• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Saving the starving millions

JohnG139

Member
This is a big ethical dilemma for me.
We all see heartbreaking images on TV of starving children in undeveloped nations and are exhorted to contribute for food, medicines etc to save them. If the developed nations all contribted an amount equal to that we spend on arms and armies, I'm sure the job could be done, however, this would be a partial, and short term solution.
Suppose we were able to keep alive a million children throughout childhood, into middle age. Unless we are also able to educate them to a level equal to our own, provide them with jobs, so they can adequately feed their families, provide them with a pension plan so they do not have to rely on the 'third world pension plan (12 children, so they can support me in my old age), change their religious and cultural biases toward large families, - in fact bring their standard of living up to that of the developed nations, If we cannot accomplish all this, then without birth control and the motivation to have only 2 children, they will marry, and have large families.
Currently 20% of the world population consumes 80% of the world's industrial output, and thus world resources. We cannot possibly bring the rest of the 80% up to our standard of living without destroying the planet, even more so, since even if we were able to accomplish this in 100 years (no mean feat) the world population will have qudrupled by then.
So in 25 years or so, instead of having a million starving people, we will have 4 or 5 million starving people!
The world population is currently doubling about every 50 years. We are currently taxing the resources of the planet to the breaking point. Starving people make damned poor environmentalists. We are rapidly approaching a global catastrophe.
By taking a compassionate approach and saving as many people as possible, we are not only putting off the inevitible, but compounding it, since there will be many more people to scrounge desperately for food, and many millions more will starve to death.
It may well be that the most loving thing to do, it turn our backs on the starving, and let nature take it's course.
I hate to conceive it, but I cannot help thinking that the only thing that may save the world is a completely out of control aids epidemic.
 

Neo-Logic

Reality Checker
And these are where sayings such as "survival of the fittest" or in some cases, "survival of the luckiest" comes into play. :bounce
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Neo-Logic said:
And these are where sayings such as "survival of the fittest" or in some cases, "survival of the luckiest" comes into play. :bounce
Rather the words of Hobbs, from Leviathin: "...and the life of a man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short." Save the "solitary" part, this pretty much sums up the prospects for most of these wreched masses.

JohnG -- Your post echos my thoughts, but because even broaching this subject inevitably elicits charges of racism, Nazi eugenics, genocide, &c, I've always hesitated to address it directly. But whenever I watch a documentary about third world strife or starvation I'm thinking "If you breed beyond the available resources of your region what else can you expect!?"

Any interruption in the charity work of one of the many aid organizations serving the poor could result in the starvation of thousands. But because of the hard (and politically incorrect) fact that the poor tend to breed to the absolute limits of their regional economy, feeding them both saves them and exacerbates their problem, so that a future interruption in aid could result in the deaths of tens of thousands.

Should Oxfam switch its focus from food aid to contraceptive aid/education? -- (just a thought...)
 

JohnG139

Member
Seyorni said:
But whenever I watch a documentary about third world strife or starvation I'm thinking "If you breed beyond the available resources of your region what else can you expect!?"

Should Oxfam switch its focus from food aid to contraceptive aid/education? -- (just a thought...)
My extreme sympathies are with these poor wretched souls who literally have no options considering their economic state, their cultural and religious biases which promote large families. Education and contraceptive aid has proved fruitless in India. The one child policy in China was quite effective, however, China has faced massive world criticism from developed nations, amnesty international etc. Such criticism is in however justified, since China's failure to first erase the cultural bias toward male children has led to the slaughter of many female babies.
The only proven method to ensure zero population growth is the UN plan, which is based on the observation that in the developed nations, birth and death rates are almost equal. The problem here is firstly economic - we cannot possibly raise all people to our standard of living without destroying the planet - and secondly religious/cultural - we cannot hope to 'westernize' the whole world, nor should we wish to!
I fear it is an insoluable problem, except by mother nature, who is not bound by restriction of political correctness, human rights etc.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
As before, you've put your finger on the problem, JohnG. Reproductive rates drop spontaneously only when Western levels of affluence are approached, which, as you point out, is ecologically impossible considering the resources of the planet.

Perhaps I'm being rather pitifully optimistic, but I like to entertain the notion that some amelioration of the problem may be effected through some sort of emergency international intervention rather than a catastrophic Natural one. I dream of a draconian, international, Chinese-style birth-control program at some point.
 
if 20% of the worlds population use 80% of the resourses then instead of bringing the 80% up maybe a solution is bring the 20% down.... didn't Gandi say live simply so that others can simple live? also, as to what we can do to help the situation.... I think we might look into how our governments policies are perpetuating the rise in poor, starving people.... one quick solution... get rid of third world debt.... just a thought.
 

JohnG139

Member
peacefulness said:
if 20% of the worlds population use 80% of the resourses then instead of bringing the 80% up maybe a solution is bring the 20% down.... didn't Gandi say live simply so that others can simple live?
This would be a just and noble move, however, just witness the strife, strikes, social unrest that occurs whenever workers are forced to take a 5-10% wage cut. If everybody in the western world was forced to take an 80% income cut, bloody revolution would occur.
Democracies are simply not capable of handling it!

 

Original Freak

I am the ORIGINAL Freak
I love it when stars try to help the cause of poverty.
7468086.jpg


How much do you think that Bling Bling around his neck is worth?
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I think he should sell it and donate the proceeds to the cause! Such a brazen, cocky display of conspicuous wealth at such a venue is in poor taste.
 

Melody

Well-Known Member
No, I don't think they do...or they wouldn't have worn it. I try not to judge people but it's really hard not to when someone says their heart just bleeds for these starving people and yet they live in a 5 million dollar house. I don't know why anyone needs to live in a 5 million dollar house or why one person needs a 10,000 sq. foot house....particularly when so many in the world are starving.

I also often wondered whether we're perpetuating the cycle by giving aid but there are other factors involved here. Many societies depend on the young to care for them in their old age. Before modern medicine, U.S. families had large families and it wasn't just because of the lack of contraception (sorry...they weren't stupid and if they really didn't want a child, they knew how to solve that). It was because few children survived to adulthood so you hedged your bets. I think some of that is going on in these poor countries. The mortality rate of children is so high that they have more to compensate and hope at least one makes it to adulthood.

Also, this isn't just about overpopulation. Many of the people being helped live in war torn countries where they're forced out of their home areas and are constantly being shuffled from one place to another with no way to settle and farm or work.
 

Crystallas

Active Member
Thats what happens when someone tries to civilize a perfectly good part of the world, then leave them so soon. Then they forget how to survive in the wild.
 

Prima

Well-Known Member
Ditto, Crystallas. People wonder why there's so much violence in Africa, but let's think about it - settlers brought in guns and government. Then when they left, they didn't bother to leave a stable government behind. Firearms + no government = violence!


I hear a lot of people criticizing celebrities who use their status to help feed starving populations. It often reminds me of this:



Matthew 7:2-5 (New International Version)

2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
A lot of the time, the people who are criticizing are doing nothing. I personally think that doing something imperfectly is better than doing nothing.


Those of you discussing the problems surrounding simply feeding the hungry and not helping them in other ways, check this out: http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/

This project has as one of its goals maternal health, which I think is important. Once a woman knows that 3/4 of her children aren't going to die from starvation, she becomes more receptive to birth control.
 
JohnG139 said:
This would be a just and noble move, however, just witness the strife, strikes, social unrest that occurs whenever workers are forced to take a 5-10% wage cut. If everybody in the western world was forced to take an 80% income cut, bloody revolution would occur.
Democracies are simply not capable of handling it!

I don't know if it is inherent of democracy that the West uses most of the world’s resources. I would bet that it has more to do with our consumer society. Capitalism is inherently flawed. So I am not talking about people taking a "80% income cut" but to just cut back on resources. Don’t shop so much... maybe eat less meat... just a thought fo such a fat country.
 
Top