Interesting view on aiding opressed people

[Lizardbreath]

Originally Posted by x42bn6

Well, you are able to carry large items at, say, the age of 6, and you will be working for, say, 12 years at least. That far outweighs the original 6 years. It's a proven fact - children are able to support themselves and more.

And to lizardbreath, most people in Africa work in the fields, where there should be work on good seasons.*

-But what do they do in the bad seasons? Yep, you guessed it, they starve.

There is no steady workforce in nations like ethiopa and niger where there are civil wars and no stable economy's. All they are doing right now in africa is blowing eachother up over a huge ass pile of sand.

[DragonOfChaos]

Okay, so that solves our problem with overpopulation. Honestly, if I sound cruel when I say that, I don't care. As humans, we act more like a virus than mammals, spreading to every conceivable part of the planet and sucking it dry, completely ruining the land, then moving on again. We'll make our own planet a barren wasteland. So honestly, I don't particularly care about the wars that people get into. It reduces our population and the drain on the planet's resources.

[x42bn6]

Originally Posted by lizardbreath

There is no steady workforce in nations like ethiopa and niger where there are civil wars and no stable economy's. All they are doing right now in africa is blowing eachother up over a huge ass pile of sand.

There are political, religious and ideological reasons behind the many wars in Africa. But the people need to try to survive. This land might not grow enough to feed the family, but they have to try.

Plus, not all of Africa is under civil war and all the land is not fully "infertile". As long as there is soil and some sort of nutrient and water, food can grow.*

[Lizardbreath]

Originally Posted by x42bn6

There are political, religious and ideological reasons behind the many wars in Africa. But the people need to try to survive. This land might not grow enough to feed the family, but they have to try.

Plus, not all of Africa is under civil war and all the land is not fully "infertile". As long as there is soil and some sort of nutrient and water, food can grow.*

-Not if they don't have the access and the know-how to make the land fertile and grow crops in such habitats that aren't made for food anymore. Most of africa faces soil erosion and they don't have access to seeds in order to make the food.

[x42bn6]

Originally Posted by lizardbreath

-Not if they don't have the access and the know-how to make the land fertile and grow crops in such habitats that aren't made for food anymore. Most of africa faces soil erosion and they don't have access to seeds in order to make the food.

Families have been based in farming in Africa for generations. They cannot not know how to make the soil fertile.

You do generalise quite a bit, as well. All of Africa is not suffering the same fate! Much of Africa has the potential to be self-sufficent.

Overpopulation

As with any society largely dependent on agriculture, African families are often very large. Most of the elderly rely on their children for support, and as much agriculture in Africa is labor-intensive, large numbers of children provide much needed labor for plowing, planting and harvesting.

However, overpopulation is a serious problem in urban areas, which have grown enormously since the beginnings of African independence in the 1960s and later. For example, Lagos, Nigeria was a town of 40,000 in the early 1960s and is now home to over 13 million people. This is a trend that can be seen throughout large cities in the continent. During times of famine, the high demand for food in cities often draws supplies away from needy rural areas, causing widespread famine. This was a factor in the Ethiopian famines during the 1980s.

- Poverty in Africa#Overpopulation - Wikipedia

Mismanagement of land

Despite large amounts of arable land south of the Sahara Desert, small, individual land holding are rare. In many nations, land is subject to tribal ownership and in others most of the land is often in the hands descendants of European settlers in the late 19th century and early 20th century. For example, about 82% of the arable land in South Africa is owned by those of European descent. Many nations even lack a system of freehold landowning. In others, the laws prevent persons from disadvantaged groups from owning land at all. Although often these laws are ignored, and land sales to disadvantaged groups occur, legal title to the land is not assured. As such, rural Africans rarely have clear title to their own land, and have to survive as farm laborers. Unused land is plentiful, but is often private property. Most African nations have very poor land registration systems, making squatting and land theft common occurrences. This makes it difficult to get a mortgage or similar loan, as ownership of the property often cannot be established to the satisfaction of financiers.

It should be noted that this system often gives an advantage to one native African group over another, and not just Europeans over Africans. For example, it was hoped that land reform in Zimbabwe would transfer land from European land owners to family farmers. Instead, it simply substituted native Africans with ties to the government for Europeans, leaving most of the population disadvantaged. Because of this abuse, foreign aid that was destined for land purchases dried up.

It is estimated that a family of four can be made self-sufficient for about $200 (U.S.) - the cost of an Ox, a few hectares of land, and starter seeds. However, such programs are few and far between, with much foreign aid being concentrated on the raising of cash crops and large plantations rather than family farms.

However, in the end, any solution may be moot. Even in Africa, improved agricultural techniques often result in fewer farm workers being needed to feed the same population. Moreover, imported food is cheap as well thanks to subsidies being given to farmers in developed nations, and a need to find places to "dump" excess production. As a result, it is likely that more rural dwellers may wind up in cities in any event, and this pattern is already being seen in developing nations elsewhere (e.g. India, Mexico and China) as well as many regions of the developed world

- Poverty in Africa#Mismanagement of land - Wikipedia

*

[DragonOfChaos]

@ lizardbreath: Once again, population reduction. I may be a cruel bastard for saying it, but if people are gonna die, I'd rather it be the poor, AIDS infested people.

[Гражданин СССР]

Originally Posted by Nicholas The Slide

Interesting/hilarious theory this guy has.
This article is from http://www.depopulation.com/index.ph...article&sid=24

Okay. Once again it's time to beat some common sense into the world. Here's the three second summary: We don't live in the desert because we couldn't be successful there. Why should we spend time and money on those too stupid to realize what we already have- that the desert was not meant to support life!!! Read on if you dare...
I get so tired of people telling me and the other top 25% of the populous that we're evil because we have a little money or things and stuff, whatever. "How can you live with how much you have when you see how little everyone else has?" They tend to ask. It's simple. I had opportunities to excel and I took them. I'm not rich, but these idiots seem to think that not only am I in fact rich enough, but that I need to give up more than 30-40% of my income to support everyone else! Now, don't get me wrong, I'm all for paying my fair share and supporting the government in what it's there to do- protect it's citizens from all enemies foreign and domestic. But today when I hear that George Bush wants to introduce programs to stop, as Rush Limbaugh puts it "Punishing Success" (I'm referring to the proposal to stop double taxation on dividends. If you're too stupid to know what I'm talking about go find it elsewhere), I am jumping for joy at the prospect of the prosperity it will bring to this country. And the liberal media is freaking out about 'giving tax breaks to the rich.' They are terrified that the government won't have enough money to support itself- but more obvious to me than that is that they hate the 'rich' and want nothing more than to tax them to pieces because they don't have what the 'rich' do. What they don't realize is that over half of America is 'rich' by the current taxation laws. But I've come to realize that prosperity is not what almost half of this country really wants. What they really want is personal empowerment and equality over any kind of success or prosperity. Noble? No- it's stupid.
There was a political party that thought very similar thoughts. And they all screamed Hail Hitler. That's right- the Nationalist Socialist party, or the Nazis. Yes, where the powerful gain unimaginable power by convincing the gullible populus that there are already powerful and personally empowered.

Why on Earth am I bringing this up? Hey, Klaw- I thought you were gonna talk about the Desert!
Well, it's called setting up a point...

Ask yourself something. Is what I've just described much different than what is going on in the Middle East?
Concider- you have a party in power- a very small part of the population that control the whole. Such control is only possible by convincing the people that their current level of power is sufficient. This is done, sadly, thru religion and fear.
I don't see this as much different than the socialist idealist freaks that almost took over the world 60 years ago. Most people, sadly, don't stop to think about this. What would the world be like had we not stopped Hitler?
This is why we must get Saddam Hussein out of power. It's only a matter of time before he becomes that dangerous. His own people begin to believe the lie that they are somehow 'chosen' or prosperous. They are kept in a desert area on purpose! If they had any taste of real prospertiy there is no way they would support Saddam or any other like him. Without a religion that teaches that everyone but them is an infidel, there's no way that Osama Bin Laden would have a following! Do you see it yet?

Have I strayed from my point? Yes. Will I make it anyway? Yes.

I've told you why they stay in the desert. Now let me remind you of the simple reason they should not: The desert has no means by which to support a human population. With the exception of an abundance of elbow room, there is nothing to suggest that Humans could or should naturally survive there.
Go ahead and try and argue but it's true- oil makes a few rich kids, but doesn't provide a large number of jobs. There is no other industry or natural materials truly provided by the desert!
So my point is this. When there are no reasons to stay in an area, people move on. I know my ancestors did- from what I can trace they were very much opportunists. Where they lived was not as important as what they did and how they lived. If an area wasn't supporting them, they moved on. When they were in Germany and not being successful there were opportunities to work in Russia, and they moved. When the era of the Tzars ended and the communists began thier forceful takeover, my people moved to the next opportunity, America. It just makes sense- you go where you can be prosperous! Hell, even the birds have that one figured out!

So how does this all tie together? Maybe I'm just sick of feeling sorry for people that are living in areas of oppression but refuse to try and either fight back or move away. But the reality is that I care too much to do what we're doing. And what are we doing?

Now, listen(read) very carefully because this is important:
By supplying aid to people that are living in areas that essentially cannot support it's own population we are guilty of causing their own oppression. That's right. Because we are unwilling to simply let nature take it's course and let these people discover for themselves that they are in a non-prosperous environment and they need to move (yes, physically move away from that area!!!), we are just as guilty as those who oppress them? Why? Because we've set up a cycle of dependency that has locked them into being where they are, and, much worse- producing more children that will eventually be even less prosperous.

Seems cruel? I don't see it that way. We're in trouble here, people. We have become a people that accept this crap and pass it off as out of our hands.
If you feel you want to help these people- help them move away from the place that can't support them!!! I get so physically mad at the notion that people have a right to be prosperous. Noone has that right! We have only the opportunity- and that opportunity means sacrifice.
READ: IF YOU LIVE IN THE DESERT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE A RICH PERSON FROM RESOURCES GATHERED THERE! With the obvious exception of the select few that happen to live over an oil field, but do you really think that it will stay that way for long? And ask yourself- do the people that have the oil money live in the desert? Hell, a good number of them don't even live in the country that their own oil is in!

Please stop coddling these people. If you want to help them- eliminate the problem: The problem is the small amount of people in power that convince them that they are supposed to be there and are somehow superior or more empowered because they stay where they are.

Okay, so I went off a little there and that whole thing probably didn't make much sense. But I'm tired and I think I'm gonna go eat some Sushi. Because hey- I can.

In some sense it is hard to argue with that. I think that we need t be very careful about how we send aid to people being opressed by their government. throewing money or food at a problem never solved anything.

I actually read that whole thing....that guy is an idiot. Somehow he figured that moving several hundred million people into Europe/US will somehow solve the problem in the middle east, instead of creating one in the rest of the world. In addition, in our day and age industry can be built anythere, look at Japan, they got almost no natural resources yet they are one of the most powerful economies on earth. It is obvious that the only solution to the problems we are having is to build up industry in the Middle East and make those regions prosperous for all of the world. The problem is that US and Europe isn't willing to cooperate with every regime because of their own ambitions and so on, this kind of imperialistic bullcrap insures that the problems in the Middle East will never end.

[Lizardbreath]

Originally Posted by DragonOfChaos

@ lizardbreath: Once again, population reduction. I may be a cruel bastard for saying it, but if people are gonna die, I'd rather it be the poor, AIDS infested people.

So somehow your life is more valuable then theirs?