Should the World really be distributing wealth to the equatorial countries?

Say my name

Bear with me on this.

The equatorial countries of the world are home to the rainforests (lungs of the world), unique flora and fauna - elephants, gorrillas, leopards, orangutans, boa constrictors and big trees!!

Unfortunately for these flora and fauna there's people too. People who want to live a western lifestyle. To do this they'll have to sell whatever they can get their hands on. So logging and wildlife to start and then it'll continue into agriculture and more permanent landscape changes.
In the past the landscape and terrain of these countries along with the wet weather prevented the countries from being exploited. But with modern mechanization it's easy as pie now.

So the main question really is when these countries go cap in hand to the United Nations meetings and show starving children and ask for development aid and improvements to infrastructure. Should the rest of the world's community just say NO, these are special area's of the world.
And humans have no place there.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

No

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Should the World really be distributing wealth to the equatorial countries?

Should the rest of the world's community just say NO, these are special area's of the world?


Which one do I say No to?

odyssey06

Or maybe we should give them money to protect the forests. Like set aside payments.
Otherwise even without money from UN theres no guarantee they wont still log the forests.

Say my name

Kristina Full Giraffe wrote: »

Should the World really be distributing wealth to the equatorial countries?

Should the rest of the world's community just say NO, these are special area's of the world?


Which one do I say No to?

The third one.

branie2

No then

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Say my name wrote: »

The third one.

Thanks.


No, we shouldn't, so.

I see sheep

**** OFF

1o059k7ewrqj3n

A better question is; should/should have the European imperialists pay reparations to their African/South American/Asian colonies? Many of whom reside in equatorial regions.

[not to say that European nations colonised don't also deserve reparations, but the OP is asking a specific question of equatorial regions]

The answer depends - various studies have estimated the cost of extracted wealth from these colonies to be astronomical - someone estimated $45 trillion to be looted from India by the British alone.

I tell you this: I don't know about the above estimation, but had the West not bombed with glee states in Africa, in the Middle East, then maybe, possibly, these places wouldn't be total ****holes.

biko

Countries that are better off than others should help the worse-off countries rise up to a better standard of living. I have no problem with that.
Unfortunately these worse-off countries are often run by dictators who just steal all the aid for themselves.

So what should we do? Replace the leaders? Leave the countries to spiral downwards? I don't know.

ILoveYourVibes

odyssey06 wrote: »

Or maybe we should give them money to protect the forests. Like set aside payments.
Otherwise even without money from UN theres no guarantee they wont still log the forests.

Protect the people too.

Bobblehats

odyssey06 wrote: »

Or maybe we should give them money to protect the forests. Like set aside payments.
Otherwise even without money from UN theres no guarantee they wont still log the forests.

De moooney gringo or this tree gets it across the trunk

odyssey06

Bobblehats wrote: »

De moooney gringo or this tree gets it across the trunk

Yeah the protection racket aspect did occur to me... but maybe better to get a forest in return than a presidential palace or private jet.

Jupiter Mulligan

Steyr 556 wrote: »

A better question is; should/should have the European imperialists pay reparations to their African/South American/Asian colonies? Many of whom reside in equatorial regions.

[not to say that European nations colonised don't also deserve reparations, but the OP is asking a specific question of equatorial regions]

The answer depends - various studies have estimated the cost of extracted wealth from these colonies to be astronomical - someone estimated $45 trillion to be looted from India by the British alone.

I tell you this: I don't know about the above estimation, but had the West not bombed with glee states in Africa, in the Middle East, then maybe, possibly, these places wouldn't be total ****holes.

That's not a better question - it's a load of horsesh1t.

Now how's about you answer the OP's question.

It's a simple YES or NO question, so I suspect that if you really try hard, you're well capable of answering it.

1o059k7ewrqj3n

Jupiter Mulligan wrote: »

That's not a better question - it's a load of horsesh1t.

Now how's about you answer the OP's question.

It's a simple YES or NO question, so I suspect that if you really try hard, you're well capable of answering it.

If you're genuinely afraid of the implications of the question I've proposed, and to be honest with the geographical area in question and the relationship historically of north to south - it's the only question that matters - the North owes the South significant reparations, and if you are genuinely interested in a fair deal for people, you'd agree. The wealth of a number of Western nations is built off the backs of African, Asian and South American peoples. Britain, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Italy - to name a few, all made a mint off exploiting the resource of those areas.

No question is really yes or no, there's always a lot more to it than that, and you should know this.

What I'm proposing isn't too dissimilar to the Marshall Aid that the US offered western Europe countries post-1945.

policarp

Say my name wrote: »

Bear with me on this.

The equatorial countries of the world are home to the rainforests (lungs of the world), unique flora and fauna - elephants, gorrillas, leopards, orangutans, boa constrictors and big trees!!

Unfortunately for these flora and fauna there's people too. People who want to live a western lifestyle. To do this they'll have to sell whatever they can get their hands on. So logging and wildlife to start and then it'll continue into agriculture and more permanent landscape changes.
In the past the landscape and terrain of these countries along with the wet weather prevented the countries from being exploited. But with modern mechanization it's easy as pie now.

So the main question really is when these countries go cap in hand to the United Nations meetings and show starving children and ask for development aid and improvements to infrastructure. Should the rest of the world's community just say NO, these are special area's of the world.
And humans have no place there.

I think so.
The Spanish, The Portuguese, The British, have a lot to answer for.
And they won,t

Feisar

Steyr 556 wrote: »

If you're genuinely afraid of the implications of the question I've proposed, and to be honest with the geographical area in question and the relationship historically of north to south - it's the only question that matters - the North owes the South significant reparations, and if you are genuinely interested in a fair deal for people, you'd agree. The wealth of a number of Western nations is built off the backs of African, Asian and South American peoples. Britain, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Italy - to name a few, all made a mint off exploiting the resource of those areas.

No question is really yes or no, there's always a lot more to it than that, and you should know this.

What I'm proposing isn't too dissimilar to the Marshall Aid that the US offered western Europe countries post-1945.

Why didn’t those countries stop the European powers from exploiting them?

Cookie_Monster

What about the Taiga?

Your Face

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

What about the Taiga?

Or the oceans for that matter.

Force Carrier

Leaving aside flaura and Gorillas for a minute. We've long known that economies such as these, all thing being equal, would be the fastest growing. They would enjoy wonderful economic growth and burgeoning GDP. All on account that the cost of labor is minuscule.

Unfortunately all things aren't equal. These countries suffer from massive corruption problems. Unstable regimes. Uncertainty as to security of private property. Fear of investment because of all that. Stagnant economies.

They need to get their political houses in order.

Algae are the lungs of the world, they don't want a Western lifestyle, and it isn't our place to force them to remain poor, after their countries were systematically pillaged for resources not long ago.

OP, perhaps you should visit one of these countries and have a look not only at the flora and fauna, but the people, too.

whisky_galore

policarp wrote: »

I think so.
The Spanish, The Portuguese, The British, have a lot to answer for.
And they won,t

Belgians, Dutch, French, Italians, Germans...most of Europe covered there.

Say my name

policarp wrote: »

I think so.
The Spanish, The Portuguese, The British, have a lot to answer for.
And they won,t

That's the thing though the money is flowing atm from outside the equatorial countries into these countries for timber, Palm oil, wildlife products, agricultural produce, etc, etc. Leading to road development and increased destruction of the forests and wildlife.

If by some unbelievable worldwide concerted effort money was stopped from entering these countries and development halted. Should that occur?

Thelonious Monk

The inequality of wealth in the world is terrible but who are we to tell anyone not to chop trees down when Ireland is the least forested country in Europe?

Say my name

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

The inequality of wealth in the world is terrible but who are we to tell anyone not to chop trees down when Ireland is the least forested country in Europe?

That'll be sorted fairly soon enough with hedge funds owning the land.
We're only a dot in the ocean compared to the equatorial regions and what's occurring or about to occur there.

The theoretical question really in simplistic terms I'm saying is would ye rather see the rainforests intact and frolicking orangutans and native people living like their ancestors with all the complications that brought or forests cleared and dead wildlife and people living to western standards with roads, farms and corporate ownership?

Bobblehats

Whatever it takes to tie them down to their own country. Even if it means tying them to the trees then yes; we should invest in this type of plantation

Cordell

Only if them equatorial countries distribute the weather.

screamer

Unfortunately even making these payments will do little to stop progress. There are too many humans in the world and too much demand for resources and wanting a better lifestyle.
We need to actually control the human population better that’s be the better answer, and birth control is something that is decried as denying people their human rights. However if we continue to breed like flies, human rights will be worthless.