Save the children? Yes? No?

[StageLeft]

Here you go, now we can save Mill's recent Haiti thread asking for people to give food to save some kids and the rants can go below:

I guess I may need to start. I think certain countries appear doomed to fail, or certainly have a great history of it, but on the other hand it's really kind of disgusting that our society has so much food it's killing itself and so much wealth we blow it on, simply, crap, like large houses and cars, while millions of other humans by virtue of being unlucky to be born where they were are dying.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Some folks need to understand the reasoning for Haiti being the only 4th world nation in the northern hemisphere is due to political instability, woefully poor governance, and corruption. To blame the citizens and think they should be allowed to fail/die is sickening.

 

[BoberFett]

I'm sure I'll be jumped on for saying this, but perhaps it's time to start thinking about not saving every person on the planet. There are 6.5 billion people on this planet, it's not like we're on the brink of extinction. Are those that can't save themselves worth saving? What is the purpose in sustaining a population whose only contribution to humanity will be to procreate thereby creating another group of people who needs to be saved?

Flame away.

Edit: To Capt Caveman's point, unless a change is made in those conditions, no change will be made at all. You can save all the children you want and they'll grow up in that same system that caused them to starve in the first place. If the parents of those children are powerless to change the system then so too will the children.

 

[Mill]

I would add that children are incapable of saving themselves. They do not have an ability (for the most part) to grow food, prepare food, or understand what they need for nutrition and the like. Children, to me, are completely innocent, and all the typical arguments about letting nature take its course in this instance are not ones I consider to be valid.

Furthermore, over the course of history plenty of underdeveloped countries or places have become self-sufficient and organized. Finally, we never know the value of whom we are saving or allowing to die. Great leaders and men have come from some of the worst situations and places.

In regards to my thread... no one is forced to donate. I simply wanted to bring attention to the issue and people can allow their conscience and brain to guide them toward whatever decision they choose to make. I realize that 99.9% of AT will not read the thread, and out of the .1% that does -- a further 99.9% will not donate. If I can get just one donation out of this entire forum then my time has been well spent. If not I will still have the joy of having brought this subject a little more attention than it normally gets.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
I'm sure I'll be jumped on for saying this, but perhaps it's time to start thinking about not saving every person on the planet. There are 6.5 billion people on this planet, it's not like we're on the brink of extinction. Are those that can't save themselves worth saving? What is the purpose in sustaining a population whose only contribution to humanity will be to procreate thereby creating another group of people who needs to be saved?

Flame away.

Edit: To Capt Caveman's point, unless a change is made in those conditions, no change will be made at all. You can save all the children you want and they'll grow up in that same system that caused them to starve in the first place. If the parents of those children are powerless to change the system then so too will the children.

Starving people, of course, are generally ineffective at fomenting political or social change when their daily life is focused entirely on trying to find food or a mud cake to eat.

I think your expectations are a little lofty and idealistic.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
I'm sure I'll be jumped on for saying this, but perhaps it's time to start thinking about not saving every person on the planet. There are 6.5 billion people on this planet, it's not like we're on the brink of extinction. Are those that can't save themselves worth saving? What is the purpose in sustaining a population whose only contribution to humanity will be to procreate thereby creating another group of people who needs to be saved?

Flame away.

Edit: To Capt Caveman's point, unless a change is made in those conditions, no change will be made at all. You can save all the children you want and they'll grow up in that same system that caused them to starve in the first place. If the parents of those children are powerless to change the system then so too will the children.

That's why providing assistance food, educational opportunities(teachers volunteering their time), etc may provide an opportunity for Haitians to fight their gov't and force change. People pressuring their own gov'ts to pressure the Haitian gov't to make change can also happen. Hope is something that most people believe in. Unfortunately, we have too many people in this world that only care about themselves and not trying to make the world a better place around them.

You don't support helping the homeless and less fortunate in the US or your own hometown? Just let them die?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
I'm sure I'll be jumped on for saying this, but perhaps it's time to start thinking about not saving every person on the planet. There are 6.5 billion people on this planet, it's not like we're on the brink of extinction. Are those that can't save themselves worth saving? What is the purpose in sustaining a population whose only contribution to humanity will be to procreate thereby creating another group of people who needs to be saved?

Flame away.

Edit: To Capt Caveman's point, unless a change is made in those conditions, no change will be made at all. You can save all the children you want and they'll grow up in that same system that caused them to starve in the first place. If the parents of those children are powerless to change the system then so too will the children.

It's easy to preach that people should "save themselves" when you live in an environment where you had to do no such thing. People can, and should, better themselves...but they can't start from nothing at all. Without basic necessities of life, nothing else really matters.

So what you're really arguing is that anything we do to help will not result in the population being able to help themselves further down the road. Or basically, that the problem isn't the environment, but the people...they are somehow inferior and wouldn't know what to do with an opportunity if it was handed to them. I suppose that COULD be true, but I don't see much evidence that it is...

 

[Thump553]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Some folks need to understand the reasoning for Haiti being the only 4th world nation in the northern hemisphere is due to political instability, woefully poor governance, and corruption. To blame the citizens and think they should be allowed to fail/die is sickening.

For decades the US government has (off and on) poured tons of foreign aid into Haiti, and they have received enormous amounts of humanitary aid from churches and charities. Haiti is a pretty small country with not that large a population. Despite all that money and effort it has remained the same cesspool of political corruption and desperate poverty all my adult life. It certainly is not a shining example for optimists about human nature.

 

[Specop 007]

There more sick, poor, downtrodden and starving people in this world then I have compassion and heart.

Not helping. Of course I wont hold back anyone from donating their time or money to such causes or wishful thinking. However I think Africa represents that dumping money into third world countries does not reallly solve anything.

 

[Farang]

I've stopped worrying about it. I try to contribute on a small scale but as far as these sweeping analysis of world poverty go, I think they are generally useless. Anyone who has been to India and read up a bit on what the economic situation is there, especially in terms of wealth distribution, might likely give up hope for humanity. The one place where there has been real success is in microfinance and I think it needs to be increased greatly. I'm not sure if he was trying to scam me or what but one kid in Mumbai told me he made 20 rupees (about 50 cents) per day cleaning shoes with the brush and few polishes he had, but that he needed someone to buy him a $15 shoe polish kit w/stand because that was where the real money was at (even offered to take down my address to pay me back). I've always regretted not getting it for him but I was short on cash and ATMs weren't working for me so I was worried for myself.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
I'm sure I'll be jumped on for saying this, but perhaps it's time to start thinking about not saving every person on the planet. There are 6.5 billion people on this planet, it's not like we're on the brink of extinction. Are those that can't save themselves worth saving? What is the purpose in sustaining a population whose only contribution to humanity will be to procreate thereby creating another group of people who needs to be saved?

Flame away.

Edit: To Capt Caveman's point, unless a change is made in those conditions, no change will be made at all. You can save all the children you want and they'll grow up in that same system that caused them to starve in the first place. If the parents of those children are powerless to change the system then so too will the children.

Morally the west feels like we need to save these people. Realistically does saving a population that cant sustain itself help or prolong the misery?

 

[Farang]

Since Genx87 raised this idea again (which I've seen a few times in this thread) I thought I should add that these populations can sustain themselves. They are not genetically disposed to holding their hands out and begging for food. There are a few major barriers to poorer nations being self-sustaining, barriers that are not unmovable. Among them is corruption, which destroys a meritocracy and gives little incentive to get educated or gain training or work hard. Example: I met a man in Cambodia who worked as a nurse for 12 years in a refugee camp. When the camp closed he tried to get a job as a nurse in a hospital, but didn't have the $2,000 bribe the hiring manager wanted. Now he is driving tourists around Battambang on a motorbike for $4/day.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: BoberFett
I'm sure I'll be jumped on for saying this, but perhaps it's time to start thinking about not saving every person on the planet. There are 6.5 billion people on this planet, it's not like we're on the brink of extinction. Are those that can't save themselves worth saving? What is the purpose in sustaining a population whose only contribution to humanity will be to procreate thereby creating another group of people who needs to be saved?

Flame away.

Edit: To Capt Caveman's point, unless a change is made in those conditions, no change will be made at all. You can save all the children you want and they'll grow up in that same system that caused them to starve in the first place. If the parents of those children are powerless to change the system then so too will the children.

Starving people, of course, are generally ineffective at fomenting political or social change when their daily life is focused entirely on trying to find food or a mud cake to eat.

I think your expectations are a little lofty and idealistic.

Really? I'd think starving people would be ripe for unrest. It's the fat and happy ones who have no interest in change.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: BoberFett
I'm sure I'll be jumped on for saying this, but perhaps it's time to start thinking about not saving every person on the planet. There are 6.5 billion people on this planet, it's not like we're on the brink of extinction. Are those that can't save themselves worth saving? What is the purpose in sustaining a population whose only contribution to humanity will be to procreate thereby creating another group of people who needs to be saved?

Flame away.

Edit: To Capt Caveman's point, unless a change is made in those conditions, no change will be made at all. You can save all the children you want and they'll grow up in that same system that caused them to starve in the first place. If the parents of those children are powerless to change the system then so too will the children.

That's why providing assistance food, educational opportunities(teachers volunteering their time), etc may provide an opportunity for Haitians to fight their gov't and force change. People pressuring their own gov'ts to pressure the Haitian gov't to make change can also happen. Hope is something that most people believe in. Unfortunately, we have too many people in this world that only care about themselves and not trying to make the world a better place around them.

You don't support helping the homeless and less fortunate in the US or your own hometown? Just let them die?

I support making available job training. I don't support handouts.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: BoberFett
I'm sure I'll be jumped on for saying this, but perhaps it's time to start thinking about not saving every person on the planet. There are 6.5 billion people on this planet, it's not like we're on the brink of extinction. Are those that can't save themselves worth saving? What is the purpose in sustaining a population whose only contribution to humanity will be to procreate thereby creating another group of people who needs to be saved?

Flame away.

Edit: To Capt Caveman's point, unless a change is made in those conditions, no change will be made at all. You can save all the children you want and they'll grow up in that same system that caused them to starve in the first place. If the parents of those children are powerless to change the system then so too will the children.

Morally the west feels like we need to save these people. Realistically does saving a population that cant sustain itself help or prolong the misery?

Watched ABC's Extreme Makeover - Home Edition this Sunday. The episode was about a Fire fighter from Toledo and his wife that adopted 5 kids from Haiti. Given the opportunity - they wanted to be computer engineers, doctor's assistant, software developer, etc... And they all wanted to be able to go back to Haiti to help their people. Truly inspiring stuff.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: BoberFett
I'm sure I'll be jumped on for saying this, but perhaps it's time to start thinking about not saving every person on the planet. There are 6.5 billion people on this planet, it's not like we're on the brink of extinction. Are those that can't save themselves worth saving? What is the purpose in sustaining a population whose only contribution to humanity will be to procreate thereby creating another group of people who needs to be saved?

Flame away.

Edit: To Capt Caveman's point, unless a change is made in those conditions, no change will be made at all. You can save all the children you want and they'll grow up in that same system that caused them to starve in the first place. If the parents of those children are powerless to change the system then so too will the children.

It's easy to preach that people should "save themselves" when you live in an environment where you had to do no such thing. People can, and should, better themselves...but they can't start from nothing at all. Without basic necessities of life, nothing else really matters.

So what you're really arguing is that anything we do to help will not result in the population being able to help themselves further down the road. Or basically, that the problem isn't the environment, but the people...they are somehow inferior and wouldn't know what to do with an opportunity if it was handed to them. I suppose that COULD be true, but I don't see much evidence that it is...

Most people have ancestors who started with nothing. Change doesn't happen overnight. Giving someone a handout almost ensures that change will never happen. How's that war on poverty going, anyway?

 

[dmcowen674]

I'm glad the OP made a seperate thread.

Did not want to comment in Mill's perfectly fine post.

Of course it's not the children's fault but the parents should be nuetered before fucking like rabbits in an environment they cannot sustain themselves much less have a bunch of kids.

That goes for all countries including the U.S.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: BoberFett
I'm sure I'll be jumped on for saying this, but perhaps it's time to start thinking about not saving every person on the planet. There are 6.5 billion people on this planet, it's not like we're on the brink of extinction. Are those that can't save themselves worth saving? What is the purpose in sustaining a population whose only contribution to humanity will be to procreate thereby creating another group of people who needs to be saved?

Flame away.

Edit: To Capt Caveman's point, unless a change is made in those conditions, no change will be made at all. You can save all the children you want and they'll grow up in that same system that caused them to starve in the first place. If the parents of those children are powerless to change the system then so too will the children.

Morally the west feels like we need to save these people. Realistically does saving a population that cant sustain itself help or prolong the misery?

Watched ABC's Extreme Makeover - Home Edition this Sunday. The episode was about a Fire fighter from Toledo and his wife that adopted 5 kids from Haiti. Given the opportunity - they wanted to be computer engineers, doctor's assistant, software developer, etc... And they all wanted to be able to go back to Haiti to help their people. Truly inspiring stuff.

Great, that sounds like a noble cause by the family and the children.

So how does sending food to Haiti help if the people who actually live there can do nothing other than beg for scraps from the rest of the world?

Unless you're advocating a US overthrow of their system, nothing will change.

 

[yllus]

I think people should consider how incredibly bountiful the natural resources are in North America (and Europe), and that that more than anything influences whether or not a nation will have a smooth journey into industrialization and the capacity to provide for itself.

That said, I stand behind my government's stance to reallocate foreign aid only to nations that are "good performers" (not engaging in egregious human rights violations):

Ottawa wants to pare down its 'bloated' list of foreign aid recipients

The Conservative government is reviewing the operations of the Canadian International Development Agency, and it's clear it has different ideas of how the aid budget should be spent, and where.

The Senate committee stressed good government and responsible economic practices over aid for health and education spending, which it likened to welfare. More priority would be given to economic development, including technical assistance and training, skills development and technology transfers, the raising of agricultural productivity, and the expansion of support for privately delivered micro-finance services.

It also recommends Canada should support "good performers" because, in the words of the report, "the current eligibility list is bloated and illogical." The Harper Conservatives agree strongly with the proposal.

The government seems intent on shaping a more "conservative" aid program for that money, and has been helped by ample evidence the current regime isn't working. Study after study suggests taxpayers do not get value for money. Last month's OECD report is just the latest to suggest that Canada spreads its aid too thinly --46 countries in Africa alone at last count. Canada, the report said, needs a "clear, simple and consistent vision for development assistance."

 

[MikeyLSU]

Very sad to read about mothers who have to choose which child to feed and let another one die.

But when I read that all I can think of is why have kids if you can't feed them? That is a very messed up thing to do to a child. If you can't support yourself, you shouldn't have children.

 

[alchemize]

Haiti is completely unsustainable. They've stripped half the island of all vegetation, all industry, it's completely politically unstable and it's overpopulated. Eating mud cakes? The largest industry is charcoal? What can you do to help a situation like that - other than let the population naturally dwindle, and maybe have the dominican republic take it over?

 

[rudder]

Maybe get some more money from the U.N.... or maybe not

 

[Pastore]

Round up the people who want to better themselves and ship them off to a first world country who can harbor their skills and make them into a contribution to society.

Anyone who wants to stay their willingly deserves the consequences.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: rudder
Maybe get some more money from the U.N.... or maybe not

LOL - $23 million for spray on spackle and watercolors? F'in disgusting.

 

[OCGuy]

Ah, one of those wide-eyed "save the world" types, huh? When you study the history of mankind, you realize how unfair this world is. It is not going to change now.