World Poverty

[old.RedVenom]

Originally posted by Durzel
You're missing the point I feel. Why is it our job to "cure the problem"? Do you see animals rescuing others from the jaws of a tiger? No, that's called natural selection my friend - the strongest prevail, and the weakest (along with their DNA) fall by the wayside.

In a fabulous twist, you missed the reference to my mate Adolf nicely too...

I'm sure I've neglected your other "points" - but really its quite irrelevant, each one of you will carry on being ignorant of unplesantries (as I will, I expect) around the world. And with no desire to rectify anyones accept yourselves lot in life, it makes continuing this fairly pointless...?

 

[old.Dillinja]

Originally posted by old.RedVenom
In a fabulous twist, you missed the reference to my mate Adolf nicely too...

I'm sure I've neglected your other "points" - but really its quite irrelevant, each one of you will carry on being ignorant of unplesantries (as I will, I expect) around the world. And with no desire to rectify anyones accept yourselves lot in life, it makes continuing this fairly pointless...?

Then we're in agreement.

 

[bodhi]

Originally posted by old.RedVenom
In a fabulous twist, you missed the reference to my mate Adolf nicely too...

What the fuck has Adolf Hitler got to do with anything? Where did anyone advocate committing genocide against Africa? Try and stay on topic lad

You'd get on better in this discussion if you tried reading properly.

 

[lynchet]

Just a couple of things:


Dys:

Granted North Africa is very different to the South.

<-- in civilisation terms you meant --- id take a look at the city of Zimbabwe (not the current country but the city its named after)

Mass use of GM crops is a very bad idea until we fully know the repurcussions, you could be making the situation worse in the long run. And its also not as if the world doesnt have enough food - just we spend millions/billions to store our excess and indeed pay farmers NOT to produce because we cant cope with all we produce. If we cancelled the current unfair debts/rates etc then countries could start to pay us in their produce for our food -- ie not charity - trade ------------ although I do accept there'd need to also be laws against selling arms etc as otherwise thats what certain African govts would spend their new found wealth on not food ! -- probably have to run agreements fo exact produce for produce swaps for the moment rather than hand over the cash and let them loose with it !



Granted a lot of problems are caused by the Africans themselves, but is this a reason to just ignore it and not try to help ? - Would you like it people did that to you if you made mistakes ?

Exor --- you are a twat but then theres no new news there

I would say though - Red Venom - don't believe everything you read in the Guardian - its as biased in one direction as Exor is in the other !

 

[old.RedVenom]

Christ almighty, I wasn't refering to exterminating people, retard. If you think thats all Adolf was good for, think again.

 

[Panda On Smack]

we aren't meant to die, we are meant to live forever

read the bible man

 

[mr.Blacky]

There is a diverance between Hitler's ways and natural selection..... Hitlers disgusting sickening way was not natural selection, the result might be the same but one is forced and the other is by fault or mistakes.

According to most intervention like Iraq is not an option (recolonisation). So the politic problem will not be solved in a short time. I believe that most of the problems comes from the politic one. Off course it is possible to solve the others but it can't be done untill all of Africa is truely free, perhaps the only true solution is to let Africa sort it out for it for themselfs, atleast then they will be happy with their own system.

 

[mr.Blacky]

Originally posted by lynchet
although I do accept there'd need to also be laws against selling arms etc as otherwise thats what certain African govts would spend their new found wealth on not food !

But they buy it themselves and they mostly buy russian or chinese weapons.

 

[lynchet]

Mr Blacky -- hence my addition that we would probably have to run special programmes forcing them to buy food etc IF they want their debt reduced as unfortunately you are right.

 

[xane]

Originally posted by old.Dillinja
I have to agree with Exor throughout most of this post. Although it may seem cruel, evil or whatever. But like the threadmaker stated, in 25 years time 2 thirds of the world will have a water shortage and overpopulation will ultimately be what causes it. People are meant to die, for this reason, to stop overpopulation, and if some races have higher death rates than others that is the way nature intended it to be, and for us to try to change that would only be making it worse for ourselves and the rest of the human race possibly.

Typical fucking treehugger crap. People like you have been quoting "overpopulation timebombs" since the 1960's, and it has never come about. The whole doomsday bollocks has done nothing apart from keep green campaigners on the gravy train with idiots like you funding their crackpot theories.

Advances in science means we have _always_ stayed ahead of the need for food, the world's resources are not going to run out all of a sudden, the nature of mankind means that as resources become uneconomical way before they become scarce, and food is one of them. Food production has consistantly outgrown population since the 1950s after the first "green revolution", the next one with GM is just beginning.

FYI, it is the diversity of humans that gives the species its strength, by proposing that some are born to die is actually weakening the genetic strains by reducing variance. To propose people "need to die" is incorrect if you single out one group.

Population can be kept in check by one simple method - elimination of poverty. As has been shown throughout history as people become wealthier and healthier, their population increase slows down. The world population is growing not because more babies are being born but because less of them die before they breed again, and also because the life expectancy is getting better, are you claiming we should start killing off babies on order to keep this under control or maybe a "Logans Run" style of population control ?

The current predicted levelling off of world population is around 9 billion, this figure has been revised downwards many times as more and more countries break through propersity barriers, there is no need for death on such a scale and we have the power in our hands _today_ to do something about it.

 

[old.Dillinja]

I'm no communist cunt who thinks people deserve to die to stop overpopulation. Neither am I some treehugging hippy. I'm just thinking ahead and looking beyond the wool which is pulled over our eyes in everyday life. The planet can only handle so much, and I'm not just talking about food, I'm talking about all natural resources. Can you imagine what would happen to this planet if the whole continent of Africa developed to an extent that it could produce it's own power using fossil fuels?

You think the planet's got problems already, once Africa develops, those problems have just become a whole lot bigger.

 

[xane]

Originally posted by lynchet
Mass use of GM crops is a very bad idea until we fully know the repurcussions, you could be making the situation worse in the long run.

So, the fact that Americans have been eating it for over eight years now is not enough "proof", or that countless scientific journals have deemed there is no more danger from eating GM food than non-GM food ?

GM food reduces pesticide, herbicide and fertiliser usage, it requires less tilling and avoids soil erosion, it uses less land and water reducing the need for large forest clearance, what possible "problem" can there be to cancel out all the benefits of it ?

A lot of people die every year from food contaminated with dangerous organisms like salmonella, e-coli, etc. No-one has _ever_ died of pesticide residue in over 50 years of use, no-one has _ever_ been confirmed as getting cancer from carcingens in such pesticides.

Do you honestly think that a slight risk of cancer is enough to deny starving people food ?

 

[xane]

Originally posted by old.Dillinja
Can you imagine what would happen to this planet if the whole continent of Africa developed to an extent that it could produce it's own power using fossil fuels?

You think the planet's got problems already, once Africa develops, those problems have just become a whole lot bigger.

What about nuclear power ?

 

[mr.Blacky]

Originally posted by lynchet
Mr Blacky -- hence my addition that we would probably have to run special programmes forcing them to buy food etc IF they want their debt reduced as unfortunately you are right.

aha the oil for food embargo AGAIN offcourse some nations wont do that and who will be blamed for the death of children

/edit it is easy to think we (the rich nations) can solve the problems but in the end it has to be done by the people that have the problem.

 

[lynchet]

So, the fact that Americans have been eating it for over eight years now is not enough "proof", or that countless scientific journals have deemed there is no more danger from eating GM food than non-GM food ?

what possible "problem" can there be to cancel out all the benefits of it ?

How about wiping out indigenous strains and their dependent ecosystems, helping create stronger and more resistant viruses, putting all food production into one or two strains that if hit by a new pest etc could wipe it all out. And thats just for starters.

I kind of think the people who introduced rabbits to australia, cats etc to New Zealand probably would have said "but weve been doing it for 8 years and the native stuff is still here" -- it takes a lot longer than 8 years ! And as I said shortage of food worldwide is not the problem its getting it to where its needed !


Mr Blacky -- I take your point, but I wasnt suggesting an embargo so much as a trade off ---- as it stands these countries owe money, the developed countries should say we will lessen/cancel this debt only if the extra money you have is spent on food etc -- otherwise keep paying----- I think you are right that there would be those who would accuse all sorts -- there always are - it just strikes me as being a possible partial solution.

 

[xane]

Originally posted by lynchet
How about wiping out indigenous strains and their dependent ecosystems, helping create stronger and more resistant viruses, putting all food production into one or two strains that if hit by a new pest etc could wipe it all out. And thats just for starters.

I kind of think the people who introduced rabbits to australia, cats etc to New Zealand probably would have said "but weve been doing it for 8 years and the native stuff is still here" -- it takes a lot longer than 8 years ! And as I said shortage of food worldwide is not the problem its getting it to where its needed !

Well, you've just proved my point, Austrailia is not a desolate wasteland with rabbit droppings piled high as Ayers Rock, the ecosystem coped, it was called "Myxomatosis", no problem. And besides you are taking examples of a hundred years ago, today we have very strict controls on the introduction of new species to environments, I still remember waiting in the plane at Auckland airport whilst we were all fumigated.

Just how long _does_ it take to prove your theory ? And have you considered there just might be the chance that there is _no_ problem to the ecosystem, certainly with all the testing taking place there has been no scientic proof whatsoever, its all pure speculation based on a "precautionary principle".

The world has been developing specific strains of food varieties for decades, basic foodstuffs are grown from a select few varieties that are changed and rotated regularly to keep ahead of insect infestation, there is no money is developing a crop that could be wiped out by a resistant pest, capitalism alone stops that fom happening.

GM in fact will provide a faster and easier method of developing new strains, just like with pesticides, staying one step ahead of the pests is the secret to reducing crop wipeouts.

Africa doesn't have this, their crop fails all the time, people die, on the basis that opinions such as your "just in case" one might come true, it's a myth just like all the other environmentalist scares from the past 40 years.

 

[bodhi]

But GM foods aer teh bad. Greenpeace and the Daily Mail said so!

 

[old.Fweddy]

Couldn't we liquify the dead and feed them intraveanously to the living? That would provide enough energy, surely?

 

[PR.]

Originally posted by old.Fweddy
Couldn't we liquify the dead and feed them intraveanously to the living? That would provide enough energy, surely?

:scared:

 

[lynchet]

Yes I most definitely accept the point that there may be no problem at all with GM crops but there may also be huge problems.

As for my examples being old -- those who do not learn from history are destined to repeat it. It is just the attitude of "oh well we know better now, we are cleverer than them lets just head on with whatever we want" that causes problems.

Maybe if the world wasnt actually producing enough food then it may be necessary but we are producing massively more than we need. Shortage of food production isnt the issue - its getting it to where its needed.

On top of that how are you expecting all these penniless African farmers to pay for the GM seeds in the first place and properly look after them etc. One of the problems when aid was first sent was that "we" went in and handed them tractors, the latest gear etc etc and then it all failed because they couldnt afford to keep them going. Now more emphasis is put on building projects that are locally sustainable and not reliant on expensive modern technology and these are much more effective.

 

[roxe]

I think we should help these people. I beleive in helping people less fortunate than myself. Oh yes. Let's give them money and food and cancel their debt. We must also stop selling them guns for our own profit!!!!!11

Join me people.

 

[old.Dillinja]

Originally posted by xane
What about nuclear power ?

Somebody explained correctly why this shouldn't be an option in a previous post. Basically Africa would become a wasteland within a few years of the power plants being switched on.

 

[Tom]

Thats a bit of a silly thing to say.

 

[old.Dillinja]

Originally posted by Tom[SHOTTEH]
Thats a bit of a silly thing to say.

Explain.

 

[nath]

I suppose because it's not true.

 

[old.Dillinja]

Originally posted by nath
I suppose because it's not true.

So you are saying that a continent that has few countries that can control their own people will be able to maintain nuclear power plants?

 

[nath]

I don't know what the outcome would be, but I'm pretty sure

Basically Africa would become a wasteland within a few years of the power plants being switched on.

Is an exaggeration.

 

[old.Dillinja]

Well, it was so that you would get the basic idea. Radiation isn't nice.

 

[nath]

Don't get me wrong, I'm no big fan of nuclear power. I was just suggesting why Tom thought it was a silly thing to say.

 

[xane]

Whats is up with nuclear power, why are you so worried about them blowing up ?

Why don't you sit down and calculate the real and actual cost in lives that is happening every day right now due to poverty and compare that to the projected theoretical lives that could be effected by a possible (not certain) nuclear accident in a remote part of Africa ?

The absolute worse that the Chernobyl disaster ever achieved was a marked increase in particular cancer rates in the immediate area, but the problem right now is that many Africans don't live long enough to die of cancer in the first place.

The effect of the Three Mile Island island disaster was to expose workers to the same amount of radiation in one go as they'd get from natural surroundings in a year, and in the last 30 years there has been no incidents of any rise in any form of cancer in the immediate region.

I'm not trying to belittle these events, I'd still call them deadly serious and worthy of a "disaster" tag, but they didn't end the world or cause massive repercussions as many people think, and the benefits of emission-free non-fossil fuel power plants is so overwhelming it deserves the small risk it presents.

Also consider that nuclear power plants have moved on since, becoming more efficient, safer, and more tuned to power generation rather than nuclear weapon fuel generation as Chernobyl and TMI were.

Certainly there have been far worse ecological disasters caused by the building of hydro-electric plants, has anyone ever questioned what would happen if a dam burst one day, it'll be a lot more devastating than any nuclear power plant would be.

What makes you think a poor uneducated country is going to run a nuclear power plant, more likely some first world technicians will be running it.

Get a clue.