Grayson wrote: » So what you're saying is that the potato famine and the mass immigration in ireland were good things?
Grayson wrote: » They're going to get worse. Ethopia needs the waters of the nile. But thanks to a colonial era document the egyptians have full rights to all the water. This means that there's a bloody big river they can't tap for irrigation or hydro electric power. And they (along with the rest of the countries the nile flows through) need to. This means there's been an arms build up. Which the west is financing quite nicely. Egypt, even after the revolution kept buying loads of aircraft and missiles. And they've said they will use all options available to protect their interests in the nile. So the next time he goes out there, it'll probably be a war zone.
Grayson wrote: » The earth can support more than 7 billion, if it's managed properly.
It's strange your post starts with BUT. That's the key word there. I'm not racist but... I don't have any problems with islam but... Sure, that Jew's allright but... It's a horrible ****ing word and is used to justify all typed of evil. So you'd like them to have a better life but..... You want them to have children but... after one child what? You kill the next one? mandatory abortions? Mass sterilisations? Of course you'd apply the same to the west but... we aren't the problem or as much of a problem as them? We don't produce more carbon than the whole developing world. And it's not like we don't try to shackle them in debt and take all their resources anyway. And then use that to pollute even more. Rather than change our ways, we should force them to live in the dark ages? No, of you'd like to see us take some responsibility, but not as much at the darkies. Right? Grow up and quit trying to place problems you contributed to at the feet of people who had nothing to do with it.
galwayrush wrote: » I gave a fiver to a drunk homeless dude in Galway yesterday, I know where 100% of that charity donation will go.
1ZRed wrote: » I don't even want to think of the chaos that's going to come from Africa over the next few decades. Once they start developing and living longer once diseases like HIV is cured as others are treated, their population will absolutely explode and their demand for food, water, space and other resources will be massive -already when we are a population of 7 billion that consume 1.5 earths of reasources already, which is expected that we will be consuming 3 earths of resources in just 25 years. That's a crazy demand for resources that are finite. We are living far too unsustainably already!I can't imagine the toll an explosive burst of population of this magnitude will have on the earth. Demand for energy and food will ravage the environment and we will all have to deal with the consequences of that. Rapidly developing countries are big contributors to our environmental problems because they love cheap, dirty energy. Who could blame them? They need so much that expensive alternatives are out of the question. Call it an extremely unpopular opinion but if I had to choose them or the sake of the whole planet, I'd pick the planet without hesitation. There are far too many of us at it is, the only difference is that our populations in developed countries are levelling out, even falling in some case and we are in a position to (admittedly slowly) implement more environmentally friendly energy alternatives.
1ZRed wrote: » And then what's going to happen when you raise them up to our level? They're just whengoing to add substantially more to our problem because their populations dwarf ours as it is! Look at India and how it's developing rapidly and burning massive amounts of fossil fuels.That's 1 billion right there, imagine how all of them living as we do will affect the planet. Now I don't deny we are the ones to blame but look at how expensive the alternatives are for us to be greener, how will they ever manage?And political slowness is a massive problem, that's why I just see things getting worse and worse because no one will bother their ass to do something quickly, so I can't see how a massive new population boom in Africa where they'll seek massive amounts of energy won't have an equally massive negative effect on our planet already. If anything it could be the straw that breaks the camel's back when our efforts to change just won't be enough to reverse the harm we're already doing and what those developing countries will continue to do for the foreseeable future.
1ZRed wrote: » I never said any of that and you know it. Of course I'd like them to have a better life but that will have a cost on the planet, as we already do. I'm happy to let them be and for them to develop as they rightfully should, but there has to be very rigorous rules set in place like china's one child policy (or similar) because there are far too many of them which is hugely unsustainable as it is, never mind when their life expectancy gets as high as ours. Say what you will, but it's going to be extremely difficult to get Africa to develop without massive amounts of negative environmental consequences and it'll only take massive amounts of money to avoid that which I don't believe people will do because we'll only do the bare minimum as with everything unless we have to. *I also believe that we should look into child limit restrictions in some developed countries and an agressive push towards greener, less destructive lives as well, I'm not just singling out 3rd world countries. 7 billion is far too many as it, and out of the 3 billion or so who do live as well as we do, that's already too unsustainable as it is. It's not as straight forward as saying "give them whatever it takes to get up to our level" because that comes at a price as well. The earth can only take so much of us and we need to start planing very intensely beit 1st or 3rd world.
Technoprisoner wrote: » i dont give to any charity's for this simple fact....most the ceo's are on rock star wages.
Grand Moff Tarkin wrote: » Africa is a black hole for money and it will be a cold day in hell before i ever send anything to that part of the world.
Foxhound38 wrote: » I'd say you're great craic at parties
tadcan wrote: » Why not lend money directly to finance microloans for a business, which will earn enough money to feed, clothe and educate their family.http://kiva.org/i/s0784LOnwnU
Grayson wrote: » So your solution is slavery and or genocide. Grow up. You're just being sick.
WileyCoyote wrote: » Because thanks to the barriers to free trade put in place by the EU who would these business export to? Barriers include tarriffs, subsidies to EU producers, an insistance that EU "aid" is often given not in money but rather with flooding the place with cheap EU exports that actually make it harder for the local producers to trade effectivley.
XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: » As has already been said the Catholic Church hsve very little influence in Africa.
UCDVet wrote: » Is there any empirical evidence that suggests these charities actually help in a measurable way? I mean, I know giving money to a charity is a really popular thing that we all assume is good - but I really question it's long-term viability. From what I can I tell, the same impoverished countries in the 70s and 80s are *still* the same ones that we keep hearing charities wanting to help. Starving kids in X? Okay - but the population has tripped since the 80s.... I remember reading about traffic studies in big US cities....they'd add in a new lane, but the traffic didn't decrease. The lane did increase throughput - but all it meant was more people ditched public transportation to drive. In just a few short weeks, more people were sitting in traffic and the average commute time was unaffected.. I've also heard some compelling arguments about how it negatively impacts the local economy. Someone there is growing food and trying to sell it. Transportation costs are big deal, these are just local people. What happens when a charity comes in and starts handing out free food? It's great, for a short period of time, for the people who aren't selling food - but it means nobody is going to buy from the guy growing and selling food locally. What happens to him? He goes out of business. And when the charities stop getting the same level of support because of a recession or more popular cause or even just the same charity decides to give support to another area.....there are no local farmers. Leaving the community worse off than they were before. Instead of 'helping' them, we're making them more dependent.
UCDVet wrote: » I've also heard some compelling arguments about how it negatively impacts the local economy. Someone there is growing food and trying to sell it. Transportation costs are big deal, these are just local people. What happens when a charity comes in and starts handing out free food? It's great, for a short period of time, for the people who aren't selling food - but it means nobody is going to buy from the guy growing and selling food locally. What happens to him? He goes out of business. And when the charities stop getting the same level of support because of a recession or more popular cause or even just the same charity decides to give support to another area.....there are no local farmers. Leaving the community worse off than they were before.
tfitzgerald wrote: » I agree. But it never ceases to amaze me that the church gets blamed for everything. Most of these people are dying of hunger but its the church's fault that they won't buy condoms. Also have you noticed how the people that never have a good thing to say about the church. Always know plenty about it
fussyonion wrote: » I'll probably be labelled a heartless cow but I am really sick of the ads on telly, asking us to "save the children" and that "no mother should witness her child die". They purposely put them on at dinner time and they're relentless. Maybe if it was one or two ads during the day, but every channel at every break time has about four or five of them and I'm sick of them. Doe eyed kids looking painfully at the camera, which also makes me question how the camera people made them do it. I KNOW they need help, I KNOW we're better off than them but is this really the way to go? Paying millions to put ads on telly and force it down people's throats? Use that money to bloody donate!
Grayson wrote: » So, they should not tell anyone about what's going on? Next time you see that ad, look at the photo of the kid and ask yourself, if you were in their position and saw all the devestation around you, how would you feel about some spoilt woman saying it put her off her dinner. If you want to stick your head in the sand and avoid thinking about children that are dying, change the channel.
1ZRed wrote: » And please go on to tell me how you plan on doing that? Where will all the food come from, where will all the water come from, where will all the resources come from that we devour so hungrily? The world could support more than 7 billion but live our lives in the first world and that will cause a massive, massive strain on the earth. It's not just saying once your fed and watered that's all that matters, where is all this material going to come from? We have an insatiable appetite that doesn't look like it will diminish. I'd actually like for us to live in symbiosis with our planet, not turn it into some mega city and farm where we exploit it to the last just to support our own gain. What about our forests and wildlife? They'll be eradicated or pushed to edge of survival just because we want to have our planet and eat it too. You're well aware of our deforestation, extinction, pollution and overfishing problems as it at the moment. Are you seriously telling me that freeing up the planet to 7 billion more+ won't cause those problems to grow far, far worse? You told me to grow up bit I think it's you that's being far too shortsighted. Cop the fuck on. Is this your argument? Putting words in my mouth because I really said I'd want slavery, I really said I'd have mandatory abortions and killings. Yep, I really said all those things. I'd like education and contraception to play a major role in decreasing population there as education is a clear link to decreasing brith rates. I think a 2 child limit is reasonable but if you went over that you could be fined. I do not advocate genocide as you love to make up. I made my argument clear. We can change, and are changing our ways in ways of producing carbon dioxide, but that is going to cost us a huge amount of money because fossil fuels are dirt cheap by comparison. My argument is how will these developed countries do the same if it's costing us so much to do, where are they getting all that money to be able to develop without tearing their country apart for resources and to do it cleanly? I fail to see where, for them to grow so quickly,so rapidly, it'll be with cheaper and dirtier fuels. There's no arguing that. It's true, we already exploit their resources, and it's shameful, but if they want to develop, are they not going to do the same on top of that? So you can take your bullshit about me enforcing slavery and mandatory abortions off with you because with the way you're thinking we can keep growing and growing without any consequences like competition for space, food, water and resources. So when the world is straining under all of our demands where do we draw the line? You tell me because like it our not, nothing is infinite and the time will come when our earth just can't support us all. It could be in 100 or 200 years time but it'll come.
In 2012, the United States spent $35 billion on renewable energy – down 37 percent from $56 billion in 2011. China, meanwhile, spent a whopping $65 billion on renewable energy in 2012, or 85 percent more than the United States did in the same year. Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/05/12/5411938/china-leaves-us-behind-in-pursuit.html#storylink=cpy
corktina wrote: » I don't either, most charities exist to provide jobs for their emplyees ,whether it be the CEO or chuggers. They like to give the impression they are voluntary organisations, but they are not. And don't get me started on the fake charities collecting outside the local supermarket....
fussyonion wrote: » I'm far from spoilt and have my own problems. I can't afford to donate to charities and while I DO understand why they advertise, my issue is with the frequency of it and the time of day. Nothing to do with it being on as I'm eating my dinner-that bit isn't the issue. Why can't they show the ads at night? Do adults not watch telly at night? Why dinnertime? What if a person is only home from work at night time? They won't see the ads will they? They should show them at all different times, not just mealtimes!
scoey wrote: » Their marketing bombardment over the last decade or so meaning that you can't turn on tv or walk down the street without having them in your face, their massive use of chuggers having a negative effect on the atmosphere of our cities, along with their CEO salaries etc has really made me despise Concern as an organisation. Although their disgusting marketing tactics clearly pay off in the short term monetarily, I hope the people of Ireland will eventually wise up/get sick of them and give their money to organisations who care about the effect they have in the country that lines their pockets as well as the one they want to send some of that money to.
crockholm wrote: » Mr. Grayson...I like you,maybe you know this-I have said before that I enjoy your contributions, but on this subject you are acting hysterical.You are labeling posters to be evil,racist and anti-semitic amongst others.Firstly the country with the highest HIV-AIDS infection rate is Botswana, Botswana is 5% Catholic, of the next 5 highest, Lesotho would have the highest % of Catholics at 45 %, S.A. has 7 % and so on, it is clearly cultural.The chinese have done more for Africa in the past decade that well meaning caucasians and bono in the last century. To finish,in the words of the bard,Shakira- "It's time for Africa"(to start paying it's own way,or the Chinese)
Grayson wrote: » I personally know priests who are working in Uganda at an AIDs clinic. They do amazing work and never tell people not to use condoms. (I'll be honest, I have no idea if they tell them they should). Their mandate is to care for the sick. And that's what they do. But not all of them are like that. There's loads that tell people that condoms are bad and don't work. I know a few elderly retired nuns who volunteer in centres as project workers giving out condoms as part of a harm reduction model .
