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: 4
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Welshy77
 


Yes I am for real, are you? The only resource we really need is food. Food can be foraged and hunted, we do not need mass scale production farms which rape the land to feed us. We dont need satellites that can read number plates, we need food and water. We could go down the zeitgeist road and have technology do everything for us but it would lead to unfulfilling lives.

Have you ever gone out and caught food for yourself or foraged plants? It is a hugely satisfying experience and one which should be cherished. Not dismissed as a primitive and animalistic thing to do, now I know thatg is not what you afre saying, but it is the view of humanity.




posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dionisius
reply to post by akushla99
 


Granted, and I appreciate the post.

What I mean is that to live a sustainable life off of the land without harming Nature or hunting too many animals, we would have to split off into much smaller groups, learn essential survival skills and find a piece of land that can support the whole group. This is not possible with 7 billion people on this earth, after we have destroyed millions of acres of what was, habitable land, through industrialisation and deforestation.

Simple as that.


Cheers...
The issue, at its most basic, I reckon, is the intelligence to get off 'bloated fundaments', get away from time wasting activities that do nothing to solve these issues on a small scale (and ultimately working UP)...and...just...fricking...do something to help...

I know many are, and this will turn a tide at some point...

All strength to the DO-ers!

Akushla

edit on 5-1-2012 by akushla99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Dionisius
 


No i have not foraged for myself, i do not need to.. my whole point is that no-one needs to be in a position of poverty!! Have you ever looked into the definition of money or the ultimate source? I am forever grateful for the position that i was born. If your thread doesn't come to the conclusion that 27'000 children die every day because the majority of us live in a flawed system, then there is truly little hope left... In my first post on this thread i mentioned 'GENOCIDE' google the term 'useless eaters' and ' the global 2000' then come back to me and talk about resources, and reproduction.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 07:11 PM
link   
"27,000 children die every day"

This is no big shocker. Would you be horrified to find that 27,000 adults die every day? 154,138 people die every single day, and we are supposed to be horrified about the loss of 27,000 from one age group? Oh, I get it. It's because of the children.

I'm sick of "children" being used to make people feel bad. If this post read "27,000 elderly people die every day", nobody would give a damn. You put "children" in there and suddenly you have millions of people all crying because they feel then need to be upset.

"Think of the children. Oh the poor children. They're so young! Send money."
edit on 1/5/2012 by Adyta because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 07:55 PM
link   
I know why the kids are dying
Ethiopia Buys Arms as Millions Starve
by Thomas C. Mountain
July 8, 2011

Ethiopia is on another arms buying spree as millions of Ethiopians starve due to the worst drought in 60 years. According to Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, Ethiopia is purchasing 200 battle tanks from Ukraine for over $100 million. Was it a coincidence that the day before Meles’ announcement, the British foreign aid office announced a $60 million “emergency food aid donation” to Ethiopia?

Why, you might be excused for asking, does Ethiopia need 200 tanks? There isn’t any realistic chance of any of Ethiopia’s neighbors invading Ethiopia, considering Ethiopia already has the largest and best equipped army in Africa.

One of the primary reasons Ethiopia needs 200 tanks is to conduct its counterinsurgency campaigns against the ethnically based armed uprisings slowly engulfing much of the country. From the Ogaden in the southeast, to Tigray in the north, to Gambella in the west, and now it is reported, even spreading to much of Oromia in the southwest, the Ethiopian regime needs to be able to crush its own people and the latest installment of armor is long overdue. It is already 11 years since Ethiopia invaded Eritrea and in the process lost its best armored divisions, including at least 2 in one day-long disaster called the Battle of Tsorona.

You know that the red cross world vision and most other aid agencys are fronts for other organisations. They are not just about helping the needy.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Dionisius
 


Some of you folks make me sick. How dare you declare less fortunate nations "welfare states." The very resources that go to make your IPOD's,cell phones/plasma tv's etc...are the same resources not being shared with the people.

Foreign aid costs a lot of money. The war lords certainly exploit resources of aid but without any of that aid thousands more would die. It's not like the farmers of the third world aren't trying. The third world farmers who want to live a traditional agricultural life can't do it because American companies are pricing them off the market.

It's absolutely racist to assume that those in poor nations are welfare grabbers. They simply do not have any other choice. I'm willing to wager if we could take all the poorest nations and swap lifestyle for a single year that the majority of Americans would weep and say "okay...okay I'll start to share now"



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dionisius
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


More children than that die each year in the U.S. alone. Here 40 million babies die per year. Moloch is loving all the baby sacrifices each year. Keep sacrificing those innocent babies to Moloch for prosperity america, he is loving it.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 08:20 PM
link   
I haven't read the whole thread so don't know if this is posted already BUT:
What if the money raised via charities and through other countries government aid donations was used to implement a mass contraceptive drive. For example, the Implanon implant lasts 3yrs I believe. So if every adult female was given this implant then for the next 3yrs we know the population will NOT increase dramatically and give everyone a chance to get on track with moving forward. Carry it on for a year or 2 of giving every woman turning 18 the implant and it will help improve the situation. It is not as harsh as sterilization and will enable them to go back to having kids after the 3yrs if they choose, although once they see the benefits they may decide to have a new implant. OR, they may have built up their life in that time to a standard able to cope with raising children in a healthier environment.

It IS just an idea and there are probably many many problems that will now be highlighted by my fellow ats'ers but hey, I'm just thinking out loud....



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Dionisius
 


you might want to consider the population impact of those 9.8M children / year surviving and repoducing



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Dionisius
 


actually - we do need intensive agriculture to support our current population hunter gather lifestyles only work for tiny populations with vast land areas

very dew countries could support thier current population on a hunter gatherer basis



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 12:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Dionisius
 


Because there is 7 BILLION people on the planet...that is more than rats....and I think more than 27,000 rats die each day. There is 350,000 births per day so we are well ahead.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 12:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Dionisius
 


It's sad. The problem is that alot of these countries are ruled by warlords who use food and medicines (and that inlcudes foreign aid food stocks) to control the population and to supply their armies. It's very frustrating for those trying to help. In somalia in the early 90 people were starving while TPTB in that country had warehouses full of food stocks.

The western politicians allow for too much diplomacy. In fact when the Australian UN obligation was coming to an end in Somalia the CIC of the Australian airforce contingent went against the directive of our politicians and orderd an air drop of food stocks from Hercs to the population., Well the ones who happened to be in the area of the drop. He was that frustrated at the food and medicines not reaching the people.
edit on 6-1-2012 by steveknows because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 12:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Dionisius
 


We need less people.....



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dionisius
reply to post by Welshy77
 


Yes I am for real, are you? The only resource we really need is food. Food can be foraged and hunted, we do not need mass scale production farms which rape the land to feed us. We dont need satellites that can read number plates, we need food and water. We could go down the zeitgeist road and have technology do everything for us but it would lead to unfulfilling lives.

Have you ever gone out and caught food for yourself or foraged plants? It is a hugely satisfying experience and one which should be cherished. Not dismissed as a primitive and animalistic thing to do, now I know thatg is not what you afre saying, but it is the view of humanity.


The world could not support the population it has with hunter gathering. In fact the very reason there are so many people in the world is because we learned to farm and domesticate cattle. We would never had reached this level of population just on being hunter gatherers.

Also we would never have reached the level of technology and we couldn't maintain the lifestyle we have with out the amount of people that are in the world today give or take a few million.

It's not just food availablilty and wealth which drives technology and lifestyle but also demand. You might not realise this but in order for you to to have a job, house, car and go shopping etc it has actually taken the work of thousands of people in order for you to do that and each one of those thousands need thousands. So for millions all over the planet to do it it takes millions in order for it to be done. So 7 billion is about the amount of people needed in the world to maintain our level of technology and lifestyle give or take a few million. Ask any social scientist.

If we went and broke into small groups now billions would starve as there's not enough wild foods avialable. Which leads to something else. If the world turn to crap tomorrow through a meteor strike or such. I responsible action of the authorities would be to make sure that all gates of all cattle station in the world are left open so that the cattle have a chance to survive which gives us a chance.
edit on 6-1-2012 by steveknows because: Typo



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dionisius
What I mean is that to live a sustainable life off of the land without harming Nature or hunting too many animals, we would have to split off into much smaller groups, learn essential survival skills and find a piece of land that can support the whole group.


Even if it was possible (and there are some places on Earth where this could be done) how long will it be before the group next door sees your successful group after they have found their group is not doing so well, and they decide it will be easier to take what is yours?

Do you really think everyone is equal enough to leave the others alone in peace?

It is a sad commentary on the Human race, but left to their own devices MOST humans would resort to brutal savagery very quickly. You only need to look as far as New Orleans after Katrina to see the truth of it, where people were stealing plasma TV's in a flooded town, stealing food from old people also stranded, shooting rescuers and where the cops turned criminal. 120 officers were charged.

edit on 6-1-2012 by zorgon because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Welshy77
No i have not foraged for myself, i do not need to..


Correct, you don't need to, nor do you have the skills to do so, because you are dependent on the system you are knocking


Have you ever looked into the definition of money or the ultimate source?


There is no money in the USA.. Money is Debt. The banks create money by creating debt. ou really ought to research that


If your thread doesn't come to the conclusion that 27'000 children die every day because the majority of us live in a flawed system, then there is truly little hope left...

Well the system is flawed, but as long as those living in the areas where there IS currently poverty and other bad conditions continue to bring kids into that world, nothing will change. We cannot force them to not breed, we can only show them the folly. Why would any rational human being want to bring a child into the world in an area where you KNOW it will have nothing but pain and suffering and likely die of starvation before its 5 years old?

Where is the logic?



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 01:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by RightWingAvenger It's not like the farmers of the third world aren't trying. The third world farmers who want to live a traditional agricultural life can't do it because American companies are pricing them off the market.


Traditional farming in some of those countries strips the land. Modern farming techniques work for a reason, they rotate crops and leave fields fallow so they don't deplete the soil. If those third world farmers are not willing to understand that, it IS their fault for being stubborn and clinging to old ways that do not work for the numbers that they now need to feed.

If you don't understand this, you are a fool



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dionisius
Have you ever gone out and caught food for yourself or foraged plants? It is a hugely satisfying experience and one which should be cherished. Not dismissed as a primitive and animalistic thing to do, now I know thatg is not what you afre saying, but it is the view of humanity.


Yes I have and our group teaches skills like that. In fact at a ranch near Ontario California we hunted a pig with crossbow, killed and dressed it and my vassals served the roast beast at our feast. It was a glorious beast





Food can be foraged and hunted, we do not need mass scale production farms which rape the land to feed us.


THAT is no longer true. There are far to many people in even a small city to be able to support hunting and foraging. Here in Las Vegas for example... we live in a desert. Sure there are prickly pears, gourds, melons and yucca root out in the desert that the natives lived on, but if 4 million people suddenly had to go out and forage that supply would be gone in one season. Do you know how long it would take the desert to recover from that and grew new food? Decades. What will the people eat during that time?

Water. Lake Mead has been dropping in level for years...Why? Because the global warming we are going through (and its NOT caused by man) is making less rain and snow in the mountains that feed the lake.

Look at the white line... that is the level it used to be



The San Joaquin Valley, California where most of the foods are grown in the Western USA that feed millions... that massive farming needs water. As the foods absorb water and are shipped out of state to feed those millions in the cities, the water table in San Joaquin Valley is dropping. This is causing the land to sink...

This is how far it has sunk. It won't be much longer before it sinks below sea level and the ocean floods all that farm land



There is NO WAY that 7 billion people even if they could be taught the skills needed to survive and become hunter gathers, could ever return to that lifestyle.




edit on 6-1-2012 by zorgon because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 02:17 AM
link   
What about the millions of adults that also die from unsanitary conditions?
Or are we just focussing on the children because it's more shocking and more unfair?

EDIT: I would be interested to see the Governmental aid figures, if there are any? Or do these children have to rely on the donations of citizens of every other country but their own?
I don't donate, and I don't feel bad for it. I can just about afford to feed my own family, let alone some kid that I don't know and will never set eyes on.
edit on 6-1-2012 by Lulzaroonie because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 02:20 AM
link   
Very simply because the whole world is F'd up. Id like to point to one or a couple things but to be honest we pretty much have it ALL wrong. Look for it to get much worse before it gets any better.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join