quote:
There are many actions that would help (debt relief, aggricultural assistnace, etc), unfortunately most of these take time to have a possitive effect and aren't always going to do any long term good.
Ummm, you lost me. You said they take time to have a positive effect, but they aren't going to do long term good? Am I missing something?
quote:
This is, unfortunately true, but until the countries in question are able larely support themselves then the only other alternative is letting the people starve. Unless you would rather kill them outright and at least save them the suffering.
I'm not really suggesting anything, just thinking out loud. This is an evolution/creation debate board, so the ecological idea that populations outgrow the food supply, die off, recoup now that the food supply is better, etc., seems to apply to this one.
I attach some significance to human life, and I'm not really satisfied to leave humans to the whims of nature. However, just trying to increase the food supply, and doing nothing else, is only increasing the starvation, so we're not doing any short term or long term good. It seems like something different than just sending food has to be done.
It was Daniel Quinn's point, not mine, but it seems an awful good one.