Africa

[ryanvergel]

This is completely worthless. I have no idea why people even bother to think up stuff like this. You can't draw up these hypothetical situations. Its like people pointing to one place in a pokemon tournament. Say I won a battle in the 3rd round on a coin flip. I was undefeated at the time, but I didn't make top cut that day. If I had lost that battle I might've made top cut. I would've played different opponents and EVERYTHING would've been different. It works the same way with your example. You can't look at past events and just "plug and play" with them. You can't assume that if you did just ONE thing differently that things would be better (or worse). If you do one thing differently, then every subsequent event also would be different. If everyone gave away that much money, then the economy could collapse (more than it already has). Or maybe we would run out of food. Or maybe Africa wouldn't be in so much trouble. The point is we don't know what would happen, and you can NEVER just say that everyone keeping $30,000 for themselves and giving the rest away would solve all of our problems. It is a blind and backwards way of thinking.

I was hoping you would pay attention to this paragraph more:

Now, evolutionary psychologists tell us that human nature just isn't sufficiently altruistic to make it plausible that many people will sacrifice so much for strangers. On the facts of human nature, they might be right, but they would be wrong to draw a moral conclusion from those facts. If it is the case that we ought to do things that, predictably, most of us won't do, then let's face that fact head-on. Then, if we value the life of a child more than going to fancy restaurants, the next time we dine out we will know that we could have done something better with our money. If that makes living a morally decent life extremely arduous, well, then that is the way things are. If we don't do it, then we should at least know that we are failing to live a morally decent life — not because it is good to wallow in guilt but because knowing where we should be going is the first step toward heading in that direction.

is it unrealistic to expect households to give up 30,000 a year? Yes. Peter Singer is a crazy Utilitarian guy who is a giant hypocrite. However, he makes very valid points- he analyzes the problems very well and realizes that we should indeed feed and help these people, but he has a poor way of actually SOLVING the problem. It is his solution that you disagree with- not the assessment that we could help these people and that these people are indeed deserving of our care as much as people in closer proximity to us are.

If we are going to be greedy and careless, shouldn't we at least KNOW of our greed and carelessness?

 

[drmario]

Now you're just lying. Look up some stats why don't you.

I guess my wording wasn't clear enough. I meant if we tried to completely eradicate poverty in Africa and took care of all 800mil people that we wouldn't be able to take care of our own poor.

Saving my parents calls into question other moral sentiments like duties and obligations. That is a weak comparison and doesn't actually work.

Everyone is our neighbor. We are a global community now. People in California are as deserving of food as people in Mexico, Korea or Sudan.

It does work, just in a broader sense. Maybe you don't feel some kind of kinship with the people who live near you. If you don't then it would be a poor example for you. And last time I checked we still had individual countries. I guess it depends upon how you would define 'global community'.

What? You are making these grand leaps. I am suggesting that people in Africa are deserving of equal attention and that they deserve to be fed, and you're saying that I am insisting that the US create enough food to feed 1.4 billion people? I definitely did NOT say that.
People are still dying.

In 1996, 800 million people worldwide suffered from chronic malnutrition. the sub-Saharan population of Africa is expected to double in 25 years.

When are we going to do something?

I misread the numbers(just as you did, I was adding 800 million to the population of the US for the 1.1 billion). However in your first post in this thread, you imply that we aren't doing anything (we are) and that we should somehow get rid of poverty in the world. And how would you define "equal attention"? Personally I agree with Lawman. Just shipping tons of food over there and throwing money at it won't solve anything.

This doesn't make any sense. You are saying that if I really believed that Africans were not culturally inferior, and that they deserved to not die of starvation just as much as any other individual- then I would logically need to fly to Africa? How does that make any sense?

You start a thread about Africa, ask why we aren't doing anything, and then suggest that we should all give up any luxuries that we might have and give the money to the poor. If you say why aren't we doing anything, then you are including yourself in it. I obviously don't expect you to fly to Africa. I might be suggesting that you are being slightly hypocritical however.

Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:

Someone else realized that... *gasp* you can help people NOT die of starvation AND help our own country! We have a small homeless population because of the capitalist structure and other factors. This population does NOT compare to the HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS, literally three or four United States' entire populations, who suffer from CHRONIC malnutrition every year. 30,000 people DIE of starvation every day!

But we are helping them. Maybe we can do more. Or maybe the money right now is being spent wrong. Who knows.

 

[ryanvergel]

I never suggested that we just throw food and money at them.

We do, however, have options. There are plenty. We can take a capitalistic route- we can have companies build water pumps or agricultural technology and have a loan system so that the people could actually have much boosted yields and productions while having a payment plan to be able to buy the system initially.

This is just one example of options I have seen or researched. A small American company actually did this on their own and have had amazing, amazing success. Not only have they helped hundreds of families prosper, but they also made a PROFIT doing so.

Equal attention? Here are a few stats:

9/11: 2986 died that day. Average aid to families was 45,000 dollars. The government
put together an aid package of 5 billion, i.e. 1.6 million per family, and has spent billions on
terror.
- That SAME day, 33,000 children under five died from malnutrition, and 18,000 from poverty
related diseases. Every five seconds everyday, one child dies from preventable causes (proper
food, clean water and minimal antibiotics or vaccines). These are entirely preventable. Yet,
almost nothing is done, either at the level of the individual or at the level of the government.

You cannot blame these children for their state. They are the innocent victims in this case. We can argue that Africa has misused resources, etc. and that won't stop the millions of children who will die who did not deserve to die and could have easily been saved.

 

[drmario]

is it unrealistic to expect households to give up 30,000 a year? Yes. Peter Singer is a crazy Utilitarian guy who is a giant hypocrite. However, he makes very valid points- he analyzes the problems very well and realizes that we should indeed feed and help these people, but he has a poor way of actually SOLVING the problem. It is his solution that you disagree with- not the assessment that we could help these people and that these people are indeed deserving of our care as much as people in closer proximity to us are.

If we are going to be greedy and careless, shouldn't we at least KNOW of our greed and carelessness?

I mostly agree. However you still haven't presented a logical point as to why physical proximity as a reason for giving to one people over anotherr isn't morally acceptable. Think of it this way. I have two homeless people. One is 50 feet away. The other is 20 miles away. I can give ONE of them a meal. The only way to get to them is to walk. The homeless people are identical in every way. The only difference is their location. Who would you give the meal to?

I was hoping you would pay attention to this paragraph more:

You mean I don't get to pick what I want to disagree with? :tongue:

Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:

Equal attention? Here are a few stats:

9/11: 2986 died that day. Average aid to families was 45,000 dollars. The government
put together an aid package of 5 billion, i.e. 1.6 million per family, and has spent billions on
terror.
- That SAME day, 33,000 children under five died from malnutrition, and 18,000 from poverty
related diseases. Every five seconds everyday, one child dies from preventable causes (proper
food, clean water and minimal antibiotics or vaccines). These are entirely preventable. Yet,
almost nothing is done, either at the level of the individual or at the level of the government.

You cannot blame these children for their state. They are the innocent victims in this case. We can argue that Africa has misused resources, etc. and that won't stop the millions of children who will die who did not deserve to die and could have easily been saved.

So if we don't try to get rid of terrorists, then the kids will just be turned into suicide bombers. I'm not saying that we shouldn't try to help poor people, but its not so simple as to say that we shouldn't have given the families of 9/11 victims $45,000. What is the point of this thread anyway?

Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:

You cannot blame these children for their state. They are the innocent victims in this case. We can argue that Africa has misused resources, etc. and that won't stop the millions of children who will die who did not deserve to die and could have easily been saved.

Just because a disease is easily preventable here doesn't mean its easy to prevent in Africa.

 

[pat460]

This will make me sound like a horrible person, but I dont really care for your opinion if that is what it is, but if we stop people from dieing in Africa, then the world would overpopulate way too fast. This means that Africa having so many preventable deaths isn't entirly a bad thing. Think about the statistics. 33,000 children under five died from malnutrition, and 18,000 from poverty related diseases each day. If we somehow prevented them all, thats 51,000 people each day that would be on Earth that would not normally have been there. And if this continued each day, we would overpopulate ina MUCH MUCH shorter time than otherwise. I'm not saying death is a good thing, but sometimes it is necisary.

On another note, why save Africans over Americans. Why shoudl we(America) spend money on Africa before we fully fix OUR problems such as OUR homelss and OUR poverty percentage and OUR reasource problems.(I.E. oil, not enough renewables, ect ect). Why not leave Africa to do it? Or Sweeden? (That isn't a joke, Sweeden is the only country that turned a profit in 2008. Every other country went into debt.)

 

[Bolt]

It feels like people just aren't willing to learn more than they're told. I got through about half of these posts and was extremely disappointed (although I honestly don't know what I was expecting) to see no mention of the IMF.

Do you know how many MILLIONS, maybe BILLIONS of dollars in debt they have put many African nations into? (Not even counting what they've done to other countries around the world)

And there's posts here saying people are dying because of their culture? Are you serious?

 

[drmario]

If I read this right, in 2008 the US government gave nearly $5.1 billion in aid to Africa. Thats a fair amount of money. Also remember that this is just money from the US government. It doesn't count individual donations, charities etc.

 

[pat460]

It feels like people just aren't willing to learn more than they're told. I got through about half of these posts and was extremely disappointed (although I honestly don't know what I was expecting) to see no mention of the IMF.

Do you know how many MILLIONS, maybe BILLIONS of dollars in debt they have put many African nations into? (Not even counting what they've done to other countries around the world)

And there's posts here saying people are dying because of their culture? Are you serious?

Who is "they" and yes, we are serious. They need to advance their culture to inproove their healthcare. Meaning their culture does kill them.

 

[Lawman]

@Bolt: The point of the thread is to open some eyes and to get a real discussion going on. I think Ryan scored on both points.

Keith

 

[drmario]

Who is "they" and yes, we are serious. They need to advance their culture to inproove their healthcare. Meaning their culture does kill them.

The IMF. Aka the International Monetary Fund

 

[ryanvergel]

I mostly agree. However you still haven't presented a logical point as to why physical proximity as a reason for giving to one people over anotherr isn't morally acceptable. Think of it this way. I have two homeless people. One is 50 feet away. The other is 20 miles away. I can give ONE of them a meal. The only way to get to them is to walk. The homeless people are identical in every way. The only difference is their location. Who would you give the meal to?

I said they DESERVE the meal equally. However, it is more rational to give it to the closer person in your situation because it would be impossible or absurdly difficult to get it to the other person.

However, that is not the case with feeding the 800 million every year. Or at least helping them. We spend so many BILLIONS every year on PERFUMES. If the entire globe spent what it spent on perfume in ONE year instead on Africa, it could be enough to pay for the modernization of Africa.

But nah, we'd rather smell pretty to hide the stench of the rotting corpses.

The 9/11 example was to show that when those 3000 people died, of causes they had no control of, in a bad way (less painful, likely, though, than starvation), and without deserving it had money just dumped to them by the US government, while at the same time- people who fit the same criteria "of causes they had no control of, in a bad way", we let them starve to death. Why? Because people like SPARTA think that they are culturally inferior and somehow deserve their fate. The day a 3 year old child DESERVES to die of starvation when we have the means to prevent it is... I don't know. I don't want to see that day.

 

[ryanvergel]

Who is "they" and yes, we are serious. They need to advance their culture to inproove their healthcare. Meaning their culture does kill them.

More racism. YES!

Why is proximity not a justification for deservedness of life? There is no relationship between location and value of life. Since there is no connection, you cannot devalue a life based on location, or relative proximity to you. To say that because of something as luck-based and arbitrary as distance should determine someone's life value is simply absurd. That would mean that your life is less valuable than my roommate's life or my neighbor's life because you are distant to me now compared to them. It's a slipper slope to think of some guy down the street as being MORE deserving of my help than someone in Africa. They deserve it equally.

The point of this thread was to hopefully, like Lawman pointed out, spark some good conversation, possibly throw around solutions or problems we might encounter- but I certainly didn't expect to see a bunch of racist comments about how Africans were culturally inferior and therefore less deserving of food and other nonsense.

Hopefully some people will leave this thread with the same thoughts I often have when I have a luxury- I could be helping someone else with this who needs it much more. I may not give it to them, out of weakness or hypocrisy, but realizing one's own shortcomings is the first step to solving them, no?

I realize my own greed in every action. I am on a laptop drinking a beer on the internet, hardly giving away every non-necessary dime. However, that does not mean I have given no effort to helping those in Africa. Even this thread is helping them, i think.

 

[drmario]

I said they DESERVE the meal equally. However, it is more rational to give it to the closer person in your situation because it would be impossible or absurdly difficult to get it to the other person.

However, that is not the case with feeding the 800 million every year. Or at least helping them. We spend so many BILLIONS every year on PERFUMES. If the entire globe spent what it spent on perfume in ONE year instead on Africa, it could be enough to pay for the modernization of Africa.

But nah, we'd rather smell pretty to hide the stench of the rotting corpses.

The 9/11 example was to show that when those 3000 people died, of causes they had no control of, in a bad way (less painful, likely, though, than starvation), and without deserving it had money just dumped to them by the US government, while at the same time- people who fit the same criteria "of causes they had no control of, in a bad way", we let them starve to death. Why? Because people like SPARTA think that they are culturally inferior and somehow deserve their fate. The day a 3 year old child DESERVES to die of starvation when we have the means to prevent it is... I don't know. I don't want to see that day.

I see your point, but you've fallen into the Peter Singer trap. If no one bought perfume, then thousands (millions?) of people would be out of work. I guess I can stop nitpicking though:tongue:

Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:

More racism. YES!

Why is proximity not a justification for deservedness of life? There is no relationship between location and value of life. Since there is no connection, you cannot devalue a life based on location, or relative proximity to you. To say that because of something as luck-based and arbitrary as distance should determine someone's life value is simply absurd. That would mean that your life is less valuable than my roommate's life or my neighbor's life because you are distant to me now compared to them. It's a slipper slope to think of some guy down the street as being MORE deserving of my help than someone in Africa. They deserve it equally.

I didn't say they didn't equally deserve it. I said all things being equal it makes more sense to give locally than all the way over in Africa.

 

[ryanvergel]

I see your point, but you've fallen into the Peter Singer trap. If no one bought perfume, then thousands (millions?) of people would be out of work. I guess I can stop nitpicking though:tongue:

You are right. There might be a million people out of work and some revenue lost for a year.

At the benefit of a billion people added to the global workforce and a global assistance to the economy rather than an endless drain.

It would also mean giving up a million jobs for 100 million new jobs and millions of lives saved.

Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:



I didn't say they didn't equally deserve it. I said all things being equal it makes more sense to give locally than all the way over in Africa.

No, it makes more sense to give to both. :thumb:
It only makes sense to give locally over Africa if we could not afford to help both, but we easily can. Like my perfume commented showed, if the entire world tried to ration just a little bit we really could pool resources and get a continent into a position to where it can help itself and us at the same time. We have only benefited from globalization. Add another continent to the equation. Bam!

Yeppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp

 

[pat460]

I said they DESERVE the meal equally. However, it is more rational to give it to the closer person in your situation because it would be impossible or absurdly difficult to get it to the other person.

However, that is not the case with feeding the 800 million every year. Or at least helping them. We spend so many BILLIONS every year on PERFUMES. If the entire globe spent what it spent on perfume in ONE year instead on Africa, it could be enough to pay for the modernization of Africa.

But nah, we'd rather smell pretty to hide the stench of the rotting corpses.

The 9/11 example was to show that when those 3000 people died, of causes they had no control of, in a bad way (less painful, likely, though, than starvation), and without deserving it had money just dumped to them by the US government, while at the same time- people who fit the same criteria "of causes they had no control of, in a bad way", we let them starve to death. Why? Because people like SPARTA think that they are culturally inferior and somehow deserve their fate. The day a 3 year old child DESERVES to die of starvation when we have the means to prevent it is... I don't know. I don't want to see that day.

SPARTA was right when he said they are culrualy inferior. Want an example? Well, you and I are usaing internet and most likely computers right now, right? Your culture, and mine, and the majority of others in the world have advanced to this point: the point in which we can have these things. Some African cultures, many of which are the ones you speak of, did not advance, and it was their fault. I live in Las Vegas, which is also a desert. Did Nevada being a desert stop US from developing it into a respectablecommunity and more importantly, a respectable cpart of the American Culture? No, because our culture is more advanced, and generally better.

However, that is not the case with feeding the 800 million every year. Or at least helping them. We spend so many BILLIONS every year on PERFUMES.

We were able to spend billions on perfumes because we had billions to spend. If John Doe makes x amount fo money, but only spend 1/2x on necisities, he generally spends 3/8x on himself, and puts the rest tword other things. This could include savings or helping others. What I am saying here is that it is humman nature to take care of yourself first, then your loved ones, then others. The reason we spend our money on things that are not needed is because we want to and we can. Basic humman nature.
a little late sry, should have refreshed page. will make another response post in a sec to the posts i missed.

Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:

here we go

More racism. YES!

Why is proximity not a justification for deservedness of life? There is no relationship between location and value of life. Since there is no connection, you cannot devalue a life based on location, or relative proximity to you. To say that because of something as luck-based and arbitrary as distance should determine someone's life value is simply absurd. That would mean that your life is less valuable than my roommate's life or my neighbor's life because you are distant to me now compared to them. It's a slipper slope to think of some guy down the street as being MORE deserving of my help than someone in Africa. They deserve it equally.

QUOTE]
This was simply a misunderstanding. I didn't say African lives< American lives. I said that if they improove their socioty, they woudl save themselves from themselves. Awkard wording there so I'll explain what I mean. Their culrture, being so underdeveloped, is causing them many problems. Disease, hunger, ect ect are products of their lower quality culture. If they were to improove that, they would save their lives, just as we did many years ago.

The point of this thread was to hopefully, like Lawman pointed out, spark some good conversation, possibly throw around solutions or problems we might encounter- but I certainly didn't expect to see a bunch of racist comments about how Africans were culturally inferior and therefore less deserving of food and other nonsense.

Another misunderstanding. Africans are not inferior. Their culture is, but any random African individually is the same as any random other person.

Hopefully some people will leave this thread with the same thoughts I often have when I have a luxury- I could be helping someone else with this who needs it much more. I may not give it to them, out of weakness or hypocrisy, but realizing one's own shortcomings is the first step to solving them, no?

I agre completely. You are correct, realizing the problems is the first step. And I think we already accomplished that. Now comes the hard pert: Making people like me care. Good luck. Go. I dare you. Try. You cant, because before I will care about Africa, they need to show the world that they are ready to change their culture to become a more advanced and respectable socioty.

I realize my own greed in every action. I am on a laptop drinking a beer on the internet, hardly giving away every non-necessary dime. However, that does not mean I have given no effort to helping those in Africa. Even this thread is helping them, i think.

Again, we agree. This thread probably is helping them, but just not much beacuse of the whole problem with Africa, which is THEIR SOCIOTY ISN'T ADVANCED ENOUGH TO USE THE INTERNET TO BENEFIT FROM IT

/cooldown sry lol.

 

[CC-kun]

^^^at Ryanvergel

You know I here a lot of "We need to help Africa", but you know we have are own issues right now. You know like being 681.9 BILLION DOLLARS in debt to China as November of '08, that's only China. We are currently 10.024 trillion dollars in debt, and your saying that we should go and spend money helping another country, I say this with the upmost respect for your oppinion, but your an idiot for saying that. Maybe instead of trying to flame America for not helping a country that has done nothing to help itself, you should flame America for Hurricane Katrina and it's horrible response to the disaster or that fact we're in a war that has no purpose and has put us again in 10.024 trillion dollars in debt or the fact that our economy is very likely to crash and burn.

 

[edwarpy]

Now you're just lying. Look up some stats why don't you. So that means the Europeans will have to give money for us. They already do. AGAIN, look at the stats. You're just lying at this point. Where are you getting these assertions? Per capita many European countries give much more of their GPD than the US does. The US gives a lot less than other countries like Japan.

....and where do you get your mis-information? Americans are generous:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_charitable_countries

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-06-25-charitable_N.htm

Sorry if it doesn't hit the 30+% mark you seem to want.

I've been where you are, maybe worse, living off 1$ cans of Hormel chili and a pack of
crackers. Because I've been there I don't wanna go back. I've worked hard to get whatever
little slice of success I have and I appreciate being blessed enough to be born in the time
and place to have that opportunity, cuz very few are.

I bust my hump in the salt mines 40+ a week. If I don't treat myself to a $10+ steak
dinner and a booster box here and there, it'll suck the life outta me. Maybe you'll
understand that in another 20 years.

I already carry burdens. Ya, I know it could be worse. Know what? It can always be worse,
get consolation out of that. The gov't skims a quick 1/3 off me. I need another 1/3. You're
asking for the other 1/3? Good luck, not looking to carry the burden of the world. It would be
irresponsible (to my family) for me to do so. Maybe you'll understand that in another 20 years.

Helping the nearby vs. helping the unknown halfway across the planet? Get real. If I help
my neighbor, it helps my environment, I see it. Maybe I pass him on the street, he tells me
about his new job, about the guy he helped, drops a Shaymin X on me. Beats shovelling cash
off into the great unknown.

pat460 has a valid, practical point. When you save 50,000 souls today, you have not solved
the problem, you have only delayed/compounded it. Populations will adjust to account for the
resources available to support them.

But why do I sense this is all academic, fodder for your next Philosophy class paper?
Judging intents is difficult, especially with e-words, but I'm not feeling real passion here,
brother. Seems like another stir-the-pot exercise. You're on a Pokemon forum. How can
you, with any good conscience buy a booster pack? How can you possibly ever level-up
again without being dragged down by the weight of how much rice and beans that X could buy?

 

[ryanvergel]

I actually am not taking any philosophy classes this semester. Won't be for at least 8 more months at least

I haven't bought a booster pack in many years.

And yeah, this is another stir-the-pot exercise. And here you are joining on and making this into a much bigger deal and highlighting to the world your ignorance.

 

[vaporeon]

Well, I've been watching this and have this to say. People need to realize that there is more then just Africa. Yes I agree that we should focus on the US and our people first and that South Africa could help them but if you think about it, the US is the most powerful place in the world so we are the first to tackle something like this. We have the money (I know we don't but they will get it) and resources to do it but, this should be more of a world project and not one for the US.

I'm really shocked to see people here like this." We help you if you can give us something back". What kind of bull crap is that? These people are starving. These are kids, the same age as the ones you play Pokemon with and some of them don't have parents and have to take care of their brothers and sisters. How would you feel if you know no one is trying to help and you have to watch your family die and you can't do anything about it and all you can say is they have nothing to offer. Man I hope you don't need anyone one day because I really hate people who think like that.

 

[pat460]

Nice Ryan, skip me because you have no response or is ir because you are agreeing with me, and saying that I am right? Please, PLEASE respond to my post, you have no idea how much I enjoy arguements like this, in which two people of similar intellects battle over a completely subjective subject. PLEASE respond, or give me at least the satasfaction of conceding.

Vaporeon, you ignored me as well. It isn't so much an "I will help you if you can help me later." thing. its mroe of a "There is no point in giving you help because if I help you now, within 2 years, all evidence of my help will have disapeared because of your stupidity."

Dont take the word stupidity wrong; I am not making fun of Africans. It isn't their fault. It is the fault of their culture as a whole for remaining uneducated. No one wants to help people who wont change. For instance, who knows if we were to build some sort of buiding to help them how long it would take for it to be destroyed in some tribal fight?