How should global poverty be tackled? (if at all)

[-:Undertaker:-]

Totally forgot to respond to this with my own views on tackling global poverty.

Firstly, I would agree with people who say we shouldn't just send absurd payment to corrupt governments overseas. However, I don't necessarily think foreign aid should merely be stopped - as when used correctly it can be a wonderful thing. I think the first thing is that grassroots development is generally a more successful approach from top-down development, as it is likely that it will be more sustainable in the long term.

Vaccinations are perhaps my key focus in fighting global poverty. People don't seem to understand the reasoning behind people have five, six, seven or even more children in many "third world" (sorry, can't say that anymore) countries. The sole reason, is that they accept at least some of their children will almost certainly die - and they therefore have more. Unfortunately, if this does not happen you end up with a very large family, and one that you cannot support. However, if vaccinations were paid for AND didn't get sold by corrupt officials, families would eventually not need to have more children, as they would be able to anticipate their children surviving. The evil pharmaceutical companies do not help - malaria, for example, COULD be solved - it was eradicated from the developed world years ago, but the money to pay for everything did not exist in Africa and Asia - leaving the disease to kill millions more people.

If you feel people in the third world should be vaccinated then I suggest you donate to charities that perform that kind of work rather than arguing for the state to force everybody else to pay for it when they might think of it as a fruitless gesture/not worth it (not suggest I think either, just saying).

Anyone can make a moral argumet for state aid, but i'd argue against it in all cases on the basis that it's forcing people to donate.

[AgnesIO]

If you feel people in the third world should be vaccinated then I suggest you donate to charities that perform that kind of work rather than arguing for the state to force everybody else to pay for it when they might think of it as a fruitless gesture/not worth it (not suggest I think either, just saying).

Anyone can make a moral argumet for state aid, but i'd argue against it in all cases on the basis that it's forcing people to donate.

All government spending is technically forcing people to spend money on things whether they want to or not - that is not unique to foreign aid.

[dbgtz]

Didn't Bill Gates get a thousand or so children some vaccines and they were crippled for life afterwards?

http://nsnbc.me/2013/05/08/bill-gate...ralysis-death/

47,500...

[AgnesIO]

Didn't Bill Gates get a thousand or so children some vaccines and they were crippled for life afterwards?

http://nsnbc.me/2013/05/08/bill-gate...ralysis-death/

47,500...

Let's look at far bigger numbers. 3,000,000 people are saved annually due to vaccines (WHO). Yet another 1,400,000 children under FIVE die annually from completely preventable diseases (as in diseases that have vaccines to save them).

Unfortunately, I am more knowledgeable in a disease that could be eradicated, but sadly isn't; malaria. During World War II, malaria killed MORE people in Italy than bombs; yet how many die in Italy from malaria annually now? Put money towards a vaccine, and you could potentially save 3,300,000,000 people from a fatal disease.

Apologies I cannot talk more about polio specifically, as it is not an area I have studied (although I will definitely look into this more). The only thing I can say is that if every child in India was to be vaccinated (which I believe would benefit 170,000,000 children in the country), you could be sure that it will never affect someone again. Obviously, I am not suggesting that is worth paralysing 47,500 children - but I certainly wouldn't give vaccines a bad name because of this case. I've had more vaccines than I can count, and I'm still walking.

[-:Undertaker:-]

All government spending is technically forcing people to spend money on things whether they want to or not - that is not unique to foreign aid.

Indeed, and that's why we need a lot less of it even in this country - let alone paying for the rest of the world.

African states wanted independence, now they have it - let them get on with it. They aren't short of minerals and rich resources so let them be independent for once and find a way out of it themselves without crippling the Britain, who they largely (and wrongly) blame for their mis-management anyway.

Keep our old and fragile here warm rather than sending money off to a country where unprotected sex and having twelve+ children is the norm. I'm all for helping these countries - sure - but provided it's not done via the heavily in debt British state using the money of the struggling British taxpayer.

There's an excellent quote on foreign aid/aid in geneeral I have heard before but I can't remember at the moment, but it basically says that rather than forcing other people to pay for your pet causes so you feel morally better when you go to bed at night, that if you really meant it and really cared you'd simply donate yourself or go over to these places and help.