The largest humanitarian crisis since 1945. - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#14784578





The United Nations has warned that the world is facing the largest humanitarian crisis since 1945 with starvation and famine in Yemen, South Sudan, Somalia and northeastern Nigeria.

Stephen O'Brien, the British UN humanitarian chief, stated on Friday that more than 20 million people across those four countries could die.

"Without collective and coordinated global efforts, people will simply starve to death," he said at the UN Security Council, adding that "many more will suffer and die from disease".

1.4 million children are at imminent risk of death.

Starvation now the enemy in killing fields of Sudan

The worst-hit country is Yemen, where two-thirds of the population - 18.8 million people - need aid and more than seven million do not know where their next meal will come from.

Mr O'Brien said that is now three million more chronically hungry people in Yemen than in January.

A peace deal between South Sudan and Sudan signed in August 2015 has failed, and clashes last July between the two forces set off further violence, killing tens of thousands of people and forcing 3.1 million to flee their homes.

An estimated 100,000 people in the country are experiencing famine, and one million others are on the brink of starvation.

Somalia is suffering from extreme drought that is killing scores of people every day. The government declared a national disaster last week.


The Nigerian military is battling Boko Haram Islamist terrorists in the north of the country, meaning many areas are too dangerous for aid workers to reach. At least five million people there are at risk of famine.




http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03 ... ince-1945/
#14787846
It so happens that people from these parts of the world are pretty horrible, but that doesn't stop me feeling sorry for their children. I am now pretty old and I cant remember a time when the British public weren't throwing money at this part of the world, and I am sure people from other civilzed countries are the same. Unfortunately very little has changed, and I can't help thinking that perhaps these donations would have been better sent to animal charities where the funds aren't being sucked away by rich and corrupt leaders. Of course, many families will receive a bag of food that will keeping them going for a week or so, but in the grand scheme of things this means absolutely nothing. Regrettably these societies live in a time warp and their advancement has been slow to say the very least. It would appear they have done almost nothing to help themselves, and they still rely on massive handouts from other countries. Perhaps if the money we had given them for so long was spent correctly they could be living in a civilised society.

I should also point out that they have little self control, and are happy to produce child after child, even if they have no food or water. We have attempted to educate them on contraception, but they chose to ignore us. Have a look on the TV, we are shown heartbreaking pictures of starving children, but most of the time Mum and Dad look fine, how strange?

I'm sorry, whilst I have a degree of sympathy for their plite, I won't be sending any money !!
#14787864
It so happens that people from these parts of the world are pretty horrible, but that doesn't stop me feeling sorry for their children.

We're pretty horrible too, KIA. What's your point? :eh:

I am now pretty old and I cant remember a time when the British public weren't throwing money at this part of the world, and I am sure people from other civilzed countries are the same. Unfortunately very little has changed, and I can't help thinking that perhaps these donations would have been better sent to animal charities where the funds aren't being sucked away by rich and corrupt leaders.

Even animal charities are being run by people who want six-figure salaries and a nice fat pension, with a few perks like cars and bonuses thrown in too. All paid for by the saps-, er, the compassionate donors, of course. Charities are a nice little racket for some people.

Of course, many families will receive a bag of food that will keeping them going for a week or so, but in the grand scheme of things this means absolutely nothing. Regrettably these societies live in a time warp and their advancement has been slow to say the very least. It would appear they have done almost nothing to help themselves, and they still rely on massive handouts from other countries. Perhaps if the money we had given them for so long was spent correctly they could be living in a civilised society.

If we lived in a world without history and without politics, then your criticisms would be valid. But history happened and is real, and politics happens and is real. There are actually very good historical reasons why these nations are the way they are, and it has little to do with their citizens being 'lazy' or 'feckless'. You need to crack open a history book some time.

I should also point out that they have little self control, and are happy to produce child after child, even if they have no food or water.

For most people in developing countries, their children are their pension plan. Popping out the kids is like paying more money into your pension pot - all being well, it'll eventually pay off big time. Assuming the little brats don't up and starve to death on you in the meantime, of course. My point is that it is rational for people in a developing nation with no state pension to have as many kids as they can. The problem is that the general insecurity of such societies both motivates them to have lots of kids and yet can also lead to those kids starving if there is a sudden natural or political catastrophe.

We have attempted to educate them on contraception, but they chose to ignore us.

Most of these people can't exactly pop down to their local chemist to pick up a packet of Trojans. Aid charities would have to supply them, and American Evangelical Christians (not to mention the RC Church of course) are currently threatening to boycott any charities which do this, for religious reasons. You should take it up with them.

Have a look on the TV, we are shown heartbreaking pictures of starving children, but most of the time Mum and Dad look fine, how strange?

Children are particularly vulnerable to starvation and disease, much more than adults. A full-grown adult can survive for weeks without food, whereas an infant would be dead within a single week or two. And they pass the point of no return more quickly too - often, by the time the adults manage to get to an aid station, it's too late for the children.

I'm sorry, whilst I have a degree of sympathy for their plite, I won't be sending any money !!

Actually that's probably the correct thing to do, though not for the reasons you've outlined. What is happening globally seems to be similar to what happened in the late Roman Republic - the social and economic system had created an underclass of unemployed and starving proletarians, who became a threat to the political stability of the system. They were therefore fed at the public expense, to neutralise that threat. This, of course, locked them into their state of dependency and subjection, and had a corrupting effect on their sense of self-respect and motivation. This served the interests of the Roman elite. In the same way, giving charity to the poor of these developing countries (which correspond to what Mussolini called "proletarian nations") has the effect of reinforcing the subjection of these nations to our dominance, and also locks these people into a cycle of dependency. After all, a sudden influx of free food and goods has a destructive effect on the local economy - the farmers and shopkeepers of the region go bankrupt and become dependent on handouts themselves. The more charity there is, the more poverty there is. What is needed are not handouts from the rich nations, but systemic political and economic change. The current world order is clearly not sustainable. We must change the system, not throw a handful of pocket change at starving babies.
#14787866
Potemkin wrote:We're pretty horrible too, KIA. What's your point? :eh:


Even animal charities are being run by people who want six-figure salaries and a nice fat pension, with a few perks like cars and bonuses thrown in too. All paid for by the saps-, er, the compassionate donors, of course. Charities are a nice little racket for some people.


If we lived in a world without history and without politics, then your criticisms would be valid. But history happened and is real, and politics happens and is real. There are actually very good historical reasons why these nations are the way they are, and it has little to do with their citizens being 'lazy' or 'feckless'. You need to crack open a history book some time.


For most people in developing countries, their children are their pension plan. Popping out the kids is like paying more money into your pension pot - all being well, it'll eventually pay off big time. Assuming the little brats don't up and starve to death on you in the meantime, of course. My point is that it is rational for people in a developing nation with no state pension to have as many kids as they can. The problem is that the general insecurity of such societies both motivates them to have lots of kids and yet can also lead to those kids starving if there is a sudden natural or political catastrophe.


Most of these people can't exactly pop down to their local chemist to pick up a packet of Trojans. Aid charities would have to supply them, and American Evangelical Christians (not to mention the RC Church of course) are currently threatening to boycott any charities which do this, for religious reasons. You should take it up with them.


Children are particularly vulnerable to starvation and disease, much more than adults. A full-grown adult can survive for weeks without food, whereas an infant would be dead within a single week or two. And they pass the point of no return more quickly too - often, by the time the adults manage to get to an aid station, it's too late for the children.


Actually that's probably the correct thing to do, though not for the reasons you've outlined. What is happening globally seems to be similar to what happened in the late Roman Republic - the social and economic system had created an underclass of unemployed and starving proletarians, who became a threat to the political stability of the system. They were therefore fed at the public expense, to neutralise that threat. This, of course, locked them into their state of dependency and subjection, and had a corrupting effect on their sense of self-respect and motivation. This served the interests of the Roman elite. In the same way, giving charity to the poor of these developing countries (which correspond to what Mussolini called "proletarian nations") has the effect of reinforcing the subjection of these nations to our dominance, and also locks these people into a cycle of dependency. After all, a sudden influx of free food and goods has a destructive effect on the local economy - the farmers and shopkeepers of the region go bankrupt and become dependent on handouts themselves. The more charity there is, the more poverty there is. What is needed are not handouts from the rich nations, but systemic political and economic change. The current world order is clearly not sustainable. We must change the system, not throw a handful of pocket change at starving babies.


Amazing how you manage to disagree on almost everything. At least you won't be donating any money, so you can't be that vulnerable I suppose.
#14787868
Amazing how you manage to disagree on almost everything. At least you won't be donating any money, so you can't be that vulnerable I suppose.

I disagree with everyone about everything because everyone else is wrong about everything. ;)
#14787871
Potemkin wrote:What is needed are not handouts from the rich nations, but systemic political and economic change. The current world order is clearly not sustainable. We must change the system, not throw a handful of pocket change at starving babies.


Well I happened to agree broadly with everything you said in that post up until the part I have quoted here. Where I will start disagreeing is on the nature of the "systemic political and economic change" as by that you mean communism. Honestly Africans have enough troubles without inflicting that nonsense on them too.
#14787872
Potemkin wrote:Actually that's probably the correct thing to do, though not for the reasons you've outlined. What is happening globally seems to be similar to what happened in the late Roman Republic - the social and economic system had created an underclass of unemployed and starving proletarians, who became a threat to the political stability of the system. They were therefore fed at the public expense, to neutralise that threat. This, of course, locked them into their state of dependency and subjection, and had a corrupting effect on their sense of self-respect and motivation.


Utter nonsense. The African poor are no threat to the system whatsoever.
#14787874
Utter nonsense. The African poor are no threat to the system whatsoever.

African nations are a potential threat to the stability of the global system, since that system depends on them for natural resources. And the African poor - the overwhelming majority of the population - are a threat to the political stability of those nations. Why else do you think the West was propping up guys like Mobutu or Bokassa for all those decades? :eh:
#14787876
Potemkin wrote:African nations are a potential threat to the stability of the global system, since that system depends on them for natural resources. And the African poor - the overwhelming majority of the population - are a threat to the political stability of those nations. Why else do you think the West was propping up guys like Mobutu or Bokassa for all those decades? :eh:


In worst case scenario African nations or their people only present nuisance value to international trade. More Somali pirates and more boat people crossing the med. The Suez is the weakest link but as long as the Isreal and the Egyptian Army like US dollars that should be safe enough.
#14787877
Potemkin wrote:African nations are a potential threat to the stability of the global system, since that system depends on them for natural resources.


The typical antiquated resource-centric and zero sum view of economics. You realize total natural resource rents made up ~1.7% of world GDP in 2015? (here, highly dependent on the oil price).

Does the world economy rely on African resources? Yes, to some degree:

Image

(note North African resource rents are not under Africa)

But their disappearance while causing a crisis would in no way threaten the stability of the system. Needless to say the wealthy nations will have access to Africa's resources anyway, regardless of whether communists or warlords are in power.
#14787880
Pro tip: don't pop out more babies than you can feed.

This is what "development aid" looks like: milk powder and clinics, but no contraceptives.

Sterilize 80% of them, that should take care of the problem. Bonus: no hordes of Africans making their way to Europe.
#14787910
The typical antiquated resource-centric and zero sum view of economics. You realize total natural resource rents made up ~1.7% of world GDP in 2015? (here, highly dependent on the oil price).

And you are too obsessed with cash money as the measure of relative economic importance. Money is fungible, but resources are not. Many of the strategic raw resources upon which current Western civilisation depends are only available from Africa. Geo-politics is driven by the need to control these strategic resources, and is not simply driven by a competition to see who can have the biggest GDP. :roll:
#14787928
Potemkin wrote:And you are too obsessed with cash money as the measure of relative economic importance. Money is fungible, but resources are not. Many of the strategic raw resources upon which current Western civilisation depends are only available from Africa. Geo-politics is driven by the need to control these strategic resources, and is not simply driven by a competition to see who can have the biggest GDP. :roll:


Eh what...where the hell was I talking about "cash money"? Certainly a comparison to GDP is the most valid measure of the relative economic importance of resources. Raw resources are obviously indispensable as an input for an economy, but they can be substituted, recycled, mined at varying intensity and at different locations. Leontief production only exists in video games. The cost of resources as a % of GDP gives us a rough idea of how the impact on the economy would be, if, for example, the supply would shrink and resource prices would increase as a result. A good example is the oil crisis. The US spent a much larger share of its GDP on oil in the 70s hence the economy was much more sensible to changes in oil supply. For what you say to be true, Africa would have to possess resources for which global demand and supply are very inelastic and on which we spend a large share of our GDP.
#14787933
@Rugoz :

Conflict reources

Let us take coltan as an example. This is a vital resource for the electronics industry, and the overwhelming majority of the world's coltan is located in Africa. Without it, that nifty new iPhone you bought recently wouldn't work. The West must therefore secure access to coltan, by whatever means necessary. Political instability in African nations is therefore undesirable for the West. Giving handouts to the destitute masses of Africa is therefore not an entirely unselfish thing to do.
#14787940
I think pote has a point. It does seem that loosing raw resource access, even though it doesn't take up lots of GDP directly, would effect every layer of the economy from raising prices in manufactured goods, lowering consumption, causing contractions in the economy and in investment markets.

What I doubt is that the entirety of Africa would simply vanish all at once and deny the world all of its resources all at once. More likely there would be smaller fluctuations in prices since basically all warfare on the continent is either funded from outside or from the sale of those same resources to the outside. I think it would be literally impossible for any government, rebel group, or gang in Africa to function without selling those resources to the outside.

Abandoning them to instability will only leave dictators to periodically take over, fund themselves on resource sales, and collapse again. With the population in poverty for forever. Which isn't all that different from now except with an uptick in death and instability.

Realistically speaking their conditions won't improve unless they become less reliant economically on the sale of raw resources. Raw resources can be easily mined by impoverished starving peasants and sold by the rulers to fund their power and control. Starving peasants are less likely to be able to rebel and overthrow their governments than educated people with access to resources and food threatened with the same.

Africa needs long term economic development to truly be fixed. There is no reason to let children starve in the meantime.
#14787947
Starving men have no sex drive. Starving women do not ovulate and can't conceive. A women continues to lactate until she just about starves to death. In Africa the men eat first, then the women. If anything is left the children are fed.

Take a look at the pitiful pictures of starving Africans. See any men?
#14787948
It speaks volumes of our current world when one portion exists pretty comfortable and well fed while the other portion does not. This world lacks compassion and humanity.
#14787973
mikema63 wrote:Human beings suck, this is more or less a perfect example of humanity in the world.

Human beings don't have to.

You can't be right just because you say you are, a[…]

These days we hear mainly how the European far rig[…]

"There is a diversity of sources that provide[…]

With due respect he was intimately involved in th[…]