[SpiggyTopes]

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
Okay. So, then explain to me why 0.1% is acceptable to gamble but 5% ain't?

I made that point to illustrate that without having personally seen other parts or be educated about them, you want know a priori.

I have already explained that. Read back.

[SpiggyTopes]

(Original post by justanotherposter)
There seems to be a lot of people on here that assume a third world country works in the same way as England does. It doesn't.
Third world countries lack everything, they lack the means to purify water, they lack food, they lack education and healthcare in some places, all economic necessities if you are to have a workforce that can help the country grow.


England is also overpopulated, strangely enough people don't care and continue to have kids. People don't care about the bigger picture, they only care about themselves, that's why government exists.

But if immigration and emigration were ignored, our population would be falling.

[justanotherposter]

(Original post by SpiggyTopes)
But if immigration and emigration were ignored, our population would be falling.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13975481
Can't find any 2012 data, but net migration was 230000 people for 2009-10, whereas the growth increase in population was 470000, which is about double the migration, so even without immigration we'd still be getting overpopulated.

In any case contraception isn't available in many third world countries, people will want to have sex, and therefore inevitably people will get pregnant.

[SpiggyTopes]

(Original post by justanotherposter)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13975481
Can't find any 2012 data, but net migration was 230000 people for 2009-10, whereas the growth increase in population was 470000, which is about double the migration, so even without immigration we'd still be getting overpopulated.

In any case contraception isn't available in many third world countries, people will want to have sex, and therefore inevitably people will get pregnant.

Sorry, I was worng I concede defeat!

[katyness]

(Original post by SpiggyTopes)
I can't understand the logic of barely being able to feed yourself etc. and then deciding to have children!

I don't know why so many people negged you, I completely agree with you.

And the OP is right, if the leaders from those countries had a pure intent of helping their people, they wouldn't need anyone....

... but then again, look at what's happening to the EU.

[justanotherposter]

(Original post by katyness)
I don't know why so many people negged you, I completely agree with you.

And the OP is right, if the leaders from those countries had a pure intent of helping their people, they wouldn't need anyone....

... but then again, look at what's happening to the EU.

There has been 4 pages of argument over why this is wrong, money doesn't grow on trees, even if a leader isn't corrupt he would need more than good intentions to make his country prosperous, he would need a high amount of finance that the country itself does not have.

[Xiomara]

(Original post by katyness)
I don't know why so many people negged you, I completely agree with you.

And the OP is right, if the leaders from those countries had a pure intent of helping their people, they wouldn't need anyone....

... but then again, look at what's happening to the EU.

Other commentors have already established children = money in a third world country. That's why.

[Sharpshooter]

(Original post by justanotherposter)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13975481
Can't find any 2012 data, but net migration was 230000 people for 2009-10, whereas the growth increase in population was 470000, which is about double the migration, so even without immigration we'd still be getting overpopulated.

Yeah true but I guess the argument is is that a lot immigrants have significantly more children than british born pushing up the birthrate.

So for example babies born with foreign born mothers in 2010 were 25.1%. Not that it matters, but just saying though.

[Suetonius]

The blanket term "third world nations" is far too vague and generic. In some cases, the plight of citizens within "third world nations" is caused by backward and conservative practise by said countries' elites. For example, Iran has the world's fourth-largest oil reserves, and yet its people are restricted from achieving their potential by the inadequacies and malpractice of a government which prefers to invest its time and resources into war, nuclear weapons, and maintaining a police state to keep its population controlled. Much the same can be said of Pakistan. However, in many African countries, while corrupt, dictatorial governments and elites are prevalent, they do not explain the massive disproportion in wealth between it and more developed nations. Dependency theory and Immanuel Wallerstein's 'world-systems theory' offer a good starting point when trying to comprehend these inequalities. Trying to discern which of these (i. country-specific malpractice and, ii. adverse consequences of neo-liberal globalization) is more responsible for the "plight" of citizens within "third world nations" depends on the particular case. Sometimes it's easy to notice that, while ii. has - at a basal level - created massive structural problems, the majority of issues arise from indigenous squabble and damage inflicted by localized groups and elites. In other cases, the opposite is true; that the division of labour within global economic system is primarily responsible and that localized elements simply exacerbate the problem. North Korea would be an obvious case where the indigenous elite shoulders the whole burden. Its actions have seen the country alienated in the eyes of the whole world, so that while it represses and starves its people it also remains an autarkic economy invulnerable to the effects of neo-liberal penetration. The damaging consequences of this are present for all of us to see (except probably to those neo-Stalinists in the American Workers World Party - incidentally, the same people who organized the anti-war movement - who disgracefully defend the North Korean regime as an anti-imperialist, anti-globalization vanguard).

As for aid; again, it's simply foolish and immoral to rule it out for every given case simply because of the diminishing returns suffered in one instance. It needs to be selectively distributed, so that we can ensure that it is fed through the correct channels to humanitarian ends. There are, quite simply, too many cases where our aid is helping to preserve elites and other movements that contribute to the "plight" of third world populations. One clear example is Pakistan, where our aid is not only going towards a corrupt and fanatical government that wastes money on nuclear weapons while its people are killed in terrible natural disasters, but is also going towards a military which actively supports via proxy the fundamentalist guerillas in Afghanistan that are killing British soldiers. In other cases, we're providing military aid to the likes of Saudi Arabia and Egypt which are quite obviously, and actively, utilized for no other reason except to coerce populations. If we diverted even a small proportion of this nefarious military aid to helping provide water in Sub-Saharan Africa then lives could certainly be saved. The former doesn't warrant 1p of British taxpayers' money whereas the latter certainly does. At the same time, we should be defending citizens of third-world nations from sub-state forces that would viciously deprive them of their livelihoods for abominable goals. Unfortunately, we have a record of failure in this. During the 1980s, we aided groups as morally corrupt as the Khmer Rouge in its violent insurgency against the Vietnamese-backed government in Phnomh Penh (Margaret Thatcher having given the terribly flippant justification that there were "probably two parts" of the Khmer Rouge, without any evidence). The same is true of our support for the contra terror gangs in Nicaragua. Moving into the 1990s, John Major treated both the barbarians and the victims as being morally culpable for the savagery in Bosnia, supporting an arms embargo on the desperate besieged government in Sarajevo. This is why it was a good thing when, in at least one identifiable case, we shifted position to help emancipate those in the third world. British forces were thankfully in place, and were able, to defend Iraq's civilians from the murderous theocratic and sectarian forces of 'al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia' during that country's first ever democratic election in 2005. British forces were also deployed by Tony Blair in 2000 to prevent another Rwanda from unfolding in Sierra Leone. These are clear cases where military intervention by 'core' states in the affairs of the 'periphery' have helped to defend vulnerable populations from malevolent indigenous sub-state forces.

[Arturo Bandini]

Africa is not one country, OP.

[katyness]

(Original post by Xiomara)
Other commentors have already established children = money in a third world country. That's why.

Well the same way that it is clear to us that the equation isn't true, it is also clear to them.

And just because there has been other comments about it, it doesn't make it right.

(Original post by justanotherposter)
There has been 4 pages of argument over why this is wrong, money doesn't grow on trees, even if a leader isn't corrupt he would need more than good intentions to make his country prosperous, he would need a high amount of finance that the country itself does not have.

My mum comes from an African country whose government is mostly made of my mum's family and friends. So I know that [bit in bold] is not always true.

[justanotherposter]

(Original post by katyness)
Well the same way that it is clear to us that the equation isn't true, it is also clear to them.

And just because there has been other comments about it, it doesn't make it right.



My mum comes from an African country whose government is mostly made of my mum's family and friends. So I know that [bit in bold] is not always true.

Which African country? Not all of Africa is third world.

And children isn't about money it's about having a worker, these people have no money so can't employ people to work on their land, therefore if they have kids then they have free labour once they hit ten, plus there's the whole human instinct to reproduce to consider.

[Xiomara]

(Original post by katyness)
Well the same way that it is clear to us that the equation isn't true, it is also clear to them.

Are you geniunely under the impression that someone in a third world country is going to have the same priorities and think the same way as you in a first world one?
If you do, I'm not convinced that anything anyone says on this forum is going to break past such delusion.
In the West, children cost money. They can't be sent off to work at age ten unless you have a showbiz kid on the Disney channel, and whatever money they do make at age 16 is spent on booze and fags, not you.
In impoverished countries, children can help out on the farm, sell goods on the streets and in the markets etc. from a young age, thus supporting you (the parent) and the rest of the family. This is why kids = money in Ghana and not so much in Switzerland. What do you not understand about this? Perhaps I can explain it further for you.

Now this:

And just because there has been other comments about it, it doesn't make it right.

Is laughable in the context of this:

My mum comes from an African country whose government is mostly made of my mum's family and friends. So I know that [bit in bold] is not always true.

So something that has not only been correlated by other commentors, but is freely searchable on the internet to be true is 'not right' to you, but we're supposed to accept some completely unverifiable anecdote involving your mum's extended family? Are you serious?

[chefdave]

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
http://www.internationalrivers.org/r...r-dilemma-2535

That's circular logic. Ethiopa's GDP is low because they lack basic infrastructure, but apparently they can't upgrade their infrastructure because of their low GDP. You may as well they don't have access to clean drinking water because they don't, which in explanatory terms tells us nothing.

[Annoying-Mouse]

(Original post by chefdave)
That's circular logic. Ethiopa's GDP is low because they lack basic infrastructure, but apparently they can't upgrade their infrastructure because of their low GDP. You may as well they don't have access to clean drinking water because they don't, which in explanatory terms tells us nothing.

No, it isn't and makes sense. It's like saying, I am poor and thus can't invest on X stocks even though X stocks will make me rich because I don't have the money to firstly invest in X stocks. Who is going to give them the money to buy the infrastructure? Money doesn't grow on trees.

[chefdave]

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
Profitability of those resource please.

Eh? These resources aren't worth a dime if you lack to the means to exploit them. If they're unable to use these incredibly valuable gifts of nature to full effect that's their problem, we shouldn't be tripping over ourselves to offer aid when they have everything they need to provide themselves with a western standard of living.

[Scumbaggio]

While i'm loathed to simply blame Africans for 'being lazy', I cannot accept that all/most of its problems have been caused by colonialism.

An African lady once told me......Give an African a fish and he'll eat for a day, give him a fishing rod and he will sell the fishing rod to buy fish.

[JoeBiden]

(Original post by Scumbaggio)
While i'm loathed to simply blame Africans for 'being lazy', I cannot accept that all/most of its problems have been caused by colonialism.

An African lady once told me......Give an African a fish and he'll eat for a day, give him a fishing rod and he will sell the fishing rod to buy fish.

doesn't make sense at all. it's comments like that which just make people racist.

that's just a lazy opinion.

[justanotherposter]

(Original post by chefdave)
Eh? These resources aren't worth a dime if you lack to the means to exploit them. If they're unable to use these incredibly valuable gifts of nature to full effect that's their problem, we shouldn't be tripping over ourselves to offer aid when they have everything they need to provide themselves with a western standard of living.

So they lack the means to exploit the resources, but at the same time you are saying they have everything they need so we shouldn't help them? There's a contradiction there. In any case I don't see why the population should be forced to suffer just because the guy in charge isn't building a purification system.

[JoeBiden]

They're poor because they're lazy.


Pretty simple.