Charity-helping them is hurting them

[Knarlfist]

How else are they to get infrastructure if no one builds it for them?

ahhh... the youth today.




Almost sounds like a translation of "How is a person to fish if no one gives them any fish?"

edit: crap, Garbald beat me to the punch, I knew I shoulda finished reading down entire 2nd page =p

[stillman]

If you teach a man to fish, he and his buddies will take every last fish until there is only one male and one female fish left and they'll hope that 500 years later, the fish will bounce back to feed future generations. They will also choose the last 2 fish alive to be the smallest ones in the ocean. This is exageration, but all the big fish in the ocean have been wiped out leaving behind little baby sized ones.

I guess my point is that government regulation is always needed. You can't just expect that family planning, helping them with infrastructure, teaching them, and giving giving giving is going to help in the long run. They just screw it up every time. And we screw up by helping them in the first place.

As for the 2.1 childdren per women, it doesn't need to be so mathy and strict. Right now, there is no law so the number is infinte. You can't make it 2.1, because that just is not enough children to enure a safe continuation of the family line. People will violate the law and fight against it. Plus, the .1 left over children would add up to become and entire 3rd child for one lucky woman out of every so many women. Who gets to have that 3rd child and why is she so much more deserving than the rest? It would have to start off higher. Right now, we can afford a higher number of children per woman. Then, the number can be reduced in the future after populations have gotten accustomed to having these laws.

We're on the same page here; I'm just saying the rule can't be too rigid like that to start with. It would be like saying "No one drive cars any more from now on! Everyone must ride a bike to help deal with climate control!"

[SnickerSnack]

Thanks for looking that up. Too bad for that particular country. It seems that I used a really lousy example.

It took the rest of the world over a hundred years to get the infrastructure that it has now. So, yes, developed countries did the work on their own, but they've had a bit of time to work on it.

Expensive infrastructure with strings attached is not as great as more competitive infrastructure without strings.

That's true, but (let's assume we're talking about an African nation getting "aid" from China) is no infrastructure better than expensive infrastructure? If there was competitive infrastructure up for sale, why didn't they get that instead?

Again, I used a bad example. What I mean is that just giving money to feed people doesn't do them any real good if someone isn't also helping them move toward being able to feed themselves in the future. Maybe some african countries can't feed themselves, but if they had the infrastructure to support a manufacturing industry, then maybe they could import enough food to take care of themselves. Or scrape together enough money to modernize their agricultural industry.

[SnickerSnack]

As it turns out, you are only halfway right. The way a person turns out is determined by about 50% from their genes and about another 50% from environment. The actual numbers depend on what research you choose. If you take a course in genetics, then they say genetics make up 51% of the individual and environment shapes 49% and there is some 1% error factored in. If you take a course that focuses more in development, their selection of research says it's about 51% environment, and 49% genes with 1% error. Either way, it's obvious that it comes down to about half genes, half environment.

So the things you brought up: nice upbringing in America, good parenting, schooling, toys, nice homes, etc. is called environmental enrichment. Well, it's called that if it's a really nice upbringing done on purpose to outdo the norm, like in an 'ideal' American home with great wealthy parents. But even with less, all those factors you mentioned count as the environmental influence on the individual. This determines about half of the individual. The other half is determined by genetics. This is all found through research and literature and I can support it with some textbooks if anyone wants me to.

Now, keep in mind, I stated that groups of people can become 'evil' due to both genes and environment, and this was just my theory. It may indeed be flawed, the 'evil' part. My thinking is they are doomed due to their genes. All the wonderful upbringing in the world can only fix half of what they turn out to become. So according to my belief, you can pour money into their society as much as you want, but if the people have been committing war time attrocities for centuries non-stop, the behaviors that I called 'evil' are going to continue being passed down to their next generations. You've got entire generations of children whose fathers were rapists. Just something to think about; so I thought I'd put it in with the rest. All the environmental enrichment is only going to help remedy about 50% of the 'evil' behaviors.

To whom exactly are you referring?

I think you're right about lack of stable government being the problem.

ahhh... the youth today.




Almost sounds like a translation of "How is a person to fish if no one gives them any fish?"

It sure is easy to marginalize someone when you take one sentence out of context. How about we look at the whole paragraph, just for fun?

How else are they to get infrastructure if no one builds it for them? The nation in the news story did not have the capacity to build anything substantial, so someone has to do it for them. Instead of giving them something for free, China helped them get something done. Now with that infrastructure in place, they are better able to improve in other ways.

Notice the Instead of giving them something for free part.

ahhh... the old today.

Almost sounds like a translation of "Get off my lawn!" "Sir, this is a publc park." "Have you seen my dog? His name is Sprinkles."

[Knarlfist]

It sure is easy to marginalize someone when you take one sentence out of context. How about we look at the whole paragraph, just for fun?

The point wasn't to marginalize... but one thing the wisdom of experience teaches you is that there really are two polar-opposite views in life. People when examined in general fall into shades along a scale between those poles, but when someone so glaringly at one extreme end is posting his viewpoint, then usually you can just write off even trying to present a logical argument and find common ground.

To be frank... the type of person that sees a country where millions of humans almost grovel in the mud starving, ravaged by diseases including massive HIV rates, with no life to impart to future generations at this point yet they spend their time pumping out more children instead of spending effort to either change their location/circumstances or find new ways to support the population that is already there.... a person that sees all of that and thinks throwing charity and dollars at the country will solve things, almost can't be talked to.

It's quite like the difference between Liberals and Conservatives. One lives in the real world, one lives in the magic fairy-land world that they wish could be.


Sadly I think many of the solutions that could really make an impact in areas with that much suffering, would have to be seemingly harsh. Perhaps at the beginning some kind of enforced birth control, and maybe a tried and proven method of behavior control like an institutionalized religion to keep some bad habits in line until the situation improves (works well, the entire reason religion was invented after all, to control the masses).

I know it seems horrible, but getting the HIV rates and birth rates under control might eventually allow other charity to then become effective, then the infrastructure and education building that many countries would be happy to come help with, could have half a chance of working.



p.s. Why do posts like these always remind me of that dang Christian's Children Fund commercial on tv? "If you would only find it in your heart to send a nickel, you could buy Anna a few grains of rice.. which would be enough to last her til age 12 where she can be raped, pop out 6 new starving children, continue to spread disease, and insure poverty and suffering as a philosophy. We'll be in contact for more nickels from you when her children are born to keep the cycle going."

What's SO wrong about spending a life trying to improve the situation instead of intentionally worsening it? I don't even have children... because I am responsible and cannot afford them. So I should spend my meager income giving it away to people who are not responsible? Sure thing buddy... just don't be a hater and bash my hard rules. If you want my charity, than you can receive a vasectomy/tubal ligation first, and make a solemn promise to educate yourself and help towards community building.

[Knarlfist]

I realize that most of the rant in my post didn't address some of the points you made in your earliest posts Snicker, I only expounded on the differences in POVs to make a point. RE-reading what I posted, most likely we agree on tons of ideas, so I'm not trying to imply that you are one of the extreme polar types.

So back on specific topic: Your post about building a country infrastructure just sounded wrong... we cannot go around building up countries like that from the mud, when their cultures haven't advanced to meet that point.

I think the reason so many people responded to your post, was because it seemed to skip logic. Who built our infrastructure? We did..., who built Russia's? The point should be made by now... and your implication that a country in Africa could never acquire an infrastructure unless it was put in place for them just seemed ignorant.

Not to shiite on your solutions though, because you are right about some things... and there is no easy black-and-white solution to things like this. Just sometimes it feels like we're all trying to glue a glob of Oil together, and hold it til it dries. Why should we be surprised when we finally let the glob free, all confident that it's now glued solid.... and it immediately falls apart? There isn't much reason to believe if all countries ran into tomorrow and forced institutions/infrastructure, that it would hold and prosper.

[Moosashi]

China was smart to impose the one child policy law.

One way to feed your people is to have fewer of them. Another way is to not use the government to plan the economy. Of course, if you're already totalitarian, then you have no problem with being, well, totalitarian.

[stillman]

SnickerSnack, I was talking to plasmo about the genes and environment. His name is there in the start of my post.

Knarlfist, that's basically how I feel about the whole thing. However, I had to keep my tone down. At least 2 viewers couldn't read beyond one paragraph on my first post! People are too quick to call us racist or whatever just because we want a better, more effective approach.

The people begging on commercials for us to help their charities need to employ their visionary skills. They only see the now. They want the starving kids fed now, at all costs, regardless of the consequences. We all are going to feel sick to our stomachs when we are exposed to the appauling conditions, and we will all feel empathy and emotional. It's our human nature. But the last thing you want to do is make it worse. I truely believe people who donate are commiting/enabling murder...just not quite yet. They are future murders.

I agree there should be stern conditions for any more help. In these trying times, there should be a removal of the hypocratic oath (to do no harm). What I would do, is send over doctors who specialize in abortion. These doctors could just do nothing but abortions all day long. Fast abortions. Not super sanitized, perfectly safe abortions. No, the numbers are too high. They need to make a few sacrifices. If diseases are spread from too many abortions per unit time, then so be it. Let's say X number of women die from poor abortion practices. Well, Y is the number of women who die in childbirth because there were no abortions for them. Y is going to be hundreds of times higher than X. Therefore, the people are far better off getting the hastey abortions.

I think your suggestion might be a bit too harsh. Suppose one of the sterilized women inherited some money, but she is sterile now so she can't reproduce even though now she can afford a child. I think a better solution is simply to have an abortion clinic at every corner. I think if the people had options, they might abort instead of having so many more children.

Then again, I could be wrong about that. I was told there is a desire in families over there to have many children so that the parents will be taken care of in their older years. That just sounds very selfish to me. They're starving their own kids to death for their own future well-being. This is why I say that entire populations might have 'evil' genetics since this child killing has gone on for so many generations. This lifestyle has got to go, or no progress will ever be made. But how do you go about abolishing something from their culture, a practice that has gone on for so many generations?

Therefore, there may not be a solution for helping them. IMO, the ultimate solution is to just pull out and stop interfereing with their self destructive ways. If they want to continue killing each other and starving their own kids to death, then that is their action, not ours. We are not the ones hurting them. We should not be made to feel responsible for their problems.

So according to my solution, many decades go by with no one giving them any aid. Millions die, but they just die sooner rather than later. AIDS runs it's course. Let's say a billion die in total. So AFTER all this, Africans would finally see the truth and stop thinking AIDS has to do with evil spirits. This is part of the problem, you see. They don't talk about AIDS or safe sex; they just assume it's evil spirits in many villages. After AIDS kills off half of them or however many, they will soon learn that it really is contracted through sexual contact. We've been educationg them for a while, and it doesn't work. It's going to take their own witnessing of the disaster for them to finally learn.

So after all that death, they would learn and start changing their ways.
Also, there would be enough food and water for the survivors.

I have another theory, even more controversial than my 'evil' theory. Ever notice that some mentally retarded people tend to dwell on food and sex? For instance, such a person may often ask if you have a girlfriend when these questions are inappropriate. Well picture a village in Africa where almost none of the children have had enough to eat during crucial phases of brain development. The whole population then becomes mildly mentally retared. That generation of kids grows up, and due to their condition, they are preoccupied with food and sex. But guess what? There is barely any food...so that leaves just sex. So they have sex. Also due to the poorness in their community, there aren't theatres, community centers, sports arenas, etc so there is very little to do except engage in sex. These factors accumulate in a giant disaster that we see now. They have nothing to do but procreate combined with their enhanced willingness to procreate due to delayed cognitive development.

But if the population shrank, maybe new generations would take over where children are fed enough. With fully developed brains, they would have their chance to not repeat creating another disaster. Perhaps we would then see a superior, independent Africa the likes of which we've never seen.

[jmervyn]

I guess my point is that government regulation is always needed.

Quite wrong, as you'll realize if you consider historical examples. Say, rather, that in over-controlled and over-populated cultures such as that of the modern era, if one desires to prevent war or starvation then extreme government power is one of the few ways to prolong the inevitable.

Civilized Western nations' populations are shrinking, yet they produce most of the largess in both food and goods. The problem is rarely an actual lack of provender so much as political decisions about who gets fed. The populations expanding the most rapidly are those most ill-equipped to handle such population growth. What do you think is going to happen when you try to tell the uncivilized people that they need to stop spawning for something as vague as the good of the planet (or the beneficial status of some silly fish)?

Hell, Japan <still> hasn't stopped whaling...

[AeroJonesy]

What makes you think people will want to have abortions, even if they are readily available?