Smallpox Vs Poverty?

Question

Bono can ask silly questions about stamping out poverty... however they reckon smallpox killed 1 billion people before it was finally eradicated.

If smallpox had not been removed, there would be a hell of a lot less people, especially in the poorer countries so would global- horrific poverty that the media beats our guilt-chips with everyday have been alot less of an issue?

This is a philosophical statement designed to elicit discussion: before I go down in a witch hunt this is what Philosophy is designed to do....

death is terrible, poverty is terrible, small pox is terrible., conversation about things is a good thing, and kind of the point behind Yahoo Answers...play the game...

Answer 1

So, rather than helping others...you'd rather have them die?

Is that also what you would advocate for older people...say your mother or grandmother? Rather than help them through their old, helpless years?

Well, I'm sure many will agree with you. Meanwhile, I'd still rather see what I can do to help others and better equalize the situation. I believe if we weren't so greedy and helped spread the wealth and love many of our problems (ie. people not liking the US, entire countries bombing each other) would be resolved.

Answer 2

I think I get what your saying.
The problem with poverty is that it has ALWAYS existed, and will probably continue to do so. This is being realistic. The problem with counties that have severe poverty is that their government takes a chunk out of the donations, etc...It never just goes directly to the people. The ones who are fed grow and start reproducing, having more children that they cannot feed. It's truly sickening me to see Bono or Brad Pitt on TV begging people who can barely make their monthly car payments to send in money, trying to put on that guilt trip, while they have (rumored) over fifty million dollars in the bank. Hmm....sounds to me like that would feed a whole bunch of people.
I once heard a theory (this was a while back so I don't remember the source, so you can take it or leave it) that diseases and plagues, etc, were nature's way of population control.
~Take Care~

Answer 3

I think those countries are poor because they don't have a trade or resource. No food can grow or animals be raised things of that nature. If we were to take all of the worlds industy, that by the way is usually in areas that have other potential use for the land, and put all our factories in some place deemed useless, we could make all of those people rich.
As far as disease as population control is concerned, I think it's kind of cruel. It's part of decay though, so we; in our pathetic attempt to live longer; alter the natural order making it unnatural. That has a much greater potential at getting rid of un-needed lives than sickness.

Answer 4

This is true - there would be less people in the world today if smallpox was still active.

Overpopulation is the number one cause of poverty, worldwide.

Answer 5

In other words, you advocate for people to die just because they are poor. You are a heartless soul