Why Western nations should not donate to the third world

Lyndon said:

From my understanding, Luciferianism, Satanism are essentially based on selfishness, so its no wonder they would be against helping people in other countries.

Click to expand...

Modern Satanism is very focused on the self, usually "rational self-interest". Most Luciferians usually live by "know thy self" and seek knowledge. Personally I'd expect many modern Satanists to not really care about other countries and most Luciferians to want to know a bit about other places but I can't speak for everyone. But this is a bit off topic.

Hammerheart said:

Historically, Africa (and other third world lands for that matter) has not been an agrarian region. Originally, the only agrarian peoples in the world were those of the Middle East. Third world countries are undeveloped for a reason-the soil is not very fertile, and they are lacking in natural resources. When these missionaries began spreading "compassion" into Africa, they gave the people a surplus, and thus their populations grew to such an amount that their hunter-gatherer lifestyles could no longer support them. Obviously, they began farming, but even then they couldn't provide enough food, and another wave of starvation ensued

Click to expand...

Africa is the most resource rich continent on this earth. The notion that Africa "lacks natural resources" even after colonialism is utterly ridiculous. Third world countries are underdeveloped for many, many reasons but "the soil not being fertile" is not exactly a prime factor. (Yes in the Sahara it is, I know.)

As other commenters have noted, Africa has been home to various empire's throughout history. They flourished due to trade, natural resources, agriculture, etc.

During the time of colonialism, the colonists focused on getting the native populations to farm cash crops. Thus, overtime the knowledge of how to farm actual food was lost.

Hammerheart said:

To worsen the problem, other foreign aid programs began exploiting pictures of starving children as propaganda to encourage those in Western countries to donate more money. The population again grew, and they needed to farm the land more extensively, and they ended up depleting the soil almost completely of the already low supply of nutrients it contained.

Click to expand...

Somehow you managed to be right, yes, western aid in the form of food and medicine and what have you, increased the general population significantly. The problem is then that in order to sustain such a massive population and prevent starvation you have to continuously feed them. This is where western countries went wrong. Instead of building infrastructure and teaching the natives to farm for themselves they simply donate money and food which just grows the population some more and eventually when money dries up, leads to massive starvation.

So yes, to some extent I agree with you but your reasoning and deduction is illogical, stupid, and was something any 5th grade could have corrected.

Jonathan Ainsley Bain said:

What westerners do not really get about Africa, is that diversity and freedom
flourishes here more than anywhere else in the world. Western countries
are all about monopolies of power, and homogenization of economies.

Africa has always been closer to the pure message of Christ, than the west.

Click to expand...

Yes. Diversity and freedom reign supreme huh. Oh right so does rape, murder, war, starvation, and a host of other issues that don't sound very "heavenly" to me. And before I'm accused of being an ignorant westerner, I too have lived in Africa.

It is the corruption and violence that I find most depressing in African nations, it would be good to see government with the genuine interests of the people at heart for once.

No I don't agree with the OP that we shouldn't donate to Third World Countries; watch more people die to make a point? No, there is a huge disparity in wealth between the 1st world and the third world, of course we should help.

I do agree that we need to do more to help them develop stable government and infrastructure, lets face it we haven't exactly treated Africans with much respect or care in the past, seems the least we can do to help them build a better future.

Shadow Wolf said:

Why should I take your position seriously? Africa is loaded with rare and very pricey natural resources. Diamonds, for example, are notorious for coming from African mines that are owned and operated by some rather nasty people, "work supervisors" may include armed guards, and some people may even have died in the process of filling jewelry stores with diamonds, mostly those who mine them.
There are also many suitable lands throughout, and I'm assuming you are unaware how life of ancient Egypt revolved around the Nile, including agriculture.

Click to expand...

These minerals are taken and exploited by greedy individuals, from the aforementioned Christian missionaries to the governments of the nations themselves. Seeing as they exist in Africa, I think that the people as a whole are entitled to them.

This thread turned into a huge ****storm fast. As for the "Luciferian" perspective, no it is not selfish. At least my interpretation isn't. I think that love is very important, but it should be under will rather than obligation, otherwise it is meaningless. Equally important is the question of whether said compassion is actually working to anyone's benifit or not. I see some have used this thread (or moreover, my post) as an excuse to generalize and single out certain religions as "selfish".

Also, I am not blaning those who are recieving this money (provided that they are actual starving people and not some greedy scammers). I am blaming the governments, those who fail to view it from a more objective perspective etc. Honestly, these starving people probably deserve compensation from their backwards governments...

Perhaps there were a few leaders who could have helped some countries in Africa and could have been a beacon to others, but they were disliked by the corporations and capitalist countries, so they killed them. The name of Patrice Lumamba comes to mind. Zaire then had Mobutu for 32 years. Nelson Mandela did not get enough time, but he did make some difference in South Africa.

metis said:

Religious Forums is a religious website, and one of the mandates found pretty much in each religion is the mandate to try and help those who may not be able to help themselves. So, are you suggesting we just ignore the plight of others and just let them suffer and die?

Click to expand...

This is one area at least that my beliefs in humanism and certain religious beliefs are concordant for a change.

Hammerheart said:

Also, I am not blaning those who are recieving this money (provided that they are actual starving people and not some greedy scammers). I am blaming the governments, those who fail to view it from a more objective perspective etc. Honestly, these starving people probably deserve compensation from their backwards governments...

Click to expand...

Well, we all deserve respect for our human rights and dignity.

Shimi said:

Instead of building infrastructure and teaching the natives to farm for themselves they simply donate money and food which just grows the population some more and eventually when money dries up, leads to massive starvation.

So yes, to some extent I agree with you but your reasoning and deduction is illogical, stupid, and was something any 5th grade could have corrected.

Click to expand...

Excellent.