Are "Third World" Regions Actually Starving?

a reply to: cooperton

The modernization of the world happened. The resources in these countries are being exploited, wealth is being generated, it's just not getting to the people of these nations. It's much deeper and more complicated then development or modernization. It's not like these people can just choose to live off the land - most arable areas are being exploited to support urban populations - our natural ecology is vastly different then it was 200 years ago.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Hehe, I like this response. Unfortunately you're barking up the wrong tree. You seem to have let your anger get the better of you & forgotten or missed the point of this entire thread. Hence, why even though your posts are knowledgeable, you're still wrong.

This wasn't a debate about poverty & wealth. It was a discussion over "3rd world countries" actually facing starvation. "3rd world" doesn't mean "poor", as I explained earlier in this thread. You jumped on the "anti-charity" comments & missed the original point.

As an example, Brazil is still considered a "3rd world country". Yet it has one of the world's best economies. This goes against the premise you seem to be arguing, because it's both wealthy & 3rd World. And it is the perfect example of a country that fits the thread title: a 3rd world country that isn't starving.

However, the shantytowns in Brazil are absolutely atrocious. On face value, this would seem to contradict the notion of Brazil being a wealthy nation, just like the examples I keep bringing up about America's poverty. But when you look at who makes up the majority of the people who are suffering from extreme poverty and malnourishment in Brazil, you'll see that it's the socially undesirable classes in Brazil that are suffering this extreme poverty! And that's the point I've been making since my 1st post in this thread. People have stereotypes of what makes a country "3rd world", so they can't see that the reality is different from their beliefs. And it's usually the war refugees and socially undesirable classes (aka lower castes, 2nd class citizens, unwanted minorities, etc) that make up the ones actually facing starvation.

You jumped in, got the wrong idea, and started attacking everyone, while missing the original point of the thread. Not only did I not deny poverty or extreme poverty, but I explicitly acknowledged it in several of my posts. But I also showed that extreme poverty exists everywhere. And that true to the thread title, most people in 3rd world countries aren't actually starving.

Also, stop assuming you're the only person who's done charity work or lived in a ghetto. It's making you appear even more superficial than your condescending posts. Don't they call that "humble bragging"? And I read your first post but did you read mine? If so, why ignore those points?

Yes, there is poverty in the US, and other first world nations but there is a MASSIVE difference between those in poverty in first world and third world countries. Most of the extreme poverty in first world nation is due to medical/mental/substance abuse problems. There are many who work, who don't have mental/medical/substance abuse problems, yet they live in complete abject poverty. Is it ok because they are considered socially undesirable? Is it ok because they're not all starving to death? Is it ok because they were born to a minority population? The flavelas of Brazil are a world away from the worst neighborhoods in Detroit/Camden/Baltimore/etc.

originally posted by: Syyth007
Yes, there is poverty in the US, and other first world nations but there is a MASSIVE difference between those in poverty in first world and third world countries. Most of the extreme poverty in first world nation is due to medical/mental/substance abuse problems. There are many who work, who don't have mental/medical/substance abuse problems, yet they live in complete abject poverty. Is it ok because they are considered socially undesirable? Is it ok because they're not all starving to death? Is it ok because they were born to a minority population? The flavelas of Brazil are a world away from the worst neighborhoods in Detroit/Camden/Baltimore/etc.

I already said that. I also said that I'm not disputing that there is extreme poverty. You seem to be making this into a virtual pissing contest over which country has it the worse when that's not even the argument I'm making. The argument is that 3rd world countries aren't the starving hellholes they're portrayed to be. And there's poverty and starvation everywhere. If the point was to make it a competition about poverty, I could do the opposite and use wealth. China, another country classified as "3rd World", has more than 5 times as many billionaires as Italy, a 1st world country. But that's not the point I've been making.

And no, I never said it was ok that people were socially unwanted. I'm a stigmatized minority as well. My very first post in this thread was pointing out why many of the types of charities mentioned in the OP are scams. I was pointing out how many of the people who actually needed the help (and thus, make up the bulk of the poverty stats) are only impoverished because governments don't care about their plights. Most of them are war refugees &/or socially unwanted classes.

In other words, these governments could alleviate their poverty if they wanted to, but they don't want to. That's why those people are poor, not because they just so happen to live in a 3rd world country. I used examples of the Roma/Romani in Europe & the "dalits"/"untouchables" to drive home that point. The poor in Brazil and the poor in America would also fit that description.

Maybe I just don't understand the point of the thread, then? There are isolated communities that ARE starving hellholes. Most of those situations are due to extreme political discourse and/or war, but does that discount their situation? Does the fact that most living in extreme poverty aren't starving to death excuse their living conditions? Because a third world nations government is colluded in their poverty discounts it? I'm not trying to create a pissing contest, but comparing those in poverty in the US to those in developing nations is laughable. There are luxuries the working poor forgo in those countries that our homeless enjoy. I'm not trying to discount the struggle of first world poor, it is a very tough situation, but it really isn't comparable to those in developing nations.

Oh yeah, and China has more billionaires then Italy, but China has kind of a population lead on Italy, like 59 million compared to 1.3 billion. Italy has a gdp of 36k, China has a gdp of 6.8k, an extremely bad example.

a reply to: cooperton
I have seen many starving, literally to death, children in third world countries. First hand. It is real and happens. Honestly though, I blame it on their parents. They could go somewhere where their is food and water......but they just sit there and starve and allow their children to do the same. I have never understood that. Walk until you find it or die trying. Don't just sit there. It baffles me. I don't mean to be callous but, DO SOMETHING for crying out loud. The greatest evil is inaction.

Finland, Switzerland, Sweden, Ireland, and Austria were non aligned countries after WW2. They chose not to participate in the NWO and were labeled third world countries as a result.

Poverty has many different causes, the drug addiction rates in many developed countries is staggering and a leading cause.

Phil Collins the famous UK singer wrote a song about it back in '89 for which he received a lot of flack for asking this question.
He has since denounced his NWO citizenship and moved to Switzerland. Maybe he was exposing the CIA coc aine cartel in the states?

This will probably the last time i will post in this thread,because i will end up getting banned for violating T&Cs(and i love ATS too much for that)
All I see in this thread is pure ignorance from people with no f***ing idea what the f***ing f*** they talking about.
-Some talking Nat Geo like I need BBC to tell me what I experienced myself
-Some talk about "oh why do they just sit there and let there kids starve","why dont they walk til they find something,or die trying"..You try to walk under a 120° with no water on sight or food and see how long you or your kids last
-Some talk about eating weeds,when THERE ARE NO WEED TO EAT...Like the starving people are selective of what they eat(rats,crickets,ephemeres,everything eatable will be eaten if there were any to eat)
-Some show the shiny nice cities in those countries...You think the gap between your rich and poor is huge?That is NOTHING,compare the disparity between the wealthy and poor in those countries
-Some play semantics about "3rd world and poor countries"....like it f***ing matter what they are called...
I have often walked miles just to try to get some water(mind you,from a well that have water maybe half the year on a good year);
-Some talk about food stamps receivers like they are starving people.Those $200+ on your food stamps,well guess what,most of those starving people will probably be able to feed their exended family for LIFE with those $200.

a reply to: wildapache
Wild....Don't assume you know what my life has been like. I have. I have been stuck in middle of a desert with no food or water in 120 degree weather for weeks. I did something about it. I made it. I would have tried 1000 times harder if children were involved. And YES, they may not have made it but at least I would have known I tried. I do agree with you on a few things though. Most people talk out their arff when it comes to this because they think not getting 3 squares a day is starving. It's ridiculous.

originally posted by: wildapache

-Some talk about eating weeds,when THERE ARE NO WEED TO EAT...Like the starving people are selective of what they eat

This was part of the point of me posting this thread, I wanted to learn first hand accounts of what the circumstance is. So these arid regions that have no foliage whatsoever, why did people move there in the first place? If drought occurred that was so drastic that no vegitation remained, wouldnt this cause a migration away from that area as described by "confusedabouteverything"? Please do not take this as insult, I am absolutely curious because I want to expand my knowledge of other areas of the world, but I am too poor to travel.

It's not like these people can just choose to live off the land - most arable areas are being exploited to support urban populations -

This is what I was trying to express to Quetzacoatl, whose holiness seems to have left this thread. Why should continued urban development be the planned resolution when that is part of the problem? I tried finding drinkable water streams in my hometown and realized the only drinkable water is in high-elevation streams, because anything farther down is polluted by factories or synthetic farm run-off. I was talking about this to one of my friends and they exclaimed "ew!", as if natural stream water is disgusting compared to the chemically-contaminated tap water we drink. "animals poop in there", she replied; THIS is the cultural delusion that baffles me.

I have a lot of belief in returning to our natural state if we are to avoid some sort of future widespread disaster. Unfortunately, it seems like more westernization is the way things are going

I completely agree that urbanization and industrialization are a leading cause of poverty - but, pandora's box has all ready been opened, there is no stuffing it back into the box - there is too much wealth to be generated by exploiting the resources of developing nations - There were native tribes that resisted progress, attempted to maintain traditional lifestyles, but soon found it impossible as the resources they depended upon to survive were consumed or diverted.

Our "global" society needs constant growth just to maintain itself, but the problem is we live on a very finite planet. At this point, if we were to shun industrialization, billions will die , but if we keep going as we are going, eventually, billions will die when growth is impossible, and the system is unable to maintain itself. There are no easy solutions. If we keep on our current track, we will need to expand off of our planet, somehow, or face extinction eventually. But that won't end poverty - we need to start caring more about life (not just human) and less about the inanimate objects around us, but that is still a very foreign concept to most people.

originally posted by: Syyth007
I completely agree that urbanization and industrialization are a leading cause of poverty - but, pandora's box has all ready been opened, there is no stuffing it back into the box - there is too much wealth to be generated by exploiting the resources of developing nations - There were native tribes that resisted progress, attempted to maintain traditional lifestyles, but soon found it impossible as the resources they depended upon to survive were consumed or diverted.

Our "global" society needs constant growth just to maintain itself, but the problem is we live on a very finite planet. At this point, if we were to shun industrialization, billions will die , but if we keep going as we are going, eventually, billions will die when growth is impossible, and the system is unable to maintain itself. There are no easy solutions. If we keep on our current track, we will need to expand off of our planet, somehow, or face extinction eventually. But that won't end poverty - we need to start caring more about life (not just human) and less about the inanimate objects around us, but that is still a very foreign concept to most people.

well said. I feel the same way, even calling the dilemma pandora's box. Surely no easy solution, but I think it is important to educate people on the harm of industrialization/"modernization". It's not like waterways pollute themselves. I'm really hoping for some revolutionary progress in clean renewable energy sometime soon, that would help a lot.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

So the question is, do you know the difference between being malnourished & needing food stamps?

The linked source charted 'deaths from malnutrition.' I think death from starvation is a pretty good indicator that one is malnourished. Have many Americans been starving to death on food stamps?

Finished reading the thread. Thoroughly disgusted by some of the views expressed.

Clearly there is no point trying to address an impenetrable amalgam of smugness, ignorance and selfishness.

But I shall remember their names.

originally posted by: Syyth007
Maybe I just don't understand the point of the thread, then? There are isolated communities that ARE starving hellholes. Most of those situations are due to extreme political discourse and/or war, but does that discount their situation? Does the fact that most living in extreme poverty aren't starving to death excuse their living conditions? Because a third world nations government is colluded in their poverty discounts it? I'm not trying to create a pissing contest, but comparing those in poverty in the US to those in developing nations is laughable. There are luxuries the working poor forgo in those countries that our homeless enjoy. I'm not trying to discount the struggle of first world poor, it is a very tough situation, but it really isn't comparable to those in developing nations.

Oh yeah, and China has more billionaires then Italy, but China has kind of a population lead on Italy, like 59 million compared to 1.3 billion. Italy has a gdp of 36k, China has a gdp of 6.8k, an extremely bad example.

Like I keep saying, I'm not disputing the existence of extreme poverty. And I didn't start the thread either, btw. But I saw the main point of the OP as pointing out how many charities plead for money to help "3rd world starvation" without showing the benefits of those donations, and that most people in those regions aren't starving in the first place.

I've also been showing that 3rd World doesn't even mean poor, which is a common misconception. So me pointing out the very existence of widespread wealth & economic success in those 3rd world regions proves that most of them are not starving. But as long as people keep linking "3rd world" to "extreme poverty", the misunderstanding will continue. That's why I mentioned the 3rd World countries Brazil & China, to show that being 3rd world isn't the same as "poverty stricken hellhole".

I also tried pointing out that most of the extreme poverty in any country, including 1st world countries, isn't because of location or overall economic conditions. It's because the populations affected by extreme poverty & starvation are usually war refugees & social classes that the majority of citizens reject.

The reason people keep misunderstanding this is because they apparently can't separate the concept of "3rd world" from the definition "extreme poverty", even though it doesn't mean that. So people keep reading the posts here as if they say "Are people in extremely poor regions really starving?", instead of "Are people in countries that didn't align with the 1st world and 2nd world during the Cold War really starving?". At least, that's been the point I've been arguing.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: enlightenedservant

So the question is, do you know the difference between being malnourished & needing food stamps?

The linked source charted 'deaths from malnutrition.' I think death from starvation is a pretty good indicator that one is malnourished. Have many Americans been starving to death on food stamps?

EDIT: Shouldn't your question be "how many Americans would be starving to death without food stamps?" :END OF EDIT

Actually, it was showing that less than 14% of the citizens in those countries were suffering from critical malnourishment. Not dying from it, just suffering from it. Also, as I've already pointed out, my biggest personal crusade is working towards ending world hunger. But we'll never end world hunger without understanding the reasons for it in the first place.

But that's not the point I was making. I was making the point that people die from hunger everywhere and there would be far more in the US if it weren't for food stamps. And I was making the point that the article that mod linked was actually proving the point that not even a fifth of people in 3rd world countries are starving.

In fact, starvation & malnourishment aren't the same thing either, so the percentage fitting the definition of "starving" is even lower than that. Another poster who was disputing me actually made that point too, that many of the malnourished people are suffering from vitamin deficiencies, not caloric deficiencies. So no, they're not starving either and may actually be receiving enough food. But the nutritional value of the food they get is far below what the human body needs to stay healthy. In other words, they need help fortifying their staple crops (as we do with cereals & breads in the US) and getting a wider selection of nutritionally dense foods. That would prevent their malnourishment, along with better water treatment, better pollution laws, etc. But no, many of them aren't starving either.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

EDIT: Shouldn't your question be "how many Americans would be starving to death without food stamps?" :END OF EDIT

No, the sentence is exactly as I intended to write it.

For a reply to the rest of your post, see mine immediately preceding.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: enlightenedservant

EDIT: Shouldn't your question be "how many Americans would be starving to death without food stamps?" :END OF EDIT

No, the sentence is exactly as I intended to write it.

For a reply to the rest of your post, see mine immediately preceding.

Then it misses the point I was making. As I've said 5 or 6 different times, I'm not disputing that's there's is extreme poverty.

Actually, what's the point. I've explained way too many times what I mean. But as long as people keep linking "3rd World" to "poor region", people will keep misunderstanding. Whatever

a reply to: cooperton


Well, no definite way to know except for word of mouth and watching how much is given vs the
Amount of communties restored.

The rabbit hole starts in counties that seems not to coincide with US relations as a whole.... From a bit of light research i've come across in the last few years, and the US is just one of them.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Seems that extreme emotions have overtaken the ability to read and comprehend on this thread.
Asking serious, deliberate questions about do-gooders will often elicit such venom as you've experienced here since their blinders don't allow them to see beyond what some corporate (yes, charities are corporate in structure) shill told them about the "way it should be."