A solution to the African hunger problem.
-
No, It is just that some of us decided that working together in a common dependancy, striving to learn, to improve, investing time, effort and money in novel ideas and not sitting on our arses expecting to be saved by others would prove beneficial. As a member of a tiny ethnic minority, (I am white), I can say that it seems to work. Perhaps the majority of the world that remains could learn by example.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link CCC Link[^]
Dalek Dave wrote:
common dependancy, striving to learn, to improve, investing time, effort and money in novel ideas
:) you must be kidding. These ideas are surfacing nowadays (I mean maybe 60-70 years) not when there was looting. it was not a fair trade.
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" -Pascal Revenge is not always better, but neither is forgiveness-
-
harold aptroot wrote:
for what the Romans did
What did they do? just curious to gain some knowledge and in turn better my judgement.
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" -Pascal Revenge is not always better, but neither is forgiveness-
-
harold aptroot wrote:
for what the Romans did
What did they do? just curious to gain some knowledge and in turn better my judgement.
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" -Pascal Revenge is not always better, but neither is forgiveness-
They chopped down almost all forests, used a lot of other resources, recruited the locals into their army, and then they let the western part of their empire (that's us) fall into the Dark Ages. Of course Italy is not the Roman Empire, so asking them for compensation is silly, isn't it? Just as the Netherlands aren't the Dutch Empire, and the UK isn't really the British Empire..
-
Sometimes aid is given so the donors can feel good or use it to susidise their own farmers. Specific ciad certainly, but pouring it in generation after generation breeds a culture of dependance and makes it even more difficult for local farmers to succeed against free food.
Join the cool kids - Come fold with us[^]
Trollslayer wrote:
pouring it in generation after generation breeds a culture of dependance
In my more cynical moments, I think this is precisely why we continue to give aid. After all, when a Geldorf or Bono starts banging on about giving more money to Africa, you don't hear the government asking who voted for them so that they could demand how our tax money should be spent.
-
Yeah what with all their roads and irrigation and laws? The bastards. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso[^]
pseudonym67 My Articles[^] Personal Music Player[^]
modified on Wednesday, November 17, 2010 5:53 AM
-
Maybe not hunt them. But stop giving aid. This does not help them. Curing them of all these diseases does not help either, they have to feed these mouths. Don't send food or money, send condoms.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link CCC Link[^]
Dalek Dave wrote:
But stop giving aid.
So you dont think that not using all the quality land to grow cash crops for the west and instead using it to grow food for the natives would be a good idea then?
Dalek Dave wrote:
Don't send food or money, send condoms.
Due to the influence of the catholic church they wouldn't use them. Why do you think aids is so prevalent in Africa?
pseudonym67 My Articles[^] Personal Music Player[^]
-
Stop helping them. The population will stabilize on a size at which it is capable of growing/gathering enough food for itself. Maybe that size is zero, I doubt it, but if it is, so be it. In fact, maybe allow them to be hunted in certain areas (and only a limited number each year). This works for deer and wild boar so why not Africans? Problem solved. As a bonus, we would waste less tax money on them.
I read this just after you posted it and my first reaction was how offensive but, upon reflection, you may have a point (not the hunting bit by the way: that remains somewhat off color). I will not give money to these charities since most of it goes to arms or food that is sold on the blak market: those that should benefit don't and never will. And, if it was so important to them, why don't the governments of these countries stop arming themselves and building useless palacaes and help their own people? Further, you don't help people by giving them food, you help them by showing them how to grow their own. Bono et all are well meaning twats: if they really beleived why don't they donate their wealth instead of extolling us to do so?
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
Yeah what with all their roads and irrigation and laws? The bastards. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso[^]
pseudonym67 My Articles[^] Personal Music Player[^]
modified on Wednesday, November 17, 2010 5:53 AM
Yes, I get the point and reference, but just to be a pedant, (and specific to Britain), the Celts were building roads before the Romans arrived and had their own laws, (interestingly enough under which women were more equal than they were at any time until the latter stages of the last century). There is also some evidence to suggest that the Roman Empire learned some of their earlier military strategy from mainland European Celts, adapting and improving on it over time ;P
Rhys "With no power comes no responsibility"
-
Yes, I get the point and reference, but just to be a pedant, (and specific to Britain), the Celts were building roads before the Romans arrived and had their own laws, (interestingly enough under which women were more equal than they were at any time until the latter stages of the last century). There is also some evidence to suggest that the Roman Empire learned some of their earlier military strategy from mainland European Celts, adapting and improving on it over time ;P
Rhys "With no power comes no responsibility"
There is evidence to show that it was the wiping out of the Celts that was of primary interest to the roman empire. Hence that was the reason for their invasion. Julius Caesar specifically targeted the celts as they had a large social and trade network at a time when he needed gold to finance his expeditions. This is why when the Romans invaded Britain they headed straight for Angelsey to wipe out the last of the Celts, not just to take the gold but they couldn't tolerate the idea of a different belief system that relied on loose social connections rather than they Roman style of an imperial system based on a strong political power base. http://www.amazon.com/Caesar-Biography-Christian-Meier/dp/046500895X[^] http://www.amazon.co.uk/Twelve-Caesars-Penguin-Classics/dp/0140455167/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1289995393&sr=1-1[^]
pseudonym67 My Articles[^] Personal Music Player[^]
-
Stop helping them. The population will stabilize on a size at which it is capable of growing/gathering enough food for itself. Maybe that size is zero, I doubt it, but if it is, so be it. In fact, maybe allow them to be hunted in certain areas (and only a limited number each year). This works for deer and wild boar so why not Africans? Problem solved. As a bonus, we would waste less tax money on them.
harold aptroot wrote:
waste less tax money on them
Just wasted elsewhere. I do not agree with the hunting, however, I have wondered for years about the charities that collect for children. How many of the children they help end up having kids that need help because the cause of the need has not changed? I think helping out after a disaster is okay but not for years and years. See Katrina in the USA. See unemployment benefits in the USA. I guess I am just bitter as no one is helping me.
-
Stop helping them. The population will stabilize on a size at which it is capable of growing/gathering enough food for itself. Maybe that size is zero, I doubt it, but if it is, so be it. In fact, maybe allow them to be hunted in certain areas (and only a limited number each year). This works for deer and wild boar so why not Africans? Problem solved. As a bonus, we would waste less tax money on them.
I have never understood why it is a good idea to increase life expectancy in areas where there is famine and therefore clearly already too many people for the available food. You cannot increase the rate of evolution of a society or an area no more than you can that of a species. Evolution has to take place according to the environment it is happening in. Trying to create a population in any area larger than it can sustain is not a good idea. Giving guns to people who have not been able to develop them themselves is not a good idea. Trying to impose democracy on a society that has not developed it yet is not a good idea. Too much of the world has been buggered up a little bit more by people trying to interfere, some were interfering for their own benefit, others were trying to help. I don't think any of them have done any long term good.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends.
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
But stop giving aid.
So you dont think that not using all the quality land to grow cash crops for the west and instead using it to grow food for the natives would be a good idea then?
Dalek Dave wrote:
Don't send food or money, send condoms.
Due to the influence of the catholic church they wouldn't use them. Why do you think aids is so prevalent in Africa?
pseudonym67 My Articles[^] Personal Music Player[^]
-
Oh that so deserves a 5....
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
But stop giving aid.
So you dont think that not using all the quality land to grow cash crops for the west and instead using it to grow food for the natives would be a good idea then?
Dalek Dave wrote:
Don't send food or money, send condoms.
Due to the influence of the catholic church they wouldn't use them. Why do you think aids is so prevalent in Africa?
pseudonym67 My Articles[^] Personal Music Player[^]
pseudonym67 wrote:
So you dont think that not using all the quality land to grow cash crops for the west and instead using it to grow food for the natives would be a good idea then?
Dont you think that the simple choice of whether to grow food for themselves or grow food for cash crops is an ecconomic one with the choice being the most effective?
pseudonym67 wrote:
Due to the influence of the catholic church they wouldn't use them. Why do you think aids is so prevalent in Africa?
You really think the church is a bigger influence than their inability to buy them?
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
virtual five :laugh:
pseudonym67 My Articles[^] Personal Music Player[^]
-
pseudonym67 wrote:
So you dont think that not using all the quality land to grow cash crops for the west and instead using it to grow food for the natives would be a good idea then?
Dont you think that the simple choice of whether to grow food for themselves or grow food for cash crops is an ecconomic one with the choice being the most effective?
pseudonym67 wrote:
Due to the influence of the catholic church they wouldn't use them. Why do you think aids is so prevalent in Africa?
You really think the church is a bigger influence than their inability to buy them?
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
fat_boy wrote:
Dont you think that the simple choice of whether to grow food for themselves or grow food for cash crops is an ecconomic one with the choice being the most effective?
no not really. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5624419[^] "Advocates say ending the cycle of poverty depends on putting farmland in the hands of blacks. About 96 percent of commercial arable land is still in the hands of South Africa's white farmers. But efforts to reform land ownership in places like the rural part of South Africa's Western Cape have been slow to get off the ground. The landscape of the Western Cape is thickly populated with rows upon rows of lush green vineyards, producing wine that generates some $13 billion to the country. They are joined by miles of orchards of pear and peach trees and other fruits, as well as olives — all growing in rich, well-tended and irrigated soil"
fat_boy wrote:
You really think the church is a bigger influence than their inability to buy them?
They've got loads http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/09/condoms-south-africa-world-cup[^] They wont use them http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7947460.stm[^]
pseudonym67 My Articles[^] Personal Music Player[^]
-
Stop helping them. The population will stabilize on a size at which it is capable of growing/gathering enough food for itself. Maybe that size is zero, I doubt it, but if it is, so be it. In fact, maybe allow them to be hunted in certain areas (and only a limited number each year). This works for deer and wild boar so why not Africans? Problem solved. As a bonus, we would waste less tax money on them.
I think the Swift Proposal[^] could be applied to Africa, quite successfully.
Real men don't use instructions. They are only the manufacturers opinion on how to put the thing together.
-
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5!!!!!
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
-
fat_boy wrote:
Dont you think that the simple choice of whether to grow food for themselves or grow food for cash crops is an ecconomic one with the choice being the most effective?
no not really. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5624419[^] "Advocates say ending the cycle of poverty depends on putting farmland in the hands of blacks. About 96 percent of commercial arable land is still in the hands of South Africa's white farmers. But efforts to reform land ownership in places like the rural part of South Africa's Western Cape have been slow to get off the ground. The landscape of the Western Cape is thickly populated with rows upon rows of lush green vineyards, producing wine that generates some $13 billion to the country. They are joined by miles of orchards of pear and peach trees and other fruits, as well as olives — all growing in rich, well-tended and irrigated soil"
fat_boy wrote:
You really think the church is a bigger influence than their inability to buy them?
They've got loads http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/09/condoms-south-africa-world-cup[^] They wont use them http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7947460.stm[^]
pseudonym67 My Articles[^] Personal Music Player[^]
South Africa is only one country in Africa. I think we're talking about the whole continent here. :)
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
-
Yes, I get the point and reference, but just to be a pedant, (and specific to Britain), the Celts were building roads before the Romans arrived and had their own laws, (interestingly enough under which women were more equal than they were at any time until the latter stages of the last century). There is also some evidence to suggest that the Roman Empire learned some of their earlier military strategy from mainland European Celts, adapting and improving on it over time ;P
Rhys "With no power comes no responsibility"
goblinTech wrote:
(interestingly enough under which women were more equal than they were at any time until the latter stages of the last century).
Only because the Celtish men could relate to women better. They diddo wear skirts, didn't they?
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
