Food and Water

Nick_oliveri

Ok, following on from a post Squall made in the proven conspiracies thread, i want to discuss more about this as its also been on my mind.

Millions starving and feck all being done about it. I mean, its quite obvious that if certain countries can spend untold Billions on bull**** lies then they can spend it on dying or starving people...right? Morals would sway an answer in a particular direction. However the world doesnt operate that way and no amount of Bub Geldofs will change that.

Its something like a third of the worlds population that are starving.(citation needed :pac:) Yes, there are countries that will spend a certain amount of budget towards the needy, but as current goings-on will show, war economies matter more. The killing machine. Regression.

Bub has tried on two major occasions to change the world with concerts and speeches. Hell, theres products that have "a certain percentage of profits will go towards the needy" as advertisement and therefore more profit minus that percentage.

Population control? Maybe not. Why have that in certain third-world locations while most of the western world and Asia is massively overpopulated? And whats the point in feeding the needy when there are new problems like global warming?

There is a motive to the madness that is not transparent. Same with Iraq, its a question that will remain elusive. If we are a free society that cares for our brethren, with humanitarian morals then what is the problem? We (They) can deploy thousands of soldiers to the desert with their own food, water, power and fuel...

Its not the North Pole that these people are held up in. Its not the Moon, North Korea or... well, i think you get the point.

$554,071,849,448* and rising. We travel backwards with bull**** lies, propaganda and death, all shrouded and mirrored to seem like a peak in what we have accomplished as a free technological intelligent society.

I know fuk all bout the locations, culture numbers and solutions to this catastrophy. But i know it exists. Its the ongoing everlasting 9/11 (in a conspiracy sense) , without the patriotism, revenge, "justified" collateral damage, invasion and flag waving that ensued. Yes its bad comparision, but this is the current theme of the forum. Maybe it will be easier to understand.

$554,071,849,448* and they still havent got the head of OBL, maybe if the money went towards the needy theyd **** that up too with administrative costs and general greed. In both cases though, failure is the word.

(*taken from costofwar.com)

conceited

I think the continent of africa needs to get up off it's own ass and do something itself.

Equatorial Guinea has become one of the world's richest countries, boasting a per capita income of USD 50,200, second to that of Luxembourg.

Will the people see anything from this,no they won't.
The same goes for most other countries in africa,they're corrupt scum.

It's obvious what has to be done,but it's less obvious who is really in charge.
For other countries to make money.
I'm afriad they need this to be the situation(insert random empire) for the third of the worlds population as you say.

bonkey

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Millions starving and feck all being done about it. I mean, its quite obvious that if certain countries can spend untold Billions on bull**** lies then they can spend it on dying or starving people...right?

Sure, if you reckon altruism to be any sort of a feature of the government's of these "certain countries".

Population control? Maybe not. Why have that in certain third-world locations while most of the western world and Asia is massively overpopulated? And whats the point in feeding the needy when there are new problems like global warming?

There is a motive to the madness that is not transparent.

There's a very transparent motive: Nothing to gain.

If the poor were raised out of poverty, it would lead to increased demand for resources. This offsets any argument about "new markets" and so forth.

The motive is simple...there's nothing to gain.

Gordon

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Millions starving and feck all being done about it. I mean, its quite obvious that if certain countries can spend untold Billions on bull**** lies then they can spend it on dying or starving people...right?

What percentage of your income do you spend on charity? Honestly.

You could argue that your quote relates to most of the population of Ireland, they can spend a crapload of money on clothes, beer, food, mobile phones, TVs, computers, more beer, another TV, car, overpriced house, a new mobile phone, loan for a holiday and to pay off the credit card that pays for the new TV, new DVD, new desk, second hand couch etc.

Nick_oliveri

Gordon wrote: »

What percentage of your income do you spend on charity? Honestly.

None tbh. Im not coming in here high and mighty, i already gave a disclaimer that i know feck all about the subject, its just i have been thinking about it lately.

bonkey wrote: »

The motive is simple...there's nothing to gain.

Fair point. Very depressing, but i can agree.

Kernel

bonkey wrote: »

Sure, if you reckon altruism to be any sort of a feature of the government's of these "certain countries".

There's a very transparent motive: Nothing to gain.

If the poor were raised out of poverty, it would lead to increased demand for resources. This offsets any argument about "new markets" and so forth.

The motive is simple...there's nothing to gain.

I find myself in agreement with you this time Bonkey. Do you believe that a third world, or a degree of poverty is necessary to sustain the wealth of our current corporate capitalist model? Access to cheap labour force to manufacture raw materials or goods, which are then distributed to the more affluent consumer base in the richer nations?

bonkey

Kernel wrote: »

I find myself in agreement with you this time Bonkey. Do you believe that a third world, or a degree of poverty is necessary to sustain the wealth of our current corporate capitalist model?

Yes and no.

I believe that any model will result in inequity. In this sense, "some degree of poverty" is inevitable, and thus necessary, in any model.

Access to cheap labour force to manufacture raw materials or goods, which are then distributed to the more affluent consumer base in the richer nations?

Cheap labour forces are a large step above those who are dying because of lack of food and water. Its a different topic entirely.

Here's some food for thought though...

Its easy to look at the super-rich and complain about the inequity in the system. Its easy to justify that they are the ones who need to change, and to complain about how they are somehow "causing" the masses to starve....only its not really true.

Everyone is collectively causing them to starve. You and I are as guilty by consuming more than we need, and by not putting pressure (and encouraging others to put pressure) on our elected governence to make fixing this horrific problem a reality. Even if the likes of Bill Gates had more money than the combined wealth of the middle class in Ireland (and I don't think he's that rich), he doesn't consume more resources than them.

So if we want to introduce equality in the world, or reduce the inequality, it might be comforting to look at the super-rich and blame them, the reality is that the bulk of the sacrifice will have to come from the masses - they will have to cut their consumption too.

Maybe the likes of a Bill Gates or of Man City's new owners will be expected to give up 99% of their wealth for this Brave New World. Fine. Lets encourage that. Lets not forget, hoewever, that the average European consumes something like 2.5x or 3x their fair share (if not more). Are you willing to give up half of your lifestyle in the name of fairness?

Will poverty and inequality become reasonable to live with once the super-rich are stripped down in order to feed the starving millions for a short while, leaving the likes of you and I far closer to the top of the pile, the poor still poor, and the ultra-poor at best helped to become poor?

And as a closing remark...there's no conspiracy here. If there is, then you and I are as complicit in it as the rich and powerful who are so easy to blame for everything. I'd call it socio-economics, or perhaps human nature, rather than a conspiracy.

Diogenes

Kernel wrote: »

I find myself in agreement with you this time Bonkey. Do you believe that a third world, or a degree of poverty is necessary to sustain the wealth of our current corporate capitalist model? Access to cheap labour force to manufacture raw materials or goods, which are then distributed to the more affluent consumer base in the richer nations?

Kernel nothing you say is in any way objectionable. You're right it is unfair it is unjust. The problem being is how do you globally redistribute this wealth Seriously? No politician has ever been elected on the slogan "I'm going to give you less".

Consider India and China, two of fasting growing economies in the world, how do you explain to their growing middle class that all this progress has to not just stop, but go backwards.

bonkey

Diogenes wrote: »

Kernel nothing you say is in any way objectionable. You're right it is unfair it is unjust. The problem being is how do you globally redistribute this wealth Seriously? No politician has ever been elected on the slogan "I'm going to give you less".

Or even a slogan "I'm going to take away a lot of what you have, and give it to a foreign nation because they deserve it more".

Mahatma coat

Diogenes wrote: »

Kernel nothing you say is in any way objectionable. You're right it is unfair it is unjust. The problem being is how do you globally redistribute this wealth Seriously? No politician has ever been elected on the slogan "I'm going to give you less".

reminds me of the anecdote about a communist activist in South America - cant remember the name of the film but it was about Pinochets Coup- the one about the 2 houses and 2 cars and 2Chickens

Consider India and China, two of fasting growing economies in the world, how do you explain to their growing middle class that all this progress has to not just stop, but go backwards.

well, they could try the same technique they are using on the western world, guilt trippin people about their carbon Footprint and inflating the prices of certain commodities to drive a reduction in Demand

Diogenes

"a chicken in every pot and two cars in every garage" is a quote by Hebert Hoover in 1928 a few weeks before the great depression hit.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

well, they could try the same technique they are using on the western world, guilt trippin people about their carbon Footprint and inflating the prices of certain commodities to drive a reduction in Demand

And how's the working out in the west? A moderate reduction in SUV purchases? David Cameron pretending to take his holiday in Cornwall?

Sorry Mahatma Coat to redress the inequalities between the first and third world* the reality is the situation would have be far more drastic. Asset freezing, rationing, a ban on non essential air travel.

DubTony

bonkey wrote: »

Sure, if you reckon altruism to be any sort of a feature of the government's of these "certain countries".


There's a very transparent motive: Nothing to gain.

If the poor were raised out of poverty, it would lead to increased demand for resources. This offsets any argument about "new markets" and so forth.

The motive is simple...there's nothing to gain.

I think bonkey's hit the nail on the head here (and in his follow-up post).

One idea that struck me a long time ago (sometime just after Live-Aid, 1985) is that there may be a conspiracy of sorts. We can pretty much all agree that most of the world's poverty is on the continent of Africa. In the main, the only real industry on most of that continent is the business of pulling stuff out of the ground, be it diamonds, oil etc. There's very little industry of a technological nature. While the rest of the world "gets rich" Africa seems to be left to it's own devices, with corporations moving in to pilfer natural resources by doing - lets call them - shady deals with despot leaders.

We have seen in recent times the move away from expensive "western countries" by tech companies to cheaper (eastern European and Asian) countries where the work forces have only recently become "educated enough" to produce hi-tech products. Eventually these countries will themselves become too expensive to manufacture tech goods, the prices of which seem to fall continuously.

Major corporations will then need to look for a cheap work force. And where better than Africa. Watch out for private investment in the education of Africans in the next 20 or 30 years after western governments finally begin to "help" in a meaningful way. Watch out for western style politicians come through the ranks, promising the people better standards of living and increased wealth (or decreased poverty, depending on how you look at things), and going directly to foreign powers for help (not aid - but meaningful help that will create social structures and allow for foreign investment).

This will take a long time, but as the cheap labour forces of the northern hemisphere become expensive, corporations will pressure governments to assist in building a "better" Africa.

The bottom line is that Africa is being left "out in the cold" as it's just not needed yet. Things will change but unfortunately it is unlikely that any of us will ever see the end result.

(excuse the " ". Used for effect, and I didn't have time to think of more suitable prose)

Mahatma coat

the anecdote I was thinkin of was somethin like,

theres an american guy explainin communisim to some Chillean Villagers

american 'if a man has two houses he has to give one away'
villager 'Yay'

American 'if a man has two cars he has togive one away'
Villager Yaay, I'd like a car

American 'if a man has two chickens he has to share one with his neighbour'
Villager 'oh' and sighs

American ' whats wrong?'
Villager 'But, I have two chickens'



:D