It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Dionisius
reply to post by akushla99
Granted, and I appreciate the post.
What I mean is that to live a sustainable life off of the land without harming Nature or hunting too many animals, we would have to split off into much smaller groups, learn essential survival skills and find a piece of land that can support the whole group. This is not possible with 7 billion people on this earth, after we have destroyed millions of acres of what was, habitable land, through industrialisation and deforestation.
Simple as that.
Originally posted by Dionisius
No its not a typo, yes you did read that right, thats approximately 9,855,000 children every year. Extreme Malnutrition is an underlying contributor to nearly half of these deaths. The majority of deaths are caused by diahhrea, pneumonia, malaria and neonatal conditions, all of which are easily treated when caught early with simple medication.
Now for the most shocking part, if it wasnt already shocking enough. All of these statistics are for under 5's, and 98% of these deaths from under 5's are confined to 42 countries, finally 4 million of these deaths are newborns in the first 4 weeks of life.
Source: Wikipedia
Aid destinations:
It is true that aid is rarely given for motives of pure altruism. However, it is important to look at where aid goes. For example, “only about one fifth of U.S. aid goes to countries classified by the OECD as ‘least developed.’” This “pro-rich” trend is not unique to the United States. According to Collier, “the middle income countries get aid because they are of much more commercial and political interest than the tiny markets and powerlessness of the bottom billion.” What this means is that, at the most basic level, aid is not targeting the most extreme poverty.
The form of aid must also be considered. The World Bank, until recently, issued only loans, meaning that the country must repay both the loan and the interest rates. In contrast, the European Commission issues grants, which countries need not worry about paying back. This means that “loans have been going to the poorest countries and the grants to the middle-income countries."
Furthermore, consider the breakdown, where aid goes and for what purposes. In 2002, total gross foreign aid to all developing countries was $76 billion. Dollars that do not contribute to a country’s ability to support basic needs interventions are subtracted. Subtract $6 billion for debt relief grants. Subtract $11 billion, which is the amount developing countries paid to developed nations in that year in the form of loan repayments. Next, subtract the aid given to middle income countries, $16 billion. The remainder, $43 billion, is the amount that developing countries received in 2002. But only $12 billion went to low-income countries ($15 billion for all developing countries) in a form that could be deemed budget support for basic needs.
To me this tells how foreign aid has had no positive effect on recieving countries, more so it is having a negative effect on these developing countries, keeping them in their state of need and poverty but thats just my uneducated opinion. What do the more educated members think as to why 27,000 children die every day?edit on 5-1-2012 by Dionisius because: because i can
Originally posted by Dionisius
reply to post by Welshy77
Yes I am for real, are you? The only resource we really need is food. Food can be foraged and hunted, we do not need mass scale production farms which rape the land to feed us. We dont need satellites that can read number plates, we need food and water. We could go down the zeitgeist road and have technology do everything for us but it would lead to unfulfilling lives.
Have you ever gone out and caught food for yourself or foraged plants? It is a hugely satisfying experience and one which should be cherished. Not dismissed as a primitive and animalistic thing to do, now I know thatg is not what you afre saying, but it is the view of humanity.
Originally posted by Dionisius
What I mean is that to live a sustainable life off of the land without harming Nature or hunting too many animals, we would have to split off into much smaller groups, learn essential survival skills and find a piece of land that can support the whole group.
Originally posted by Welshy77
No i have not foraged for myself, i do not need to..
Have you ever looked into the definition of money or the ultimate source?
Originally posted by RightWingAvenger It's not like the farmers of the third world aren't trying. The third world farmers who want to live a traditional agricultural life can't do it because American companies are pricing them off the market.
Originally posted by Dionisius
Have you ever gone out and caught food for yourself or foraged plants? It is a hugely satisfying experience and one which should be cherished. Not dismissed as a primitive and animalistic thing to do, now I know thatg is not what you afre saying, but it is the view of humanity.
Food can be foraged and hunted, we do not need mass scale production farms which rape the land to feed us.