A puzzling question
I came across this question a few days ago... And I want to run it by one of the most diverse communities I know (SpanishDict).
It said..
"There are two ways to approach world suffering.
Help the people now, give everyone a fighting chance. But this just means that their children will continue to suffer. And if you help their children, their grandchildren will also still be suffering. And don't say "Let's just help everyone", for every year we make more food to feed the hungry, but every year the hungry are still there.
Leave the people alone. Yes, they will die, but that would mean the end of the suffering there. If they didn't, they may be better off for they would not be used to depending on the aid, they'll be better at keeping themselves alive."
4 Answers
An old Chinese proverb says....
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.
And I must add...then leave him alone and he'll survive.
Here's a quote from a book I read a while ago.
"They hate the destruction of their economies through the American-controlled International Monetary Fund and World Bank. Before any money is loaned, a country must agree to a long list of changes to their economy. For instance, they must eliminate subsidies for domestic agriculture, eliminate tariffs on imports, sell state industries to the highest bidder, cut public spending and crush independent labor unions. To take one example, eliminating tariffs on agricultural imports will cause the country to be flooded with cheaper (usually American) agricultural products, driving local farmers out of business, and forcing them to the already overcrowded cities in search of work."
P.S. Add the EU to the cart.
My father used to say, " There are worse ways to die than war." Some people are meant to help some aren't. Below is a picture of a lady who gave up her life of wealth to live in a Mexican prison. Almost more passion than I can fathom.
The fact that people die of starvation every second in third world countries makes me sad because I know that governments could feed them if they wanted to. Keeping those people like that gives them power and that is all people want: control and power.
There is a system where governements raise prices of food by hording huge amounts in storage so that there is less of it on the market. Imagine instead of hiding it for their own greed they gave it to 3rd world countries. pfff
I have to say I completeety agree with the principle in the saying about the fishing rod that SpanishPal quoted;
''Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime''.
My views on short term aid::
It is right that we do respond to international disasters like floods, and mine explosions. etc... However, we should balance that by also expecting the government of the country affected by the disaster to do eerything in its power to help its own people. International aid should seek to work alongside and supplement not become a substitute for the governement's unwillingness to help its own people!
We could spend years sending short term help to some poor African countries and only end up helping them to become dependent on us. While the often corrupt and rich leaders stand idly by think it has nothing to do with them.
My views on long term aid
Yes, applying the principle of the fishing rod
We can help by sending technical experts, such as bulders, engineers, carpenters, farmers, plumbers etc... to train up their own local people to become builders, engineers etc and show them how to build, wells, dams, etc...They can then train up others We can show them how to build roads, Electricity power stations. We must not do these things for them but show them how to become more self-sufficient. within their own nation.
