Gwynn ap Nudd;370462 said:
In some cases it's about resource distribution. Some countries just don't have any. Until, and if, their standards of living, industry and education are brought up to those of the majority of the world, continuing economic support will be needed.
Resources? Hmm, Just staying in Africa for the moment:
Sierra Leone - Conflict Diamond Capitol
Algeria - Copper
Nigeria - Oil
Namibia - Uranium
And so on and so forth....Plenty of resources, whats the problem? Apart from exploitation.
Gwynn ap Nudd;370462 said:
Also, bringing in modern medicines and conditions leads to huge population explosions. This causes a cycle of dependence unless the education and industry are brought up at the same time. Many of these countries already have water scarcity problems, population growth and almost any industry will put higher demands on an already stressed commodity. Importing water on the scale needed to sustain development is not feasible for most locations.
Interesting thing about population explosions, they don't happen overnight...maybe the causes do, but-nevermind. In terms of population control, why not use the chinese method: 1 kid per family = full benefits, >1 kid per family = survival rations, or even hand out free condoms. Better than starving them to death, or would you prefer to hand out morning after pills with bowls of rice?No pill, no rice. Industry? How about coastal nations building desalinisation plants, powered by solar arrays from the saharan countries, energy for water, energy for minerals and equipment, water for manufactured goods. There's the beginnings of some decent trade and industry, and lo and behold...water
Gwynn ap Nudd;370462 said:
Further, a whole pile of places will only see impovements if more modern countries are willing to resort to military action to topple governments. I neither want to see this happen nor am I willing to pay for any part of it.
Apart from the fact this happens without your say so, take Iraq for example, if a military dictatorship is running a country, there is not much that can be done without ousting the govt and for gods sakes stop selling them arms! Leave those countries to aid organisations and handouts. Reserve the 'improvements' to the countries which have at least the modicum of a fair government or are at least on the path to political reform. Democracy rules!
Gwynn ap Nudd;370462 said:
Back to the people before planet statement and why I think it is too simple to mean anything, I have to ask which people? All of them? How far do you go to benifit people before worrying about the damage to the planet? How much weight is given to people living today versus future generations? What if the best thing for people in general is for large numbers of them to die off? Who decides what is best?
I suggest a international organisation with the G8 front and center dedicated to developing the methods, deciding allocation of resources, and who gets the contracts. The developments should highlight education, impact on environment, jobs. Contractors should be required to train and use local workforces. Etc, etc...Most of the damage to the planet is caused by the rich countries anyway, as long as improvements are highly eco friendly there should be few probs. As for who to help, as many people as feasible. If the budget were one tenth of the budget for the Iraq war, we could do some real good.
Funny thing is, all this is just talk, I know it can be done, the problem is I'm not in charge...
Gwynn ap Nudd;370462 said:
What if the best thing for people in general is for large numbers of them to die off?
And thank fuck you aint in charge either. Lets be honest, imagine you were the head of an organisation which had the resources to help a significant proportion of the worlds poor, what would you do?