Aid for Third World Poor Attacked By Attenborough
British Natural history broadcaster David Attenborough has declared that the relatively rich countries should stop giving food aid to the poor countries. He says that such food aid contributes to the overpopulation problem in the world. His statements sound like the opposite of what I heard Prince Charles say in a speech broadcast on American TV.
By way of contrast I have a different idea.
Aid received by poor females could be conditional. A female who agrees to limit herself to having 0 children, could receive A level of aid; a female who agrees to limit herself to having 1 child could receive B level of aid; a female who agrees to limit herself to having 2 children could receive C level of aid; a female who agrees to not having anymore children could receive X level of aid.
It is much easier to keep track of how many children a woman has had, compared to keeping track of how many children a man has fathered.
Traditionally society has been more tolerant of a man having more than one wife, compared to a woman having more than one husband. Which leads to the idea that not men, but women, should be reproductively limited.
Justice involves more than humanitarian outcomes; it involves humanitarian provision of opportunities. Doing things my way, would at least result in women having some kind of choice-- the alternative is the only choice they face is starvation.
Talk of how food aid should be denied those in foreign nations, eventually turns into talk of how assistance should be denied those who live amongst us in our relatively prosperous nations.
Human nature being what it is, the human being of limited intelligence and plagued by sin, probability being what it is, when many people apply for a job, chances are that the person chosen by humans for the job is not the person God would choose for the job. This leads to troubling consequences in terms of who ends up starving. Criminals end up feasting in the best restaurants, while the law-abiding starve.
Some of us have travelled through poor nations. We have been shocked to see persons who are superior in categories such as voice personality appearance intelligence, living in extreme poverty.
When persons have to endure unameliorated extreme poverty and starvation, such leads to emotional and psychological damage for the more fortunate. When people see people starve and live in extreme poverty with nobody there to help them, they feel as if they or their family members could be next, and so they become stressed. A man and his family might not be endangered during the man's lifetime by let-them-starve philosophies; but the same man's grandchildren could be destroyed by such philosophies.
Nations like the US were in more of a position to be able to help starving persons in poor nations thirty years ago, when their economies were stronger. Yet even now, such nations can be useful, via activities such as employing and paying their own citizens to help the foreign nations, by making use of skills and abilities and technologies that they excel in compared to the world. Even inexpensive little gestures, can go a long way in the sense of soothing hurt feelings. The nations the third world poor live in can be encouraged to help their poor. Voluntary contributions that are not funded by govt can be funelled into intelligent programs. Nations are capable of simultaneously helping their own poor and the foreign poor.
Looking at the repulsive and dangerous animals found in nature (some of them human), which pose a danger to human beings, it becomes evident that so-called 'evolution' does not necessarily lead to the production of creatures that mankind enjoys and loves. Often those who are the most enjoyable are shot down by the same thing that killed Christ-- human envy.
It's a sick society when everyone is obsessed with selling whatever they are employed to sell, as a result of which everyone fanatically resists influences that would cause money to be spent on things other than what they sell. The money spent on things other than what they sell, after it circulates in the economy, ends up being spent on the things that they sell.
By way of contrast I have a different idea.
Aid received by poor females could be conditional. A female who agrees to limit herself to having 0 children, could receive A level of aid; a female who agrees to limit herself to having 1 child could receive B level of aid; a female who agrees to limit herself to having 2 children could receive C level of aid; a female who agrees to not having anymore children could receive X level of aid.
It is much easier to keep track of how many children a woman has had, compared to keeping track of how many children a man has fathered.
Traditionally society has been more tolerant of a man having more than one wife, compared to a woman having more than one husband. Which leads to the idea that not men, but women, should be reproductively limited.
Justice involves more than humanitarian outcomes; it involves humanitarian provision of opportunities. Doing things my way, would at least result in women having some kind of choice-- the alternative is the only choice they face is starvation.
Talk of how food aid should be denied those in foreign nations, eventually turns into talk of how assistance should be denied those who live amongst us in our relatively prosperous nations.
Human nature being what it is, the human being of limited intelligence and plagued by sin, probability being what it is, when many people apply for a job, chances are that the person chosen by humans for the job is not the person God would choose for the job. This leads to troubling consequences in terms of who ends up starving. Criminals end up feasting in the best restaurants, while the law-abiding starve.
Some of us have travelled through poor nations. We have been shocked to see persons who are superior in categories such as voice personality appearance intelligence, living in extreme poverty.
When persons have to endure unameliorated extreme poverty and starvation, such leads to emotional and psychological damage for the more fortunate. When people see people starve and live in extreme poverty with nobody there to help them, they feel as if they or their family members could be next, and so they become stressed. A man and his family might not be endangered during the man's lifetime by let-them-starve philosophies; but the same man's grandchildren could be destroyed by such philosophies.
Nations like the US were in more of a position to be able to help starving persons in poor nations thirty years ago, when their economies were stronger. Yet even now, such nations can be useful, via activities such as employing and paying their own citizens to help the foreign nations, by making use of skills and abilities and technologies that they excel in compared to the world. Even inexpensive little gestures, can go a long way in the sense of soothing hurt feelings. The nations the third world poor live in can be encouraged to help their poor. Voluntary contributions that are not funded by govt can be funelled into intelligent programs. Nations are capable of simultaneously helping their own poor and the foreign poor.
Looking at the repulsive and dangerous animals found in nature (some of them human), which pose a danger to human beings, it becomes evident that so-called 'evolution' does not necessarily lead to the production of creatures that mankind enjoys and loves. Often those who are the most enjoyable are shot down by the same thing that killed Christ-- human envy.
It's a sick society when everyone is obsessed with selling whatever they are employed to sell, as a result of which everyone fanatically resists influences that would cause money to be spent on things other than what they sell. The money spent on things other than what they sell, after it circulates in the economy, ends up being spent on the things that they sell.
posted by David Virgil at 3:35 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home