Survival of the fittest

krb102 · #11 02-10-2003, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike

Quote:

Originally Posted by krb102

Throughout time speices have faced a long battle with the elements. Many species learn to adapt to their surroundings, evolving in such a way as to benefit from their 'living' conditions. Charles Darwin realised this with his visit to the Galapagos Islands; he noticed that birds were slightly different from one island to the next. Each had adapted to the specific conditions on each island. If a species cannot adapt to its environment, and the environment is too extreme, its extinction is inevitable.

Everyday, thousand die of starvation. Every year, hundreds die in massive floods. It is Africa where we see this happen most of the time, and many charities exist to try and help the victims.

My question is why do people keep helping those who are unfortunate enough to live in such areas? Each year we see appeals on the TV, asking us to donate money to the starving people in Ethiopia, or the floods in Tanzania. These people are living in extreme conditions. If this was a few hundred years ago, they wouldn't be able to receive the international help that they do now. It is natures way to let those who can adapt to their environment survive, those who can't must pay the ultimate price. Interfering like this does not help in the long run. Each year they are facing the same problems, and each year the international community try to help. Why not let them starve to death, or get washed away in floods? Eventually the problem will solve itself if we just let it, and stop interfering by prolonging the agony of hundreds of thousands.

Because in many cases we were the ones who screwed them over......

International debt being just one way - they r still paying the interest.

Mike

Yes, but that is just a small factor. In many cases it is due to the fact that an already overpopulated country doesn't/can't produce enough food to support its population.

In other places many people are dying of aids.

People are dying of floods/droughts/cyclones. Global warming can only be blamed for so much of this.

The problem is going to get worse, so why not let them die out now?

Mike · #12 02-10-2003, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by krb102

The problem is going to get worse, so why not let them die out now?

Could u really give that order though???

If I was a Prime Minister - I wouldn't be able to say....sod it, let them all die - charity is now illegal.

The reason reproduction is so high, is because of the low life expectancies. Which r because of the appalling conditions. It is a viscious circle, that we have certainly added to by taking advantage of many of these countries. It doesn't help matters by giving them disposable aid.....Live aid by Bob geldoff diidn't actually raise any money at all.

But you've got to take into account that not everyone on the Earth has the ability to view human life as a function that serves a purpose & can be discarded when that purpose has come to an end. Many see another human being as someone that could possibly be them if the circumstances were different. If u were starving in a third world country - you'd want to live & many ppl just aren't able to stand by & watch someone who wants to experience the 'gift' of life have it taken away from them.

Mike

ShaSha · #13 02-10-2003, 10:15 PM

What I don't understand is why we Americans are seemingly expected to help people in so-called "suffering" countries before our own. There are millions of people HERE who are starving, sick, etc. but no, we send money to Zimbabwe so their children can learn to read. There are wealthy people in Zimbabwe - are they sending US money? I don't think so.

choclady · #14 02-10-2003, 10:19 PM

i don't want to seem racist but the USA are actually one of the major reasons why those countries don't have money (and so is germany, i know)

krb102 · #15 02-10-2003, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike

Quote:

Originally Posted by krb102

The problem is going to get worse, so why not let them die out now?

Could u really give that order though???

If I was a Prime Minister - I wouldn't be able to say....sod it, let them all die - charity is now illegal.

The reason reproduction is so high, is because of the low life expectancies. Which r because of the appalling conditions. It is a viscious circle, that we have certainly added to by taking advantage of many of these countries. It doesn't help matters by giving them disposable aid.....Live aid by Bob geldoff diidn't actually raise any money at all.

But you've got to take into account that not everyone on the Earth has the ability to view human life as a function that serves a purpose & can be discarded when that purpose has come to an end. Many see another human being as someone that could possibly be them if the circumstances were different. If u were starving in a third world country - you'd want to live & many ppl just aren't able to stand by & watch someone who wants to experience the 'gift' of life have it taken away from them.

Mike

If I managed to get elected as PM, then it would be because of my tough approaches to problems like this.

Mike · #16 02-10-2003, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShaSha

What I don't understand is why we Americans are seemingly expected to help people in so-called "suffering" countries before our own. There are millions of people HERE who are starving, sick, etc. but no, we send money to Zimbabwe so their children can learn to read. There are wealthy people in Zimbabwe - are they sending US money? I don't think so.

Well...u spend so much money solving all the worlds other 'problems'.

U should NOT send ANY money to Zimbabwe - Mugabe will keep it to fund his army.

He also intercepts aid. That country was self-sufficent before that dictator came into power, now Millions of ppl r on the brink of starvation. Its stats like this that justifies the aid u send (Why don't they send it us?? - R u joking?? - Why doesn't a Beggar buy u a pint??).

One of the greatest things America, UK, Germany etc... could do is cancel their debt. That is what is hurting them / holding them back/ not allowing them to become self-sufficient which is the ultimate goal. Sending them aid only helps in the short term. It is a quick fix, with no long-term solutions.

& Krb - I envy u if u can see life as a disposable thing, but I think you'll have trouble passing the 'leave them all to starve' bill

Mike

ShaSha · #17 02-10-2003, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike

Well...u spend so much money solving all the worlds other 'problems'.

Yeah.. and that's what should stop. If it were up to me we'd be selfish like most of the rest of the world and only worry about ourselves.

Quote:

(Why don't they send it us?? - R u joking?? - Why doesn't a Beggar buy u a pint??).

I was mostly talking about on an individual basis. When I was in elementary school, twice a year our teachers gave us boxes to fill with money to send to some African country. Why? There ARE people in Zimbabwe (or any other country) who are much richer than I am. You don't see them sending money to people in the US who need it.

letitrock · #18 02-10-2003, 11:35 PM

everyone is forgetting that surplus grain/food etc in the Westernised countries (US especially) - [and don't forget GM foods before all the debate of the last few years] is great enough to feed all the famine and starved nations...

but it doesn't serve the economies to do so...

same with the war debts and the arms trade...

What the US does (and UK and others) is to sell weapons to leaders of these countries who should be spending money on feeding the population. What there is instead then is a high supply of guns and weaponry and a high demand of food with no supply...

then the US complains when these weapons are finally used against them...

Thomas Anderson · #19 02-10-2003, 11:55 PM

Put yourself in that situation. You are born and raised in poverty, wouldn't you like help?

I'm not saying I agree with sending all that money there, becuase it doesn't ever seem to do anything, but maybe another alternative. I don't know what, but something else.

Some situations are like the man who built his house on the sand. I think people who contract diseases, such as AIDS, and it is their own fault, they don't deserve any help. People who are in desperate situations and need help do deserve our help. Before we send money to other places though, we should try to raise it for ourselves; Tony Blair said he would improve health and education, but now seems out of money. Why not have a red nose day for the UK? Raise money for our own NHS and Education problems?

krb102 · #20 02-11-2003, 12:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas Anderson

Put yourself in that situation. You are born and raised in poverty, wouldn't you like help?

If I were in that situation, I would seriously question the sanity of my parents for having a child in such circumstances.

I can honestly say that I don't care about all of the people starving and dying. You cannot say "What if you were in that situation?" the point is that I am not.

Survival of the fittest

NBJ - Everything Else