Povertious communites - themselves to blame?

People in poverty such as in Africa, Pakinsta ect ect seem to secure the moral high ground without fail in almost all discusions in which they are involed (especially when compared to rich Western countries). People gasp in horror at huge banking bonuses and invoke images of starving chldren in Africa - almost implying that we have a responsibility to help them.

Anyway that's a bit besides the point but you see, they really are their worst enemy. The mothers who have children are thoroughly irresponsible people because they know that they will only be able to provide a life of suffering and poverty for their child. It is so brutally clear that their society and (often local and only local) economies simply cannot provide the resources for the number of offspring that exist or will exist if reproduction continued at its current rate.

Furthermore, if these people had any care about the lives of their future descendents - surely they would not continue to reproduce numerous offspring and therby ensure that the county/area remains in perpetual poverty in which needs simply cannot be met.

Of course I have sympathy for the plight of these people, and do not condemn them for their prolific reproduction. I cetainley do not claim to be justified in withdrawing their right to children either. I suppose the crux of what I am arguing against is that we, as Westerners or other privileged peoples, do not have an obligation as such to help these people - and it is not "immoral" as claimed by many to have huge capitalist created pay gaps, neither nationall nor globally.

I think the aformentioned principle is the essence of socialism, that we have a moral obligation to help our fellow man - the contreversy over whether the poor people i mentioned are "deserving poor" is overkill with regards to making my point.

Edit: For socialists to claim that it is objectivley "Immoral" not to be concerned for the plight of our fellow man is quite a disingenuos argument. Morality is subjective in its nature. For someone who holds moral values averse to anothers's but concedes to their pressure, I think that person is being immoral because he is going against his own moral integrity. For socialists to claim that things are objectivley immoral is just wrong.

People in poverty such as in Africa, Pakinsta ect ect seem to secure the moral high ground without fail in almost all discusions in which they are involed (especially when compared to rich Western countries). People gasp in horror at huge banking bonuses and invoke images of starving chldren in Africa - almost implying that we have a responsibility to help them.

Anyway that's a bit besides the point but you see, they really are their worst enemy. The mothers who have children are thoroughly irresponsible people because they know that they will only be able to provide a life of suffering and poverty for their child. It is so brutally clear that their society and (often local and only local) economies simply cannot provide the resources for the number of offspring that exist or will exist if reproduction continued at its current rate.

Furthermore, if these people had any care about the lives of their future descendents - surely they would not continue to reproduce numerous offspring and therby ensure that the county/area remains in perpetual poverty in which needs simply cannot be met.

Of course I have sympathy for the plight of these people, and do not condemn them for their prolific reproduction. I cetainley do not claim to be justified in withdrawing their right to children either. I suppose the crux of what I am arguing against is that we, as Westerners or other privileged peoples, do not have an obligation as such to help these people - and it is not "immoral" as claimed by many to have huge capitalist created pay gaps, neither nationall nor globally.

I think the aformentioned principle is the essence of socialism, that we have a moral obligation to help our fellow man - the contreversy over whether the poor people i mentioned are "deserving poor" is overkill with regards to making my point.

Edit: For socialists to claim that it is objectivley "Immoral" not to be concerned for the plight of our fellow man is quite a disingenuos argument. Morality is subjective in its nature. For someone who holds moral values averse to anothers's but concedes to their pressure, I think that person is being immoral because he is going against his own moral integrity. For socialists to claim that things are objectivley immoral is just wrong.

...Morality is subjective in its nature...

Possibly the worst argument I have ever come across on this forum.

People in poverty such as in Africa, Pakinsta ect ect seem to secure the moral high ground without fail in almost all discusions in which they are involed (especially when compared to rich Western countries). People gasp in horror at huge banking bonuses and invoke images of starving chldren in Africa - almost implying that we have a responsibility to help them.

Anyway that's a bit besides the point but you see, they really are their worst enemy. The mothers who have children are thoroughly irresponsible people because they know that they will only be able to provide a life of suffering and poverty for their child. It is so brutally clear that their society and (often local and only local) economies simply cannot provide the resources for the number of offspring that exist or will exist if reproduction continued at its current rate.

Furthermore, if these people had any care about the lives of their future descendents - surely they would not continue to reproduce numerous offspring and therby ensure that the county/area remains in perpetual poverty in which needs simply cannot be met.

Of course I have sympathy for the plight of these people, and do not condemn them for their prolific reproduction. I cetainley do not claim to be justified in withdrawing their right to children either. I suppose the crux of what I am arguing against is that we, as Westerners or other privileged peoples, do not have an obligation as such to help these people - and it is not "immoral" as claimed by many to have huge capitalist created pay gaps, neither nationall nor globally.

I think the aformentioned principle is the essence of socialism, that we have a moral obligation to help our fellow man - the contreversy over whether the poor people i mentioned are "deserving poor" is overkill with regards to making my point.

Edit: For socialists to claim that it is objectivley "Immoral" not to be concerned for the plight of our fellow man is quite a disingenuos argument. Morality is subjective in its nature. For someone who holds moral values averse to anothers's but concedes to their pressure, I think that person is being immoral because he is going against his own moral integrity. For socialists to claim that things are objectivley immoral is just wrong.

Isnt it immoral that someone can help someone else, but they just choose not to?

They dont have children just for the sake of it. They have babies so that they can eventually send them to work to bring more money to the home. Why shouldnt we help, if we can afford it? Isnt it immoral that someone can help someone else, but they just choose not to?

Can you 'blame' people when morality is subjective?

You failed kid.

No.

You are very simple.

You are right. And no I dont take it as a complement.

By 'povertious', do you just mean poor?

Whilst the OP was obviously just trying to be controversial and doesn't have much of a grasp of the economics behind it, the point I believe he is bringing up is about demographics and the birth rate.

There is a lot of evidence to show that an environment of low fertility is more advantageous to economic growth, than high fertility. Where you have societies with a lower birthrate you get slower population growth. If you think about the economy having a certain amount of capital and a certain number of workers, then as the economy accumulates capital (through investment, which is influenced by the saving rate) then it increases the amount of capital per worker - this is capital deepening. But as the number of workers increases, then in order to maintain the same level of capital per worker as before, it needs more capital to give to the new workers - this is capital widening. When you have fast population growth, you have more capital widening going on, and not so much capital deepening. When you have slow population growth you have more capital deepening, so each worker becomes more productive, and output per worker increases (GDP per capita increases). Also when you have slower population growth, you get more investment (in terms of education) per child.

So why do some economies have high population growth and others low population growth? Although it seems paradoxical, the biggest link is with disease and the mortality rate. In countries where there are high levels of mortality particularly child mortality, because of disease/starvation then you get higher population growth because households are naturally risk averse and so overcompensate in terms of fertility. Especially in agricultural societies, where people need children in practical terms because they carry out farming work and support the work of the adults, they have more children because they are factoring in the risk factor that one or two of their children will die. I know there are also religious/cultural elements, but if you look at European societies they had high birth rates before advances in disease control like immunisation started to get on top of smallpox and the other diseases that used to be responsible for high child mortality. As disease control improved the birth rate and population growth slowed.

If you look at why tropical countries are poor this is one of the biggest issues - the presence of malaria. In some of the tropical countries which are in island or coastal environments, eg Hong Kong, Singapore, Mauritius and Taiwan, they have had more success in eliminating malaria because you can drain swamps, spray DDT etc and you haven't got mosquitos flying in from neighbouring countries to bring it back, but you can't do this in sub Saharan Africa where a lot of the countries are landlocked so they just have mosquitoes all over the place ready to bring it back in, the ecology is a lot more supportive of malaria. The four countries I mentioned before brought their birth rates down after they got on top of disease which has enabled them to grow their economies and move towards economies based on production and service sectors, rather than just agricultural economies.

The most useful form of support for the developing world IMO is in research into tropical disease and disease control. Once you get on top of disease it becomes far easier for an economy to develop because the rate of population growth drops.

I don't think this will apply to china and india, both which have bilion plus populations.... Both countries are aiming to become super powers over the next decade and it is their massive workforce of young intelligent working age people which will propel them forward....
Comapre this to the ageing population of countries like britian and the need to look overseas for staff..

was watching an interesting documentary about the race between china and india to become economic super powers and the comparisons were quite interesting. The two countries have close business links and facts like india having 20% working population of english speakers suggests that it'll go further in certain fields....