Ishmael
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2001
- Posts
- 84,005
There are multiple threads extant on the board concerning a variety of views about energy, ecology, economics, and out and out charity.
Most are argued from an emotional standpoint and in their singularity, as if each issue is a 'stand-alone' entity, divorced from any other consideration.
The 'greens' want to stop the depletion of the rain forest and extraction of fossil fuels. The 'it's for the children crowd' want to stop child labor and cure all childhood disease. The 'anti-globalists' want to disband all multi-national entities (although they want to use the UN to do it?????????
).
Let's take a simple idea and develope it.
We've all seen the commercials hosted by Sally Struthers and Katherine Hepburn showing the impoverished children of the third world. The one making the plea "only $.50 a day and this child could be.......", we all know the pitch.
The pictures are compelling. And the plight is real, all to real.
OK, we immunize them. They no longer are killed or maimed by childhood disease. What then? They are mouths to feed. They need land to farm. Where does this land come from? Well, from the natural expansion of their home territories. And the method of agriculture is 'slash and burn'. Why? Because that is the only method that they know and the they don't have the education or equipment to practice modern farming techniques.
So, we educate them. Introduce them to new ideas and a modern world. Some may not want to be farmers anymore. They are now educated and have higher aspirations for themselves. But there are no jobs available. Because of the political instability of their country, neither IBM or General Motors is going to build a plant there. And even if there is political stability, there is no infrastructure to support a major industry.
They are now healthy and educated. But they are idle and disillusioned. All of the promises of their childhood, their dreams and goals have evaporated before their very eyes. They become angry, angry at their government, angry at their teachers, and angry at the developed world that seemed to promise them so much, but delivered nothing that they could see.
The mere sympathetic injection of the vaccines for those childhood diseases (and don't get me wrong, it was the humane thing to do) caused a population explosion that neither the governement, nor the environment was prepared to deal with.
That small injection caused an ecological catastrophe, and fomented revolution.
The environmentalist in the developed world are telling them that they shouldn't farm (in other words, eat). The economical activists are telling them that unemployment is better than working for below industrialized countries wages, even though their country is so poor, or the regime in power so jaded, that there is no safety net. So once again they are faced with starvation. Inother words, the activists that innoculated them are now telling them that they are not to use their countries resources, natural or labor, to better themselves. That they are not to be allowed an evolutionary path to industrualized status. They are expected to burst full blown on the scene. And that my friends is NOT going to happen.
There is a group that thinks that the industrialized nations 'owe' these countries and peoples an international welfare stipend. These stipends are targeted to the governments of these countries. The self same governments whose leaders raped their national treasuries for their own benefit. Only a fool would think that it would not happen again.
(As an aside, there was a move on during the Viet Nam conflict to buy the native farmers tractors. Improve their agricultural efficiency. Good idea, until it was pointed out that their were no refining facilities, or distribution means for the diesel fuel. As soon as the tank ran dry, the tractor would sit and rust. We won't even begin to discuss the technology required for the tires and repair.)
So, the choices are few. We can take over their countries and dictate their behavior, or we can let them evolve into first world nations.
The bottom line is that well intentioned actions, no matter how humane the act, have unintended consequences that ripple far beyond the narrowly focused goal.
Beware what you ask for, you just might get it.
Ishmael
Most are argued from an emotional standpoint and in their singularity, as if each issue is a 'stand-alone' entity, divorced from any other consideration.
The 'greens' want to stop the depletion of the rain forest and extraction of fossil fuels. The 'it's for the children crowd' want to stop child labor and cure all childhood disease. The 'anti-globalists' want to disband all multi-national entities (although they want to use the UN to do it?????????
).Let's take a simple idea and develope it.
We've all seen the commercials hosted by Sally Struthers and Katherine Hepburn showing the impoverished children of the third world. The one making the plea "only $.50 a day and this child could be.......", we all know the pitch.
The pictures are compelling. And the plight is real, all to real.
OK, we immunize them. They no longer are killed or maimed by childhood disease. What then? They are mouths to feed. They need land to farm. Where does this land come from? Well, from the natural expansion of their home territories. And the method of agriculture is 'slash and burn'. Why? Because that is the only method that they know and the they don't have the education or equipment to practice modern farming techniques.
So, we educate them. Introduce them to new ideas and a modern world. Some may not want to be farmers anymore. They are now educated and have higher aspirations for themselves. But there are no jobs available. Because of the political instability of their country, neither IBM or General Motors is going to build a plant there. And even if there is political stability, there is no infrastructure to support a major industry.
They are now healthy and educated. But they are idle and disillusioned. All of the promises of their childhood, their dreams and goals have evaporated before their very eyes. They become angry, angry at their government, angry at their teachers, and angry at the developed world that seemed to promise them so much, but delivered nothing that they could see.
The mere sympathetic injection of the vaccines for those childhood diseases (and don't get me wrong, it was the humane thing to do) caused a population explosion that neither the governement, nor the environment was prepared to deal with.
That small injection caused an ecological catastrophe, and fomented revolution.
The environmentalist in the developed world are telling them that they shouldn't farm (in other words, eat). The economical activists are telling them that unemployment is better than working for below industrialized countries wages, even though their country is so poor, or the regime in power so jaded, that there is no safety net. So once again they are faced with starvation. Inother words, the activists that innoculated them are now telling them that they are not to use their countries resources, natural or labor, to better themselves. That they are not to be allowed an evolutionary path to industrualized status. They are expected to burst full blown on the scene. And that my friends is NOT going to happen.
There is a group that thinks that the industrialized nations 'owe' these countries and peoples an international welfare stipend. These stipends are targeted to the governments of these countries. The self same governments whose leaders raped their national treasuries for their own benefit. Only a fool would think that it would not happen again.
(As an aside, there was a move on during the Viet Nam conflict to buy the native farmers tractors. Improve their agricultural efficiency. Good idea, until it was pointed out that their were no refining facilities, or distribution means for the diesel fuel. As soon as the tank ran dry, the tractor would sit and rust. We won't even begin to discuss the technology required for the tires and repair.)
So, the choices are few. We can take over their countries and dictate their behavior, or we can let them evolve into first world nations.
The bottom line is that well intentioned actions, no matter how humane the act, have unintended consequences that ripple far beyond the narrowly focused goal.
Beware what you ask for, you just might get it.
Ishmael
