pvp@ihuxl.UUCP (01/24/84)
>OK, Mr. Polli (if I spelled it right), since you insist on bringing >up the word Christianity, etc, consider this: > "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" >(Yes, I know it's a far-fetched paraphrase, but... >I also don't dispute your good intentions.) Is this quotation one of your basic moral and ethical principles? What profound words to live by! Right up there with "An idle mind is the devil's workshop" and "It will make you go blind". >Certainly it feels good for you to attack someone who argues that we >shouldn't feed all the world's starving. At least you understand what you're saying. > Certainly it must be comforting to >accuse someone of not being a Christian, since you know that manuver >will bring you the sympathy of most of middle America. I didn't accuse you of not being a Christian, I said that I hoped you weren't one. Because you argue that we should let starving people die (for their own good, of course). A distinctly un-Christian position. Apparently, though, I have managed to insult some other religions by implying that you might be of some other faith. They don't want you either. Are there any atheists out there that support letting starving people die? > Certainly >you feel good trying to drag someone down. Now, consider for a minute: >Who ARE you to judge? <sorry, your deliberate reference to religion >has me seeing red, blue, black, and green, all at once> You presented an argument for the desireability of letting starving people die while the U.S. stockpiles food. I have every right to judge the asininity of that argument, and make my opinion known. I had hoped that your original article was written in jest (a la Swift's "Modest Proposal" ) but apparently you are serious. Have you ever read Swifts' essay? You would probably find a wealth of ideas for your philosophy. E.g. as long as all those children are going to starve anyway, why not put them to good use? How about a chain of McRenner's Restaurants, serving the world famous "Third World Burger"? >Have YOU considered ALL the problems inherent in your own "solution"? I don't recall offering a solution to the problem of worldwide hunger. I did point out that I believe your "Final Solution" of letting people starve to death until they practice birth control is morally repugnant. The real solution probably does not include the deliberate starvation of large numbers of people. >What was said was EXACTLY true. If a population with no way of >reducing it's birth rate is fed more, it will expand. Let's say >we DO send all the food we have to spare, OK? So, what happens? > . > . >Not only will everyone who would have died die, people who >would NOT have died will die, and some who would not have >come into existance will die. The preceding argument (which I haven't reproduced in full) establishes that a growing population requires more & more food to sustain itself. So what else is new? The conclusion is that if we feed starving people, they will just have more babies, and more people will starve later. The hidden assumption here is that the people that you feed today will be either unwilling or unable to free themselves from their dependancy upon the free food. Haven't I heard this argument somewhere before? Oh yes, I remember. If you give people welfare, they'll never bother to go out and get a job to support themselves. So if you really want to help those poor people, you just have to cut out their welfare benefits to force them to go out and get a job. I understand your argument, I just happen to find it morally reprehensible. I consider people who use it right up there with Hitler, Amin, and Stalin. (Didn't Stalin use the same argument when he starved several million peasants?) To allow people to starve while you have the ability to feed them is evil. Withholding food from the starving today because you might not be able to feed them tomorrow is abominable. >Is that what you wish to do? Kill even MORE people? >Grow people just so that they can die? >(I do understand the pain involved in seeing someone >starve. Unfortunately, the world is not a painless place.) I understand the pain you must feel when you see pictures of someone starving. Perhaps you should write to the news media and complain about the pain those pictures cause you. You might suggest that they not print them, so you don't feel all that pain. ( I know that the above comment is rather sarcastic, but if you read Mr. Renners statement you will find in it no mention at all of the pain the starving person feels. And he doesn't appear at all cognizant of the moral responsibility that the wealthy and fortunate have towards the poor and unfortunate. I suggest that he read the story of Lazarus and the rich man, and reflect on where the rich man ended up.) >I must say that IF there were a chance at bringing about self-sufficiency >before we ran out of surplus then the idea would have merit, and in fact >would be compelling. However, the problems involved in bringing about self- >sufficiency are NOT solvable in 2-5 years, or even in 20. <That's >another story, and influenced greatly by religious and political beliefs.> So based on this masterful economic analysis, Mr. Renner, you soothe your conscience. Such brilliant logic, such economy of words! You KNOW that the rest of the world can't become self-sufficient, so why bother feeding them? You don't owe them anything after all. Too bad if they didn't have the good sense to be born in a self-sufficient country. And then you trumpet this self-deluding drivel to the world, and wonder why people in other countries hate you. If you want to see an ugly American, Mr. Renner, just find a mirror. >I must also say that I find the method and tone of argument that >you use to be completely offensive. The vituperitive (sp?) attitude >that you display and the gratuitous references to Christianity that you >make seem deliberately calculated to cause emotional knee-jerking >rather than calm thought. Such behavior in a time of crisis >is more than thoughtless. >Good day! (Now that you've ruined mine, sir!) You realize, of course, that I intended to be offensive and ruin your day. I'm glad to see that you have enough of a conscience left to have it ruined. As for the reference to Christianity, it was made because feeding the hungry is a moral imperative, not an action taken directly from self-interest. ( Unless, of course, you are concerned that the starving people may take from you by force that which you will not give freely. ) Since Christianity is the faith which I understand better than others, and it is most likely that you, as a U.S. citizen, profess to be one, I submit that your rationalizations are a direct denial of the basic teachings of Christ. He did not say to feed the hungry only when the economics are right. He did not say to do unto others as you would have them do unto you, but not if you think it isn't in their long-term self-interest to do so. Would you want to starve to death while food rots in a granary because somebody decided your country has too many people? ( I know that most other religions would also find Mr. Renners philosophy execrable and monstrous, so you don't have to write me and tell me that. However, if your religion supports starving millions of people, please write and tell me. Always interested in learning something new. ) Phil Polli ihuxl!pvp
jj@rabbit.UUCP (01/25/84)
OK. Here goes. <Afterburners on full, fuel on full, oxidixer on full> GODDAMNIT Polli! Renner didn't write the article you just flamed him out for, I did. At least rave at the right a*****e, will you? Look, Mr. Polli, while it may all be simple to you, I happen to think that it's reprehensible to bring more people into the world for the express purpose of starving them. You don't seem to care. Ever heard of something called the "future"? No? Didn't think so, you certainly don't want to plan for it. While you are at it, where the HELL do you get off claiming that I don't feel any responsiblity for world hunger? I'm the one who wants to look for a LASTING solution, not you. You're the one who doesn't want to either look at the consequences of his own actions or be responsible for them. If you want to work toward solving the problem of world hunger, first learn something about it. Then, after learning a little about the problem, start to change the social, religious, and economic systems that are causing hunger in the first place. When you succeed in that, let me know. When you have enough responsiblity to stop simplifying your solutions to things that look good emotionally, but don't have any basis in reality, come back and bother us. If you really WANT to help those people, why don't you start to push for more EDUCATIONAL and SOCIAL aid to such countries, instead of more food, without any other help? That's what this country can do. <And what it should, but is not, courtesy of people who feel like you.> (Oh yes. I like your snide comments about simple philosphies. Do you enjoy breaking your own ten commandments? <If this seems like a non-sequeter (sp) to you, then you clearly don't.> Look at them someday, will you?) Give up, Polli. You aren't reading the articles other people are writing (after all, you would have seen the signature if you DID read it), and you don't understand the little that you see when you skim them for ammunition. All you do is deliberately, dishonestly, and maliciously take other people out of context so that you can slander them and vent your own emotions. Have you ever seriously considered why you do that? Really? Why don't you. <Still judging, I see...> And---Yes. I know you are out to spread unhappiness. You want to make everyone as unhappy as you are. (Did you claim to be Christian yourself? Just wondered. ) As far as I'm concerned, you're not a person to be seriously considered, and from now I'm not going to consider you seriously. I have work to do. -- TEDDY BEARS ARE PEOPLE, TOO! (allegra,harpo,ulysses)!rabbit!jj
renner@uiucdcs.UUCP (01/28/84)
#R:ihuxl:-85800:uiucdcs:29200065:000:1575
uiucdcs!renner Jan 27 10:46:00 1984
I just finished reading Phil Polli's latest "contribution" to the discussion
on the "joys of starvation." He flames *me* for something that rabbit!jj
wrote! Amazing. I would like to bash his brains out. Not in anger, for I
feel none. Not in anger, but merely to *see*. That is all. [1]
I have already responded to all of the points, such as they are, in Polli's
previous article. This new one contains only one thing new, a reference to
Stalin, starvation, and the Ukraine. Stalin *took* food from the farmers
and exported it. (This is the only instance I have found of mass starvation
when there was sufficient food; it occured under a system where the
government decided who "needed" food.)[2] Obviously, Polli's analogy doesn't
hold up.
On to a different topic. Some people have written in favor of food shipments
to impoverished countries in times of disaster, not as a general, continuing
policy. I think this is an excellent idea, but it is important to remember
that it will not *solve* anything. Many places grow enough food on the
average, but don't know how to store extra food from the good years in order
to eat during the bad years. To solve this problem, we need to teach them
ways to store food and to keep rats from eating it. Sending food may be
emotionally satisfying, but if we do nothing else, we only perpetuate the
problem.
Scott Renner
{ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!renner
------------------------------------------------
[1] Mark Twain wrote this, of course. Wish I had thought of it myself.
[2] David Freedman, The Machinery of Freedom.amigo2@ihuxq.UUCP (John Hobson) (01/30/84)
Another example of food being exported from a country where there was wide-spread starvation was Ireland in the great potato famine of the 1840s. There was a blight that destroyed potatoes, which was the principal food of the people, and much of the wheat that was grown in Ireland (not enough to feed the vast majority of the starving people) was exported to England and the continent of Europe. There were also debates in Parliament on the "Corn Laws" (to most Europeans, unlike Americans, "corn" means wheat, not maize), which were protectionist tarriffs on the importation of grain into the British Isles. Amazingly, many of the English argricultural interests said "We don't give a damn about the starving Irish, just keep our prices up." John Hobson AT&T Bell Labs Naperville, IL (312) 979-7293 ihnp4!ihuxq!amigo2
andree@uokvax.UUCP (01/31/84)
#R:ihuxl:-85800:uokvax:5000067:000:1416 uokvax!andree Jan 29 14:45:00 1984 Mr. Polli displays an attitude that seems to be very popular, and truly scares me. He seems to think that those who have have an obligation to those who don't have to share equally. I think this comes from trying to extend "all men are created equall" to "all men will be equal, whether they like it or not." This leads to silliness like social security, welfare, and affirmative action. When somebody comes to me and says "You're better off than I am, so you'll have to give up something so we can be as good as you are" (that's not far from what Mr. Polli is saying), my response tends to be both loud and offensive. If, on the other hand, someone comes to me and says "You're better off than we are. Could you help us get to be as well off as you are?" my response is to help them. Unfortunately, the third world countries tend to take the first attitude. They want those countries in the old and new worlds who have worked their way up to a good standard of living to GIVE them that same standard of living on a silver platter. In some cases, if it isn't given, it's taken - or as much of it as is withen easy reach. Admittedly, the developed countries don't treat the third world well. But I haven't heard anybody asking for payment for damages - just wanting to be given the twentieth century on a platter. Of course, the don't want any americans around to interfere with things afterwards, either. <mike
grunwald@uiuccsb.UUCP (02/01/84)
#R:ihuxl:-85800:uiuccsb:11000092:000:3507 uiuccsb!grunwald Jan 30 22:37:00 1984 /***** uiuccsb:net.politics / uokvax!andree / 2:45 pm Jan 29, 1984 */ ...[text omitted]... Unfortunately, the third world countries tend to take the first attitude. They want those countries in the old and new worlds who have worked their way up to a good standard of living to GIVE them that same standard of living on a silver platter. In some cases, if it isn't given, it's taken - or as much of it as is withen easy reach. ...[text omitted]... <mike Your attitude is commendable to a certain extent. While it clearly does not further the cause of developing countries to become dependent client states of the developed nations, it does benifit them when they recieve help to build a sustained economy. Unfortunetly, you deny that they have a legitimate claim against the technological resources that the developed nations have. Most of the developed nations of the world owe their development to the subjugation of the currently less developed nations. Our [developed countries, not just U.S. -- Britin, Netherlands, France, etc] past intervention in the affairs of third world countries belies the attitude that we have nothing but their best interests at heart. History is repleat with examples, ranging from the countries of Africa to the banana-republics of Southern and Central America, not to mention the Asian hemisphere. We have consistently used our force to deplete these regions of useful resources and "maintain order" while we sat back and condoned the organized plunder. As an example of this, consider the instance where the U.S. supported a U.S. mercenary in his pursuit to carve out a nitch in Nicguragua. We supplied him with troops and markets. He ruled N. for five years. The U.S. ambitions during the time were to beat the British in building a Canal across Central America. This has been the key reason that the U.S. has been involved in the Nicguragian politics in the last 125 years. After the Panama Canel was completed, companies had sunk capital into the country and did not wish to pull out. Even our classically liberal Presidents have supported such intervention. "He [Anastasio Somoza] is a son-of-a-bitch, but he's ours" -- Franklin D. Roservelt. If one is to adopt the attitude that all actions in the past are of no concern to the actions and responsibilities of the present, then fine, many people can accept that. However, such actions still continue, and to support them, or to idly sit by as they are enforced, is acquiescence to the deeds and implicates your attitude about past actions as so much bushwa. The instances I am thinking is the Law of the Sea treaty on nodule mining, as well as intervention in Chad, Nicguragua, El Salvador, Afghanistan, Namimbia, Lebenon and Grenada by the worlds powers. Do these people have a claim? I dunno, but I think that they have a legitmate reason for being wary of the aid that is occasionally offered them. Often times, the aid programs are corrupted in some manner. Sometimes, as in the case of Nestles infant formula, this might be instigated (either knowingly or not) by a company, and other times (government corruption leading to the selling of donated foodstuffs) the result of the recipient countries own problems. It is definitly a difficult question to answer, but to state that you don't like their snotty attitude demonstrates a certain arrogance towards an economy supported by arms and a lead in the technological fields. Oh well, I'm getting too long winded. Bye.
andree@uokvax.UUCP (02/04/84)
#R:ihuxl:-85800:uokvax:5000071:000:579 uokvax!andree Feb 1 11:56:00 1984 /***** uokvax:net.politics / uiuccsb!grunwald / 10:37 pm Jan 30, 1984 */ It is definitly a difficult question to answer, but to state that you don't like their snotty attitude demonstrates a certain arrogance towards an economy supported by arms and a lead in the technological fields. Oh well, I'm getting too long winded. Bye. /* ---------- */ True. But my attitude reminds me of the British about 1750 or so. As a matter of fact, much of what america does today reminds me of the british empire. I expect similar results. This is somewhat related to evolution. <mike
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (02/08/84)
==============
When somebody comes to me and says "You're better off than I am, so
you'll have to give up something so we can be as good as you are"
(that's not far from what Mr. Polli is saying), my response tends
to be both loud and offensive. If, on the other hand, someone comes
to me and says "You're better off than we are. Could you help us get
to be as well off as you are?" my response is to help them.
Unfortunately, the third world countries tend to take the first attitude.
They want those countries in the old and new worlds who have worked their
way up to a good standard of living to GIVE them that same standard
of living on a silver platter. In some cases, if it isn't given, it's
taken - or as much of it as is withen easy reach.
==============
I don't think you have it quite right. The reason for helping the poor
(countries of people) isn't that they have a right to what you have, but
that by helping them, you BOTH have more than before.
If you look at the Brandt Commission report, you will see that the most
crucial thing for the economic health of the developed countries is the
improvement of the economic health of the Third World. If we don't
augment our aid, in terms of food (for healthy brains in children and
adults), of capital (for development of appropriate industry), of
education (for future development), then WE are in for trouble. The trouble
won't come from them, but from the collapse of our own internal economies.
What we are talking about is enlightened selfishness versus unenlightened
selfishness, not about altruism or the idea that all are entitled to
an equal share.
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt