kechkayl@ecn-ee.UUCP (02/03/84)
#R:mprvaxa:-45300:ecn-ee:13400002:000:2905 ecn-ee!kechkayl Feb 3 04:00:00 1984 I have a few disagreements with your article. To be aware of the starvation and anguish in the third world and not work hard towards some long-term solution is indeed short-sighted. Such a solution must be rooted in education, democracy, economic reform, and where necessary, revolution. Fine, so far. To be aware of this situation and refuse to contribute from stockpiles of subsidized agricultural goods to alleviate it in the short term is short-sighted, evil, and corrupt. Short-sighted because, among other things, the survivors will certainly not forget your refusal. I was listening to an OXFAM worker once who was working 80-hour weeks trying to mobilize a shipment of food for famine relief in East Africa. She noted bitterly that if she was asking for a million units of IUD's rather than protein/vitamin supplements, they would be delivered the next day. Now, the birth control technology is a necessary and vital part of the solution. But to refuse the food now is totally indefensible, and if the Christians are right, you will most assuredly burn in Hell for it (but then, so will I, for other reasons...). Mr. Polli is right. Messrs. Renner and jj are wrong. They would be well advised to develop a more insightful and compassionate attitude towards their fellow men in less fortunate continents - if for no other reasons, to reduce the likelihood that their descendents will pay a price in blood for their corruption and evil today. Tim Bray ...decvax!microsoft!ubc-vision!mprvaxa!tbray /* ---------- */ ******* Hmm. . . . , EVIL and CORRUPT. I'll have to watch out for these two! I wonder what you would do if someone refused food to you. What if someone gave you food. You have children, because 'There's plenty of food, now'. Then, your benefactor stopped giving you food because there is only enough left for him. Would you let your children starve, and what would you think of the person who gave you the food?? If you increase the food supply in a non-developed country, the birth rate will rise. This is because having more children makes you more secure in your old age. Therefore, giving food to non-developed nations produces an inflated growth rate. Thus, when the population has doubled (for example, adjust it to fit your idea of how much food we can send) and then the food is cut off, enough people will die of starvation to reduce the population to the level of the food supply. Therefore, if you have x people, and they increase to 2x as a result of more food, when the food runs out, x people that otherwise would not have been born will starve to death, and the other x people will go back to living on the brink. In short, I like people, but I see no reason for someone to be born, only to starve to death shortly thereafter. Thomas Ruschak ecn-ee!kechkayl
tbray@mprvaxa.UUCP (Tim Bray) (02/07/84)
x <-- USENET insecticide Starvation is a very political issue, and belongs here, not in net.flame. To be aware of the starvation and anguish in the third world and not work hard towards some long-term solution is indeed short-sighted. Such a solution must be rooted in education, democracy, economic reform, and where necessary, revolution. To be aware of this situation and refuse to contribute from stockpiles of subsidized agricultural goods to alleviate it in the short term is short-sighted, evil, and corrupt. Short-sighted because, among other things, the survivors will certainly not forget your refusal. I was listening to an OXFAM worker once who was working 80-hour weeks trying to mobilize a shipment of food for famine relief in East Africa. She noted bitterly that if she was asking for a million units of IUD's rather than protein/vitamin supplements, they would be delivered the next day. Now, the birth control technology is a necessary and vital part of the solution. But to refuse the food now is totally indefensible, and if the Christians are right, you will most assuredly burn in Hell for it (but then, so will I, for other reasons...). Mr. Polli is right. Messrs. Renner and jj are wrong. They would be well advised to develop a more insightful and compassionate attitude towards their fellow men in less fortunate continents - if for no other reasons, to reduce the likelihood that their descendents will pay a price in blood for their corruption and evil today. Tim Bray ...decvax!microsoft!ubc-vision!mprvaxa!tbray