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

[Wannabe Yogi]

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

Yes change the repressive system of World Bank and IMF that screws the poor for profit of the rich.

 

[Shermana]

Yes change the repressive system of World Bank and IMF that screws the poor for profit of the rich.

As terribly exploitative as the IMF and WB are, it can be argued that they also do their part to make it as easy as possible for the governments to work something out that is reasonable for all sides.

The problem is that those governments are so corrupt that they end up not even being able to fill their ends of the bargain, which on paper, are generally very reasonable from what I understand at least.

And without the World Bank and IMF, what kind of system would you propose for those governments who truly do need foreign capital to expand and develop?

A zero interest lending bank?

Heck, the USA could use one of those for its own citizens.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

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

It is the rich countries that use the resources not poor ones.

How do you cut down on breeding when the parents only source of income in old age is their kids? When Child mortality is so high they must have a lot of kids or they will starve.

 

[LongGe123]

It is the rich countries that use the resources not poor ones.
How do you cut down on breeding when the parents only source of income in old age is their kids? When Child mortality is so high they must have a lot of kids or they will starve.

But here you're talking as though the person is suggesting to do nothing apart from cut down on breeding. In fact, discouraging large families while at the same time, improving basic amenities and health facilities, would be a highly appropriate course of action.

 

[McBell]

Haven't they ever heard of contraception?

What, and risk spending eternity in hell for thwarting gods plans?
Are you insane?!

 

[gnomon]

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?

Complicated topic.

It would be good to know as to what extent foreign companies, say Coca Cola, are buying up local resources and redistributing those resources away from local communities, such as water.

To what extent are agricultural subsidies in developed nations pushing local farmers out of the food market.

How corrupt or misguided are the loaning policies of the IMF and World Bank.

How can one nation incite revolution in another. Recent history of direct military intervention by the U.S. and European powers paints a dismal picture. What examples of inspired revolution exist by the same powers. Not Cuba. Not Iraq. Not Somalia. Not the numerous South American nations.

I have no idea.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

When I was doing my undergrad, a few of my friends in water resources engineering were working on a project for Engineers Without Borders: they were designing a low-cost water filter (like under $10, IIRC) for third-world countries. It was made of cheap, sturdy and readily available materials, its operation was dead simple with very little to break, and its filter media was sand, so it didn't need to be stocked with any expensive chemicals or consumable supplies.

Apparently, it was a pretty effective filter, too, and could deal with some pretty nasty source water.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

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.

As women are educated and given power over there reprodution, people are feed, and kids are able to live into adulthood. People naturally reproduce less.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

But here you're talking as though the person is suggesting to do nothing apart from cut down on breeding. In fact, discouraging large families while at the same time, improving basic amenities and health facilities, would be a highly appropriate course of action.

Do they need to discourage large families in Europe ? Of coarse not. It happens naturally as peoples lives get better. The same happens all over the world. If you look at the statistics the population of Africa is Increasing yet their use of resources is decreasing.
Is overpopulation a problem ? Yes, but... it less of a problem the glutinous behavior of the rich countries.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

As terribly exploitative as the IMF and WB are, it can be argued that they also do their part to make it as easy as possible for the governments to work something out that is reasonable for all sides.

I am not for the storming of the IMF and World Bank with torches and pitchforks.

I just think that the system is skewed for the benefit of the rich. I think things could be more fair.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

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

To heck...with your solutions.....

Teach people how to grow, manage and sustain crops.

Teach them how to gather water and provide solutions to help clean/purify the water.

Dig wells.

This is just a start. We can build from here....

 

[Reverend Rick]

I'm concerned about many things, strife over resources, polar bears, penguins, critters I've never even heard of.

Or had the opportunity to taste.

 

[LongGe123]

Do they need to discourage large families in Europe ? Of coarse not. It happens naturally as peoples lives get better. The same happens all over the world. If you look at the statistics the population of Africa is Increasing yet their use of resources is decreasing.
Is overpopulation a problem ? Yes, but... it less of a problem the glutinous behavior of the rich countries.

But the difference is, most of Europe, particularly western and northern europe, has enjoyed lasting stability and peace for 70 years now, so of course we had the chance to naturally develop that way. but how does Africa have a chance? What I'm saying is that the problem needs to be approached in a different way - we can't take our whole laissez-faire attitude with Africa.

 

[Reverend Rick]

we can't take our whole laissez-faire attitude with Africa.

I think the bigger question should be, why do we do this?

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

What I'm saying is that the problem needs to be approached in a different way - we can't take our whole laissez-faire attitude with Africa.

I agree a our laissez-faire attitude is bad.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Teach people how to grow, manage and sustain crops.

Teach them how to gather water and provide solutions to help clean/purify the water.

Dig wells.

This is just a start. We can build from here....

And toilets. Always toilets.

 

[Me Myself]

Convince them to cut down on breeding

This would be the simplest and imposiblest solution at the same time.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

And toilets. Always toilets.

Yea they'll have to work on that.

 

[dust1n]

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.

Yes, I suppose it is totally alright to revoke citizenship of all black people in a country as long as some of them are rich. The rest, I guess they would just be poor and have no citizenship. Not necessarily a bad thing.

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.

So if something is more exploitative, than the less exploitative entity suddenly becomes non-exploitative, necessarily... Am I reading that right?

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.

170,000 years modern humans have lived in SA...

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".

How did that work out for Britian ultimately?

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.

It's hard with all of those propped dictators who play the role of 'Western colonialist' whenever the west is no longer about to support their own direct colonization.

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.

I guess we can ahead and work on the next few 'Boer Wars' while you pretend the Apartheid is anything but racist, disgusting and fascist.

 

[Shermana]

Yes, I suppose it is totally alright to revoke citizenship of all black people in a country as long as some of them are rich. The rest, I guess they would just be poor and have no citizenship. Not necessarily a bad thing.

What is "Citizenship" exactly? Is "Citizenship" in a corrupt ANC government better than having a more equitable spread of wealth and economic opportunity? Is some little title more important than the actual food and economy?
With all this "Citizenship", SA has gone to hell. MANY of them say that the Apartheid days were better. The country wasn't the world's worst on the rape stats either. Maybe you want to tell the many South Africans who say things are worse now and that the system was better back then that they're better off and to stop whining?

So if something is more exploitative, than the less exploitative entity suddenly becomes non-exploitative, necessarily... Am I reading that right?

Not at all. Let me help, I was implying it's the lesser of two evils.

170,000 years modern humans have lived in SA...

When the Portugeuse landed there was little to no settlement in many areas like Johannesburg. And then there's the question of why Africans are allowed to push each other out of each other's land and take over and why Europeans aren't? Racism? Only Blacks can conquer blacks' land?

How did that work out for Britian ultimately?

People like you who put more emphasis on ideology than economic reality caused the pressure to make them give in, which ultimately led to a poorer life for the South Africans.

It's hard with all of those propped dictators who play the role of 'Western colonialist' whenever the west is no longer about to support their own direct colonization.

Please give a list of some of these western-backed propped up dictators other than the ones in Western African Franc sphere.

I guess we can ahead and work on the next few 'Boer Wars' while you pretend the Apartheid is anything but racist, disgusting and fascist.

I guess you don't actually care about economic realities in favor of your ideologies. I was expecting this kind of response, thank you for summarizing the opposing view so nicely. Better to live under a fascist, racist system where you can actually have a chance at economic opprotunity compared to the ANC. Like I said, NUMEROUS South Africans agree. Maybe you want to tell them what's better for them.

Also, you're propagating a misuse of the word "Fascist", which is quite common with leftist idealists. "Fascism" is when the government and corporations are basically linked hand in hand. The USA can be called "Fascist". If anything, the current corrupt ANC is far more fascist in basic definition. Now as for "Disgusting", that's a personal opinion. Many South Africans are absolutely disgusted with how the ANC runs the country. As for "racist", no qualm with that label, but it's not necessarily a bad thing if it's giving the people a far better life than their own people in charge are. Thus the point of my argument: It's the lesser of two evils. It's not the same kind of racism as say the Hutus slaughtering the Tutsis.