Going against nature. — Totseans

Going against nature.

chippychippy <b style="color:pink;">Global Moderator</b>
edited January 2012 in Spurious Generalities
Charities for natural disasters, ok. And childrens charities, yeah. But help the aged? Isn't that going against the natural selection process. Same with feeding the starving and curing the diseased. Surely it was natural selection and survival of the fittest that was keeping our population under control.

Anyone want to discuss? hehe

Comments

  • SlartibartfastSlartibartfast Global Moderator -__-
    edited January 2012
    A big problem with giving the improvised food aide is that they start to rely on it and simply stop trying to grow their own crops. Often they grow opium or an inedible industry fibre that gives them higher returns.

    It's apparently a big problem in Africa. Charities are trying to find a solution for it.
  • chippychippy <b style="color:pink;">Global Moderator</b>
    edited January 2012
    Maybe this is a way charities can act in favour of natural selection. Provide food aid till they are reliant on it, then stop.
  • dr rockerdr rocker Regular
    edited January 2012
    Charity, whilst a noble gesture is very often the cause of more problems than it solves. Some incongruity exists between disasters being 'good' to donate to and famine being 'bad' to donate to, when in a lot of cases, the latter is caused by the former, or has it as its main contributing factor.

    Let us consider the 1983-1985 famine in Ethiopia. Whilst the major factor in the famine was nigh on 20 years of civil war, failure of the state and marxist policies, the cause of the famine was fed to the West as being drought - the famine was actually underway before the drought came. Enter Bob Geldof and his self self righteous mates, thinking they knew best. They began to (literally) beat the drum about the situation in order to raise charitable donations to feed the starving.

    Rather short sightedly, sending so much free food to a country that economy based on agriculture meant that farmers in the regions where crops could still be grown faced a real problem - how could they possible sell these crops when Geldof and his mates were giving food away for free? When a farmer cannot sell their crops, they cannot buy seed or fertiliser for the next season and so cannot farm. They cannot afford irrigation projects and so the land becomes a dry, uncultivated barren wasteland that will take years to get back into good heart to grow further crops.

    Meaning food given as charity destroys agriculture reinforcing the nations dependency on food aid.

    Famine is a natural cycle in man as much as it is in the populations of nature; the cycle is seen in all animals - in years of plenty, reproduction is high. The population reaches a certain level and an event means it can no longer be sustained and as such you get famine, war, disease and weakened populations more at risk of plagues.

    Charity should get herself a horse and ride with the other four in search of the apocalypse. Maybe the white horse has been misinterpreted and in actual fact she rides that.

    Charity as I see it is only a remedy to the sick and needy in society, not a sick and weak society itself which it is more often than not used for. A crux to maintain the lives of the many whilst giving them the feeling that it is in fact some kind of penance for allowing society to be as it is. Better that all are free to earn and not constrained by doctrines of ill thinkers - when a man is free, he will truly see and respect the deserving.
  • Darth BeaverDarth Beaver Meine Ehre heißt Treue
    edited January 2012
    Charity starts at home.
  • dr rockerdr rocker Regular
    edited January 2012
    Charity starts at home.

    So do journeys into the unknown ;)
Sign In or Register to comment.