|
Post by Kerin on Mar 12, 2005 17:44:48 GMT -5
# Half the world -- nearly three billion people -- live on less than two dollars a day. # The GDP (Gross Domestic Product) of the poorest 48 nations (i.e. a quarter of the world's countries) is less than the wealth of the world's three richest people combined. # Nearly a billion people entered the 21st century unable to read a book or sign their names. # Less than one per cent of what the world spent every year on weapons was needed to put every child into school by the year 2000 and yet it didn't happen. # 1 billion children live in poverty (1 in 2 children in the world). 640 million live without adequate shelter, 400 million have no access to safe water, 270 million have no access to health services. 10.6 million died in 2003 before they reached the age of 5. (source global issues.org
|
|
|
Post by Wong on Mar 12, 2005 18:13:58 GMT -5
and?
|
|
|
Post by Jack Daniels on Mar 12, 2005 20:57:53 GMT -5
Yeah pal you are reaching out to the the most caring crowd on the web right here. I can't wait to read the responses.
|
|
|
Post by Pats Apostle on Mar 12, 2005 23:32:59 GMT -5
What the fuck ever dude. Like I care about the mother fucking poor. Take your hippie one world bullshit elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by BIGKEV on Mar 13, 2005 7:50:53 GMT -5
All this fuss about what, over populated countries in the third world? Funny, they seem to have the energy to copulate despite being so hungry. The uneducated tend to be population groups that the cultures, that funny little thing you liberals seem to want me to respect and not offend, in the respective countries seem to not want reading and writing. Let me tell you the answer to word over population, war and pestilence. Thats correct, a good global, nationalized conflict is what’s best. That and a few more tsunamis. We have given and given aid and food to third world folks for sixty years, what do we get back? Requests for more food as the population explodes. Rats and mice react in a like manner to food and space, look at any of the studies published and then compare that to say, Bangladesh. No sympathy no care. FTW baby, who cares wins.
|
|
|
Post by MEL P on Mar 13, 2005 9:25:28 GMT -5
I'm so sick of hearing how we need to help the rest of the world. What does the third world have that is even useful to America? Those people wouldn't even be fit for slave labor over here. We need to thin the herd some.
|
|
|
Post by Thad on Mar 13, 2005 12:54:05 GMT -5
The only poor I'm concerned about are here in our country. Let the rest of the world fend for themselves. That Tsunami was Darwinism at its finest.
|
|
|
Post by Highlord on Mar 13, 2005 22:09:36 GMT -5
Kerin, there is a very relevant article by a man named Kurt Saxon called "Carrying Capacity." Try googling it and give it a read.
In short, it points out that the humane desire to help out the poor and hungry who have outgrown their environment is the cruelest thing one can do.
Briefly, most of the starving and poor people of the world are doing so because the land where they live cannot support them. The starving children in Africa are starving because the desolate African climate cannot support enough food to feed them.
We have two real choices, 1) Let then starve to death or 2) Feed them so they can grow up big and strong.
Now certainly, the second choice sounds like the better, humane, and liberal solution. I can quickly show you why it isn't. If we feed them, they will live to reproduce, yet the land on which they live will still not produce enough food so as to be sufficient to feed them. In fact, it will be less able to produce as farmland is converted to living space.
This means that we have to continure to do the "humane" thing, we have to continue to feed them. Eventually, we will not be able to feed them as our land will not be able to support both us AND all of them.
When that happens, instead of the original and relativly small group starving as in choice #1, many more starve as natural reproduction has taken effect. The children, and their children would be suffering. Would you rather millions suffer, or trillions? There is a myriad more to this theory, but I thought this would sum it up well for you.
The only other solution I can see is to feed them, but then sterilize them so they cannot reproduce, or make abortions mandatory (as have the wonderful socialists in China). I can't imagine you think that is a good idea, so I'm curious to see what you think about the dilemma?
Which choice do you make? 1 or 2?
|
|
|
Post by Wong on Mar 13, 2005 23:33:19 GMT -5
The needs of the one or the few do not outweigh the needs of the many.
Its an easy answer.
|
|
|
Post by Wong on Mar 13, 2005 23:36:33 GMT -5
Besides, if you send money some politician will take the money for himself and the people are left in the same situation.
Sit back and look at N. Korea. Kim Jung Il is a fat and happy as they come, yet his people are starving. I know I've been there. Can we help? No, so you fix what you can and let natural selection and population control do the rest.
|
|
|
Post by Diggy on Mar 14, 2005 9:56:27 GMT -5
Kerin go smoke some and chill dude.
|
|
|
Post by Jack Daniels on Mar 14, 2005 10:32:27 GMT -5
I see that Kerin isn't getting the responses he wanted. Maybe he will go to a more lberally bent website.
|
|
|
Post by Kerin on Mar 14, 2005 10:37:21 GMT -5
It really saddens me that human beings are so selfish. So many are suffering out there, and we should be giving all the assistance we can. I see your points about over population, but education can fix that. Look at our nation a century ago most family's had 5 or more children. Now it is down to less than two. These other nations just need help and guidance.
|
|
|
Post by BIGKEV on Mar 14, 2005 12:20:55 GMT -5
A century ago our economy was still largely agrarian. That necessitated the need for lots of children from a man power standpoint. As we moved into a fully realized middleclass outside of the larger urban areas the overall education level increased with the mechanization of labor and the need for children for more than continuation of a genetic line dropped off. Now, give me a reason, out side of elevating my karma ,to aid the undeserving? There is a answer out there that will fit within my ethos, but you have to find it and parrot it back to me here. For the record I am far from selfish, I give eagerly and generously. I will break my back to help a person, you have to earn it, just like respect.
|
|
|
Post by THEPAT24 on Mar 14, 2005 15:09:10 GMT -5
Kerin this site is about having fun. Of course we are selfish and fairly self centered, if you have read any of my stuff you must realize that. Yes we do help peopel from time to time and we all give to our favorite charities. Mine happens to be disabled veterans. I'm pretty sure Highlords is the NRA. I can't speak for the other members here. i think most of us believe that charity begins at home. The rest of the world comes later as far as I'm concerned, and I think most of the others will echo this. Overpopulation really is a self correcting problem.
|
|