Gates foundation gives $150 million to Africa

[mugs]

Originally posted by: SampSon

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: SampSon
It's fashionable to give money to Africa. Though nothing ever helps them and nothing ever will (read: vast overpopulation in an area that can never sustain it).

:roll:
Yea so lets just let'em starve to death

Feeding them only delays their starvation for a short time. It also makes said person dependent.

Sampson, you should probably click the link in the OP and read it. The $150 million isn't to give them food, it's to develop their agriculture so they can sustain themselves. You know the saying "give a man a fish and you'll feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you'll feed him for the rest of his life?" They want to teach them to fish.

 

[tyler811]

Originally posted by: chambersc

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: tyler811
I think we need to take care of the people in the US first

Spoken like someone who's never left the country:roll:

US kids are FAR better off than African kids, and unless you actually believe that Americans have more value as human beings, Gates' decision makes all the sense in the world.

QFMFT!

You should read the rest of the thread before you jump on the bandwagon

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: tyler811
I agree that it is a politcal one but also an enviromental one. Some years ago Central Africa was in the midst of its worst drought. I remember seeing miles and miles of nothing but hard crusted ground. The dry farmland went so far into the horizon that the two just blended together. Something akin to an empty stadium parking lot. It as really quite sad.

Well, that may be true. Some nations are unable to support 100% of their inhabitants. However, the world in general is certainly able to feed many more people than currently reside here, and if those nations had some sort of product they could trade for food, the problem would once again be solved. However, this is something that requires--once again--a stable political structure. I mean, we didn't have all THAT many problems with hunger during the Dust Bowl.

Or just a really valuable product...just look at the middle east, miles upon miles of nothing but DESERT, yet they feed themselves easily by selling oil. And some of those countries aren't even that stable.

 

[tyler811]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: tyler811
I agree that it is a politcal one but also an enviromental one. Some years ago Central Africa was in the midst of its worst drought. I remember seeing miles and miles of nothing but hard crusted ground. The dry farmland went so far into the horizon that the two just blended together. Something akin to an empty stadium parking lot. It as really quite sad.

Well, that may be true. Some nations are unable to support 100% of their inhabitants. However, the world in general is certainly able to feed many more people than currently reside here, and if those nations had some sort of product they could trade for food, the problem would once again be solved. However, this is something that requires--once again--a stable political structure.

Or just a really valuable product...just look at the middle east, miles upon miles of nothing but DESERT, yet they feed themselves easily by selling oil. And some of those countries aren't even that stable.

You are correct and getting back to your stable political structure. Minerals particularly diamonds are supporting nations in Africa or least the corrupt goverments that run them. The same for oil in some of the Middle East countries.

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: TheNinja

Originally posted by: Howard

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: SampSon
It's fashionable to give money to Africa. Though nothing ever helps them and nothing ever will (read: vast overpopulation in an area that can never sustain it).

:roll:
Yea so lets just let'em starve to death

Why do we have a responsibility to feed them?

We have a responsibility as fellow human beings to feed them.

Straight to the conclusion, hm? You must be a real ladies' man.

 

[Fenixgoon]

america has the richest poor. our definition of starving is a far cry from the starving kids in 3rd world countries experience

 

[SampSon]

But it's not even a question of carrying capacity. Hunger tends to be a political problem, not an environmental problem. The stable African countries usually don't lack for food.

Sampson, you should probably click the link in the OP and read it. The $150 million isn't to give them food, it's to develop their agriculture so they can sustain themselves. You know the saying "give a man a fish and you'll feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you'll feed him for the rest of his life?" They want to teach them to fish.

I read the article, $150mil isn't going to even begin to make difference, billions are funneled into africa. Were talking about the complete development of a continent full of nations, not just a donation to a charitable ideal. It's so much more than teaching them just to "fish".

I view the carrying capacity in more than just an agricultural sense. It involves sociopolitical and socioeconomic resources and ideals as well, which you imply and I agree with. As for the $150mil, I hear there is some big mess down in the big easy or something... not sure.

 

[HombrePequeno]

This is good news. This coupled with the hundreds of millions the Gates Foundation has pledged to fight AIDS, malaria, and TB will save a lot of lives and hopefully bring the birthrate down a slight amount.

Obviously this isn't enough to fix Africa's problems but it's a step in the right direction. Maybe someday Africa will even be a net exporter of food (they're a net importer now). I personally wish this donation was a little more focused on a specific region of Africa than being spread thin. I would think economies of scale apply in this case considering how little $150 million is spread over several hundred million people.

 

[Compton]

I don't think that money will ever solve the problems in Africa.

 

[0roo0roo]

f*ck africa. u can give all u want, we are still the great frickin satan. its a waste of time.
and more people = more global warming. priorities people!

 

[0roo0roo]

Feeding them only delays their starvation for a short time. It also makes said person dependent.

bingo, and they are too afraid to ask for conditions like limiting size of families in return for aid. too afraid of being called a racist. just read about jared diamonds collapse book on the section on rwanda.

 

[IAteYourMother]

Bill Gates is not a dumb bureaucrat, but he's an extremely smart businessman who will make sure the money goes where it needs to go.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: txrandom
We care more about people in other countries then our own. Just look at immigration and the Iraqi War.

Bwahahahahahaha :laugh:

The war in Iraq is about helping the Iraqi people?

Bwahahahahahaha :laugh:

I think he was referring to the universal healthcare for all iraqui citizens that we dont even have at home.

 

[Journer]

i like africa...i saw my first set of tits on national geographic goes inside namibia or something... !!

private investment...its not government spending so who gives a fvck...just because someone is rich doesnt obligate them to spend their money the way the naiton as a whole sees it...he earned it...he can spend it how he pleases....at least he isnt spending it to cover up his secret drug operations...or is HE!?!? DUN DUN DUNNNNNNNN

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Feeding them only delays their starvation for a short time. It also makes said person dependent.

bingo, and they are too afraid to ask for conditions like limiting size of families in return for aid. too afraid of being called a racist. just read about jared diamonds collapse book on the section on rwanda.

I don't think this money is going towards food, just tools so they can produce their own food. Something like 80% of the people of Sub-Saharan Africa are subsistence farmers and have no income. How the fvck do you expect them to get out of poverty if they have no income?

This also won't be raising the amount of people. Right now there is essentially a risk premium on giving birth in Africa because the mortality rate is so high. Women will make more children once one of theirs dies and overall there will be an overcompensation. You can look at the dozens of other emerging market countries and see that once they got out of their poverty trap, their birth rates dropped significantly. For instance, the average woman in Bangledesh used to have over 6 children but that's been cut in half due to the country getting themselves out of a poverty trap.

Not to mention investing in better farming tools for them will help the environment. The current techniques they use are complete sh!t and are doing a decent amount of damage.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: tyler811
Topic Title: Gates foundation gives $150 million to Africa
Topic Summary: Excuse me but dont we have starving kids here

What???

The U.S. is the richest Country with a booming Economy, there is no starving kids here.

 

[potato28]

So thats where all the XP money is going to...

 

[Estrella]

Originally posted by: Compton
I don't think that money will ever solve the problems in Africa.

what do you propose then?

 

[Estrella]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
f*ck africa. u can give all u want, we are still the great frickin satan. its a waste of time.
and more people = more global warming. priorities people!

are you serious?

 

[postmortemIA]

Anybody with doubts can complain after they acknowledge % of overweight people in USA and in Affrica.

 

[Estrella]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: tyler811
Topic Title: Gates foundation gives $150 million to Africa
Topic Summary: Excuse me but dont we have starving kids here

What???

The U.S. is the richest Country with a booming Economy, there is no starving kids here.

Are you trying to be satirical or just dumb? E.G."there is no starving kids"

CORRECTION:"there are no starving kids here."

Side note: My grammar SUX too.