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.
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.