Developing Countries: Birth Control?

I don't support wars, and think the U.S. is wrong in invading countries. But I think it equally wrong to be a filthy hypocrit. Really, it's the U.S.'s money, and if the people want it, they can either go by our rules, or starve to death. For some reason, people always want it both ways.Not that I'm attempting to justify either approach here, not at all. Just to say that it is the government's money, and they can spend it how they choose. Hell, I'd rather they would spend it on fixing the problems here at home! Oh? Well, I don't think that highly of my country plumetting into financial ruin faster than I think most people realize. And I don't think that such a country has any power to save the world. I think some people think so damn highly of America (particularly Americans) that they just don't realize that we AREN'T really wealthy and powerful enough to solve all the world's problems. Some problems we have to let the world solve for itself.

I will get to responding to your message in more depth after breakfast. But I can tell you one thing, anyone who equates the real world with strategy gaming is an idiot, and should perhaps pull themselves from the basement for at least one or two hours a day in order to see what's really happening.And, if you did go to all these developing nations, I don't see how you could be talking about these problems and how they are like a strategy game. And actually, stocking up is good, because then you have more to give away later. Financial growth, I believe, happens in a more exponential manner than linear.J0N

That's a slightly different situation. My thoughts are that by baby number 87, the parents realize that they can't feed them or themselves. They know that they can't make it very well, but they still keep having children because that's what they want to do. Have you seen how hard it is for me to change your mind, no matter what logic I muster? Or how hard it is for you to sway me based on the logic you are using? How are you going to sway someone from having kids if that's what they've got their heart set on? Your whole message has been that people should stop having kids. You've said that numerous times, in numerous ways. If you ask me to point it out again, I'm just going to tell you to fuck off. I can't belive you are advocating the picking up of hitchhikers. Man, you are a piss-poor role model! After all the things they teach you in school. Neither did the children born in wealthy developing countries consent either. Strange, you think someone WOULD consent to being born into such a lifestyle, unless, perhaps, could it be? Oh, yes, that's right, they are unborn, cannot consent and don't have a damn say in the matter!I don't really care what you do with your money, or with your potentially adopted infestisite, just don't stand there and preach that your way of doing things is the moral and right way. Some people work their ass off for their money and want to buy a nice car, and a nice house, and perhaps a winter coat or two. They can do that, and shouldn't feel any bit morally responsible for other people! You are laying some guilt trip on everyone else out there who doesn't feel the desire to spend their hard earned money on charity.And, to be honest, it sounds like you live a pretty unsatisfying, boring, pathetic life. But that's just my opinion based on some very limited facts.Oh, and I decided to forgo my breakfast this morning so that some hungry African kid could maybe get a meal for himself... NOT!J0N

Well, if you bothered to think about what I said, you'd realized that I wasn't comparing real life to strategy gaming. The point was that as much as I'd like to help, I can't do it alone. And it is silly to suggest that I can really save the world all by myself.

---

Place yourself on the map at http://www.frappr.com/evc

​

The thread about this map can be found here.

I'm not here to sway someone from having kids. I'm here to play on your conscience, but apparently you don't have one. So, you can't find any instance where I said people should stop having kids? If I've said it numerous times, shouldn't it be easy for you to point out at least one instance where I said this? With every good deed, there is a risk. I think sometimes the good that comes out of it outweighs the risk. Children in wealthy nations don't slowly starve and infested by 20 different parasites. And yes, they can't consent, which is the whole point. I belong to the old school of thought where the strong is suppose to help the weak, not ignore them. Once again, you demonstrate a complete lack of reading comprehension. After I wrote whole paragraphs how this isn't about morality, you can still come out and say such at thing. And if you bothered to read my posts without interjecting all your emotions in there, you'd realize that I said it was my personal decision and that it wasn't a moral question.But let's take a look at this for a minute. On one hand, we have people who seriously need help. In order to get them any hope, some will have to put a guilt trip on others. So, it's either starving children or just some 18 year old feeling a little tiny bit guilty for not helping. Once again, I really think the needs the starving children have outweighs your need to have a guilt-free conscience. No argument here. However, it would surprise you to know I used to party a lot in college. You know perfectly well that what you decide to do with your breakfast has no bearing on the people in other parts of the world. You're just being silly.

---

Place yourself on the map at http://www.frappr.com/evc

​

The thread about this map can be found here.

While I agree with your assessment, I'm not sure I see any other way China could have solved its population problem at the time while its government still maintained such a tight grip on everything.

---

Place yourself on the map at http://www.frappr.com/evc

​

The thread about this map can be found here.

Fuck off. If this is saying anything other than "you shouldn't breed," I don't see that alternative message. I don't feel guilty at all... if I did, I'd be giving up all my hard-earned money to help the starving babies. But I don't really care that much about what people in other countries want to do with their own lives, so I just say t'hell with them. The risk that you could be lying face-down in a ditch while some punk makes off to Mexico with your car seems to outweigh the cold teen who's only standing there because he was dumb enough to run from home in the first place. What was it, mommy said "no" to tatoo number 58? If it's not about morality, then what is it about? What is it that makes you care about the starving children. What is it that makes you think others should care? What makes you post things like this: From what I can see, it's entirely an issue of morality, on both sides. On my side, it's the morality of parents being able to do what they want without rich assholes sticking their noses into their business telling them not to breed. On your side, it's rich assholes sticking their noses into the business of parents telling them not to breed.J0N

quote:

---

ny Peace Corps alumni in the house?

---

Tanzania, 95-98; secondary school physics and mathematics.

---

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

To say that giving birth is taking away from the child's right to live is one of the most nonsensical things I've read here at EvC. Do you know how many nonsensical things get said around here? If you did, you'd realize just what it means to be at the top of the list.Now, I am one of the people out there who wants to live as long as possible. If it means the rest of my days are spent on machines, so be it. If it means the rest of my days are spent diseased and malnourished, so be it. Some people would rather be dead than diseased and malnourished or disfigured. I, on the other hand, think that any bit of life is precious.I am, right now, going to go so far as to applaud the parents who give birth to children despite the odds against their survival. Bravo. There are some children born in the United States who are diseased at birth, or who become diseased and die very young. Should these children not have been brought into the world? Should we think so lowly of the life of those who are ill to say that they would be better off dead/not born? That is a thought that disgusts me.Life, no matter how bad is better than non-life. It's better to give birth to a soul and to give that soul a chance at life, at breathing the air on Earth, seeing the sun rise, hearing the birds call, than to not give that child a chance, to not try with all your might to bring it into existance so that it may have the opportunity to enjoy a small amount of life. I am of the feeling that even a short and horrible amount of life, is better than no life at all, better than never having existed.If the world had it your way, what would happen? No one in developing countries would reproduce; they would have no more children. And, as they died off without successors, only you and your priviledged society would remain. Do you truly believe that life, as precious as it is, is something only reserved for the rich and priviledged?J0N

Is it? Do you begrudge the literally billions of years that elapsed where you could have been alive, but weren't?Or is all that time something that you don't really think about, and aren't all that concerned about not having experienced?

I couldn't 've been alive all that time, because I wasn't yet born. Now that I am born, I am much more pleased of it, despite my health problems. Anything else in your post was irrelivant to the topic of controlling birth numbers in developing countries.

You could have been, though. But clearly not being alive didn't bother you then. Doesn't even seem to bother you now - it's not being alive in the future that I imagine concerns you.All I'm saying is, just because one is not allowed to become alive right this very minute is not a very big deal. In fact there are trillions upon trillions of people who never become alive at all (many, many millions would have been your children), so non-life doesn't strike me as nearly as large a deal as you seem to be interested in making it.

i actually already answered this question, but everyone ignores the 300 foot ivory tower in the room.

I would like to read your paper that you wrote. It sounds like you have a reasonable way of solving the problem.The only thing that concerns me, is how to improve the well-being of people in the developing nations without adding additional strains on the world. Developed nations strain the world, and I wonder how much more the world could take of such lifestyles.J0N

I'm guessing you're referring to message 17. That's not a 300 foot ivory tower. That's just a 10 foot rock. But anyway, it makes sense.

---

Place yourself on the map at http://www.frappr.com/evc

​

The thread about this map can be found here.