Originally posted by Blue Lion
Because I think their governments aren't running things right? They are 3rd world countries for a reason, and the reasons differ. Not because they're a different race. 
Yes, but - you are suggesting that all of their governments in the course of history have been uniformly corrupt or incompetent. Whilst I'm not saying that you're attributing it to "because they're black" soley, there is the suggestion that this may be a reason if you make such an exculsivist statement.
Cause that's my fault these people can't stop having kids that they can't afford[/b]
1. As Kazashi said, their kids keep dying. So they have a lot.
2. We forced a religion called Catholicism on them - which forbids contraception.
3. Contraceptives are expensive in African countries an have the patina of apartheid.
4. Don't bull**** me about abstinence. I mean it.
My fault too[/b]
It's not your fault that they have crap land, but it's not their fault either. So what, you gonna let them rot on it just because we were lucky enough to be born where the land is better, and not so important for survival?
Bingo[/b]
It's a factor, not the be-all-and-end-all. We could have reduced the potential for mismanagement by governments if we didn't sell them weapons when we know that they can't feed their people, or sell them bad loans, oil-powered machinery etc.
Do they deserve it? No. is it what they have? Yes. And who's fault is that? Mine? No, I'm saying they do not deserve my money because they are in a hellhole.[/b]
Again, no. But it's not theirs.
I have a question for you. Do you give to charities? Y'know, help the elderly in the community, or guide dogs, or something like that? Ever, in your life?
By applying the logic you have to the Third World, allow me to extrapolate.
1. Do blind people deserve my help, or the forbearance of society because they're blind? No.
2. Do sick people deserve the help of others to get them to a hospital or the help of a doctor to cure them? No.
3. Did the victims of September 11th deserve our help to save their lives? No.
Which, I guess just goes to prove CP's point that the concept of deserving is meaningless.
It does not matter; if we keep going at even half the current rate of technological advance and destroy the natural resources twice as fast as we are doing now, we will still be fine with lots of time/resources to spare. Heck, we already have the basic necessary things: food (genetically engineered plants), water (we are not going to be able to vaporize all of the oceans even if we tried, and there are methods of purifying the water) and air (this can be extracted from the water). It is now only a matter of engineering, or in other words, to make these things mainstream, which might take a little while, but there is definitely no reason to already start saying "the biosphere is going away; we're all gonna die!"[/b]
Of course we all won't die. That's idiotic. But how many people
will die before we get the situation under control?
The main point of my argument is that there is too much of a divide between 'greens' and 'corps'. We can clean the world up, but both sides need to meet in the middle. We cannot simply dismantle our factories and refineries, but we cannot go on polluting like we are either.[/b]
If you'd care to look, most greens aren't demanding that we shut down all our factories now, and return to the soil. That'd be madness. Like most greens I know, I advocate using new and existing clean technologies to reduce pollution - as part of a slow phase-out of old methods. I'm not so economically illiterate as to think that we can turn around the economy like that.
Don't use the views of a minority to implicate the majority. Otherwise I'll call you a fundamentalist Christian because I know there's at least one in Canada.
please look again at what i said:
"a lot of the pollution on earth seems to be in under developed third world countries where there is no industry that could produce pollution."
i did not say:
"a lot of the pollution on earth seems to be in under developed third world countries. third world countries don't have 
of industry that could cause pollution"
which is what you thought i said for some reason.[/b]
No - I understood you, but I was pointing out that Third World countries do have heavy industries, regardless. And that they're much more pollutant than our comparable ones because we don't offer them the technology to change cheaply.
