Need action now!

[Slogger]

they need feeding that is the simple truth but then what happens when will it end as there will be x10 or more to feed in 5 to 10 yrs time

is it wrong to do some sort of birth control and i dont mean condoms ie implants or more severe sterilisation as they cant sustain the numbers

whoever mentions this will be vilified for going against human rights so this is prob why no one is wanting to be involved

i mean no one with real power ( usa )

 

[kendor]

Some facts for you-------Up untill the turn of the 1900's the population of the Earth was around 1 billion and had been that way for at least 2 thousand years, it is only with mans intervention that the population is now over 6 billion and rising largely due to medical inventions and knowlege.

Even in the modern countries we had extremely large birth rates and equally large infant death rates with an overall lower life expectancy.

So you see modern disasters in the third world are natures way of clearing things up.

Now if we mess around with things anything will happen.

We learnt not to have so many kids and the result was those who were born were stronger and lived longer and also had a better quality of life.

Perhaps as others have mentioned educate them not to have so many kids then they may learn instead of starving.

What you say is nothing short of suggesting a Cull what gives you the right to pass judgement so lightly on others, playing God again are we?

 

[Scoby_Beasley]

Freddies' right. look after yourself first and feck everyone else.
An old Yorkshire saying :-
"If ye gonna do owt for nowt, do it for ye sen".

 

[Thermo]

while i agree certain causes of the problems are manifest in the society they live in, you cant sit there and watch the pictures of a small straving baby in its mothers arms dying and not be moved. Two weeks on from all the hype of live8 and the rest and nothings changed....it never was going to was it.

Human life is precious no matter what part of the world and something should be done

 

[pipme]

In not so true DIY style, if you are gonna interfere do it properly.. Otherwise leave it all alone.
Continual fiddling around the edges creates a bigger mess, allows funds to be drained off by the 'administrators' and the dregs passed on to the deserving.

I fail to see where we have yet, 'Done the job properly..' Too many 'ah,buts' and 'What ifing..' and posing for media bites.. Then what?
Poor strategies by poor political planners who always interfere in projects .. even tho' history shows their work to be cr ap... No one is 'Having a word in their shell-like' With regard to earning their bread... and being measured to that effect.

 

[Freddie]

I havent suggested a cull Kendor, just that you are interferring in a natural process which as pointed out will be worse next time so they have to learn not to have so many kids

 

[user56565]

now i don't know all the facts on this one, but im sure i read somewhere that of all the aid and charity raised, 80% goes toward administration. most of the remaining 20% doesn't get to the intended recipients, as the 'corrupt govts' prevent access, and often keep it to themselves. so money sent via these routes actually ends up encouraging more corruption, by financing those who carry it out.

instead, all this money could be used to fund a proper and permanent change in regime (oh, and some condoms). and this would achieve our aims of reducing suffering.

the problem is corruption is so high in the west (usa for example, or here - where do all our taxes go??), who are we to preach non-corruption to these african leaders?? of the resources we can spare, we also need to sort out climate change, environmental damage, and overpopulation (in UK and worldwide). how do we share resources among all these v important and urgent issues??

one thing that we could start off with, is to scrap the EU common agricultural policy, which has not only resulted in higher taxes (esp. for Britains), but keeps those in 3rd world countries from raising themselves out of poverty.

 

[Freddie]

one thing that we could start off with, is to scrap the EU common agricultural policy, which has not only resulted in higher taxes (esp. for Britains), but keeps those in 3rd world countries from raising themselves out of poverty.

Wrong i have explained this endless times before on here, it might raise taxes but it is not the thing that keeps the third world in poverty

Here's one you look for the others if you are interested

//www.diynot.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=27136&highlight=

 

[AdamW]

I had considered the (somewhat extreme) possibility of putting something in the water to reduce fertility to sustainable levels. But the thing is, that doesn't prevent the spread of AIDS. Plus, as Slogger says, forced contraception is of questionable.

However, China DOES do something a bit like this. As we all know, in China they have had the "one child" policy since 1979. It is as a little more complicated than that, some people are allowed a second for various reasons. Anyway, it is a good idea, and hats off to them for doing something to solve the problem. In theory.

Thing is, they enforce it in brutal ways. Post-natal abortion (they induce labour and then put the baby down like an animal) and forced sterilisation. Neither is very nice.

It is a very cold-hearted thing to wonder about, but is it more cruel to enforce such laws in this brutal way, or to allow people to pop out babies like a machine gun and have them all starve to death?

Any workable solution we can come up with would be a violation of the human rights of the adults... unless we can change our mindset to realise that having children you can't feed is cruel and is a violation of the human rights of those babies.

 

[kendor]

I had considered the (somewhat extreme) possibility of putting something in the water to reduce fertility to sustainable levels. But the thing is, that doesn't prevent the spread of AIDS. Plus, as Slogger says, forced contraception is of questionable.

However, China DOES do something a bit like this. As we all know, in China they have had the "one child" policy since 1979. It is as a little more complicated than that, some people are allowed a second for various reasons. Anyway, it is a good idea, and hats off to them for doing something to solve the problem. In theory.

Thing is, they enforce it in brutal ways. Post-natal abortion (they induce labour and then put the baby down like an animal) and forced sterilisation. Neither is very nice.

It is a very cold-hearted thing to wonder about, but is it more cruel to enforce such laws in this brutal way, or to allow people to pop out babies like a machine gun and have them all starve to death?

Any workable solution we can come up with would be a violation of the human rights of the adults... unless we can change our mindset to realise that having children you can't feed is cruel and is a violation of the human rights of those babies.

All well and good but you are talking of established societies, whereas these unfortunates in the Third World live in a chaotic world where they rely solely on the help from organisation that care for them. to talk about imposing controls etc is jumping the gun somewhat don't you think?