TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- ..and meanwhile, thousands starved to death in .....
Pages (2): « 1 [2]
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Fir3start3r But.He.Already.Did.  |
Here's the real question guys. Is humanitarian work in third world countires really morally just if you're only pushing the suffering back to the next generation?
Now, think about that before getting all fussy and posting first. Then think about it with the revelation that doing those two things means more people survive. More people survive that's even more people that end up having kids which ends up an even greater amount of people to feed and heal in the next generation.
I'm not saying I don't agree with it and would rather see people die(I've always wanted to go tutor kids in Africa despite the fact I'm not really a teacher), but is it really doing good or just making the problem worse for the next generation. I'm starting to wonder if helping them is really hurting them since education and proper forms of government are not in place (or sufficient in some cases) to make it worth saving people now so they can have more kids later. We aren't talking normal western families of maybe two kids. I have no idea what the figure is on average for third-world countries, but I'm sure it's not nearly that low.
The other issue with child birth is the fact that in many of these places women are still very much second class citizens and do not have control over their own bodies in some cases. This would be part of the lacking government issue. Until women are truly in control of their own bodies this is probably going to stay an issue.
The most interesting thing is that this is also happening in the middle east now. I think the population in Saudi Arabia alone went from around 7 million to over 20 million in the last 20 years or so. It's something crazy like 60% of their population is under the age of 18. The per capita income has dropped to around $7k too. Their largest industry is oil, so as soon as we stop buying(or it runs out) it that's only going to get worse. They aren't the only country like that either, so just think about how many people they'll have that would be poor and hungry. Which brings us right back to the issue of whether or not it's really worth it.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Magnetonium He said I contradicted myself, and I want to know how so I can see where I was taken out of context! |
(though this was before your last afghanistan thread post and you've made your position a bit more clearer)
| quote: |
| Originally posted by WM2 Here's the real question guys. Is humanitarian work in third world countires really morally just if you're only pushing the suffering back to the next generation? Now, think about that before getting all fussy and posting first. Then think about it with the revelation that doing those two things means more people survive. More people survive that's even more people that end up having kids which ends up an even greater amount of people to feed and heal in the next generation. I'm not saying I don't agree with it and would rather see people die(I've always wanted to go tutor kids in Africa despite the fact I'm not really a teacher), but is it really doing good or just making the problem worse for the next generation. I'm starting to wonder if helping them is really hurting them since education and proper forms of government are not in place (or sufficient in some cases) to make it worth saving people now so they can have more kids later. We aren't talking normal western families of maybe two kids. I have no idea what the figure is on average for third-world countries, but I'm sure it's not nearly that low. The other issue with child birth is the fact that in many of these places women are still very much second class citizens and do not have control over their own bodies in some cases. This would be part of the lacking government issue. Until women are truly in control of their own bodies this is probably going to stay an issue. The most interesting thing is that this is also happening in the middle east now. I think the population in Saudi Arabia alone went from around 7 million to over 20 million in the last 20 years or so. It's something crazy like 60% of their population is under the age of 18. The per capita income has dropped to around $7k too. Their largest industry is oil, so as soon as we stop buying(or it runs out) it that's only going to get worse. They aren't the only country like that either, so just think about how many people they'll have that would be poor and hungry. Which brings us right back to the issue of whether or not it's really worth it. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by EvilTree The thing about humanitarian work is that it's not just about feeding the hungry or teaching them. It's also about building the infrastructure needed to sustain a society. So, if no humanitarian aid comes, no schools or hospitals get built for present generation and also means none for the next generation either. I've heard some use the expression shooting the wounded animal to stop the suffering. Well, humans aren't animals. While the methods we use may not be perfect and in some cases, only increase the suffering, but at least we show that we care. Or supposedly do. Human charity is a fickle thing. But I'd rather try to help those who are suffering instead of pushing them off the cliff. |
Because dead ones can't enjoy any future.
The entire humanitarian aid thing is wacked itself. Not enough people coordinating together to put together an effective plan.
But the goal should be helping the govt so that it is able to help its own citizens.
Forever relying on foreign humanitarian aid does no good.
So people keep trying to work with corrupt govts, because they don't want to leave the African relying on foreign aid forever.
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.