Third-World Countries

[Apolyonn]

Do third world countries honestly need help.

We all watch commercials with some descent-looking person in some slum of a town telling us to give some money for these countries that desperately need help while showing a montage of little skinny kids. And of course, many people feel sympathetic and give up large sums of money, some people don't care but still feel bad, and some people flat out don't care.

Not that I'm saying empathy towards them is a bad thing, but sometimes I wonder how much they really need help. Did early civilizations not thrive in similar circumstances? We think of ourselves as far greater because we have money, air conditioning, computers to argue on the internet, but we still have problems. We reckon ourselves better, but we are never happy.

And that's why I wonder if we should really go out of our way to help them. Because no matter how far we progress, people will simply never be happy.

 

[M1ghty Mous3]

This is a great topic for debat i say. I think some of them really do need help, but tere are those that are making fairly good progress on their own. Now that's not to say that we shouldn't help them if possible, but we do have to think about OUR home life also. If we just continue to give them mone yon a daily basis and go to all the protests for the war on Darfur and such, then weres the time for work to make the said moeny we send over? It's a very thin line. My father once said, if you pick up a piece oof trash infront of people your doing it for recognition, if you do it alone it's because you actual really do care. I think more people should try and help with third world countries, but they shoudln't be forced to.

It also depends on what countries need help too, keep this in mind.

 

[LuvHerEyes]

easy to send billions to corrupt governments and feel good about yourself. people that really want to make changes there and know about all the problems, dont have the resources.
happened to see some show about the wars USA is creating to build democracy....
they gave 300million dollars to build a new 7 km road from a village to a hospital....the road was not built....and nobody knows where the money went.
that was just one of the examples of how money just disappears.
and sometimes all what those countries need, is just some cheap medicine to save thousands of lives.
they need help, and we arent really giving any

 

[Sir Kenneth]

Do third world countries honestly need help.

We all watch commercials with some descent-looking person in some slum of a town telling us to give some money for these countries that desperately need help while showing a montage of little skinny kids. And of course, many people feel sympathetic and give up large sums of money, some people don't care but still feel bad, and some people flat out don't care.

Not that I'm saying empathy towards them is a bad thing, but sometimes I wonder how much they really need help. Did early civilizations not thrive in similar circumstances? We think of ourselves as far greater because we have money, air conditioning, computers to argue on the internet, but we still have problems. We reckon ourselves better, but we are never happy.

And that's why I wonder if we should really go out of our way to help them. Because no matter how far we progress, people will simply never be happy.

Early civilizations did not thrive under similar circumstances. Back in 500 BC where many of the situations of classic antiquity were still around, the world population was estimately around 100 million humans. That's only 1 third of the population of modern day USA and only 20 million more than the entire population of modern day Germany. Early civilizations did not struggle with overpopulation, global warming, and almost global shortages of vital resources.

The real problem here is that poverty in the third world is the main cause of overpopulation. We already live in a world where resources are becoming more scarce by every passing year, so there's no possible way we can sustain the ever growing global population in the future. The third world definitely needs our help, but there's always the discussion of what actually helps the most.

 

[SaShman]

Did early civilizations not thrive in similar circumstances?

Not really, most of the countries which are now considered 'third world' were former colonies. However, now they are forced to establish themselves as independent states in order to survive in an international system which is largely Eurocentric.

I think that they should receive help, but there are too many problems such as corruption.

but there's always the discussion of what actually helps the most.

This as well.

 

[Shu]

Here's the problem with charities out of country to me. I would never give 2 cents to one of these organizations because it actually henders the country in general. I don't mind offereing my services by going over to one of these places and feeding or cleaning up around there, but giving money is not the smartest thing I'd say.

The more honest approach at it would be to actually create something that would generate revenue that each person could participate in that is ethical and helps out the over all population.

I'm not saying put a walmart there. That is the last thing these places could use, but they need a sense of teamwork. Problem with these poor countries, they can't be run off of capitalism because of their state of affairs. It almost would have to be ran of socialism to get people back into the clear. I mean these countries don't need help, they need a foundation. They need some sort of common goal to work towards.

Now being from America I actually support capitalism vs socialism because we are already established and have the numbers for each person to seek their own individual wants and needs. Big economical countries (as in good economy) need capitalism in order to create a healthy form of competition in the market place, but for countries with a not so good economy I recommend communism or socialism... I have many reasons to actually support this. I have debated this with an anarchist professor in History.. so I can go into debt if you really want me too about all this.

You can't just elect one man to get everyone ahead when people are so divided as they are in these countries. They have their clans/colonies, but beyond that I would only assume they think everyone else is foreign and a risk.

 

[Donald Trump]

I'll make a more detailed post later.

Here's the problem with charities out of country to me. I would never give 2 cents to one of these organizations because it actually henders the country in general. I don't mind offereing my services by going over to one of these places and feeding or cleaning up around there, but giving money is not the smartest thing I'd say.

The more honest approach at it would be to actually create something that would generate revenue that each person could participate in that is ethical and helps out the over all population.

Despite the rest of the UN's general uselessness, their refugee and their child welfare organisations do a good job. Donating money isn't going to fix anything but it certainly helps feed people etc etc.

I'm not saying put a walmart there. That is the last thing these places could use, but they need a sense of teamwork. Problem with these poor countries, they can't be run off of capitalism because of their state of affairs. It almost would have to be ran of socialism to get people back into the clear. I mean these countries don't need help, they need a foundation. They need some sort of common goal to work towards.

Socialism doesn't work very well in theory in European countries, and it will probably work less well in Africa, so many of the countries have many different tribes, there are even more tensions than in 'western' society.
When the Cold War globalised each side tried to make African countries either Communist or Capitalist, they both failed spectacularly, most famously Ethiopia ruled by Colonel Mengistu, Live 8 was for their benefit. And according to communist doctrine, Socialism comes after Capitalism, for what that's worth.
I think what these countries most need is Foreign investment it worked wonders for post WW1 Germany/Weimar.
The downside is that the companies that do invest will be more interested in profit.
The most ironic thing is that Zimbabwe under Ian Smith and South Africa under the apartheid regime were far better off in terms of their economy.

 

[Apolyonn]

Early civilizations did not struggle with overpopulation, global warming, and almost global shortages of vital resources.

I can't really see the global warming thing as a "problem" since I'm leary about the validity of the idea.

My broader point was one similar to Shu's. Ancient peope survived and thrived by coming together and making something more out of what they had. They farmed in peace and fought in war. Their starting points seem similar to that of any place on one of those infomercials on tv, only in that they are not born into a very defined local government to live by as we are.

So given the precepts that great, and any, civilizations rise due to skill and coming together for the good of the group, I don't see why they need as much help from us. While the US, for example, excels, in things like bitching because Obama wants to implement equal healthcare opportunities which might take money from the people who have it, and being able to own the technology do discuss whether or not we should help other people out, those other countries have the ability to work towards something greater than what they have, because in many ways, they have close to nothing. The only way they have to go is up.

Also in that regard, I see overpopulation as somewhat irrelevant.

The downside is that the companies that do invest will be more interested in profit.

I would think that the working members wouldn't be so worried about the profit that the companies make.

 

[Sir Kenneth]

I can't really see the global warming thing as a "problem" since I'm leary about the validity of the idea.

My broader point was one similar to Shu's. Ancient peope survived and thrived by coming together and making something more out of what they had. They farmed in peace and fought in war. Their starting points seem similar to that of any place on one of those infomercials on tv, only in that they are not born into a very defined local government to live by as we are.

So given the precepts that great, and any, civilizations rise due to skill and coming together for the good of the group, I don't see why they need as much help from us. While the US, for example, excels, in things like bitching because Obama wants to implement equal healthcare opportunities which might take money from the people who have it, and being able to own the technology do discuss whether or not we should help other people out, those other countries have the ability to work towards something greater than what they have, because in many ways, they have close to nothing. The only way they have to go is up.

Also in that regard, I see overpopulation as somewhat irrelevant.

Civilizations rising due to skill and coming together for the good of the group, sounds very nice and all. As does people who have nothing, coming together to work towards something. Only problem is that the world is a much different place compared to what it was 2000 years ago, and there really isn't all that much left to be had.

Take Africa for example. One of the most uninhabitable continents in the world, with a population that has quadrupled over the past 50 years and is still on the rise. How are these people people going to come together and build something out of nothing? No amount of positive thinking, working together, or elbow grease is going to make it rain more or turn desert into fertile farmlands that can actually sustain development.

You can't build anything from nothing. You need resources, and that's unfortunately becoming a rare commodity. Especially with the majority African countries struggling with staggering population growth rates. Sorry, but if you don't see the problem that "more people vs. less resources" poses, then I'm afraid that you just don't get "it".

 

[Warbsywoo]

I like what Shu said about how these third world countries need to learn 'teamwork'. I agree that's it's not a one-way street. They need to contribute to their development as much as we need to be obligated to extend a helping hand. In many of the third world countries, you'll see a general dependence on foreign help when it's actually provided, and that shouldn't be the point.

Responding to whether third world countries really need our help, I say yes. We all live in the same world, albeit divided by political boundaries, but there's still that sense of obligation that we should have to at least help out. Someone above mentioned a lot of money goes to waste or goes elsewhere, but I think that's why donations to private funds with a good record should receive most of the funds. Giving money to the government doesn't work too well.

______________________________________________________________________
"Not that I'm saying empathy towards them is a bad thing, but sometimes I wonder how much they really need help. Did early civilizations not thrive in similar circumstances? We think of ourselves as far greater because we have money, air conditioning, computers to argue on the internet, but we still have problems. We reckon ourselves better, but we are never happy."
______________________________________________________________________

That's the exact same reason why we should help. We may have problems, but third world countries have more in quantity. Put yourself in their shoes...wouldn't you want decent clothes, an actual home? Many people in third world countries don't have those things and any little donation definitely help whatever it is they might be lacking. Our earning power is thousands of times greater than those in less wealthier nations and we definitely earn more than enough to survive while they don't.

____________________________________________________________________
And that's why I wonder if we should really go out of our way to help them. Because no matter how far we progress, people will simply never be happy.
____________________________________________________________________

You say we will never be happy, but is it good to deny those less fortunate those things that we get on a daily basis. Is it right to withhold things that can be provided just because it doesn't seem to have a point to it?

Ask those questions.

 

[Shu]

I'll make a more detailed post later.


Despite the rest of the UN's general uselessness, their refugee and their child welfare organisations do a good job. Donating money isn't going to fix anything but it certainly helps feed people etc etc.

Right and again, the problem is dependency as Wagner said. I understand there are some people that need a little help to be shown the right direction, so I wouldn't mind helping provide if I was actually on sight. The thing though is I'm a bit skeptical as to how these organizations use the money. My paps went over to Zambia to help out the youth over there. Of course he did the whole christian thing and went to the churches and such, but besides that there was something that will be forever ingrained in my head.

Kids my age were crafting stuff made out of lead. Whether it be a small elephant or a little bike, they were definitely talented. They also made huge canvas's out of water color that were way talented than most artists I could even think of at the time. So cutting to the point.. my paps helped out by selling these crafts over here in the states for a higher dollar than normal (for authentication reasons) and then returning the money back to youth in full amount.

To me.. that's a lot more helpful than donating 10% of your total earnings to an organization where you have no idea how they are proportioning that money. Honestly I believe it in some ways is to make people feel better about themselves. Like balancing their karma or something.

Socialism doesn't work very well in theory in European countries, and it will probably work less well in Africa, so many of the countries have many different tribes, there are even more tensions than in 'western' society.
When the Cold War globalised each side tried to make African countries either Communist or Capitalist, they both failed spectacularly, most famously Ethiopia ruled by Colonel Mengistu, Live 8 was for their benefit. And according to communist doctrine, Socialism comes after Capitalism, for what that's worth.
I think what these countries most need is Foreign investment it worked wonders for post WW1 Germany/Weimar.
The downside is that the companies that do invest will be more interested in profit.
The most ironic thing is that Zimbabwe under Ian Smith and South Africa under the apartheid regime were far better off in terms of their economy.

Well the biggest issue is demilitarization. I mean there has been quite a bit of genocide on account of corrupt leaders taking charge over people. A lot of people are lead around in fear, from what it seems. (can't believe what you see in the movies always though)

So given certain opportunities if these people were to be shown some direction, I mean just a little (and i don't mean another "Iraqi Freedom" because I know the US over stepped their bounds a bit) direction..

Of course there is a lot of Aids, but what can you do with a bunch of people who have no forms of contraception. I'm sure if they the use of this and EDUCATED !!!! how to use it, there would be less.

Though in my opinion it is no ones place to make people do stuff if they are perfectly content doing what they do. Like for instance the change over the recent years, how land taxes are making farmers here in the states rethink selling their property and their trade due to the high cost of upkeep. What used to be beautiful country sides in Franklin Tennessee (where I grew up) is now multimillion dollar houses and more and more shops. From what I can see.. capitalism can't be stopped.. hince why I said socialism seems a bit better.

I mean Marx and Che had a great ideas, but very misconstrued and taken out of context thanks to Che being a military figure later in life (and less of a pacifist doctor he was earlier). I mean it would be hard, because of most people would have disagreements on how the country should be lead.. but if they were given a common focus to work towards there would be less hunger and strife. So what common focus could they work towards? I have no idea, its not my place... but like I said if it consists of non military actions.. I don't see no harm unless of course it is drugs. I mean I guess this would be more a Utopian vision, so if that is possible.. but like you said Hal, it's been tried before.

 

[Donald Trump]

Right and again, the problem is dependency as Wagner said. I understand there are some people that need a little help to be shown the right direction, so I wouldn't mind helping provide if I was actually on sight. The thing though is I'm a bit skeptical as to how these organizations use the money. My paps went over to Zambia to help out the youth over there. Of course he did the whole christian thing and went to the churches and such, but besides that there was something that will be forever ingrained in my head.

Kids my age were crafting stuff made out of lead. Whether it be a small elephant or a little bike, they were definitely talented. They also made huge canvas's out of water color that were way talented than most artists I could even think of at the time. So cutting to the point.. my paps helped out by selling these crafts over here in the states for a higher dollar than normal (for authentication reasons) and then returning the money back to youth in full amount.

To me.. that's a lot more helpful than donating 10% of your total earnings to an organization where you have no idea how they are proportioning that money. Honestly I believe it in some ways is to make people feel better about themselves. Like balancing their karma or something.

I agree, I don't think it's possible to be entirely altruistic, but that's another point.
What I was saying is that the UN charities, like the one Angelina Jolie helps out, do some good. With most of those charities, the vast majority of the money doesn't make it to Africa/wherever, it gets spent on administration costs and advertising, but they do help people. They don't bring about change, they mostly go to feeding refugees and that kind of thing.

Well the biggest issue is demilitarization. I mean there has been quite a bit of genocide on account of corrupt leaders taking charge over people. A lot of people are lead around in fear, from what it seems. (can't believe what you see in the movies always though)

So given certain opportunities if these people were to be shown some direction, I mean just a little (and i don't mean another "Iraqi Freedom" because I know the US over stepped their bounds a bit) direction..

The big risk with inspiring people to get rid of their corrupt leaders through armed struggles, is that, most of the time, you get another corrupt leader, just one who is better armed. That's a problem that I think can only be solved by time.

I mean Marx and Che had a great ideas, but very misconstrued and taken out of context thanks to Che being a military figure later in life (and less of a pacifist doctor he was earlier). I mean it would be hard, because of most people would have disagreements on how the country should be lead.. but if they were given a common focus to work towards there would be less hunger and strife. So what common focus could they work towards? I have no idea, its not my place... but like I said if it consists of non military actions.. I don't see no harm unless of course it is drugs. I mean I guess this would be more a Utopian vision, so if that is possible.. but like you said Hal, it's been tried before

That's why I said they'd need to be capitalism first, otherwise they won't have any of the infrastructure that comes with it. Education ( As you pointed out, their lack of education contributes to AIDS), and Healthcare would come as a result of Foreign Investment, there are lots of places without clean drinking water. If we are to really help the Africans then I think they need the same facilities we have, or they will continously be behind us. I'm generally all for Socialim/Communism, but I don't think Africa has the facilities for it to be successful.