Greener/Organic lead to world econmic collaspe???

Charis

Cardew wrote:

If only there was a way of ensuring that any money we donate reaches its intended recipients.

Personally I have tried to be selective in any charity to whom I have donated money, and have a huge admiration for the efforts of the volunteers at the ‘sharp end’ who go into the field.

However I have the nagging feeling that more of my money over the years has gone toward buying Mercedes limousines for executives in this country, and Government officials abroad.

A reputable charity will usually publish how much money they spend on admin and how much at 'the sharp end'. Sometimes it's buried deep within the charity's website but can be found eventually. I am relieved to find that my two favourite charities spend 77p and 80.9p repectively of every pound on doing what we fund them to do.

http://www.wateraid.org/international/about_us/financial_review/default.asp

http://www.sightsavers.org/Who%20We%20Are/Contacting%20Us/Frequent%20Questions/content_1415.html

Proper charities, rather than 'appeals' and 'bucket' collections, have to be audited annually and are answerable to the Charity Commissioners.

caroline1973lefty

In terms of population there is lots of evidence that the most important factor is women's education, as banthecar says. The UN Millenium Development Goals call for all children to get a reasonable amount of education and to narrow the opportunity gap between girls and boys (amongst other things), but sadly our governments are making little progress on these Goals.

an interesting contribution to this debate is 'so shall we reap' by colin tudge, which looks at issues around food and sustainability. he says that population is projected to reach 10 billion but it will then peak, and that there's enough food / land to feed everyone, if we had a more sane and equitable political system.

Cardew

caroline1973lefty wrote:

an interesting contribution to this debate is 'so shall we reap' by colin tudge, which looks at issues around food and sustainability. he says that population is projected to reach 10 billion but it will then peak, and that there's enough food / land to feed everyone, if we had a more sane and equitable political system.

Surely the difficulty is that the population are in the 'wrong' places and the blame can hardly be laid on our( the Western World) political system.

The Horn of Africa illustrates this perfectly. With little in the way of natural resources, as stated above, the area cannot support it's population. In the past, disease, famine, and thus low life expectancy, self-limited the population to a level the land could support.

Largely through the intervention of the developed Nations we have increased life expectancy and the population will now always be dependant on aid. More aid - the larger the population -more aid required. It surely can't make sense to carry on supporting such a system that allows a huge population to be almost entirely dependant on charity.

I have no idea how we solve the problem, other than by resorting to Draconian(and unacceptable) measures.

China made it illegal to have more than 1 child in an attempt to curtail its population explosion. Is that the answer? and how should it be enforced?

tr3mor

This is what makes me dislike most charities to Africa. They show pictures of starving children and play on our guilt to give them money. By saving the children we're only making the problem worse!

We need a charity entirely dedicated to education, especially of girls as said above. It's the only humane way to deal with it.

If it carries on I can guarantee that there will be suggestions of less humane ways!

caroline1973lefty

Cardew wrote:

Surely the difficulty is that the population are in the 'wrong' places and the blame can hardly be laid on our( the Western World) political system.

well i think we have to disagree on that. i am not familiar with horn of africa in particular, but there are lots of countries where western capitalist policies have led to famine throughout history, in countries which could, & did/do, perfectly well feed themselves if left to sort out their own affairs. from the dutch east india company & the irish potato famine, through colonial india (which underwent frequent famines during the british empire, but has never had a famine since independence), right up to the present day. there are so many ways this happens, and very few are to do with 'lack of natural resources' - being forced to rely on cash crops or sell food to service debt to the rich west being the most obvious. desertification and erosion of land is another problem. poverty forces people to eke out the last bit of productivity from their land - and often they are heavily encouraged by western companies to use inappropriate technology, chemical fertilisers, herbicides, GM seeds, etc which further degrades their land. if the companies don't just kick them off the land and start polluting it that is (shell & nigeria, etc etc).

people in poverty have always had large families as insurance. i think it is really depressing that the current political climate means it's more acceptable to suggest legislation to control people's reproductive choices, than legislation to control the multinational companies which treat poorer countries as a cash cow to be milked?

oxfam is probably the best website to start with for a simple introduction to all of this, though war on want is also very good.

here's hoping for a world where fair trade and debt free wannabe's rule!

tr3mor

caroline1973lefty wrote:

...Lefty rubbish...

And the blame for the huge rise in population can be placed on the Western charities, such as Oxfam (spit!), that have persuaded us every child should be saved. Large families and a low infant mortality rate lead to an exponentially rising population.

IvanOpinion

tr3mor wrote:

This is what makes me dislike most charities to Africa. They show pictures of starving children and play on our guilt to give them money.

They are not playing on our guilt ... the only reason anybody should feel guilt is beause we are guilty, therefore we only feel what we deserve to feel. BIL is an aid worker in Africa (currently home due to illness) and most of what we see on TV are the sanitised pictures ... as he often says, and I have experienced in other parts of the world, 'poverty stinks' ... and literally it does. That is not to say there are not problems of corruption etc. but just because someone has to be paid off does that mean we should not help .... if you believe that then try to remember next time you buy clothes or some imported foods and think about the slave and child labour that may have been involved in their production.

By saving the children we're only making the problem worse!

Ouch ... are you saying the life of a child in Africa is worthless?

Ivan

tr3mor

IvanOpinion wrote:

They are not playing on our guilt ... the only reason anybody should feel guilt is beause we are guilty, therefore we only feel what we deserve to feel.

They're broadcasting adverts into our living rooms saying "Look at you on your comfy sofa in a warm house, now look at these kids in Africa, they're hungry, it is your responsibility to feed them!".

If anyone should feel guilty then it's charitable organisations that have made it possible for the population in Africa to boom regardless of the natural conditions!

IvanOpinion wrote:

If you believe that then try to remember next time you buy clothes or some imported foods and think about the slave and child labour that may have been involved in their production.

The companies are paying the going rate. The people have the option of working there or working for a local employer.

What would happen if we paid everyone who worked in a sweatshop £5ph? Local employers would go bust. There would be hyperinflation. I'd hazard a guess that there would be huge riots too. Is this a good situation?

IvanOpinion wrote:

Ouch ... are you saying the life of a child in Africa is worthless?

Nothing is worthless.

African families are having as many kids as possible since the past has told them that only a few are going to live past childhood. We think that every child should have a right to live to 70. Are we placing a higher value on someone else's children than they are?

We have to do something. The current population is unsustainable. Let alone a population in 50 years time of over 10 billion.

Phatmouse

money doesn't actually exsist it is paper printed by banks, looking at it, it actually states I promise to pay the bearer, which means whenmoney does exsist I will give you some. Its a massive conspiracy, man is the reason a lot of the world is starving and we continue to be so, we could fix it but its all about the dirty dollar.

Phatmouse

money doesn't actually exsist it is paper printed by banks, looking at it, it actually states I promise to pay the bearer, which means when money does exsist I will give you some. Its a massive conspiracy, man is the reason a lot of the world is starving and we continue to be so, we could fix it but its all about the dirty dollar.