Moron who responds to thread after not reading said thread calls person implicated in thread a moron, then after realizing said mistake doubles down and calls the OP a moron for not explaining it more clearly for your inability to read past the title.
Here's a legit reason why in my part of the world: women's period. Thing of how poor you must be to not be able to afford regular ass tempons so the best course of action is to get pregnant and temporary stop periods for ~9 months. Of course, after that you gonna be thinking of another mouth to feed but at least when it comes to periods you have a sure fire solution..
To piggyback off a pointStreetsofBeige made about teaching basic farming/gardening in smaller/poorer countries, the soil has to actually be fertile. While most countries can grow their own food, many areas within those countries don't have fertile soil. Fix that problem and hunger becomes less of an issue (along with education and training) in 50 years (wild guess).
Also, poorer people have many children not because they're irresponsible but because the more children you have, the more helping hands you have to cover the whole family. That's how it was done (along with the sad fact of high infant/child mortality) in ancient times.
For how long tampons and pads has been around?
As a person who was born in a third world country, I agree with the culture factor.
Spend 6 billion to solve a big problem... or pay taxes which get completely wasted on some bureaucratic bullshit. A smart person does the former.
The question is: From whom are you buying that work?You can buy work with money.
Somalia as a whole is too big, they need to go much smaller to fix the problems. Start in a small town/city and build-up from there, looking at all the surrounding issues of food/water. Every worker is imported and trains a local to eventually take over, then moves onto the next area.
Isn't that basically what the UN does..? (I'm genuinely asking)
I don’t know.
i think you're misinterpreting the idea here- the solution is simple if we invest time and resources into distributing to those communities. additionally, you can consolidate those populations in need if you're able to provide what they need- most people will adapt to the situation that better suits their needs, and if that means moving to an area where distribution can happen then many people will follow the resources.
And the current system has lifted billions out of abject poverty. That is not a small thing and you seem pretty ungrateful about it, if I’m being honest.
percentage-wise the world is better than it was a few hundred or thousand years ago. but by the numbers there are more people suffering now than at any point in human history. also, the stats that talk about the significant reduction in global poverty more recently are greatly skewed by china which is not exactly a role model for quashing wealth inequality.
Exactly.
This is ahistorical. To point to wealth and power imbalance and attempt to lay it at the feet of the West when it has literally existed for all of human history is nonsensical. These are problems that exist in all societies for all time. The current system has improved the lives of humanity to a greater degree than any other. Obviously it’s not perfect, but no perfect system exists. Just wishing we could create a perfectly fair and just system is daydreaming.
Historical imbalance was much worse.
we're talking about a specific point of power imbalance that i substantiated with facts and reasoning, compared to you just saying it's "ahistorical" and pointing to generalized inequality over a much longer time period than what i am discussing. you can't even debate with someone without these meaningless intuitive arguments that i guess you want me to break down for you.
Are you talking absolute number of people or % of people?
What specific point of power imbalance are you referring to? Because I must have missed it. Maybe you don’t want to discuss these things in the broader context because it makes your complaints look ridiculous and blows your characterization of the current situation out of the water.
yes, sorry i had the expectation that you would try to read and understand my points as i made them. i’m sticking to specifics because we were originally talking about the subject of addressing world hunger but if you want to talk more broadly i guess we can.
You have a better understanding of what exactly? The logistics of serving 8 billion people? Keeping them fed and sheltered, much less prosperous? You have zero idea what you’re talking about. The unhoused community? I guess I’m not sure exactly where you are working, but the unhoused community in the US is dealing with substance abuse and severe mental illness at a rate of 70-90%. That isn’t some have vs have not issue. That’s a human issue.
nypost.com
apnews.com
amp.theguardian.com
This ^
And you ignore that the third world wouldn’t suddenly have fixed their structural and cultural issues except for western influence. You also ignore that what you call exploitation is literally just human history. Trying to frame it as some morality thing is more of a religious discussion. I could ask whether the resources you’re so worried are being exploited serve more people when they are extracted and used vs sitting in the Earth waiting for the third world to modernize enough to take advantage of them themselves. Of course they also benefit from the increased economic generated when these corporations come into an area and develop of it. Certainly their are horrible situations, but on the whole, the idea that the current order hasn’t benefited more people, both in terms of raw numbers and proportionally, is nonsense. What I hear is a lot of ungrateful whining from people that both benefit from the system, but also want to appear moral by denouncing it, which I find tiresome.
Agreed.
the only naivete being displayed here is your lack of understand of how direct aid can solve problems. homelessness is a great example- we spend a lot of money and legislative effort on gatekeeping benefits from low income individuals. then we cut off benefits as soon as people reach a level that can be charitably described as just outside poverty, where a huge portion of people end up falling back to a level where they are again dependent on government aid. what i'm suggesting in all of these cases is direct aid to the problems at hand. if we directly invest money into housing these people and providing case workers for mental health/drug abuse/therapy, we would see results that are more sturdy than these stopgap measures. if homelessness is not a case of the haves and the have nots, why are the majority of those who are homeless from low income households? if we provided education, healthcare, mental health resources, and subsidized housing for those people i highly doubt the rate would be the same.
What I see is a lot of excuse making. Your arguments always boil down to “more”. We just haven’t done enough to fix other peoples’ problems. Then you simultaneously argue that foreign intervention has been the cause of all these problems for poor areas. How convenient! So when the West tries to install a government they want to work with, they’re meddling in foreign affair and should stay out. But if they stay out and the place goes to shit, because the country and culture are corrupt, the west doesn’t care enough to fix it. What a nice worldview. It’s just an the evolution of the noble savage argument self flagellating western people are so found of these days.
