It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why do 27,000 children die every single day?

page: 1
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 12:56 PM
link   
No its not a typo, yes you did read that right, thats approximately 9,855,000 children every year. Extreme Malnutrition is an underlying contributor to nearly half of these deaths. The majority of deaths are caused by diahhrea, pneumonia, malaria and neonatal conditions, all of which are easily treated when caught early with simple medication.

Now for the most shocking part, if it wasnt already shocking enough. All of these statistics are for under 5's, and 98% of these deaths from under 5's are confined to 42 countries, finally 4 million of these deaths are newborns in the first 4 weeks of life.

Source: Wikipedia

Aid destinations:

It is true that aid is rarely given for motives of pure altruism. However, it is important to look at where aid goes. For example, “only about one fifth of U.S. aid goes to countries classified by the OECD as ‘least developed.’” This “pro-rich” trend is not unique to the United States. According to Collier, “the middle income countries get aid because they are of much more commercial and political interest than the tiny markets and powerlessness of the bottom billion.” What this means is that, at the most basic level, aid is not targeting the most extreme poverty.

The form of aid must also be considered. The World Bank, until recently, issued only loans, meaning that the country must repay both the loan and the interest rates. In contrast, the European Commission issues grants, which countries need not worry about paying back. This means that “loans have been going to the poorest countries and the grants to the middle-income countries."

Furthermore, consider the breakdown, where aid goes and for what purposes. In 2002, total gross foreign aid to all developing countries was $76 billion. Dollars that do not contribute to a country’s ability to support basic needs interventions are subtracted. Subtract $6 billion for debt relief grants. Subtract $11 billion, which is the amount developing countries paid to developed nations in that year in the form of loan repayments. Next, subtract the aid given to middle income countries, $16 billion. The remainder, $43 billion, is the amount that developing countries received in 2002. But only $12 billion went to low-income countries ($15 billion for all developing countries) in a form that could be deemed budget support for basic needs.


To me this tells how foreign aid has had no positive effect on recieving countries, more so it is having a negative effect on these developing countries, keeping them in their state of need and poverty but thats just my uneducated opinion. What do the more educated members think as to why 27,000 children die every day?
edit on 5-1-2012 by Dionisius because: because i can




posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Dionisius
 


This just is very heart wrenching. I wonder...where does all the money (really go)...to help these children?



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Dionisius
 

You make an interesting correlation between aid and child/infant mortality statistics. I think I agree with that, too. Aid is like Welfare, to my thinking... The more we give, the less the nation receiving it needs to bust tail to find their own solutions within their own resources and options. After all, everyone knows America doesn't take BACK or cut things once instituted in a do-gooder way. So, why bother when next year brings another big check from Uncle regardless?

On mortality itself... Ugh.. Call me callous but it's a hard world we live in. 6.8 billion is the population I just saw..and every last one of them will die. The vast majority in the first few decades of life and more still before life has properly even started. Not much we can do....or, as you note, should we try, lest our good intentions pave the road to a hot place for those we'd seek to help.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Becouse fingers in outlets and umbrellas off of the roof are not good things to do.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Molech? It's the only thing I can think of other than our own complicity in enjoying our decadent lifestyle so much that we've refused to stay involved and educated.

Was it Ron Paul who recently said something to the effect that humanitarian aid mostly goes into the pockets of politicos and war lords?

Good question. OP of the Day so far.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Dionisius
 


Why? Because We are being kept constrained to an energy-scarce society dependent on money (which represents/accounts for meaningful energy expended) by a power elite who don't want to free the slaves They have by virtue of the money They have accumulated. They don't want to lose the power over Others They have in this system.

The science of electrogravitics was pulled into black ops over 50 years ago because of its overunity aspects. Abundant free energy would make money unnecessary. And They would lose Their social power if money was no longer needed.

For more, please read My thread here: www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by caladonea
 


I knew I forgot something.....hold on.........



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   
Its very sad but it has to be done in the system we live in. Over population and resources are a problem. They do not have to be, but we are stuck in a failed system.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 01:13 PM
link   
This looks promising:



As a result of these numerous criticisms, other proposals for supporting developing economies and poverty stricken societies. Some analysts, such as researchers at the Overseas Development Institute, argue that current support for the developing world suffers from a policy incoherence and that while some policies are designed to support the third world, other domestic policies undermine its impact, examples include:

encouraging developing economies to develop their agriculture with a focus on exports is not effective on a global market where key players, such as the US and EU, heavily subsidise their products
providing aid to developing economies' health sectors and the training of personnel is undermined by migration policies in developed countries that encourage the migration of skilled health professionals

One measure of this policy incoherence is the Commitment to Development Index (CDI) published by the Center for Global Development . The index measures and evaluates 22 of the world's richest countries on policies that affect developing countries, in addition to simply aid. It shows that development policy is more than just aid; it also takes into account trade, investment, migration, environment, security, and technology.

Thus, some states are beginning to go Beyond Aid and instead seek to ensure there is a policy coherence, for example see Common Agricultural Policy reform or Doha Development Round. This approach might see the nature of aid change from loans, debt cancellation, budget support etc., to supporting developing countries. This requires a strong political will, however, the results could potentially make aid far more effective and efficient.[


Source
edit on 5-1-2012 by Dionisius because: because i can



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 01:21 PM
link   
I'm glad you brought this topic to the table. Something that has always troubled me.
I was watching one of those commercials about giving aid to children. I saw a mother and her two sons who had
to pick from huge heaps of trash to pull out cans to sell everyday in order to live.
At times they would find scraps in those piles and make a stew to eat.

Is it really because their nations have a dependency on world aid that they don't bother to care for them?
Too lazy to improve their way of life, their well being?

IMO: If it is a factor at all, its a small one.

I think its more about the fast pace world we live in, all about self improvement (financially).
Too busy chasing that paper, all these other smaller nations and areas got left behind, and still do.
It isn't advancement for the human race, its every man/women/nation for themselves.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Sadly, this is a reality in parts of the world.

Poor people can't afford medical care, proper nutrition , birth control etc. yet they still have children.

Many of those children die.

It is very very sad.

If you saved the lives of all these children, it would just compound the problem for the next generation. You'd have even more death.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   
This happens because God is 'obviously' amazing, but unfortunately he decided it was their time....

edit on 5-1-2012 by Ozvaldo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by The GUT
 





"I need the dollar, dollar. The dollar is what i need" - Aloe Blac


Thankyou, glad you appreciate it.

Sad times we live in, what ever happened to the sense of community, pride in what we do and the deep set of instinctual morals.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by caladonea
reply to post by Dionisius
 


This just is very heart wrenching. I wonder...where does all the money (really go)...to help these children?


Honestly? Most of it goes back into the companies to keep them in business.... And they claim to be non-profit organizations. But they do keep a good deal of it to stay in business and of course into their own pockets.

Look into the salary and benefits of the CEO's and presidents of these charities.... You will find where all the money is going.
edit on 5-1-2012 by gimme_some_truth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


Its disgusting isnt it, did you know that IKEA is listed as a Charity? Apparently its due to their contributions made to unicef and Ewan Mc Gregor



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   
Why? Because people are breeding irresponsibly.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   
42 countries? How do you define genocide?... At a guess the majority of the deaths aren't caucasian.. Mainly on the African continent..



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   
If you can't feed yourself, don't have children.

If you have 1 child and have problems feeding that 1 child, don't have more.

There are areas of the world that people are just not meant in inhabit. The people in those areas should migrate. If they can't, that is just...uh...too bad.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by OWSisdead
 


True we are breeding at a ridicolously stupid and irresponsible rate, but it goes a whole lot deeper than that.

Its got more to do with money, power, secret societies and big business and all the # that goes along with these evils.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by WickettheRabbit
If you can't feed yourself, don't have children.

If you have 1 child and have problems feeding that 1 child, don't have more.

There are areas of the world that people are just not meant in inhabit. The people in those areas should migrate. If they can't, that is just...uh...too bad.


I find that a bit ignorant my friend.

What if they do not have access to contraception? never have sex?

Not true, there are places that are not meant to be inhabited by millions of people in confined space.

Wow, not much to say too that, migrate you say? where the # would they go? why should they be forced to leave their homes?



new topics

top topics



 
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join