Jump to content

Ending world poverty


Recommended Posts

I'm not talking about taking money from billionaires and multi-billion companies and putting it directly into the hands of poverty stricken individuals. I'm talking about investing money in poverty stricken communities, giving people the basics they need in order to stand a chance at life. This is definitely possible and could be paid for many times over.

 

We can't just start building in someone elses country so how will you make sure the money doesn't go to corrupt governments?

 

---------- Post added 21-09-2014 at 18:09 ----------

 

I'm talking Globally. As you say most people in this country have the basics, I'd like to see that applied to everywhere. At least then everyone gets a chance.

Improved and tweaked versions of our welfare state would be a good model to follow.

 

That doesn't mean to say our society hasn't got room for improvement but that's another thread.

 

And yes, we should be grateful for what this country has done for us, warts and all.

 

To achieve your goal our society will have to cut back significantly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One must start to look at Starvation being a tool for population control. It is the best devised, as million potentially can be culled, while blaming the s=distribution system an not individuals as with the NAZI era.

 

Starvation stats can thus be modified to excuse the real cause as various diseases and infections with a lowering of the immune system allows greater figures to be increased while partitioning the cause, making that appear acceptable.

 

Capitalism requires people to purchase stuff, and poor people just do not further that agenda, so why allow such an infection to cloud or interfere with potential profits.

 

Let us not forget the Irish Famine, where the poor were successfully reduced, and further laws on vagrancy allowed those thrown out of their homes to be criminalized

thus furthering the misery. While the poor were being disenfranchised and starved to death, Ireland was of course exporting food to the UK, as feeding a perceived bottomless pit of poverty just encourages them to breed more. Allowing this yet again no one was to blame, and history blamed the potato, and a new criminal if there ever was one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One must start to look at Starvation being a tool for population control. It is the best devised, as million potentially can be culled, while blaming the s=distribution system an not individuals as with the NAZI era.

 

Starvation stats can thus be modified to excuse the real cause as various diseases and infections with a lowering of the immune system allows greater figures to be increased while partitioning the cause, making that appear acceptable.

 

Capitalism requires people to purchase stuff, and poor people just do not further that agenda, so why allow such an infection to cloud or interfere with potential profits.

 

Let us not forget the Irish Famine, where the poor were successfully reduced, and further laws on vagrancy allowed those thrown out of their homes to be criminalized

thus furthering the misery. While the poor were being disenfranchised and starved to death, Ireland was of course exporting food to the UK, as feeding a perceived bottomless pit of poverty just encourages them to breed more. Allowing this yet again no one was to blame, and history blamed the potato, and a new criminal if there ever was one.

 

And this is precisely what has to stop!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One must start to look at Starvation being a tool for population control. It is the best devised, as million potentially can be culled, while blaming the s=distribution system an not individuals as with the NAZI era.

 

Starvation stats can thus be modified to excuse the real cause as various diseases and infections with a lowering of the immune system allows greater figures to be increased while partitioning the cause, making that appear acceptable.

 

Capitalism requires people to purchase stuff, and poor people just do not further that agenda, so why allow such an infection to cloud or interfere with potential profits.

 

Let us not forget the Irish Famine, where the poor were successfully reduced, and further laws on vagrancy allowed those thrown out of their homes to be criminalized

thus furthering the misery. While the poor were being disenfranchised and starved to death, Ireland was of course exporting food to the UK, as feeding a perceived bottomless pit of poverty just encourages them to breed more. Allowing this yet again no one was to blame, and history blamed the potato, and a new criminal if there ever was one.

 

Right again.

http://geography.about.com/od/obtainpopulationdata/a/worldpopulation.htm

 

Population has being going up at a steady 10% over the last 40 years and in the 50s it was around 20% (population boom - baby boomers GEDDIT?) and is going to keep going up despite natural resources dwindling, and China, God love ``em still keeping their families down to one child only.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right again.

http://geography.about.com/od/obtainpopulationdata/a/worldpopulation.htm

 

Population has being going up at a steady 10% over the last 40 years and in the 50s it was around 20% (population boom - baby boomers GEDDIT?) and is going to keep going up despite natural resources dwindling, and China, God love ``em still keeping their families down to one child only.

 

Education and access to contraception. Something everyone should have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Education and access to contraception. Something everyone should have.

 

True but it sort of kicks you and friend erebus theory of we're starving people to get the population down. And a lot of the time the reason the third world have lots of kids is the hope one of them will look after them if they get old and grey.

 

But let's say its rubbers and school books for all (assuming the Catholics will use them) - what state do you think the planet will be in 50 years time? Better or worse?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a massive step in the wrong direction!

 

http://www.worldbulletin.net/world/145061/us-to-spend-1-trillion-on-nuclear-arms

 

How can the US pledge to spend $1 trillion on nuclear weapons, yet let over 40 million of it's people live in poverty??

 

Because keeping their nuclear deterrent up to date is an important part of their security and $106 a year from each citizen of America isn't an excessive amount to pay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.