Thoughts on helping third world countries?

Question

just thought id brainstorm some ideas i got out of my philosophy class todaaayyy..

i read this article that this guy Garrin Hardin wrote about suffering and feeding/ helping out third world countries.

when i first started readin it. i was thinking..d**n. this guy is an inconsiderate son of a *****.

but then again, when i finished. it COMEPLTLY changed my perspective on humanity. no lie.

it makes sense..why continue to help them when all were doing is allowing them to take a step each day. these people live in absolute poverty. day to day, minute to minutee...they begin to depend on the help. now he isnt saying its THEIR fault or our fault but why add to it? were helping them to survive and populate and prolong the suffering.

is it better to have 1,000 starving people or 10,000?

we cant even take care of the issues we have going on in our own society.

suppoerting them..causes limited resources.

and he gives an example of a lifeboat. and the more people you continue to put on the lifeboat (thinking your saving them) the faster it sinks.

so i began to think about people in america and homeless behavior. and acts of kindness and i realized..its like a girl having a kid at 15..she cnt have a kid because 1, shes too young and too she cant support it.

so how are we? as a whole country, who are going through economic struggles and domestic isssues, suppose to help and support another entire society?

and me, i have always wanted to join the peace corporation because i wanted to help out those third war countries. but what am i gonna do? obviously every little bit helps. i bet uve heard the saying " give a man a fish and feed him for a day, show him how to fish and he can feed himself forever.

"

instead of giving giving giving we should help them produce their own sources and stop babying them. WE could teach them to be SELF SUFFICIENT.

Answer 1

It sounds like you are referring to ecologist Garrett Hardin.  He is best known for writing  "The Tragedy of the Commons".

The article you read sounds like his 1974 essay, "Living on a Lifeboat"  (linked below) which discusses rich v. poor nations.

There are many ways of helping nations become more self-sufficient.  For example, long-term investment in education, or small loans that help individuals start their own businesses (micro-loans).

Answer 2

Third world countries are like bums on the streets of society.  They need help. We were created and commanded to help them, but they use the money we give to help them for their own self destruction. The best way to help a bum is to not help him at all.  By not giving him money, you're not feeding his appetite for drugs and self destruction.

Most third world countries are such because they're corrupt.  Some of the poorest countries in the world have the greatest wealth, but it's in the hands of a select few who use that country's riches for their own personal gain.  By sending them money (and other forms of aid) all we do is make the ruler of that country richer at the expense of it's citizens.

The best way to help people is to help them physically, not monetarily. We go there in person and help dig irrigation ditches and show them how to grow their own food, not throw money at them.  Money does them no good. They don't have a use for it where they live.

Answer 3

As someone who has lived and worked in the developing world for over a decade, I'll see if I can address some of the myths in this 'philosophy':

First, the 'moral imperative' many people feel is based on empathy and humanitarian principles. Basically this means that we accept that all peoples are human, have the same desires and wishes and that it is only a matter of luck and circumstance that differentiates us. When we start talking of 'them' and 'us', we start thinking the same way as the national socialists in 1930s Germany... bit scary.

"Us" = all of humanity. If we don't help others, whether they be in New Orleans or New Caledonia, who will help us in our time of need?

"Then they came for me — and by that time no one was left to speak up" [1]

The next sentence advocates genocide by neglect - again, contrary to basic humanitarian principles and, incidentally, contrary to interntional law. Just 60 years ago, people were executed for these policies.

Now, as for the capability of the western world (no, it's not just you although America seems to think that they are the only ones giving) to help these people:

The aim of nearly all aid is to promote self-sufficiency and human dignity. The adage of teaching a man to fish underlies practically all non-emergency aid; Neither the recipients nor the donors are interested in creating donor dependency. However, drip-feeding people just to keep them going one day at a time is not going to do it. What is needed are two things:

1) A massive, one-time [2] influx of aid that is not tied to the donor's financial (e.g. "you must buy GM cars with this") or moral (e.g. "you cannot promote condom use") objectives

2) A global system that doesn't punish developing nations [3]. Far from "babying them", the EU, the US and other developed nations are actually kicking them. There is no "babying"going on at all! Many international agreements, the capitalist system of multinational companies and even, to a degree, the insistence on democracy first is actually prevent developing nations from developing and becoming self-sufficient.

Finally, you ask how will your country, going through economic struggles [4] can help.

#1 - no one is asking you to "support another entire society" (see above).

#2 - if the US had used the Iraq war money on aid instead of bombs, much of the worlds suffering could already have been alleviated to the point where large swathes would have started down the road of self sufficiency already!

#3 - the Western world benefits from keeping these countries poor (where do you think all those cheap appliances/clothes/shoes etc come from? why is it cheaper to fly flowers from Kenya than grow them here? where does a lot of very toxic waste/old ships get shipped to?). If these people died out (and let's be clear - this would be the world's worst genocide and mass murder ever), then the West would lose a massive source of cheap labour and goods. The West hasto pay one way or another:

Perpetuating the existing system requires aid (your "giving giving giving ");

Genocide will stop access to cheap goods and services

Allowing them to become self-sufficient will also stop access to cheap goods and services

So, yes, I agree, "we should help them produce their own [re]sources" but we need to do that

At the end of the day, I say to myself, "If that was my sister who had been raped, if that was my father who had been shot, my uncle being tortured or my daughter dying of thirst, wouldn't I want someone to help them?"

Any philosophy that is devoid of basic humanity is not worth the paper it was printed on.

[1] “In Germany they first came for the Communists,

and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews,

and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists,

and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics,

and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me —

and by that time no one was left to speak up.”

-Pastor Martin Niemoller

[2] Massive in quantity but not massive when seen in perspective - perhaps 0.5% to 1% of GDP - less than what many nations have already promised, but failed, to give

[3] Global trade and other agreements are designed more to maintain the status quo of developed nations on top and the populations of the developing world poor and struggling. For example, the USA gives 10 times as much in subsidies to its cotton farmers as it does aid to Western Africa. Now, why does Western Africa need aid (it didn't only a couple of hundred years ago - quite self-sufficient). Well, one of its principal industries was cotton production. That has collapsed due to the US subsidies - Western practices often undermine self-sufficiency and then we complain that they are lazy and unproductive!

[4] I have difficulty comparing American "struggle" ($4/gallon gas) with developing world "struggle" (walking miles and miles risking rape or murder to collect firewood to cook a meagre meal of porridge once a day)

Answer 4

read Three cups of tea... it sounds kind of silly. but it's one of the best books I've read. It's about how one man changes 3rd world countries throughout the middle east... It's recent to soooo it's not like some old stuff that you won't connect to.. and it will give you some ideas on how to help :)

Answer 5

Give a man a fish...he eats for a day

Teach a man to fish...he'll eat forever

I have 2 major objections

  1- Like you said- as long as we provide- will they ever be able to provide for themselves

  2- Why does America have to feed everyone in the world? Why don't we take care of our own first? Katrina victims,

people living on OUR streets, those who have nothing to eat - right here in good ol America?

Answer 6

excuse me but think back to when it all started who started it all off in the first place?????? the white man. white man came in and thought the black man was barbaric and needed to be civilised. so he went about chanign all that they know. if white man had of left the black man alone he would be fine but the white man has come in and distroyed everything the black man has taught his children so they become dependant on the white man. you cant ignore what you have broken. its like domesticating a bird and then putting it back in the wild they die with in days.

we broke it we need to fix it. they didnt ask for us to come tell them how to live. we need to build them up like a child to the point they can stand on thier own like above teach them not give them.