I don’t think that refusing to give aid is a form of eugenics.
That was in response to the post directly above it:
This famine is not a surprise to anyone. For approximately three years we have know it was coming, and for the past 11 months we have pretty much known the exact date.
Food, of course, is not exactly a rare thing in this world and all the Chinese gee-gaws in my closet attest to the fact that it’s not prohibitively hard to get things from one place to another. So if the food is around and we know the famine is coming, why did this even happen? There was no reason for it at all. If we knew Wisconsin was going to run out of food on December 14th, 2013, we’d make damn sure that we had some plan for Wisconsin.
The “why” is complicated and involves everything from Libya to the US’s fight against radical Islam. There is a lot going on. Yes, there are warlords. But warlords are not cartoon-style villains. Warlords are the natural and inevitable result of a weak government. When a government cannot control its borders, it needs warlords to maintain some kind of order. There is no other option. People are not just going to happily police themselves in friendly anarchy-ville. A weak central government will, of necessity, contract out their services to regional warlords, who (lacking the legitimacy of a central government) basically only have the forces of ethnic affiliation or violence to maintain order with. If you want to get rid of warlords, don’t blame the farmers. Blame whatever forces it is that keep the central government from being able to effectively manage their territory.
Pirates are another complicated story. Piracy in Somalia is in part an effect of the fact that the traditional livelihood of boatmen and coastal people- fishing- has been decimated by illegal trawling and toxic waste dumping (including radioactive waste.) This isn’t an excuse for piracy. But there are reasons why coastal Somalia has piracy and coastal Maine does not. And these reasons are entirely economic.
As for birth rates- two things reduce birth rates. These are female literacy and job creation. Moralizing, on the other hand, has never decreased birth rates. The raw truth is that for the very poor, having large families brings in more income than it costs. It makes a lot of economic sense to have larger families. They are labor for your business and your retirement account. Telling people to cut back on children is like telling them to blow their savings on hooks and blow and pull out money from their IRA. It’s counterproductive.
If people have jobs and education for these jobs, they will have fewer children. It costs nothing to raise a farm-kid, but a lot to raise a city kid. A farm rewards many children. A salaried job rewards few children. Economic growth is the only way to address this. It’s a little chicken-and-egg, but there isn’t much you can do about that.
About aid. Yes, aid is complicated and often has bad unintended consequences. Aid organizations and workers are well aware of that. I am an international development grad student, and our classes are complex, debate filled, and pretty honest about the full implications of what we are doing. All aid comes with an agenda. Usually, that agenda is something good for us. Anyway, the point is that “Ooooooh aid can do harm” isn’t exactly a mind-blowing thought. Very smart people are analyzing the lesson’s we’ve learned in the short 60 years that development aid has really been a thing. We haven’t figured everything out yet, but the field is learning and changing and responding to all of this. What we did in the 80s or 90s or 2000’s is not what we are doing today.
As for “why help,” realize these are real people. Their situation is not hopeless- imagine if Chinese people had all killed themselves in the 1960s when they were eating bark off trees and fighting in the streets. Now, they are happily shopping at Baby Gap. We have everything we need- resources, expertise, technology- for everyone on earth to live a pretty decent life. There is no reason why we can’t get there in our lifetimes. Somalia has a future. It will be long and hard to get there, but it’s far from hopeless.
Anyway, don’t give up on someone’s life because of a bad year. All of those people in refugee camps are not moaning over their horrible lives. They are thinking stuff like “Oh man, I really miss my boyfriend, I can’t wait for this shit to be over,” and “It’s my birthday today. Too bad I’m in a shitty refugee camp, hahhah. Some birthday this is!” and “OMG Amadou just said his first word. And it’s ‘daddy,’ figures. He likes his dad better anyway.” They are just normal people. They want to get back to their lives. It’s not their fault this stupid thing happened for no reason. Let’s get as many of them as we can back on track.
Actually, sending in massive amounts of food sets up places like Somalia for even worse disasters.
First, it lowers the local price of food-so local farmers stop growing (it makes no sense to produce when food is free).
Second: it encourages the movement of people to the cities-where their only prospect is to live on donated food. Local markets suffer (because food is now “free”)
Third: it allows the population to increase, which worsens the initial situation.
Somalia is a failed country…but who wants to police it? The people are violent and addicted to warfare.
Finally, much of the donated food is stolen, and sold-which feeds the arms merchants.
A self-purpetuating cycle.
So the donated food is stolen and sold, but somehow still provided to the populace for free, thus bringing down the price of food and ruining farmers? Just checking.
Please clarify. I am reading your question why should you care since their people don’t as a statement of you should care when their people do. like if they’re people don’t care, then you shouldn’t either. You don’t care and you are asking why should you? Do you want to care? Do you feel remorseful for not caring? If noone cares about a specific person then you shouldn’t care either?
In all honesty I don’t know why I do care but I do. When people are starving, I do care. it does bother me that people are starving. Why? Cause they are starving. It is not a pleasant sensation. Other people’s pain bothers me.
Caring doesn’t mean you have to give money. I don’t have infinite funds so I have to limit who gets my charity but that doesn’t change the fact that I do care. Have you ever seen a starving child? Are you honestly telling me you don’t have to care if the kids parents dont?
How does sending food aid allow the population to increase? Are Somalis some sort of gremlin?
Right. Today they’re only starving, but tomorrow, they might starve and spontaneously combust! :rolleyes:
Re: the OP, Danny Elfman, is that you?
I hate to agree with some of the points of the naysayers, but ‘feeding’ Somalia right now isn’t going to do anything for the long term. It is true that when people live, they are more likely to reproduce and thus aid in the population explosion. It doesn’t mean that Somalians don’t have reproductive rights.
My very liberal former professor wrote this on my facebook:
to which I replied:
My bolded statement seems to be what people struggle with when it comes to foreign aid.
As the even huffpo noted a few months ago, food aid is subject to theft.
To me, the question is not if we should help, but if we can actually do anything to help. With modern technology, there is no reason why a country can’t plan for and respond to a famine. But in a ‘lawless’ one, I suppose it’s not on the priority list.
Starving to death is a very painful and terrible thing. Is it possible to have other African countries send this food aid with subsidized monies from richer governments? Donno if that’s been done before, but I feel like I’d rather see another African country (especially one with actual governments that are trying to provide for their people) contribute this food and get paid for it instead of the UN using its own food program, but I suppose that’s just not how things are done.
The person who said that food can hurt the local market isn’t exactly wrong. I mean, when Europe sent over food to Haiti, the government finally asked them to slow it down. In a country where there is no food to be had or no way to transport it, I think that sending in food is totally appropriate - provided it can get to its intended recipients.
Honestly, I feel like short of sending troops into Somalia (not gonna happen) there isn’t much we can really do to help people.
Oh, well I meant to suggest that. If you’re going to provide aid it needs to be on the basis that birth rates will be stabilized.
Why would using another African country to distribute aid be any different than any other country doing so?
Nigeria and South Africa are sending significant aid. Nigeria, especially, contributes heavily around the continent. Additionally, most large donors contract the majority of actual aid delivery to fully local NGOs, and big-name field offices usually use local staff with a couple of foreign managers at best. Africans play key roles in all of this.
Except in acute famine, we generally don’t ship food in from America. This was an old-school method that was mostly about American farm subsidies than helping anyone. Today, the gold standard is sourcing locally produced food, ideally through the country’s government (thus building government capacity and sustainability) and pairing that with long term agriculture and infrastructure (roads are especially important to food security) investments.
Again, people will have less children when it becomes economically advantageous for them- which is generally when they stop being sustainance farmers and start having jobs that require education and childcare. This is how it worked in the US and every darn country on the planet from Japan to Peru. Somalia is probably not different.
I agree. I’d also recommend The Bottom Billion as another book which deconstructs why aid often doesn’t work and what we should be putting more focus on.
I might have an issue with this, depending on your precise meaning.
It seems to me there’s been a trend of late of suggesting that africa is poor because its people are prone to corruption. It seems a common perspective on the dope.
There’s certainly a correlation between poverty and corruption, and not just in africa.
But I think the cause and effect run the opposite way: poverty and hopelessness breeds corruption. Very poor countries that try to tackle corruption first tend to get little economic benefit from doing so, and it tends to permeate back in time.
Corruption comes from weak governments that need to rely on alliances and handing out favors to hold things together and keep their elites from overthrowing them. Why are so many African governments weak?
There are any number of reasons, both economic and historical. One thing to remember is that at independence in the 1960s, many African countries had only a handful of college graduates and almost none of them were versed in governance or public administration. This was not that long ago- where do you think American would be if Kennedy was a high school-drop out? Added to that is the various cold-war alliances that propped up incompetent leaders.
Anyway, there are structural reasons for corruption. It’s not like African are just somehow uniquely greedy and craven people. There are plenty of people who are just as corrupt in the US, but for various reason their corruption doesn’t (usually) have a structure to thrive in. Corruption is a structural symptom, not a character flaw.
even sven I agree with much of what you’ve said.
But I’m not sure you agree with what I’ve said.
There is a strong correlation between corruption and poverty. And it applies worldwide; it’s not uniquely an african thing.
As home to many of the world’s poorest countries we’d expect africa to host some of the lowest corruption indices.
But which way does the causal relationship go? Most formal studies say the relationship is bidirectional.
And I’d go with that. I was just trying to emphasize the poverty -> corruption route, as it’s a common meme at the moment that “Africans are poor because they’re all crooks”.
It is a bit painful when there’s not even a little acknowledgment that some Americans might not be quite so helpful when faced with similar conditions. Like the ones who were so giving after 9/11 (perhaps the difference is the US has the resources to catch them – well, after a decade, at least).
And that’s just 9/11. There are the everyday scams, too. Rapists and cops that rape the women who come to them for help (often after being assaulted). Children going hungry. People who ignore the poverty or distress of their neighbors. People who prey on the homeless, displaced and new immigrants. And, of course, people who tell women to have as many children as possible and who want to ban birth control and reproductive freedom, at home and abroad in whichever African countries will let them in and take a donation.
But luckily, there is balance. Good messages and people. But to believe that they were born good, or chose to be good, and that it’s got nothing to do with education or resources (enough food, access to media and the internet, etc.) is just ludicrous. (Not that this isn’t a complex subject and people shouldn’t be skeptical about donating to charity – any time, any place.)
I’m certainly not saying people are born good.
In fact I was arguing the very opposite in a recent thread.
My posts in this thread have purely been arguing against the position that africa is poor because its people are corrupt. Worldwide there is a strong correlation between poverty and corruption. And not just developing countries: rich countries that fall on hard times usually witness an increase in corruption.
This is not to excuse it or suggest we do nothing about it.