This video is from The Life You Can Save (a charity by Peter Singer), and I found it pretty compelling. We really need to do more to help the suffering of other human beings.
Recent Comments
- John C: Yes there is friend, but you can’t know/see Him in (y)our... on God Hates Checkered Whiptail Lizards!!!
- Adamf: There ain’t no god, it aint truth, and you are a pathetic... on God Hates Checkered Whiptail Lizards!!!
- Stony: My [highly conservative] family delight in calling on the ghost... on Mr. Conservative on religion and politics
- trj: Any ideas? Well, the Bible is cobbled together by a lot of contributors, and though... on Why Are You Here, Jesus?
- Manny: I’m a bit confused the more I read the Bible. Some of it just doesn’t... on Why Are You Here, Jesus?
- sdbear: Does it matter to anyone that what he said is simply the truth? on Cult Leaders vs The Pope
Funny $&#!@ From 9 Laughs
I'm one of the contributors to 9 Laughs:
Subscribe by Email
Archives
I have seen this moral dilemma before, and it is very interesting. There isn’t a great answer to it, although it seems clear that the two situations are not morally equivalent.
Nevertheless, I think there is a moral obligation to help in some way, especially since it is so inexpensive to do so.
Also, I really like their donation chart. It helps put things into perspective.
DURRR HURRR
[paraphrased by DF]
Orthodox – complete prick with no arguments.
It amazes me that some people in this world believe that one cannot be a moral person without adhering to their own particular, unique, and peculiar worldview. I am not an atheist, BUT that gives neither me nor anyone else the right to deride another’s beliefs or lack thereof.
We are all residents of this speck of dirt we call Earth and like it or not we all have to get along or else we all kill each other.
Please show some maturity and humanity. A little, the tiniest little bit, of humility would also be greatly appreciated. I’m sure you know what humility is, look to your Jesus as an example.
By the way, thank you, Daniel, for posting this excellent video.
Dan – Did you read Orthodox’s original comment? It was basically an off topic indult against atheists. Daniel was right to edit it.
Yes, I saw the original post and I agree that it needed to be edited. I am just saying that we all can and should get along without degrading one another or disgracing ourselves.
Personally, I don’t see anything degrading about Custodor’s response. It is the truth minus cosmetic words.
His comment was inappropriate. So I put what he meant. You can’t reason or respect people like that. The best way to deal with them is to laugh at them.
Aw, CRAP! I missed it! :P
Daniel, its your blog and I respect your decisions. I do think its a shame to censor the odd loony though. It’s nice to put rational thought into perspective against what were up against. Show the bigots and idiots in all their misspelled hate filled rhetoric. Point an laugh.
When we censor them, we let them play the oppression card. They can proudly puff up their chests and say their ideas are so dangerous that they need to be deleted. They can claim that were closed minded, and wont listen.
I don’t usually do it. Usually only after people reply, because if I delete the comment it messes things up. I don’t let people stay in my house when they insult me, and neither do I let them comment on my blog.
Unless they break the comment rules (that I have listed very clearly), I leave their stupidity up.
Devil’s Advocate time:
Aid DOES promote dependence, and it DOES promote overpopulation. If a nation has more people than it can feed, then it has too many people (I include Britain in this) – to promote the health of that population and provide resources enough that they are sustained as a breeding population just creates a bigger, messier, more expensive problem later. I’m sorry, but that’s true. I listened to an interview with a man in Zimbabwe who could not set up and run his own farm because it was easier for potential workers to take aid handouts and more profitable for him to buy donated produce and re-sell it. Bottom line, what was once Africa’s bread-basket now produces no food where it use to feed a whole continent – all because the West gives them everything they need.
Devil’s Advocate II:
If this world is to survive, it may be neccessary for the Earth’s human population to be culled by at least one half….maybe more. Nature will do this for us as once the population reaches 100 billion and there are no more trees to cut down….there will be no air for the population to breathe! If people don’t start to prevent over population through sterilization(since men don’t want to use condoms and lose the sensation of ejaculating within a woman), perhaps a nice war might save our planet! The dumb ole’ Pope even warned against the use of condoms….how environmentaly stupid can he be?! Once the oceans and the life within it is killed, I guess we’ll have to start eating each other! There is no way around it…..a large part of mankind must be culled or this planet and all it’s life forms are DOOMED(extinction)!
NOTE: I’m just being a “devil’s advocate”. There’s no way I would want to push the button!
Global capitalism relies on growth in consumption and thus growth in population. Without it, the whole system collapses. Given that’s a fact, does anybody think we stand a chance?
I couldn’t disagree more. But I’m not sure this is the best place to have this debate. I remember debating about this quite a bit on the xkcd forums (I’m not sure if that debate is still going; I think it died down), and it basically came down to the OP and a couple others claiming topsoil degradation was such a significant risk, it justified population control, and everybody else disagreeing.
The fact is that as countries become wealthier, their demographics change. In particular, they undergo what is sometimes called a “demographic transition,” where they move from one stage of civilization to another. Birth and deathrates both decline, but birthrates decline faster, and the result is stabilizing population. We see this in all first world countries, and we are beginning to see evidence of this in the third world. Populations generally peak well below the nation’s carrying capacity with a few exceptions (e.g. Japan, Singapore). So in fact, in order to avoid overpopulation, we ought to try to improve these countries’ economies.
Of course, the question becomes whether donating money alone can accomplish this. I think if we literally were just throwing food and money at people that would inevitably fail (due to corruption if nothing else), but that isn’t really what happens. Donations generally go toward a wide variety of services centered around building homes and infrastructure (such as schools and hospitals), sending food, sending medical supplies, sending new means of getting water (e.g. solar stills, airwater), vaccinations, condoms, de-mining, and many other things vital to improving these countries’ welfare. Without this aid, it will be nearly impossible–if not impossible–for many of these impoverished nations to become self-sustaining. With it, there is a good chance.
I think this idea that these countries are “incapable of taking care of their populations” is misguided. It is true that they cannot (or in many cases simply will not) do this currently, but that can change. In particular, there is more farmland available than they are able to take advantage of largely because of shortages of healthy workers due to some combination of AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis, diarrhea, landmines, war, famine, and drought. While many of these demand political solutions to some extent (and war obviously to a great extent), they also require charity.
And do not forget why many of these countries are in this situation to begin with. It is not their fault. In most cases, these countries were ravaged and exploited by the West in at least three ways: slavery, colonization, and capitalism. The last of these is still ongoing. Considering we as a nation are largely responsible for these peoples’ plights, and individually we benefit from it, we have a strong moral obligation to attempt to right the injustices we have created.
Touche, Michael.
I despise the depraved idea that, since we have a population problem, our apathy towards poverty is justified. First, the solution to the population problem is MORE aid. Second, as stated by the Russian philosopher, Berdyaev, “[The] greatest sin of our age is in trying to make the concrete abstract.”
Finally, one of the reasons that I remain a Christian is the appalling lack of respect for human life I’ve observed displayed by those without any religious moorings.
The appalling lack of respect, eh? You do realize that Custador intends to preserve life by abstaining from aid, don’t you? To the contrary, I am often appalled by the lack of respect for human life I’ve observed displayed by characters in the Bible. Thankfully, most Christians do not take after those characters, but unfortunately some do, and even more Muslims do.
And remember that “respecting life” is much more than just preserving it. Too often I see the religious only respecting people who accept their moral system. Anybody else is somehow unworthy or inhuman or generally inferior. Homosexuals in particular are constantly targeted for dehumanization and discrimination. This is the exact opposite of respecting life.
Or how about God? He seems to respect human life less than any human ever could manage. He is happy sending billions to hell for not accepting his brand of magic and will readily flood the entire world if he gets jealous of the gods its inhabitants worship. He will spare a city for ten good people, sure, but not for one, because one person’s life just isn’t worth as much as God’s pride. And he is willing to use Job as his plaything just to win a bet with Satan.
Respecting human life my ass.
Michael, why the antagonism? Did you miss the “touche”? I am supportive of your position on this issue (i.e. that aid is the solution to the population problem). For some reason you overlooked the rest of my post, and focused in on my final comment (which, btw, was not intended to incite a riot).
Since you brought the other issues up, I’ll address them.
“And remember that ‘respecting life’ is much more than just preserving it.”
I heartily agree. But let’s not forget that it begins with preserving it.
“Homosexuals in particular are constantly targeted for dehumanization and discrimination. This is the exact opposite of respecting life.”
I agree that discrimination is not showing a proper respect for life. However, although present, I believe much of the spotlighted discrimination by Christians against gays is a misrepresentation of the Christian community as a whole. Now, you may be about to react with a passionate rebuttal of this claim, but hold your fire for just a moment. I’m a celibate, gay Christian. I make this claim based on my experience, which I doubt you are capable of refuting.
Finally, regarding the Bible stories (yes, stories) that you brought up (the flood, Job etc.), you seem to take the Bible more literally than many Christians I know. I, personally, realize that these accounts are based on the ANE view of God. In other words, they contain some truth, but aren’t to be taken too literally.
Peace, friend.
Y’know, this reminds me of an anedocte.
There are these missionaries in the church I went to (remember, I, atheist from birth, I went with the family), who went to Africa. They were actually good people. They educated the natives of the place, helped them grow, taught them to read and write, gave them medicine, food, that kind of thing.
But, they didn’t bother to teach these people a profession. They made a missionary school – those people were learning to spread the gospel. They even translated the bible to their local language. But they didn’t teach them (at least, if they did, they didn’t tell us) an actual profession that could improve their society and their condition. They got elementary schooling, sure, but nothing enough for them to actually improve on.
I admire them greatly. They’ve done more than I ever will. But it made me think how much better these things would go if, rather than teaching them all about Jesus, they taught them about something more useful to their communities. Rather than trying so hard to strip them of their pagan ways, why not introduce them to basic scientific knowledge? Perhaps they wouldn’t be able to – being pastors by profession – but nonetheless…
There was another missionary group who showed their work with refugee camps. It was horrible; I cried a lot just seeing those children. I don’t cry easily, understand, but seeing that made me despair so much I burst to tears.
I’m an atheist. Everyone around me was supposedly a Christian.
I looked around and everyone in sight seemed bored or simply not paying attention. Including my religious family. Not a single person seemed to be thinking about it, moved about it. Not one.
“The greatest sin of our age is in trying to make the concrete abstract.”
You haven’t demonstrated that the point of view I expressed is not the concrete one and the idea at ending famine by giving people lots of food is not an abstraction.
Agencies on the ground cannot distribute food aid safely, and it gets taken by gangs and militias who then sell it on. A huge chunk of financial aid somehow always seems to end up in the Swiss bank accounts of men like Robert Mugabe. Those who are lucky enough to be able to receive aid directly or at least buy it at below market value become dependent.
These things happen. They are facts. When you give people food or money all the time, sooner or later they will choose not to make the effort to provide for themselves anymore. It happens in the third world with aid and it happens in the first world with poorly regulated social security.
Now, I have no problem with certain types of aid, and these are:
1) Birth control and family planning,
2) Implements to allow people to produce their own food and/or build their own economies,
3) Installations to provide clean, potable water.
To any individual who claims that the moral response to the population issue is to allow half or more of the world’s population to perish, I say lead by example. . . .be part of the solution by ending your existence, which you implicitly contend is part of the problem.
“Those who are lucky enough to be able to receive aid directly or at least buy it at below market value become dependent. These things happen. They are facts.”
If you want me to let your generalizations pass as “facts,” let’s see the proof. Maybe I’m a little skeptical, but I don’t just take the statements of random bloggers as facts. If you’d like some authentic facts, I suggest you read the book The End of Poverty, by Jeffrey Sachs. He details why the primary problem relating to aid is the lack of it (i.e. insufficient aid to build the infrastructure necessary for economic development).
Peace.
I hope that we can all live our lives to the fullest, What shall we do if Iran, North Korea or possibly China start dropping their nukes on us? I’m sure then the problem will be silenced as to who dies first! I can’t possibly see the civilized nations dropping bombs on them. As long as we are assured of no nuclear wars, the nagging problem of over-population of the world continues, unabated! Now….any other ideas…and hurry before the rain forests are all choped down in order to cook the next meal of the day!
Religious moorings? What, didn’t you read anything about the history of western world during the Dark Ages, when the Church burned people for disagreeing with them. The Cathars in southern France posed the Church no harm, but since their views were not in line with Catholic doctrine, they were virtually wiped out through the Inquisition. The Inquisition in Spain was even more brutal! The Puritans were equally brutal in the early years of America. To paraphrase Mark Twain: “religion is just an excuse to beat up your neighbour”.
Religious moorings?….Get a life!
@The second Michael: “What, didn’t you read anything about the history of western world during the Dark Ages, when the Church burned people for disagreeing with them.”
Old news. . . Yawn. I realize that Christianity has history; however, as much as I loathe the evil done in the name of Christianity (and other religions), I don’t find the reality of this evil to be a compelling argument against Christianity (or religion in general). Regardless of what ideology individuals embrace, they will utilize that ideology to justify their actions (whether malevolent or benevolent). Atheism is not without history.
It’s reductionism at its worst to look at the crusades/inquisition and other crimes committed under the flag of christendom and claim religion is to blame for these evils. Sorry, but the world is more complex than that. Evil exists independently of religion and the validity of the claims of Christianity is not determined by past evils masquerading as Christianity.
Peace, man.
Believe me, I agree with you, but the phrase that “ahumanoid” said about the lack of respect for human life by those without religious moorings, disturbed me. Perhaps if the word “spiritual” had been used instead of “religious”, I wouldn’t have disagreed. Unfortunately the lack of empathy combined with the devious human mind is the source of “evil”. The trouble with the word “evil” is that it is relative to time period and culture. What was evil a hundred years ago, may no longer be evil. Times change and so do attitudes towards how others live. To the fundamentalists , unbelievers are evil and the same is felt by those who are opposed to all types of religions. How will we ever sort things out in order to find a peaceful reconciliation or is that only a “pipe dream”?
“Evil exists independently of religion and the validity of the claims of Christianity is not determined by past evils masquerading as Christianity.”
Today, you made me afraid of you.
@DarkMatter: key word is “masquerading.” Look it up if you don’t know the definition.
Are you the deciding factor of past evil masquerading?
Point is, if some nefarious types in human history successfully “masqueraded” as Christians while doing a host of evil deeds, fooling all of their contemporaries and not a few people today, then how can we be sure that others are not also masquerading as the true faith? What defines true Christianity that they lacked?
Yes it is. I dare you give me an example of somebody killing anybody in the name of atheism in the history of the world. And don’t give me that Stalin bullshit argument you like so much. Stalin might or might not have been an atheist, but he didn’t do anything in the name of atheism.
Stalin was no atheist! he had in his youth attempted to take up holy orders, which I suppose would have been, in retrospect, a rather good idea. Just ask the more than 25 million Russians that died at his hands. However, Stalin only believed in himself as did Hitler. Neither were religious nor atheist but they DID believe in the personality cult…..their personalities! Can anybody name a religion that DOESN”T prescribe an eternal punishment for those that don’t believe? History has shown that religionism kills…..atheism doesn’t!
I see Malthus’ ideas weren’t death with him. A shame.
(also not the place to dicuss it)
That sooner or later a population will inevitably suffer from widespread famine, disease and mortality? I’d say that 99.9% of historical populations support that notion, and I honestly do think that if we don’t sort ourselves out we’re going to go the same way as a *global* population.
It’s less moral hazard than simple economics. Upfront agricultural aid obliterates local farmers because no matter how cheaply or efficiently you make your product, you cannot compete with ‘free’. At best the downward pressure on prices guarantees future dependence on aid, but the nastier side effect is that once wage-levels are in parity with consumption prices, if the aid were to ever cease, the new prices would stabilize way outside the range of affordability, given wages. Give aid, kill businesses. Cease aid, kill people.
The key to reducing poverty is the education and empowerment of women. I think this is the best bucket to put our drops in.
Agreed that’s very important, but what about in the meantime? There’s still starving people that need help.
There’s a concept & consequence of what’s deemed ‘empirical lift’ with respect to nation (people) building or re-building. I’ve personally witnessed it on at least three continents. It’s powerful, brings a harvest of true and positive change to a captive people.
I like the line from the superb but little known BBC film titled “The Girl in the Cafe” at the end of the G8 Conference addressing the world powers, discussing how to end poverty, etc the Prime Minister gets up to speak (after being surprised, interrupted, intensely exhorted, challenged to ‘do the right thing’ for the starving children around the globe by a ‘nobody’ of a young lady with ‘strong opinions’, now buoyed/inspired by her speech tells the world that ‘The time has come to act…that together they must do THE HUGE DEED’.
Yes, we must. When you’ve done it unto the least of these my brethren, you’ve (really) done it unto Me”. All the best to you my unbelieving brethren and fellow men and women.
The Huge Deed…
“Between the big things we can’t do and the small things we won’t do, the danger is that we should do nothing at all”
Adolphe Monod (1802- 1856)
French Reformist
I’m afraid, as politically incorrect as it is, I have to agree to a large extent with Custador’s comments about aid having the moral hazard of enabling and perpetuating the problems. Poverty in third world countries is different than poverty in developed nations (the differing birth rates being one example of this, another being that poor people are skinny in third world nations and in developed ones they have the highest rate of obesity) and so I don’t paint with this same brush in every situation.
I do donate both time and money rather generously, I think, given fairly modest means, to charities and non-profits of several different sorts. I think I can already claim the website’s 1% initial goal, and perhaps a bit more, if it is not limited to this narrow focus of feeding and caring for the already desperately poor and sick, people whose liklihood of remaining in this condition for the rest of their lives being very, very high.
To use an analogy- If a water source is tainted, I’d rather put my money toward eliminating the source of the contamination, even if that means taking money from treating those poisoned at the end of the source, and even if it takes a while for the source to finally run clean.
You can argue, of course, that rich nations should be able to do both, and from a purely financial standpoint this is true and has been so for, I would estimate, at least 50 years. So we can see that money is not really the issue, it’s willingness and I don’t think a few feel-good videos are going to make a bit of difference. So, given that the money, practically speaking, to do something about this will be limited, I want mine to be used wisely and with the larger picture in mind, not for just what feels or looks good in a video, or in the short term.
Devils advocate 2:
I agree anyone who can afford 2 pair of expensive shoes can give one up and help the others.
I don’t even have one pair of expensive shoes so no help from here.
Why can’t her parents help? Because they are too busy taking care of the 6 other sick kids because they believe in that religious BS that wont let them use condoms. I know the plucking pope has lots of expensive shoes, so he can pull his head out of his gods arse and and REALLY help others.
Want to help 6000 little girls? Get the gov’mint to send in troops, kill the present gov’mint, install a new democratic one, with laws that do not permit religious idiots to make the rules and 6000+ better off.
Even if I had the money to spare, I would not send anything over there. It just perpetuates the problem. The little girl gets better, grows up, still lives in poverty, she’s a girl so the social structure that is unchanged forces her into 6+ kids that will be sick and can’t afford to get well.
So no real solution. Until they are willing to face the gov’mint and throw off the BS religion they are stuck to repeat it again and again. And it will never happen because they lack the 4 things that allowed this country to become…..Jefferson-Franklin-Adams-Washington and many others in that time.
So to do something really good forget the little girl, find the ones who are trying to do the ‘Jefferson thing’ and support them.
I also agree with ZINN but until the theocracy is broken she is pouring sand down the rat hole.
Yes, because former wars to do this have served Africa so well. I’m sure if we just keep trying it is bound to work one of these times.
I’m a bit slow on the draw today and it might have something to do with my lack of sleep. I can’t quite think straight now so I’ll just explain my observations. When I saw this idea there were two things that ran through my head:
1) That American Dad! episode “A Jones for a Smith”
2) The word Socialism.
Just letting it out there, no relation to what I’m about to say.
Then I saw the video and tried to answer the questions they posed. About 30 seconds in it made the assumption that I am materialistic about my footwear, which I am not. I usually wear slippers and have very little concern about them. Then it goes on to say I am not, which is true that I prioritize a person’s life over objects. So I’ll let it slip.
Then at 0:44 they ask what if it is a pond in Africa. This caused me to hesitate and wondered “Oh crap, are there Guinea Worms in there? If yes, I’m not taking the plunge but I’ll have to find help or think of something quickly.” Am I thinking too deeply here?
And so on, and so on and so on… Then comes the income sharing part. This is where I get snagged twice. One, I’m unemployed (a student for now) so I have no idea what my income will be. Two, a general problem I have about donations overseas — the currency in my country is fairly weak (roughly RM3.80 = $1). I’m often hesitant about this part as I am not sure if I’m just sending in tiny bits which can support me more effectively than helping others overseas much.
Overall, I can’t help but think that the video is just guilt-tripping me, which I really dislike. I am aware that poverty exist and I hate to sound cold, but I can’t solve all of the world’s problems. I’m not the right person to come for money (at least not yet).
I am interested in seeing this discussion pan out here among you guys, though.
i got an idea lets kill off 1/2 the people of this world be better i think
Great idea… you first!
yes….yes….YES!! But I don’t think Pat(sy) Robertson should be the one to push the button!
As a Christian, I’m ashamed that we ask for 10% of a person’s income and spend so little of it to help a fellow human being. I think God might be more pleased if I gave just the 1% to TLYCS that they’re asking for.
Yeah… sell the Vatican and put that money into food, education, and birth control… save the world!!!!
I think you might be right.
Then stop giving your tithe to your church and give it to UNAID instead.
Expensive shoes? My shoes,size 15(extra wide), are hard to find as it is! I’m certainly not giving my shoe money away if it means going bare foot! But I might consider sending money to help over- populated poor countries to aid in the sterilization of the male population! Keep this in your mind(food for thought): often I see people begging for money. If I gave a dollar to everyone who begged for it, I’d quickly become be penniless. Would those beggars help me out then! I’m no fool…..of course not! If the rich countries send all their funds to the poor countries, could we count on the poor to return the favour?
I’m not heartless but at the rate that we are destroying this world(with species becoming extinct every day,,,sadly not humans), we really must do something NOW to reduce our present level of consumption of the Earth’s natural resources!
My teacher was, in a class discussion, advocating the idea of letting Africa sort things out on its own. Aid is so limited to who it actually helps that I’m cynical my money is spent well. My sister, for a while (in her “artist” days), sponsored a little African child. She got a t-shirt and a photo, as well as monthly updates.. Well, for the “same amount you spend on a coffee per day”, I don’t think she made a difference. We haven’t met the child, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the child died for whatever reason (a dollar per day, once largely spent on the organization’s funds, bribing African leaders, etc. is probably not making a substantial difference) but the organization continued taking funds anyways.
I would agree with my teacher. Granted, our past peoples have inflicted upon Africa and much of the world great crimes of capitalism, but let’s not forget that Africa also contributed to its own mess: it was Africans, after all, that delivered other Africans from inland to slaveships on the coast. They backstabbed their own people on the ground of tribal differences, as opposed to uniting against the common enemy of the white man.
Today, capitalism ensures that the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor. This works on the individual level, but also the national level: Unless something changes, Africa is going to remain poor. You can throw whatever aid you like, but until you deal with the political corruption going on, you’re basically throwing your “drops of water” at a brick wall, hoping it lets in some water to the other side.
I imagine, however, that capitalism is also the solution. China is already working to spend Africa’s resources, and as Africa moves more and more towards being moderate politically, the rest of the world may invest in its resources. Many of the countries are not your conventional image of Africa: rather than being desert wastelands, they are lush tropical areas where people are actually overfed, feeding neighbour countries. The continent of Africa is ripe for the picking, and in the process of countries taking, they will direct their hegemonies to influence Africa to become more Eastern or Western, as the case may be. This may be seen as “neo-colonialism” but in a capitalist world, can you really expect countries to unite behind any common goal EXCEPT the almighty dollar?
I live in a third-world country. We aren’t as bad as Africa, but we’re still pretty bad. I can guarantee you that, rather than sending money that will end in someone’s pockets, send us three or four good selfless teachers, doctors or scientists; you’ll help us a lot more.
This.
At the risk of derailling the conversations about whether or not half the world’s populations of humans should die or how much money we spend on shoes (really, sometimes we atheists do earn our bad reputation), let me interject with some science.
This exact question was covered in an episode of RadioLab. The conclusion is that we have different moral sensitivities to different moral questions. Simply put, our primitive minds “feel” immediate moral questions and our rational minds “reason through” distant moral problems, so it’s easier for us to allow other considerations to enter the question about the girl dying in Africa. Knowing this doesn’t answer the question directly, but it does allow us some insights into why we answer the way we do. Without having to argue that an innocent girl should die because we adults can’t work out an effective aid program for Africa.
My html didn’t come out. Here is the link to the RadioLab article: http://blogs.wnyc.org/radiolab/2009/11/16/killing-babies-saving-the-world/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+radiolab+%28WNYC%27s+Radiolab%29
No one should die for lack of creature comforts(shelter) or food, but until we educate(some how) the poorest nations to reduce the population, it may be these nations that will cause the greatest headaches for the rest of the world. I wish there was some solution. Look at the Far East where population is the most. These nations such as Chima are only now coming into their own. They are running out of resources and will eventually turn to the America’s in order to keep the machine running. I’m too old to learn Chinese, what about you? Can we really afford to send funds to the poorest nations when we can’t even feed our own children who go to school hungry?
I am loathe to almost wish the good “lord” would rapture the “saved”, as it might take a load off the planet and in a way, give us some peace for a change!
Frankly, this is just racism. This kind of thinking can only happen if you think of yourself as essentially different from people in China. “The Chinese are coming” is just another way of saying we are about to undergo a culture change. But the culture is changing all the time anyway: in twenty years, nothing we consider to be our culture right now is going to still be here, except in history and on MTV’s “I Love the 10′s!” shows (if MTV is still around). Unless you are a rich and powerful person with some huge company at stake, I don’t see how it makes much difference if our culture and economy are run by rich white people or rich Chinese people.
Dividing the world along cultural lines and assigning different problems to “us” and “them” is racism. The human race has a population problem, not “Africa” or “India”. People all over the planet have resource problems, and are going to react in the way people react. How long after the US runs out of water before relations with Canada get a lot less friendly? Is that any different from what you think China is going to do? Do you think people in China are wrong to love their culture while it’s good if people in the US love theirs just as much?
In order to stop just fighting about global problems and start solving them, those of us who see the globe in terms of “us” and “them” or “ours” and “theirs” are going to have to change how they see people — which is as fundamentally different from each other based on where they were born. That’s just not true, but you see it again and again coming from the most privileged people in the world, who also happen to be those with the most to lose in helping the least privileged.
There is no “us” and “them”, we are all human regardless of race, creed or appearance! The human race is in this together! But the Americans do have something called “manifest destiny”, which I understand is just an excuse to beat up a nation for it’s resources! All throughout history, man has created empires or shall we say “Lebensraum”. A nation needs resources?….just invade somebody else and BINGO! We should try to solve the world’s problems but let’s not wait until we are being invaded! Considering the continual increase in the population on this planet, resources WILL run out! The nations with the most people will need the most resources and eventually if we(those that have the most to offer: Canada, the US) don’t give them want they want….they may just come and get it! This is no doomsday scenario….it is human history and nature!