You tell me because like it our not, nothing is infinite and the time will come when our earth just can't support us all. It could be in 100 or 200 years time but it'll come.

You're the one that said africans should be limited in the number of children they can have. And you said it should be "Strictly enforced". How exactly?

BTW, the carbon being produced by the west is increasing. Developing economies aren't signing up to carbon limits because they say "Why should we when you're not?"

If you'd read the article I posted earlier you'd see that we hit a tipping point. This is what many people are calling an extinction level event. And it's nothing to do with how much food we can produce, it's got to do with how we produce it. In the west we are incredibly wasteful. We eat feck loads of meat for starters.
Simply changing our diets would go a long way to changing the planet. The amount of land used for grazing is wasteful. Growing vegtable crops is far more efficent and would feed far more.

Take a look at where the carbon comes from. Notice anything?

How about this? Notice anything about the bottom 30 countries and the continent most of them are in?

What we are currently experiencing is an increase in carbon emissions so great that the last time the earth saw this, the ice caps melted.

Now, you may say it's Chinas problem and you'd be part right. Part right because it's really only in the last 10 years that they leaped ahead. Most of the damage was already done at that point. And strangly enough, China are doing more to fix the problem.


http://www.sacbee.com/2013/05/12/5411938/china-leaves-us-behind-in-pursuit.html

In 2012, the United States spent $35 billion on renewable energy – down 37 percent from $56 billion in 2011. China, meanwhile, spent a whopping $65 billion on renewable energy in 2012, or 85 percent more than the United States did in the same year.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/05/12/5411938/china-leaves-us-behind-in-pursuit.html#storylink=cpy

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Energy-Resources/2013/04/29/China-a-leader-in-fight-on-climate-change/UPI-46751367260883/


But here's the thing. I'm actually supplying facts and figures. I've actually said something to back up my argument. You however feel that people in africa are to blame and that we can't let them reproduce more. Your only solution has been to stop them forcibly from breeding.

You sound like you're talking about an infestation problem, not human beings.


The solution to global warming is not to stop africans having children or developing. The solution is for us to stop glutting ourselves on energy.

mattjack

corktina wrote: »

I don't either, most charities exist to provide jobs for their emplyees ,whether it be the CEO or chuggers. They like to give the impression they are voluntary organisations, but they are not.

And don't get me started on the fake charities collecting outside the local supermarket....

The charity I work for employs a wide variety of skilled people , alongside its full time staff , it has part time , volunteers and placements.

There are medical staff , counsellors , project workers/leaders and so on...

We've no chuggers or fake staff outside supermarkets.

Most of us have 3rd level education of some sort.

I have a fixed contract and separate hourly rate alongside expenses , occasionally I do some voluntary work.I'm not paid particularly well and had to source some of my funding for my education alongside a partial scholarship.

So indeed , I am an employee with the usual trappings of life mortgage , bills kids , etc ... what would you suggest I should be paid ?

corktina

i don't mind what you get paid, just you won't get paid with my money.

Grayson

fussyonion wrote: »

I'm far from spoilt and have my own problems. I can't afford to donate to charities and while I DO understand why they advertise, my issue is with the frequency of it and the time of day.

Nothing to do with it being on as I'm eating my dinner-that bit isn't the issue.

Why can't they show the ads at night? Do adults not watch telly at night?
Why dinnertime?

What if a person is only home from work at night time? They won't see the ads will they?

They should show them at all different times, not just mealtimes!

For the same reason they advertise washing up liquid or cars then. It's peak viewing. If they advertised late at night it'd be stoners and students. And lets face it, they're no-ones target demographic because they don't have any money

Grayson

scoey wrote: »

Their marketing bombardment over the last decade or so meaning that you can't turn on tv or walk down the street without having them in your face, their massive use of chuggers having a negative effect on the atmosphere of our cities, along with their CEO salaries etc has really made me despise Concern as an organisation.
Although their disgusting marketing tactics clearly pay off in the short term monetarily, I hope the people of Ireland will eventually wise up/get sick of them and give their money to organisations who care about the effect they have in the country that lines their pockets as well as the one they want to send some of that money to.

I'll be honest, I know I keep going on about how great charity is and we all can do something, but I hate chuggers. I'd prefer to shove some money into a box or buy a bookend or something from a stall rather than deal with them. And the worst part is that you could sign up to 10 charities and they'll still hassle you on the street.

They are a pain in the neck. I can understand why charities employ them. It works. And I can understand why the chuggers do it, it's a job. But it doesn't make it any les annoying.

crockholm wrote: »

Mr. Grayson...I like you,maybe you know this-I have said before that I enjoy your contributions, but on this subject you are acting hysterical.You are labeling posters to be evil,racist and anti-semitic amongst others.Firstly the country with the highest HIV-AIDS infection rate is Botswana, Botswana is 5% Catholic, of the next 5 highest, Lesotho would have the highest % of Catholics at 45 %, S.A. has 7 % and so on, it is clearly cultural.The chinese have done more for Africa in the past decade that well meaning caucasians and bono in the last century. To finish,in the words of the bard,Shakira- "It's time for Africa"(to start paying it's own way,or the Chinese)

The references to anti semitism were example of how the word BUT is used. I really hate it. People always use it in "I care but... (I don't care)" or "I'm not racist but... (I'm going to say something racist)". In that case, I care about people in africa but......we can't let them develop or have too many children.

I personally know priests who are working in Uganda at an AIDs clinic. They do amazing work and never tell people not to use condoms. (I'll be honest, I have no idea if they tell them they should).
Their mandate is to care for the sick. And that's what they do.
But not all of them are like that. There's loads that tell people that condoms are bad and don't work.

Now, I never said that the catholic church was responsible for the entire continent or even a massive chunk of it. I countered an argument that said they were a minor presence by showing that there are 185 million there. And the fact is that there are many priests who do tell people not to use condoms and they have probably caused the deaths of many people. Does this mean they caused it all? No, it doesn't. But the fact that they don't bear the entire responsibility for the AIDs pandemic doesn't make their actions any less despicable.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/oct/09/aids

mattjack

Grayson wrote: »

I personally know priests who are working in Uganda at an AIDs clinic. They do amazing work and never tell people not to use condoms. (I'll be honest, I have no idea if they tell them they should).
Their mandate is to care for the sick. And that's what they do.
But not all of them are like that. There's loads that tell people that condoms are bad and don't work.

I know a few elderly retired nuns who volunteer in centres as project workers giving out condoms as part of a harm reduction model .

crockholm

It doesnt matter a Sh1t what any church says, I don't know of a religion that actively promotes irresponsible sexual behaviour,that's quite simply cultural.

And if nothing else I will be honest with you Grayson. I no longer care,I just don't. I don't want to go there,I don't want them to come here either.

The place could be fcked up because the inhabitants are fcked up also. And thats not my fault and I feel no responsibility towards them either.

Seachmall

crockholm wrote: »

It doesnt matter a Sh1t what any church says, I don't know of a religion that actively promotes irresponsible sexual behaviour,that's quite simply cultural.

They don't actively promote it, they just encourage it by failing to recognise human behaviour as something that's inexorable.

The church telling people not to use condoms but to just abstain is like the coast guard telling the occupants of a sinking ship to not use lifeboats, but to just stop sinking.

Grayson

mattjack wrote: »

I know a few elderly retired nuns who volunteer in centres as project workers giving out condoms as part of a harm reduction model .

The vatican have even said that prostitutes should use them as using condoms is a lesser evil than spreading disease.

See, I don't like the church as an organisation. But the church is made up of individuals. And many have selflessly given their lives to helping others. There's good and bad in there, but I do believe that an an organisation, it's bad, but as a group of people it's ok. If that makes sense.

Grayson

crockholm wrote: »

It doesnt matter a Sh1t what any church says, I don't know of a religion that actively promotes irresponsible sexual behaviour,that's quite simply cultural.

And if nothing else I will be honest with you Grayson. I no longer care,I just don't. I don't want to go there,I don't want them to come here either.

The place could be fcked up because the inhabitants are fcked up also. And thats not my fault and I feel no responsibility towards them either.

It might be a better place if we hadn't fecked it up. And yes, I said we. Irish people were the footsoldiers of the british army.

And to be fair, most churches promote irresponsable sexual behavior.

XxMCRxBabyxX

Now, I never said that the catholic church was responsible for the entire continent or even a massive chunk of it. I countered an argument that said they were a minor presence by showing that there are 185 million there. And the fact is that there are many priests who do tell people not to use condoms and they have probably caused the deaths of many people. Does this mean they caused it all? No, it doesn't. But the fact that they don't bear the entire responsibility for the AIDs pandemic doesn't make their actions any less despicable.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/oct/09/aids

But you ignored the point that I and others have made. Yes the Church are in Africa but they have very little, if any, influence in those countries that are most seriously affected. AIDS is most prevalent in Southern Africa, you don't find much of the Catholic Church there. They are in other areas but those have much lower AIDS rate and even still most of those are there to help and look after the people and will do not actually discourage use of condoms as they would rather see healthy people. So I totally, 100%, stand by my point.

crockholm

Seachmall wrote: »

They don't actively promote it, they just encourage it by failing to recognise human behaviour as something that's inexorable.

The church telling people not to use condoms but to just abstain is like the coast guard telling the occupants of a sinking ship to not use lifeboats, but to just stop sinking.

I disagree,firstly of the top 5 AIDS-HIV countries by infection, none are catholic majority.Secondly, if you are in a country wher one quarter or one fifth of the population has a killer STD,are you sure that your desire to copulate would be the same? Are humans like some species of insect? Mate and die?Now,if one fifth of the population has AIDS, Why da fock would they use prostitutes.Malta is a religious country,how many there have AIDS.It's down to culture.

crockholm

Grayson wrote: »

It might be a better place if we hadn't fecked it up. And yes, I said we. Irish people were the footsoldiers of the british army.

And to be fair, most churches promote irresponsable sexual behavior.

You may take all the burden of white guilt you want,but I'm having none of it.None,nothing to do with me. I don't blame britain for Irish problems today,that would be a lie and a con. These countries can get up off their asses like much of Asia did,or keep the begging bowl out.

woodoo

Grayson wrote: »

It might be a better place if we hadn't fecked it up. And yes, I said we. Irish people were the footsoldiers of the british army. .

You have a bad case of white guilt.

Cavehill Red

Aid doesn't work, it actually hinders Africa. The only people who benefit are the neo-colonial charity workers in their 4WDs living in compounds like lords with their servants.
Don't believe me though, read what the leading African economist has to say about it.
As others have said, if you feel especially guilty or sad and want to charitably contribute, microloan money to people to help themselves and cut out the CEO wages, and the holidays on the dark continent for middle class Westerners.

Cork24

Do Money that we give to Charitys some how end up in the Black Market for weapsons ?

some how i think the Fact we are giving Money, the food companies that make the Life Saving Bars can infact charge just what they like for the Food.

Just like Cancer Drugs, they know the Goverment will buy them so we she'll exploit the fact they cant go any where else to buy the Stuff so we charge X Amount and make over 100% Profit.