Interesting view on aiding opressed people

[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.

[x42bn6]

The world (should) value human rights, and countries that are able to save more lives at minimal cost of their own lives should give aid. Sure, America would lose a couple of thousand if we donated a little more aid. But that amount of aid could save millions. Surely that is worth it. Besides, we are (partially) guilty of our own folly in making some nations richer and some poorer.

Yes, the fact remains that countries have the right to fight for resources to protect their own people. But they must also remember that a world without Africa would make the world much harder to stand upon.*

[Lizardbreath]

I think the ultimate thing that needs to happen is that people need to realize that they SHOULD NOT BE HAVING KIDS WHEN THEY ARE REALLY ****ING POOR.

[Laharl]

Which is ironic since the place where humanity first developed is Africa. Horrible enviroment, high temperatures, you name it. They only mean for a generally tougher populous. It helps evolution, but sure doesn't much help the old comfort levels.

[x42bn6]

Originally Posted by lizardbreath

I think the ultimate thing that needs to happen is that people need to realize that they SHOULD NOT BE HAVING KIDS WHEN THEY ARE REALLY ****ING POOR.

More children means more work in the fields which means more income. It does actually increase the amount of money that is taken in and it outweighs the cost of a child. However, there is a limit. Surely having 100 children would not be profitable.*

[Knox]

Originally Posted by x42bn6

More children means more work in the fields which means more income. It does actually increase the amount of money that is taken in and it outweighs the cost of a child. However, there is a limit. Surely having 100 children would not be profitable.*

When a kid is born pathetically poor in Africa (As in they only have enough food to keep them alive for a year or two, something like that.) I see no profit, I just see wasted food.

I think that is what he is referring to. Ya.

[Lizardbreath]

...You're also implying that there is a steady accessibility to work in africa, which there isn't.

[x42bn6]

Originally Posted by Knox

When a kid is born pathetically poor in Africa (As in they only have enough food to keep them alive for a year or two, something like that.) I see no profit, I just see wasted food.

I think that is what he is referring to. Ya.

A child has the potential to bring in more food than he/she can consume in a day per day. Hence this child is feeding itself and helping the family.

Of course, this isn't a linear relationship.*

[Laharl]

Personally I feel that the British and Catholic Church should be taking up the largest part of the bill; owing to the fact that they really did screw over the African people.

[Knox]

Originally Posted by x42bn6

A child has the potential to bring in more food than he/she can consume in a day per day. Hence this child is feeding itself and helping the family.

Of course, this isn't a linear relationship.*

You are VERY dense.

Show me a baby that can bring in food in a 3rd world country situation and I'll show you a superbaby.

LOLDENSELOL.

Oh, and FYI-

...You're also implying that there is a steady accessibility to work in africa, which there isn't.

[x42bn6]

Originally Posted by Knox

You are VERY dense.

Show me a baby that can bring in food in a 3rd world country situation and I'll show you a superbaby.

LOLDENSELOL.

Oh, and FYI-

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.*

[DragonOfChaos]

There is also farmwork that can be given to children as young as three. My uncle owns a farm, and my cousin was put to work shelling peas at the age of three. Considering that farmers in Africa do way more work than American farmers, a three year old shelling peas (or whatever it is they grow) would most certainly be able to pay for itself.

[Knox]

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.*

Every year, nearly 11 million children die before they reach their fifth birthday. Almost all of these deaths occur in developing countries, 3/4 of them in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, the two regions that also suffer from the highest rates of hunger and malnutrition. 3

Every year, more than 20 million low-birth weight babies are born in developing countries. These babies risk dying in infancy, while those who survive often suffer lifelong physical and cognitive disabilities. 3

In the developing world, 27 percent of children under 5 are moderately to severely underweight. 10 percent are severely underweight. 10 percent of children under 5 are moderately to severely wasted, or seriously below weight for one’s height, and an overwhelming 31 percent are moderately to severely stunted, or seriously below normal height for one’s age. 7

http://www.bread.org/learn/hunger-ba...rnational.html

MAN IF ONLY THESE KIDS WEREN'T SO LAZY AND WOULD GET A JOB LOLZ!

[Snagg]

Man... the decisions of the few starve the children of many. These third world countries are in such debt that there is almost no way to get back on their feet. The interest on those debts are I forgot how many times greater than the aid that they are getting. This means their debt is only going to increase.

[x42bn6]

Originally Posted by Knox

http://www.bread.org/learn/hunger-ba...rnational.html

MAN IF ONLY THESE KIDS WEREN'T SO LAZY AND WOULD GET A JOB LOLZ!

But if the parents did not have children, then how would they feed themselves? Don't forget, the parents are as hungry as the children.*

[Snagg]

BTW Las Vegas is in a desert. It's pretty damn prosperous.

[Knox]

Originally Posted by x42bn6

But if the parents did not have children, then how would they feed themselves? Don't forget, the parents are as hungry as the children.*

What the Hell? So they should have kids THEN worry about feeding them AND themselves? Or are you saying that they would have the babies.. work and get them food? Then starve the babies? (Since that is what they would be. BABIES.)

Babies cannot hold a possition in any workforce...

Your not even making sense anymore. Honsetly, their is no shame in being wrong about one little pointless thing on the internet.

edit: Jesus I CANNOT belive you are being this.. do you REALLY think any 3rd world person is thinking "I GUESS I'LL HAVE A KID. THAT'LL GET ME MORE FOOD EVEN THOUGH HE/SHE CANNOT GET A JOB SINCE HE/SHE IS A BABY. AND I CAN JUST STAVE THE FELLA AND EAT ALL THE ABUNDANT FOOD IT WILL BRING IT TO THIS HELLHOLE LOLZ!" Man I think im getting a headache from thinking about something so stupid.

editedit: And NO they are not planning for the kid to grow up and then work, since the BABIES (5 and less) are STARVING TO DEATH. Their is no master plan in this situation. It is about a bunch of poor ****ers who cant stop ****ing and should all be fixed, literally.

[x42bn6]

I did NOT say that the babies would work, but they will grow up to be working children.

There are two main points involved for the argument that parents have more children in Africa:

~ Lack of contraception, as proved by the spread of HIV and AIDS
~ Lack of manpower in work, as proved by the increased income in the future

I've already stated that more children (not babies) will eventually bring more income to the family. The first 6 years of non-working are compensated for the 12 later years of working. Remember, the average life expectancy is not below 20 (yet...). The children will work for the family until they are old enough, and if the family can afford it, will move to a better place where they can support the family.

You have not rebutted my point, rather, reinforced the morbid conclusion that Africa is forced to live with. Parents are forced to have more children just to attempt to break the cycle of poverty that ravages them.

I agree, babies die by doing this, but some survive. Parents, I know, would do anything to save their children, especially mothers, and in return, they have a slight glimmer, if dim, of hope that this child will be able to break them out of the cycle of poverty, or, at the very least, help them survive.

Parents with no children are forced to work by themselves in the fields or factories, paid mediocre wages that barely support one partner, with almost no skills ensuring they are stuck where they are, in a diseased world where they could easily drop dead through exhaustion. Tell me, what other choice do they have?

Aid, simply, is the only sad solution. Schools would educate the children in the long term, but I think there are drawbacks (such as the families not getting enough income). Food would feed the impoverished families. Medicine would allow them to live longer. And water would easily help just about everything.*

[Snagg]

Note the fataility rate of new borns are much higher than here... so they have to have lots of kids because if they have a little baby, they can't be sure that they won't get a fever and the baby will die. So they go get an extra baby to make sure. This also increases the spread of aids.

[x42bn6]

Originally Posted by Snagg

Note the fataility rate of new borns are much higher than here... so they have to have lots of kids because if they have a little baby, they can't be sure that they won't get a fever and the baby will die. So they go get an extra baby to make sure. This also increases the spread of aids.

Yeah, the ideology and value of a child in that continent is clearly different. Which is truly a shame, but a needy one.

By the way, that first site posted isn't extreme. There was one person who said that the world's population should "only" be 1 million people, which would be the optimal population for sustainability.*