 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
alphaQuad wrote:
> If the Bush administration succeeds in its latest request for funding for the
> war in Iraq, the total cost would rise to $611.5 billion, according to the
> National Priorities Project, a nonprofit research group.
>
> The amount got us wondering: What would $611 billion buy?
>
> According to World Bank estimates, $54 billion a year would eliminate starvation
> and malnutrition globally by 2015, while $30 billion would provide a year of
> primary education for every child on earth.
But if you don't do anything about the general lack of human rights in
the areas afflicted by this poverty, the poverty will return far sooner
than the World Bank is interested in admitting.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
alphaQuad <alp### [at] earthlink net> wrote:
> According to World Bank estimates, $54 billion a year would eliminate starvation
> and malnutrition globally by 2015
That's a completely naive and unrealistic assertion. Charity only makes
the problems in Africa worse. Not only it increases dependency on foreign
charity as well as increasing corruption, it also kills local small
entrepreneurship, worsening the economical problems in the long run.
It's the proverbial fish-instead-of-fishing-rod problem, at a huge scale.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/6music/news/20071123_bono.shtml
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,363663,00.html
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> alphaQuad <alp### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
> > According to World Bank estimates, $54 billion a year would eliminate starvation
> > and malnutrition globally by 2015
>
> That's a completely naive and unrealistic assertion. Charity only makes
> the problems in Africa worse. Not only it increases dependency on foreign
> charity as well as increasing corruption, it also kills local small
> entrepreneurship, worsening the economical problems in the long run.
> It's the proverbial fish-instead-of-fishing-rod problem, at a huge scale.
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/6music/news/20071123_bono.shtml
> http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,363663,00.html
>
> --
> - Warp
Of course it is unrealistic and repairs nothing to simply give a pile money. The
more you care about others, the more ideas you'll have for helping.
First you feed them then you educate with the goal of independence. I'd much
rather be independent than taking assistance just like most people.
shortcut.
Absolutely, it is an unrealistic goal for any uncaring government assistance
program when there are only careless morons in government, only there by a
personal gain motive.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> alphaQuad wrote:
> > If the Bush administration succeeds in its latest request for funding for the
> > war in Iraq, the total cost would rise to $611.5 billion, according to the
> > National Priorities Project, a nonprofit research group.
> >
> > The amount got us wondering: What would $611 billion buy?
> >
> > According to World Bank estimates, $54 billion a year would eliminate starvation
> > and malnutrition globally by 2015, while $30 billion would provide a year of
> > primary education for every child on earth.
>
> But if you don't do anything about the general lack of human rights in
> the areas afflicted by this poverty, the poverty will return far sooner
> than the World Bank is interested in admitting.
>
> Regards,
> John
Kind of like here in America where humans rights have been trampled for profit
for something like the last 100 years. And we're still here.
The right to bear arms was also trampled to death because an armed society is a
polite society; Human rights enforcement of the highest order.
There should been no lawmakers because they would only make corrupt law. I
believe the founding fathers lacked the guidance and intelligence to write a
workable constitution.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2007/11/24 09:38:
> alphaQuad <alp### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
>> According to World Bank estimates, $54 billion a year would eliminate starvation
>> and malnutrition globally by 2015
>
> That's a completely naive and unrealistic assertion. Charity only makes
> the problems in Africa worse. Not only it increases dependency on foreign
> charity as well as increasing corruption, it also kills local small
> entrepreneurship, worsening the economical problems in the long run.
> It's the proverbial fish-instead-of-fishing-rod problem, at a huge scale.
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/6music/news/20071123_bono.shtml
> http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,363663,00.html
>
Who said anything about "charity"?
If you invest that money into education, formation, infrastructures, and such,
you get long term benefits.
With investment instead of charity, you actualy reduce corruption. Not to say
about improving local entrepreneurship.
You improve the living quality of whole populations, making them more autonomous
and potential economic partners. You also undermine terrorism breading grounds!
Build schools, hospitals and dispensaries. Plant fields. Build water treatment
plans. Help building industries. Help improve railways and roads. Bring
electricity to comunities.
--
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
If you're ever about to be mugged by a couple of clowns, don't hesitate - go for
the juggler.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Alain <ele### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> Warp nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2007/11/24 09:38:
> > alphaQuad <alp### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
> >> According to World Bank estimates, $54 billion a year would eliminate starvation
> >> and malnutrition globally by 2015
> Build schools, hospitals and dispensaries. Plant fields. Build water treatment
> plans. Help building industries. Help improve railways and roads. Bring
> electricity to comunities.
Doing that to all areas in Africa (and other parts of the world with
similar problems) which need help would probably require a lot more than
54 billions a year, especially taking into account how many years it takes
to build a civilization which can support itself.
I have hard time believing that 54 billions a year would eliminate
starvation (on a permanent basis) globally by 2015. Temporarily perhaps,
but if the 54 billions/year is cut right after 2015, I'm quite certain
that the same problems would reappear in a few years again.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> especially taking into account how many years it takes
> to build a civilization which can support itself.
I suspect you'd mostly have to replace the government with something
that respected basic property rights before pouring money in would help
anything. If you're going to kick out successful farmers and hand the
land over to cronies who don't know how to manage it, you're going to
have famines regardless of how much cash gets dumped into the economy.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"alphaQuad" <alp### [at] earthlinknet> wrote
[...]
> At the upper range of those estimates, the $611 billion cost of the war
could
> have fed and educated the world's poor for seven years
There's cost and there's cost, unfortunately. When US goverment pays an
American arms manufactured $1000 to buy a weapon, most of that money is
infused back into the US economy in form of profits and wages, the real cost
is only that of consumables. When US gives $1000 to a third world country,
practically all of it is lost to her. It's not fair to compare such costs.
Also, what-if scenarios can ultimately be meaningless. What if we made every
table leg 0.5mm shorter and thinner, wouldn't that save hectares of forests?
We could also on paper feed the starving peoples if all of us ate half a
slice less bread in a week...etc...etc
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Doing that to all areas in Africa (and other parts of the world with
> similar problems) which need help would probably require a lot more than
> 54 billions a year, especially taking into account how many years it takes
> to build a civilization which can support itself.
>
> I have hard time believing that 54 billions a year would eliminate
> starvation (on a permanent basis) globally by 2015. Temporarily perhaps,
> but if the 54 billions/year is cut right after 2015, I'm quite certain
> that the same problems would reappear in a few years again.
>
> --
>
- Warp
They dont call me "Q" for nothing .....
Cost is a non-issue. When, or if, everyone cared with a human capacity
(as opposed to dark heart/soul incapacity) about world issues, solutions
will/would be found.
Love hangs the moon and stars in the sky. Solving world hunger is not such a
difficult accomplishment. Being without such understanding says a little about
a person.
Caring forces are now moving. Enough is enough. There is a plan. I am going out
on a limb to relate this. Currently we are experiencing solution-less problems
because of the experiment, to see what will happen on planet of accurate
universal representation, all 3 energy types in one place.
What if dark, dominating, uncaring energy is more powerful than love? What would
you project for the outcome of the universe? The more powerful will surely
overrun everything given the length of time allotted to the universe.
Non-interference has been the policy for at least 200 years while this final
and 4th experiment delivers its results.
The solution is a solution that some would not have the courage to face.
Self-filtering solution I suppose.
Explanation attempt, not the final word:
The New World
It is likely that those who have only heard the words "new" and "world" within
the context of some "new world order" discussion, will automatically assume
that any mention of new world means "new world order". It does not.
What is "new world order"? The self-serving human and non-human forces of
manipulation on Earth and elsewhere may promise peace. But any peace will only
be by their world domination laws and their world dominating jails and the
threat thereof. Peace is not their motivation, though they might say so. Their
motivation is whatever they can take by being in a position of total
domination. That may get them a lot, but it will not and can never get them the
ultimate of desire.
So if not that, then what is the New World? If we look up in real historical
documents anyone considered to have been great, and search for the common
motivation, among the vast majority the decision to make a difference was
founded and produced in despair, tragedy, or crisis, etc. Too many will wear
the tinted glasses that only allows what they want to see. Too many want to see
anything that suggests that these great people were somehow preordained to live
such a life. In that light they can excuse and justify their lack of such great
actions and explain why they cannot do and be similar by creating erroneous
evidence, if that were possible. Choices and decisions are made all the time.
Even the decision to not make a choice is still a choice. Events occurring as a
result of choice and decision cannot be preordained because choices are made in
real time, right now in the present. Mental filtering allows the ego eye to see
linear events. Imagination imagines all of this. Imagination is real and so what
it imagines takes on the qualities given; e.g. time and linear events. Growth
and change is the mysterious magic that happens in the twinkle of an eye. Words
fail. I'll not belabor it further. This is not to say that great ones don't
enter the world. Just that what happens after that, is a result of decisions
they are making concurrently.
The ego's story is "woe is me, look what happened to me". The self's story is a
bit different. That story is about how they got out of despair and grew
themselves up into a caring and responsible adult.
Their personal great work is a story of how they made a difference. It is a
story of, not how much they mattered, but that they did matter to others at
some level and in some capacity.
Personal great work is not The Great Work. The Great Work is always changing and
is the big and sweeping story. Currently the great work is the evolution of a
human species, evolution of a consciousness. It is the evolution of futures to
a virgin future and a new world - not a new order to the world, but a new world
- not just a buffed and polished old world made to look new - a new world - not
a future that is a more perfect rendition of the past, but a future that is
virgin and new - untouched by human hands; A new world. That is now The Great
Work.
How do I participate? In the depth of mystery real choices and decisions are
made. Such decisions can be made out of hardship experience. Those not having
hardship or unable to enter the grace of mystery are, at the least, unlikely to
make such decision. In the depth mystery there is sublime dignity and elegant
character mixed with authority and freedom.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
alphaQuad <alp### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
> Solving world hunger is not such a
> difficult accomplishment.
Actually it is. The so-called "rich countries" (ie. mostly the so-called
"western countries" as well as other rich countries such as Japan) are not
rich by chance. They are not rich just because they happen to live in a
place with a fountain of abundance. These cultures did not form in one
night. It took centuries of development for these cultures to form, often
through hard work, education and civilization.
You can't just pour money and abundance onto a different culture and
expect it to become a western culture in a decade. It requires a lot of
education and radical changes in the cultural, economical and political
infrastructures. (Not to talk that the current "politically correct" fad
is that trying to convert another culture into a "western culture" is
politically incorrect and a bad thing, and thus there's a lot of negative
hype surrounding this whole issue...)
Sure, there may be other ways for a civilization to become self-sufficient
than converting it into a western society, but that would require even more
time than just teaching them what the western world already knows. And it
certainly will not happen by simply pouring money onto them.
Believing that world famine can be easily solved with money is naive.
Money solves famine in the short run, but it doesn't solve the *problem*,
only its symptoms, and only for as long as there is money.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
