It is disappointing to see how the human population is increasing so rapidly, with starving people being the result of this factor. Companies throughout the world dominate every industry and what do they do with the profit? With the exception of certain humanitarian companies/organizations, companies use the large amounts of money solely for the improvement of the company, the salaries to employees and probably a high percentage of the profit to the board of directors. I'm sure starving people will declare war...
2006-09-23 06:43:26
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
It's worse to have more suffering people in the world than have a CEO getting all the money but if the CEO was a smart CEO he would give some of the money to the starving people so they don't eat him.
2006-09-23 13:39:52
·
answer #2
·
answered by Ask Tara 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Apart from the fact that starving people are unlikely to reproduce, birth control information and availability is very necessary for the developing world. George Bush tries to stop birth control for the same reason he does everything - he and his buddies profit from chaos, death, and despair.
2006-09-23 13:33:09
·
answer #3
·
answered by t jefferson 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I don't necessarily think there's anything wrong with your perspective, but I'd like add another part to the equation:
If there is only x amount of money that can be used to aid people in third-world countries you have to ask what are all the causes of that starvation and address those (maybe even before spending additional money on birth-control programs). Why? Because what people need most are programs that will help that make their land/nation one that supports life and not one that is made up of blight. To adopt programs which essentially accept horrible conditions and tell people, "We're sorry. You were born into such an awful place the only thing we can do for you is ask you not to reproduce" is asking a people to accept no food, no decent living conditions - and now, too, no reproducing. Having food, decent living conditions, education, and babies are what make up life and should be basic human rights.
I'm not against offering birth control or birth control education to people, but at the same time I think that getting to the root of their poverty and starvation is the most humane way to increase their basic human rights - not take yet one more away.
If there is only so much money to go around it may be more important that it goes to things like ways for people to have clean water, school supplies, teaching people to grow food or build other resources, etc. Trying to find ways to work with whatever government these places have or monitoring chairities take time and money as well. I saw one program on some part of Africa, where the men and boys just attack any woman or young girl they see (as if they were wild animals). There is some horrific rate of AIDS in places like that. Addressing this kind of thing would take extraordinary time, effort and programs to educate and civilize some people like this; and for the female victims of this type of thing, a pregnancy may actually be a small part of the larger picture of a horrible, dehumanizing, existence with its physical, emotional, and mental consequences. In other words, 1) If you stop this type of wild raping you prevent a whole lot of pregnancies and 2) money spent on other types of aid to victims of this may be better spent on something other than birth control.
To place emphasis on asking a people to stop reproducing could be seen as the ultimate insult in a world that has already been unkind to such entire populations of people, because asking a people to stop reproducing is essentially requesting that they eradicate their own future as a people for the "crime" of having been born into a place where starvation is the order of the day.
Using money that could be spent in a way that would increase the chances of a population's thriving (at least a little more than it presently is) or a region's thriving to instead encourage the diminishing of a people because they're in poverty isn't necessarily always seen as the moral thing to do. I hate to make this comparison, but if you think of how easy it is for a species of animals to go from thriving to less-than-thriving to endangered and finally extinct the consequences of emphasizing birth control more than may be wise or more than other solutions might actually, in a way, be seen as a form of non-violent or passive genocide.
I don't happen to know, off-hand, how long it takes an anexoric person to stop menstruating; but it may be worth a look online because if anorexia stops the cycle I'd assume involuntary starvation probably has the same effect.
There are more problems associated with living in a third-world region than starvation, and there is more to starvation than the simple numbers of too many mouths to feed.
Birth control does nothing for the people who will die in the next half hour because of starvation, but there are some other programs that cost money that may help save some of the people who are here now from dying and/or that may help prevent conditions that will lead to starvation of people who are not yet born. When there's only so much money to go around choosing what to spend it on can seem as if there's little choice but to try to help the people who are here today.
If you imagine how placing too much money on birth control programs and not enough money on other programs could potentially drastically reduce a population, and if you imagine how the lack of programs-for-thriving were to lead to yet more death in the decreased population; you can imagine how it could be possible that 40 years from now there could be some region of Africa where the people had just died off. Teachers could tell school-children how there was once a group of people in a certain area, but they all died off; and yet "the good side" of it would be the fact that there was no more starvation there. The children may ask, "But why didn't anybody do anything to help them?", and the teacher could reply, "They did." I know this imagined scenario can seem extreme, but it could happen.
I'm not at all against birth control or birth control education, but when there is only so much money to go around it may not be at all unreasonable or unkind to allow only a certain percentage of that money to be used for birth control programs.
Its natural and decent for anyone to wish to end suffering of others in this world, but sometimes the simpler or easier or short-term or only apparent solution isn't necessarily in the best interests of a population and may not even be the most sensible one either. Governments need to be very careful about attempting to even passively and "compassionately" reduce the numbers of any group of people because they are less fortunate. Someone somewhere can always seem to be trying to eliminate suffering by eliminating existence of the suffer(s) in some way, and even compassion can turn into something evil when people don't think about the unintended consequences.
Preventing future starvation is, of course, a compassionate thing and practical thing; but for everyone who believes it is the only right thing there is someone else who believes there are wiser, more compassionate, ways to distribute that x-amount of dollars.
I'm not saying your perspective isn't a good one or a valid one. I'm saying I think you may need to back up a little so you can have a broader one. When you back up and look at the bigger picture you may say that the need for birth control is a smaller piece of the puzzle than it originally appeared to be.
(Christian Children's Fund runs their plea for money on television almost nightly and claims that 80 cents of every dollar goes to help the children. I've heard that they have a good reputation when it comes to their management of donations. If they can do it others can as well.)
2006-09-23 15:15:52
·
answer #4
·
answered by WhiteLilac1 6
·
0⤊
0⤋