Greener/Organic lead to world econmic collaspe???

IvanOpinion

tr3mor wrote:

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!".

It is our responsibility to feed them, anybody who feels guilt is obviously not doing their bit to help.

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!

While to a certain degree I can agree with what you are saying I would suggest that just because they are African they should not have any lesser rights than someone else. If a law was passd in this country related to forced sterilisation or abstinence I think I can guess the uproar.

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

This is th mistake made by rich westerners. Quite often the going rate is not paid, even where it is the conditions he employees are expected to endure are not fit for dogs, not to worry proud humans. Many do not have the option, thy have the choice they work there for slave wages or they snd their family starve to death ... at least in the rich west we do have the choice because the state will pick up the tab and ensure we are fed, have a roof etc. ... not in many parts of Africa ... that is th real difference between the 'perceived' poverty in this country and 'real' poverty.

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?

£5 per hour may be a minimum for the UK however that may equate to 50p per hour somewhere else. I can see the pros and cons in the argument but it does not absolve western companies rom the responsibility of ensuring the employees in foreign countries have acceptable working and living conditions with a living wage ... it is nothing less than we expect.

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.

Again, I can agree with the sentimentand I have no idea of the solution except through education and responsibility. I keep hearing the old expression 'what value do you put on a life' ... well in Africa £2 can save a life, so there is a starting value.

Ivan

tr3mor

IvanOpinion wrote:

It is our responsibility to feed them, anybody who feels guilt is obviously not doing their bit to help.

Why is it my responsibility to feed anyone but myself, my family and my friends?

IvanOpinion wrote:

While to a certain degree I can agree with what you are saying I would suggest that just because they are African they should not have any lesser rights than someone else. If a law was passd in this country related to forced sterilisation or abstinence I think I can guess the uproar.

This country doesn't have the problems of severe overpopulation that the countries in Africa are facing. Extreme problems often call for extreme measures.

IvanOpinion wrote:

This is th mistake made by rich westerners. Quite often the going rate is not paid, even where it is the conditions he employees are expected to endure are not fit for dogs, not to worry proud humans. Many do not have the option, thy have the choice they work there for slave wages or they snd their family starve to death ...

That's life. In the past many people in our country would have to endure similar conditions in the pits or mills. If someone invented time travel would you support a charity that provided education and clean water to medieval Britain.

IvanOpinion wrote:

at least in the rich west we do have the choice because the state will pick up the tab and ensure we are fed, have a roof etc. ... not in many parts of Africa ... that is th real difference between the 'perceived' poverty in this country and 'real' poverty.

I wholly agree. There is no such thing as poverty in this country. And the sooner people realise that someone with Sky TV is not living in poverty the better!

IvanOpinion wrote:

£5 per hour may be a minimum for the UK however that may equate to 50p per hour somewhere else. I can see the pros and cons in the argument but it does not absolve western companies rom the responsibility of ensuring the employees in foreign countries have acceptable working and living conditions with a living wage ... it is nothing less than we expect.

It doesn't absolve companies from the responsibility of their employees. If a company can abuse cheap labour and keep a clean conscience then good for them. If I can buy stuff from the said company and keep a clear conscience then even better for me!

IvanOpinion wrote:

Again, I can agree with the sentimentand I have no idea of the solution except through education and responsibility. I keep hearing the old expression 'what value do you put on a life' ... well in Africa £2 can save a life, so there is a starting value.

£2 is a starting value. You have to take into account that the £2 will lead to one live saved and likely many more lives produced at a later date.

If a child saved today has 5 kids within 30 years, then the new kids have 5 kids within another 30 years and we still needed to cough up the £2 for each new child would it be our responsibility? That's £60 you'd owe because of the £2 you spent in the first place.

If you extrapolate that across huge populations... you get the idea!

Cardew

caroline1973lefty wrote:

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.

quote=caroline1973lefty
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!

Throughout history, Nations have exploited other Nations and without doubt the Western world has exploited the Thirld World; and still does. However that is as nothing compared to the exploitation and repression of people in the Thirld world by their own leaders.

Except now, none of these countries are forced to supply the West; and those who control vital resources like oil have, understandably, no hesitation in forming a cartel to hold other countries to ransom. Not too many democratic regimes in those countries either.

However you are really missing the point of this discussion. These countries "left to their own devices" coped because the population was self-limiting by disease and famine. At the turn of the 20th century the life expectancy in India was 23 years, less than a hundred years later it was 66 years; and the population explosion is well documented.

China was one of the few countries to tackle their population crisis and did so by the most draconian methods; including turning a blind eye to infanticide - particularly female infanticide.

So you have given your definition of one aspect of the problem - the Western world exploit the Third world.

If that is so, what do we need from India, Africa and China? If we stopped all trade with them now, would we in the West starve? What do we get from them that is essential?

Having given your definition of the problem; what is your solution to that problem?

Are you suggesting that we stop all aid and trading "leave them to their own devices" as they can "perfectly well feed themselves". The HIV/Aids victims in Africa can cope without Western drugs?

IvanOpinion

Cardew wrote:

If that is so, what do we need from India, Africa and China? If we stopped all trade with them now, would we in the West starve? What do we get from them that is essential?

Not exactly 'essential' but your clothes, bits of your car, bits of your computer, much of your finance (probably including pension scheme). Inflation in this country would probably run riot and some in this country would finally find out what 'poverty' really means.

Having given your definition of the problem; what is your solution to that problem?

That is probably the one most important question .. what is the solution. Any solutions I have involve redistribution of wealth however the selfish west will not allow that, therefore one must work in bounds of education and generation of industry ... over the long term though that may not be good for the west ... one can see the effect of off-shoring, one can see that many in this country do not like to get out of bed because the state provides for them, therefore one sees the flood of immigrants picking up the jobs that the aforementioned bed malingerers will not take.

I believe the rich west is digging its own grave. It has moved from manufacturing into service based economies .. we are now seeing many of those services being off shored .. so what is left? More and more we are turning into an 'entertainment' based economy with people finding ways of keeping each other amused .. its a little bit like the fall of the Roman empire.

Meanwhile places like India and China will thrive ... and then Africa wil get in on the act. Our selfish attitude today may mean that our grand children will have to emigrate to CHina and Africa looking for low paid jobs .. they may ultimately be the workers in the sweat shops that we claim to despise *but in reality we don;t really give a crap .. just as long as the stuff we buy is cheap)..

Ivan

Cardew

Ivan,
I can’t disagree with your analysis.

Throughout history, rather like the ‘Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire’, civilisations have lost their dominance as new ones have emerged. As you state, it is probably inevitable that some current Third world countries will become the new ‘Superpowers’.

I am not clear however what your solutions involving redistribution of wealth will achieve:

Any solutions I have involve redistribution of wealth however the selfish west will not allow that

Will that not just accelerate their rise to dominance and our demise?

Thus in giving aid we are the architects of our own misfortune?
Not that I am advocating stopping aid!

IvanOpinion

Cardew wrote:

Will that not just accelerate their rise to dominance and our demise?

Probably, but when we do collapse we might reap what we sew .. if you see what I mean I just think it is embarassing to the west that people are starving and dying by the millions for the sake of a few pence of food. I have seen the pleasure, pride and excitement on the face of some young mexican children when I gave them some bananas that I had decided had gone beyond the ripeness I would eat ... the look of glee on the faces of those children has stuck with me now for over 10 years

Ivan

tr3mor

IvanOpinion wrote:

just think it is embarassing to the west that people are starving and dying by the millions for the sake of a few pence of food.

A few pence per person, multiplied by billions of people, multiplied by even more billions of their offspring. Where does it stop?

IvanOpinion

But surely you can not say that it is right to let them starve .. if so then you would have to accept that it is equally right for people in this country to be allowed to starve in which we should immediately do away with any benefits system. You would be turning this purely into survival of the fittest ... anarchy would rule .

I know that is a massive jump but I have to go soon and do not have time to post a full logical path.

Ivan

tr3mor

IvanOpinion wrote:

But surely you can not say that it is right to let them starve .. if so then you would have to accept that it is equally right for people in this country to be allowed to starve in which we should immediately do away with any benefits system. You would be turning this purely into survival of the fittest ... anarchy would rule

Why isn't it right? The population of the world was steady for many years. It was controlled by nature - survival of the fittest as you said.

The problem in Africa is much worse than it was a century ago. The needs and wants of the people living there have not changed but the population has increased ten-fold or more.

The increase of population is entirely due to western interfering charities.

So Oxfam aims to save lives - but what is the true cost of one life to a continent which cannot support the lives already there?

And yes - long term dole claimants should be left to starve.

IvanOpinion

tr3mor wrote:

And yes - long term dole claimants should be left to starve.

At least you are consistent if nothing else

I can not accept that one human being has become so worthless that anybody could advocate a cull.

Ivan