---

by Havoc
Personally whatever the reasons I can't help but come back to the fact that these acts will save the lives of millions and help stop the angiush of maybe billions. This, I think can only be a good thing.

---

Personally I think that it won't...... As be realistic do you really think that all these children will survive just because they are getting vaccinated? Sure a few more will make it until adulthood but just because they don't die from some childhood disease doesn't really increase their odds much for reaching adulthood or living out their lives and dieing happy from old age in 60-70ish years from now.

It's like saving these children from a snake pit and dropping them in with the hungry lions. It makes no sense what so ever!

More children survive the first 5 years however these childhood illnesses where a simple natural form of "population regulation". So without additional birthcontrol (and come on those condoms can be way better used to patch holes in your roof from their point of view) you'll get a rapid increase of the population. And guess what they couldn't house / school & feed their children in the first place. Now imagine what a population increase of a million children will do? Young children under the age of 6 are pretty useless when it comes to helping provide for themselves and their family..... So for the first 6 years it is just another mouth to feed.

Not too mention all those children born with HIV who will now become old enough to actually die from the effects of aids.

From our point of view vaccinating children is a great idea as who wants to see little children die from illnesses we can easy cure for just a few pence a child? But be honest whats the point if you don't have a plan to properly feed / dress / school and employ these children in the long run? And aslong as those economies can't support the increase in population we really aren't doing them any favours

Fair Point, but that's now reason to not try, look at it this this way: there's not a chance in hell that we can raise the money to fix all the problems at once so we have to do it piece by piece. Once we've done this we'll be able to free up these resources for other jobs.

And no, I didn't think they'll suddenly survive till retirement age because of this, but they will survive to a point where they can become a contribution to their society, meaning more workers to help build these countries towards a better future.

Having said that I do agree with you completely on one thing: populatrion control is going to become a major issue to these people, still, as far as "natural population regulation" goes if they don't practice birth control they'll be hit by famine, admittadly this leaves them in pretty much the same situation, but from our point of view we've taken an expensiver factor out of the equation, making the next steps far easier.

---

by Havoc
Fair Point, but that's now reason to not try, look at it this this way: there's not a chance in hell that we can raise the money to fix all the problems at once so we have to do it piece by piece. Once we've done this we'll be able to free up these resources for other jobs.

---

I totally agree that there is no way there is money enough to fix all the problems, although my mum strongly believe there should be but thats another point

But because there isn't enough money to "solve" a wider problem throwing money at smaller problems which don't solve the wider issues is useless. As whats the point of saving a child from a decease if you let it starve to death 2 years down the line? Thats a wasted investment if you ask me.

---

but from our point of view we've taken an expensiver factor out of the equation, making the next steps far easier.

---

The problem is that vaccinating those children "once" isn't the big cost. It hardly costs a few pounds a child. Feeding an ever growing population for a substational period of time is way more expensive (and may I add just as useless aslong as you don't provide the means for people to feed themselves)

---

And no, I didn't think they'll suddenly survive till retirement age because of this, but they will survive to a point where they can become a contribution to their society, meaning more workers to help build these countries towards a better future.

---

Thats why I would suggest a radical new view on foreign aid. Combine funds and spend it where it is most efficiently used towards building a better future for these people.

Let organisations like the redcross and private institution take care of the "millions of starving people" as well as they can but as governments you should stay far away from that as whats the point of feeding them this week and letting them die from something else the next?

This raises the question where does "our" money do the most good? This requires a radical change in view and I'm sure this isn't gonna make a popular with most people here

Instead of working from the inside out work from the outside in. So don't focus your resources to the "poorest" as with the resources you have you can't save them and bring them a better future and it hogs your resources year after year and you aren't really making any progress. So stop doing that!

First of all we know that starting economies are very poluting and require shitloads of oil. Which would drive the oil price up which we really can't have from a political viewpoint. So first thing is to ditch our own oil based economy and transform outselves to a hydrogen one asap. This frees up loads of oil and makes us less reliant on the middle east so basically they won't have a choke hold over us anymore and we are freed to really do something (no not militairy!)

It might sound incredibly cruel but if you can't save them for a longer period of time don't try! Instead focus on the "semi-poorish" countries. Invest all the combined resources into a couple of countries for a few years and build up an infrastructure, build school, get farms started, teach people how to provide for themselves and when you come to a point where they can take care of themselves move on to the next bunch. And this can only be done if you don't have to worry about feeding them in the first place.

This way you have saved people from a death which might not have been instant but you will have saved them for life and not just for "this month". Also make sure that "your own" companies help build the infrastructure so part of your foreign aid flows back into your own economy which is indirect government support which isn't allowed but still if spending money on foreign aid helps your own economy it is way more attractive and sellable to the public from a political viewpoint.

Radical? yes........ will it work?..... well I think it makes more sense than what we are doing now...... will it ever happen? I'm afraid not

But at least this way you are really trying to do something to solve world hunger over time as eventually you'll work your way inwards to the poorest instead of trying (and failing) to feed the world hunger for a day

(Edited by Chambler 27/01/2005 14:26)