UN report says abject poverty can be halved by 2015

[JrKASperov]

There is a proble, however.

Less poverty means more consumption, more consumption leads to problems with this planet. And we are having enough of them. We desperately need to reduce getting kids. and our lifestyles.

Of course poverty makes need for many children...

Such complex problems.

[Davros]

Originally posted by Sir Degrader: Ideally, a fresh start, but seeing as how that's not likely to happen, perhaps cutting all aid entirely, and making those countries relatively "self sufficient", by not really on foreign aid. This is just an oddball idea thrown out there, and will likely never happen.

Fortunately you are right - it will likley never happen. Probably because the world realises that it is extremely greedy and selfish on the part of the "haves" t not try and help fellow human being who are much much worse off. Three cheers for that [img]smile.gif[/img] .

[Chewbacca]

This talk of generally ending all aid is silly and doesnt account for many of the uses of such aid.

Giving hand-outs to nations that can do for themselves, and allowing fraud or waste, should and must at least diminish, but ideally end.

If foreign aid is helping to build or rebuild roads, schools and hospitals and other things that allow development and encourage self-sustainment, I dont see why that should end.


On a side note-
I have noticed an increase in the uneducated and prejudice assaults on the U.N.s humanitarian efforts, This is dissappointing. It seems to me that many folks miss the forest because of a few trees. Its a fact that a symptom of poverty- hunger, and the key effect of malnutrition associated with it, kills millions around the world, many children every year.

Collectively, we are perfectly capable of making enough food to healthily feed everyone. I cannot fathom why anyone would see this as a an unworthy goal.

[LennonCook]

Originally posted by Sir Degrader: Heres an idea for the UN: 1)Get your heads out of your asses and try to find some other solution besides throwing money at it.

And... what else do you propose they throw at it? Money buys materials for building roads and houses. Money funds the process of getting food over there. Money pays for filters to get clean water into remote villages. Money allows people to be in these countries, helping improve the situation. Money funds education. Money funds hospitals. Money given to a third world country can help to bring it out of poverty, and towards a self-sustaining future.

2)Stop making up nonsensical data that doesn't have any real world implication. What Johnny said is right. Maybe aliens will attack. Maybe George Bush will get drunk and nuke Canada. Who knows what might happen. Simply making big sweeping predictions that will likely never happen anyway (do you really expect funding to DOUBLE over the next ten years, especially with a US budget crisis?) won't solve anything.

Firstly, the "real world" extends beyond the US - this doesn't have any direct implications for you, other than what comes with the general feeling that you are doing the right thing, but that doesn't mean it doesn't do anything. Also the UN report doesn't specifically say the aid should come from the US, but rather from "wealthy nations"... if the US is going through a budgetary crisis, couldn't you argue when prompted that you aren't a wealthy nation, rather than being hostile toward it? Or, is it just that you don't like the UN and want to say everything against them that you can? Secondly, this isn't making a "big sweeping prediction that will likely never happen anyway" - the UN is not saying that this will halve poverty, but saying that it has the potential to do that, and that even if that isn't exactly what happens the effect will still be quite good.

[shamrock_uk]

Originally posted by Sir Degrader: Heres an idea for the UN: 2)Stop making up nonsensical data that doesn't have any real world implication.

I disagree that its nonsensical. If you have a figure for the number of people dying and you know how much it would cost to deliver food and basic shelter to them, then it should be fairly easy to arrive at a rough estimate of the cost.

And the real world implication is quite plain: we have the wealth to save these people, but we don't bother.

-----

I'm using the United States as an example here because it seems to be right-wing American's who are especially vocal about criticising the UN's humanitarian activities.

Since September 11th up to September 2004, according to MSNBC, around 1,500 have died in terrorist attacks in Iraq, nearly 700 in Russia, more than 350 have died in Israel, around 200 in Spain and more than 100 in the Philippines.

The US budget for defence in 2005 will be $401.7 billion dollars.

By contrast, the development aid budget of the US is $16 billion, or a measly quarter of one percent of its budget (compare it to the $37.1 billion that the EU gives for example, despite being of a similar size economy in total yet composed of poorer countries).

Yet worldwide, 11 million children just under five!! die each year from malnutritian, diarrhoeal disease and aids. That's 30,000 under-fives each day, 21 ever minute, 1 every three seconds. Try clicking your fingers a few times and imagine your children dropping like flies instead. Then imagine how fast you'd have to click your fingers to include the preventable deaths for all those over the age of 5. Then imagine those clicks representing your friends' lives being snuffed out. Try it, it won't take long - we'd get through your entire community in no time.


The attitude of some right-wing people to what are the real threats facing the world can only be described as utterly chilling as shown by their complete disregard for the value of human life.

(many edits)

PS. Just noticed that Bush is cutting overseas food aid by $100 million due to budget difficulties (http://www.organicconsumers.org/corp/foodaid122204.cfm) - perhaps the $40 million being spent on his inauguration celebrations might have been better spent in this area? All he has to do is read a speech...

[ 01-20-2005, 09:20 AM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

Originally posted by shamrock_uk: quote: Originally posted by Sir Degrader: Heres an idea for the UN: 2)Stop making up nonsensical data that doesn't have any real world implication.

I disagree that its nonsensical. If you have a figure for the number of people dying and you know how much it would cost to deliver food and basic shelter to them, then it should be fairly easy to arrive at a rough estimate of the cost.

And the real world implication is quite plain: we have the wealth to save these people, but we don't bother.

-----

I'm using the United States as an example here because it seems to be right-wing American's who are especially vocal about criticising the UN's humanitarian activities.

Since September 11th up to September 2004, according to MSNBC, around 1,500 have died in terrorist attacks in Iraq, nearly 700 in Russia, more than 350 have died in Israel, around 200 in Spain and more than 100 in the Philippines.

The US budget for defence in 2005 will be $401.7 billion dollars.

By contrast, the development aid budget of the US is $16 billion, or a measly quarter of one percent of its budget (compare it to the $37.1 billion that the EU gives for example, despite being of a similar size economy in total yet composed of poorer countries).

Yet worldwide, 11 million children just under five!! die each year from malnutritian, diarrhoeal disease and aids. That's 30,000 under-fives each day, 21 ever minute, 1 every three seconds. Try clicking your fingers a few times and imagine your children dropping like flies instead. Then imagine how fast you'd have to click your fingers to include the preventable deaths for all those over the age of 5. Then imagine those clicks representing your friends' lives being snuffed out. Try it, it won't take long - we'd get through your entire community in no time.


The attitude of some right-wing people to what are the real threats facing the world can only be described as utterly chilling as shown by their complete disregard for the value of human life.

(many edits)

PS. Just noticed that Bush is cutting overseas food aid by $100 million due to budget difficulties (http://www.organicconsumers.org/corp/foodaid122204.cfm) - perhaps the $40 million being spent on his inauguration celebrations might have been better spent in this area? All he has to do is read a speech... [/QUOTE]Excellent post Shamrock.
What we can accomplish as a nation and as a community of nations falls far short of what we do accomplish.

To see what a presidential inauguration can be, look at how Jimmy Carter did it. Being the top public servant in the nation should not include such a display of hubris.

[Chewbacca]

Great post Shamrock! [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]


Folks who don't want to believe the U.N. statistics can look at the Red Cross's or groups like CARE and check those stats.

It is NOT like the problem of malnutrition and disease are simply made up in some attempt to fleece the wealthy nations of some dough.

The problems are real and so are the organizations working on solutions.

[ 01-20-2005, 05:43 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

[shamrock_uk]

Thank-you both and sorry for the rant! [img]graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

Here's a good article in the Washington Post written very much for an American audience and very interesting:

A Practical Plan to End Poverty By Jeffrey D. Sachs Monday, January 17, 2005; Page A17 http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer Americans know a good deal when they see it. Today a group of leading scientists and practitioners from several fields -- agriculture, medicine, economics, education, engineering -- is making a proposal to the world. If rich and poor countries will follow through on the promises they have made over the past five years to fight extreme poverty and disease -- and rely on the best science and technology in doing so -- the world can save millions of lives and extricate hundreds of millions of its poorest people from the trap of extreme poverty. The cost is a mere 50 cents out of every $100 of rich-world income in the coming decade. The point is simple. Consider malaria, a silent tsunami whose devastation washes over Africa at a proportion that dwarfs the recent Indian Ocean tsunami. Each month more than 150,000 African children die of malaria; that's about the death toll of the Asian disaster. Yet those deaths do not sear the public's mind. Off camera, they are largely unknown. On top of the tragedy and vast economic cost, they contribute to the continent's population explosion, as impoverished Africans have large families to counter the ever-present threat. The shocker is that malaria, unlike an Indian Ocean earthquake, is largely preventable and utterly treatable. There is no excuse for the millions of malaria deaths that will occur this year. A $5 dollar mosquito bed net specially treated with insecticide, used widely throughout rural Africa, could dramatically lower the rate of malaria illness and death. Effective medicines, at roughly $1 per dose, could treat the cases that slip by the bed nets. Yet Africa's poverty is so extreme that rural farm families know about the bed nets and the medicines -- and long for them -- but can't afford the few dollars they would cost. Today's report of the Millennium Project, an independent advisory group to the United Nations, shows that just $2 to $3 per American and other citizens of the rich world would be needed each year to mount an effective fight against malaria. The rich world's actual spending to fight malaria is closer to 20 cents per person per year. The report, "Investing in Development," doesn't stop at malaria, though controlling it might be the greatest bargain on the planet. The project's scientists show how special "fertilizer trees" could replenish Africa's soil nutrients and lead to a doubling or tripling of food crop yields in just a few years, enabling farmers to grow more food more reliably and break free of famine. Using these and other cost-effective modern tools, Africa could have its own "green revolution," as Asia did some decades ago. As in Asia, food security in Africa would be a prelude to sustained economic growth. The study documents how emergency obstetrical care could be provided at local clinics even in impoverished settings, saving hundreds of thousands of mothers who will die in childbirth this year because of obstructed labor and other complications. The project similarly documents how the introduction of low-cost, nutritionally balanced school meals, using locally produced foods, could improve the health, nutrition, school attendance and performance of more than 100 million children in the world's poorest countries. Taken together, these and similar steps would change the face of extreme poverty -- indeed, put the world on a path to eliminate it in this generation. Yet these steps are not taken. The United States and most other donor countries don't give even 50 cents out of every hundred dollars of income to these causes, in public or in private contributions. The actual amounts are closer to 20 cents per hundred dollars, and they are not well targeted on the basic investments to end poverty. Why don't we invest more? The reason is not stinginess but the lack of recognition of what we could accomplish if we really put our minds to it. Americans think that we give much more than we do. They also believe, erroneously, that corruption in poor countries blocks effective use of aid, even though dozens of impoverished countries are rather well governed yet still starved of help. The outpouring of grief and generosity after Asia's disaster shows that Americans are ready -- even yearning -- to contribute to save lives and livelihoods. Here are three steps for an American response to today's report: First, the president, with Republican and Democratic leaders of Congress, should call upon all of us to act to combat the silent tsunamis such as malaria, hunger, maternal mortality and extreme poverty that grip Africa and other impoverished regions, including parts of our own hemisphere. They should endorse the report's "practical plan" to combat these horrendous but ultimately solvable scourges. Second, just as the White House and Congress finally did with Africa's AIDS pandemic, our leaders should do the arithmetic properly. Instead of symbolic and underfunded programs to fight extreme poverty in Africa and elsewhere, they should calculate and put before the American people the amounts that are truly needed. Today's study precisely shows that the financial conclusions are not frightening: just one-half percent of our annual income. At around $60 billion total from the United States, this is a tiny fraction of, say, our annual military spending, now around $450 billion, and a vital investment in our national security. Third, the president should call on Americans to get involved, as he did with AIDS in 2003 and with the tsunami last month. The upcoming State of the Union address is the place to start. The president should lead our great nation to use our wealth and technology to help conquer the scourges of malaria and hunger that grip hundreds of millions of our impoverished brethren around the world. We all know that unaddressed suffering adds greatly to instability and insecurity throughout the world. Americans yearn to act. The writer leads the U.N. Millennium Project and is director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University.

[ 01-20-2005, 08:02 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

[Sir Degrader]

Why don't Americans give more aid? Because perhaps Americans don't want their money going to a cause they don't believe in. Or perhaps they don't want it going to a corrupt government.
However, I agree, my reaction was knee jerk.
Instead of 16 billion going towards another country, shouldn't that money be going towards urban renewal, lower taxes, a more powerful military (it IS needed), better economy, and whatnot?

[Stratos]

A more powerful military is needed? Why? In case the Andromedan Galactic Empire invades Earth?

[ 01-26-2005, 06:50 AM: Message edited by: Stratos ]