Sam has a great post up, covering two completely different subjects. The first bit is a response to the article I linked earlier today about Aubrey de Grey. It is the most interesting part of Sam's post to me; in fact, it made me think of this post I made this morning about eliminating extreme poverty. I wondered, after I posted it, if it could ever really happen, if the richer nations would take responsibility and give what they needed to. It made me seriously want to write a letter to my president, and I may yet do that. Sam's discussion of ethics broadens that topic to a general responsibility for our actions that many feel is lacking in the world.
The second part of his post is a nice discussion of issues of masculine and feminine roles in our society, and is also well worth reading. For me a lot of it seemed to be common sense. What's interesting (and a little irritating) is that that sort of opinion may not be all that common.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
You know, I hate to be skeptical about such a thing as ending world poverty, but I have to wonder how, exactly, feeding money to these countries is going to resolve anything.
I see in the article that they plan to spend the money to: "tackle poverty, hunger and disease and promote education and development, mainly in African and Asian countries."
They say they're going to invest in many things including: "schools, clinics, safe water and sanitation.." "..fertilizer, roads, electricity and transport to get goods to market."
What, exactly, does that mean? It references how Africans can get malaria because they cannot afford bed nets. Are they going to spend this money to build roads, build schools, build hospitals, build all these things, as well as buy the bed nets, provide food, and hand out money to the poor?
What I'm getting at is this: Who's going to run those hospitals? They aren't going to be able to crank out doctors from their new schools immediately. Who's going to build the roads? Other companies from foriegn nations, hiring on the locals as extra labor?
Who's going to get the money for the bed nets that are purchased? An African company that makes them, or are they going to be Made In Taiwan?
We provided welfare in America for those that couldn't keep up financially, but it's turned into a joke. Is the UN proposing global welfare, here, where the rest of the world provides for these people? Maybe that isn't such a terrible idea, but consider this fact: America isn't doing so hot in providing for its own poor. Trying to pay for another nation besides isn't going to get us in a much better situation.
I don't know all the facts, but taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor is a dumbed down version of socialism, and socialism has been proven not to work.
I'm not saying that I spit on the poor, nor do I not want something done. But what are they planning to do with this money? They say they'll be investing, and I know that schools, roads, hospitals and the like are important - VERY important, but when are you going to be able to start having the poor people take up those jobs and make money so that they aren't poor anymore? It takes a good deal of time to become a doctor or even a teacher.
In the meantime, how are the poor going to pay for their healthcare, so that they retain good doctors and specialists in their countries? Are they going to try a free health care system like the one in Canada? If so, who's going to hop ship over there to take a huge pay cut and live in less than satisfactory environs?
I don't think that this could happen in 20 years.
Say that we do build the roads and the hospitals and the schools. Give these people a better way of life. Everyone deserves that. But the teachers and the doctors and the roadcrews are from other nations - other nations are earning this money that was put into it. What's poverty going to look like after 20 years of no one falling victim to malaria or snakebites, but when all the money that had been collected was spent building that better way of life?
More people will be there - many, many more. And this is good - children and adults shouldn't have to die in these nations, no. But what the hell is the UN going to do when they have twice as many people in these poor nations because the death rate has shrunk substantially, but they've spent the money that was collected on schools and hospitals and roads and bed nets? Just ask for more money?
I suppose you could call me a cynic, but I prefer to think of myself as a realist. Like I said, I do feel for the poor and the sick - and I wish there was something that could be done. But handing over money to the organization that just got grilled for the whole Oil for Food scandal - again, trying to help the poor in Iraq but rather knowingly padding Saddam's pockets - doesn't sound like the smartest option open.
For a long time, missionaries of different faiths have worked hard in these countries, providing care and shelter, and of course they can't do it all. But sometimes I wonder if one man's love and commitment doesn't do more than another's report on how much money everyone needs to hand over to fix most certainly one of the most un-fixable problems in the world.
-AJ
The group stated that poverty could be halved by 2015, and that extreme poverty could be eliminated by 2025. All poverty isn't going to be gone, but hopefully 150,000 people aren't going to be dying every month in Africa.
With access to clinics, there will be access to birth control.
I found the next-to-final drafts of the documents on how this is going to be achieved. Here they are.
The Millennium Project: Document LibraryIf I can find the final documents, I'll let you know. Until I've read them, I'll abstain from further speculation on how the project would respond to your points.
Post a Comment