Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Oct 2003
- Posts
- 16,966
- Location
- Chengdu
Children dying in other countries is not our responsibility, we shouldn't urinate away much needed cash to give them a couple more years on Earth.
PM Makes Promise To Vaccinate World's Poor
- Thread starter G-MAN2004
- Start date
"Sorry lads, can't rescue you from that burning building, the goverment cut our ladder and fire engine budget, because Nguan in some backwater crap hole has got a sniffle and our governments footing the bill for him to recover, while his government is squandering millions living in opulence, and spunking away all their money buying the latest Russian and Chinese military technology, or advancing their space program to a level higher than the combined European space program. I'm afraid you'll just have to burn to death, bye"
Even with the spending cuts I'm happy that our country is willing to help those less fortunate. I do have a problem with where this money is being spent though. Like others have said these countries need anything else but more mouths to feed. They need proper governance, infrastructure, education and means to support themselves. These things won't happen just by throwing money at the problem. The road to hell is paved with good intentions :/
Permabanned
- Joined
- 10 Dec 2008
- Posts
- 4,080
- Location
- London
You can vaccinate a child for maybe 30p
They will go on and be more productive to the world, increasing the worlds GDP, more than 30p .. essentially meaning our standard of life rises due to them being alive.
Letting people die to save 30p is short sighted.
They will go on and be more productive to the world, increasing the worlds GDP, more than 30p .. essentially meaning our standard of life rises due to them being alive.
Letting people die to save 30p is short sighted.
Dont see why we need to try and look after everyones else poor children when can barely do it at home. Simple fact is we need people to die if everyone lived to a ripe old age we would have famines and water shortages so we need diseases to kill children. Sorry if not everyone agrees but thats my cold hearted opinion.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 10 Dec 2008
- Posts
- 4,080
- Location
- London
Surely it would be a lot better if we killed older people? After all, they've served their purpose and society has had it's use off them. Why not start with the 60+ year olds if you want people dead so badly? They also cost a lot more than 30p to keep alive ..
Permabanned
- Joined
- 10 Dec 2008
- Posts
- 4,080
- Location
- London
Because it costs 30p each to save them -- and they produce more than 30p worth of goods within their lifetimes even after they've eaten etc.
If they produce, their countries become more self sufficient. And, guess what, that kid you saved, in 20 years, is going to be able to sell you bananas at 15p cheaper than you currently buy them. So again you win.
It's a global economy. Global GDP affects everyone.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 10 Dec 2008
- Posts
- 4,080
- Location
- London
Yes true should inact logans run type population management, but i was just stating children as the original post was about the worlds poorest children
I'd like us to make a proper attempt to colonise other planets or live on whopping spaceships before I'd go down the 'let's start letting each other die' route.
This might be the kid in me though .. that fancies the idea of whopping spaceships!
wont see this is your lifetime :/ nearest earth like planet is about 6 light years away, thats 80,000 years at voyager (our fastest spacecraft yet) speed