How to bring fresh water and food to those that are starving in Developing countries?

[nnmartin]

How to bring fresh water and food to those that are starving?

This was a question asked to me recently in another thread.

Here, it is referring to 3rd World nations.

I see that there are three main options.


1. Encourage revolution in said nations in order to remove corrupt governments.

2. Prop up corrupt governments with aid money.

3. Leave said nations to 'survival of the fittest'

All of these 3 options would likely lead to dictatorship and tyranny and thus worse conditions for the poor.

Option 4. - Neo-colonialism , this is generally what is happening in many places these days.

Perhaps better than options 1 to 3 but perhaps not.


Is there a 5th option, or does anyone disagree with the other scenarios?

 

[LongGe123]

How to bring fresh water and food to those that are starving?
This was a question asked to me recently in another thread.
Here, it is referring to 3rd World nations.
I see that there are three main options.
1. Encourage revolution in said nations in order to remove corrupt governments.
2. Prop up corrupt governments with aid money.
3. Leave said nations to 'survival of the fittest'
All of these 3 options would likely lead to dictatorship and tyranny and thus worse conditions for the poor.
Option 4. - Neo-colonialism , this is generally what is happening in many places these days.
Perhaps better than options 1 to 3 but perhaps not.
Is there a 5th option, or does anyone disagree with the other scenarios?

Wow, another triumph of over-simplification. Let's go over your proposed solutions which you seem to be saying we HAVE to choose from:

1) Encourage revolution - most of the "corrupt leaders" you referred to in the other post you mentioned ALSO came to power through revolution, promising sweeping changes that would make life better for everyone - the result is invariably genocide, famiine and then another revolution to start the process again. I think I mentioned Idi Amin and President Obote of Uganda already in another post - refer to that as an example.

2) Prop up government....I'm not sure what exactly you're getting at. You mean send aid money to governments, despite the risk that they'll just embezzle it or whatever and we'll have essentially directly funded some sort of malicious regime, right? Hmmm, well, of course there's always a risk one takes when giving money intended to be used for aid, via a government that seems hell-bent on using it for something else. I'd say giving another government money is ok, but shouldn't be the focus of the way to aid another nation.

3) No - this just...won't work. Plus, even if one or two nations DO leave them alone, another nation will just come along and stick their noses in.

4) Your view here is a strange combination of pessimism and realism - I don't believe other countries act to be "neo-colonial" - but ARE acting out of self-interest most of the time. China is a good example of this - they always claim their selflessly helping the African continent, as they're shipping diamonds, oil, gold and whatnot out and hoarding it all back in China. Anyway....

But of course there is a 5th solution, and probably a 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th. I don't see why you have to limit everything to such overly-simplified and under-thought solutions.

How about this as a general approach - governments should do more to negotiate on behalf of charities and other organizations, or at least use their connections to put heads of charities in better positions to open greater dialogue with representatives of the in-need country's government. What the country's really need is education, tools and various other know-how. Doesn't even have to be about charity - the government can help connect private enterprises with foreign governments to arrange exchange of knowledge and expertise.

It's the classic "teach a man to fish" approach - if you can help other countries update their agriculture, set up more food processing capabilities, improve access to water, that's the foundation for the improvement of the quality of life for people. It's all rooted in education. Most important is opening dialogue between the governments of those countries and those of developed nations and/or charities.

I believe that most countries would welcome heads of charities in to discuss programs like school-building, well-digging, home reconstruction, medical assistance etc. But in fact there are exceptions to the rule - North Korea is notorious for not letting aid flow to where it is needed the most. They run on a principal of whoever is the most productive gets fed first - so most aid flows right into areas that are already sufficiently stocked.

Anway, so yeah, that's my overview on the approach that needs to be taken.

 

[Vinayaka]

Education is another key. If you don't know the water is dirty, well ... LongGe gave excellent response.

 

[Revoltingest]

Convince them to cut down on breeding.
Plenty of water & food for a smaller population.

 

[RisingKnowledge]

Education is another key. If you don't know the water is dirty, well ... LongGe gave excellent response.

If they don't have access to make or get fresh water telling them it is dirty will not help.

 

[Vinayaka]

But many times when clean water has been made available, because of no education on water-borne illness, the villagers just make it unsanitary right away. ??? So the whole purpose is defeated about a day after the first water comes from the well.

 

[A-ManESL]

I feel the main problem that intended aid (whether by NGO's or through government channels) doesn't reach the poor in such countries (including India) is because there is a lack of complete understanding, both qualitative and quantitative, regarding the poor in these countries. Proper information studies/surveys/data collection must be given top priority (or at least about equal priority) over/to direct aid programs by foreign and national organizations so that sustainable planning can be done.

 

[Songbird]

The people I most wish to help are those who are unable to be reached. They lack the infrastructures to even receive help, and they're in the most dire, impoverished situations. Basically, if you dig a well or support a cause, you're still not reaching those kinds of people. From what I've read, establishing technological infrastructures is crucial - roads, phone, internet. Emergency and disaster relief is crucial, but longer term solutions need to be applied too. From basic frameworks can communication and collaboration increase, and from there, medical, educational, and agricultural systems can be built. That's my very simplified view, at least.

 

[Mathematician]

It really comes down to the locals wiping aside corrupt government and allowing the internal economy to prosper while fending off corporate takeovers. Foreign investment isn't a bad thing, but the country has to push its own entrepreneurs and firms to succeed.

 

[Quintessence]

Convince them to cut down on breeding.
Plenty of water & food for a smaller population.

Yeah. Pretty much what I was thinking. I suppose you could consider this a variant of nmartin's number three. The human world in general is going to have to seriously address this issue, but overpopulation is already a major problem in certain areas of the world.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah. Pretty much what I was thinking. I suppose you could consider this a variant of nmartin's number three. The human world in general is going to have to seriously address this issue, but overpopulation is already a major problem in certain areas of the world.

I'd also like the rest of us to curb population growth.
I'm concerned about many things, strife over resources, polar bears, penguins, critters I've never even heard of.

 

[LongGe123]

I'd also like the rest of us to curb population growth.
I'm concerned about many things, strife over resources, polar bears, penguins, critters I've never even heard of.

Yes, overpopulation is also a big problem. But measures such as a one-child policy should also be avoided, given the utterly crippling long-term problems such a policy brings. China is feeling the sting of its one-child policy right now.

What governments can do, with foreign aid, is perhaps offer people incentives to have less children - I think having 1-2 children would be an acceptable thing to many families, if they were presented with more incentive and educated on alternatives to getting pregnant pretty much every time they have sex.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, overpopulation is also a big problem. But measures such as a one-child policy should also be avoided, given the utterly crippling long-term problems such a policy brings. China is feeling the sting of its one-child policy right now.

But this must be balanced against the sting of even more people crowded into its limited borders.

What governments can do, with foreign aid, is perhaps offer people incentives to have less children - I think having 1-2 children would be an acceptable thing to many families, if they were presented with more incentive and educated on alternatives to getting pregnant pretty much every time they have sex.

Sounds reasonable.

 

[nnmartin]

Convince them to cut down on breeding.
Plenty of water & food for a smaller population.

yes, that sounds like the right approach.

Perhaps aid could be withheld unless breeding reduction programmes were put into place and enforced.

Why do big families that cannot feed themselves insist on having 7 children for example? Haven't they ever heard of contraception?

 

[nnmartin]

It really comes down to the locals wiping aside corrupt government and allowing the internal economy to prosper while fending off corporate takeovers. Foreign investment isn't a bad thing, but the country has to push its own entrepreneurs and firms to succeed.

yes, that is a good point too.

foreign investment and aid surely just blocks the initiative of the locals, I mean why struggle to create a start-up business when it is more profitable to reach for a hand-out.

Eliminating corruption is also key but how can you do this when it is a way of life?

 

[nnmartin]

Yes, overpopulation is also a big problem. But measures such as a one-child policy should also be avoided, given the utterly crippling long-term problems such a policy brings. China is feeling the sting of its one-child policy right now.

such as?

do you mean that there are now far too many men in China due to selective breeding type arrangements?

 

[LongGe123]

such as?
do you mean that there are now far too many men in China due to selective breeding type arrangements?

Many people have heard of the one-child policy in China, but it's not quite as clear cut as many assume. Let me give a brief overview of the law.

Currently, most families are limited to one child, but there are many exceptions too. Rural families are allowed to have a second and even third child, if their first and/or second child is a girl. But if the 3rd child is also a girl, that's the limit. This is rooted in a tradition favoring male children. I don't really get it, but hey, that's how it goes out here. Ethnic minorities in China are also permitted to have 2 children. Finally, a new amendment is that if 2 people who are both from a one-child family want to have a baby, they can actually have 2 children, but both parents MUST be an only-child. Punishment for breaking the one-child law is usually a hefty fine ranging from a fixed rate of about 60,000RMB, to more ridiculous 2/3 of your annual income whatever that might be.

I mentioned how China is feeling the "sting" of this policy, and some have asked what exactly. The social issues created by this law are many, and rather complex, but I will try to nnmartin the situation and make it really over-simplified

1) The law has created an entire generation of pampered, spoiled little emperor children. The chinese refer to the first generation of one-child policy babies as "born after 1980", and when you meet them you can SEE the difference. Obviously not all of them are bad, but an alarmingly high proportion of these people, now in their 20s, are self-centered, difficult and maladjusted people. They have no idea how to deal with people saying "no" to them, and have no concept of working for something bigger than themselves. As far as they are concerned, they are the center of the universe.

2) More seriously, the burden on the child as they grow up is tremendous. The one-child policy creates a phenomenon known as 4-2-1. You have 4 grandparents on top, supported by just two people underneath, and then EVERYONE eventually is supported by the ONE child at the bottom. In China's economy this can be crippling.

3) Rapid premature "aging population". An "aging population" is usually a feature of a developed country. Healthcare improves and people live longer, creating a larger older generation dependent on pensions and welfare etc. Usually by the time the nation has evolved to that point, it has the wherewithal to deal with it. China's one-child policy has created a population with far too many old people and not enough young people to support the system. And it has all happened in just 20 years or so. The financial burden on the Chinese state is quite frightening.

4) Infanticide - as I said, there is a traditional preference for male children. A one-child policy in China has led to tens of thousands of baby girls being murdered at birth, or simply abandoned. I've visited orphanages in Northern China, they're not so nice. And about 80-90% of the kids there are girls.

5) This issue has also created another problem linked to the one-child policy - massive gender imbalance. Nnmartin mentioned there being "too many men" - ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. There is a totally shocking imbalance in gender in China which is creating potentially catastrophic unrest. Currently, the ratio between female to male stands at 100:120, so for every 100 women, there are 120 men. Take that into a population of 1.4 billion and you've got serious issues. If you're gay, like me, this is great news. There are plenty of men to go around in China! But seriously, I read in the paper here about a city in Hebei Province where there were 1.3 million men and only 650,000 women. And now in many big cities where girls have a penchant for foreign men, you can see how tensions might rise.

These are some of the main issues that a one-child policy can bring to a nation. China was brave to implement this policy, and despite the backlash, I applaud them in many ways. They saw a need to curb an out-of-control population growth, and had the guts to do it. But now they have to live with the consequences. It was quite typical of the Chinese to resort to such extreme measures without really thinking through the long-term ramifications. That's basically how it works in China, haha.

 

[Melki]

Allow for sattelite cities, independent governments, to be in the territory. Developing countries have rich resources, let the community show how to use it.
If the sattelite cities became a success, poor people would want to follow the way. They would encourage themselves to stop paying to corruptors, put their kids in schools, learn the laws, and stop pirating.

Stop asking them for taxes, instead ask for donations. Or reduce taxes on people who knew the laws relevant to their daily lives, like the criminal laws, traffic laws, tax laws. Give them tests and those who got high results get tax cuts, and those who have low results didn't get tax cuts.
Stop raising interest rates, instead ask for donations and distribute them to rural areas.

 

[LongGe123]

I do agree with greater investment in rural areas. What many developing countries tend to do is focus all their attention on developing urban areas to cope with an influx of migration to the cities. In fact, by investing in the rural areas, and building up satellite towns and villages, a country can ease the strain of overpopulation in the cities. It's important to encourage people not to all gather in one megacity to live - because the results are inevitably squalor, crime and general poverty

 

[Shermana]

Neocolonialism is not necessarily a bad thing.

During "Apartheid", there were more Black millionaires than today in South Africa (back when money was worth more too), and there were more blacks who drove cars in SA than Russians who drove cars in the Soviet Union.

I don't think all neocolonialism is exploitative necessarily, I don't see why a foreign government is going to be more exploitative than a native one. I don't see why the British rule over SA was any worse than the terribly corrupt ANC which piflers SA today. I think whatever is best for the average person of those countries should trump any ideology about "imperialism". If you disagree, look no further than what happened to the "Breadbasket of Africa", Rhodesia, which is now Zimbabwe.

Now in cases like China, as has been noted, they are basically exploiting and abusing the countries that they are imperializing. In France's case, they dominate and dictate the banking and spending practices of countries that use the African Franc, in some ways, pilfering 80% of their national incomes by only allowing them to spend 20% of their budget and to store the rest in France (of which they may only withdraw....with INTEREST!!)

So we have the French example (totally exploitative) versus the British example (exploitative but where the average citizen is in far better shape than today and has more access to the economic opprotunities), and the Chinese example (taking over the resources and basically directly colonizing and economically displacing), and the "Native government" example (populist corrupt cliques that deprive the people of economic stability), I think the British example is, unfortunately, the least of all evils in this situation. Thus, in my opinion, the anti-imperialist ideology if anything is rhetoric that ignores the facts on the ground. There is in fact a benefit to a stronger, more organized and less corrupt government coming from abroad than a "local" one which is even more corrupt. Thus, in a way, perhaps the best road to development and infrastructure and equalizing economic opprotunity may in fact be to colonize with the British social example (as opposed to the French and Chinese model) and to accept that it would be better for the average person than their own "local" governments. No amount of foreign aid or donations will ever make a dent in a country where the money is swiftly pocketed by the generals and the warlords and the corrupt provincial overseers. Look what happened to Madonna's school for girls. There are numerous Africans today who say that they were better off under Britain, and they are far from being "sell outs" or "Uncle Toms".

On a realpolitik level, the best interest for the poor and deprived person of a third world country is in fact to have the helping hand of a foreign power. The problem is finding a system of occupation that doesn't equate to the French economic domination system or the Chinese outright industrial displacement system. It would be great if local governments were able to do it on their own, but try to find a good example of that happening.

In the meantime, I think one of the best solutions is economic investment from the private sector worldwide. Uganda is doing great with this in recent years.