Cut Foreign Aid

Wim Libaers · 11-25-05, 07:03 PM

This "aid" (*) is only giving them more rope to hang themselves with. If some country cannot get a sustainable system with its available resources, then it is overpopulated and/or mismanaged. Supporting such countries allows them to continue in bad ways, damaging the ecosystem, reducing carrying capacity even further, and reinforcing bad management. So they can be expected to be in need of even more aid later.

Of course, this might seem like an extremely cruel view when Drebbel posts a picture of someone who looks like she and her child could really use some help. Those people who cannot handle the idea that there are no simple or "nice" solutions for all problems would then choose to "help", which makes them feel good about themselves, and refuse to consider the harmful long-term consequences. Most people's idea of ethical behaviour in these cases consists of doing what makes them feel good, not thinking about whether it really is good. How much suffering you will cause if you choose to "help", this is a topic most people would rather avoid.

Of course, one might want to draw a distinction between aid in the case of brief random disasters (like hurricanes or tsunamis) and persistent ever-worsening cases. Even though some of the death toll during disasters is due to bad preparation or reckless behaviour, aid may be OK as it only gives some help to restore a previously working system, and aid can, in such cases, be compared to an insurance system. But supporting a seriously flawed system does not help, it harms.

(*) intervention would be a better word, because the word "aid" makes it sound like a good thing.

11-25-05, 07:03 PM	#8
Wim Libaers Samurai Navy Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Flanders Posts: 569 Downloads: 4 Uploads: 0	This "aid" () is only giving them more rope to hang themselves with. If some country cannot get a sustainable system with its available resources, then it is overpopulated and/or mismanaged. Supporting such countries allows them to continue in bad ways, damaging the ecosystem, reducing carrying capacity even further, and reinforcing bad management. So they can be expected to be in need of even more aid later. Of course, this might seem like an extremely cruel view when Drebbel posts a picture of someone who looks like she and her child could really use some help. Those people who cannot handle the idea that there are no simple or "nice" solutions for all problems would then choose to "help", which makes them feel good about themselves, and refuse to consider the harmful long-term consequences. Most people's idea of ethical behaviour in these cases consists of doing what makes them feel good, not thinking about whether it really is good. How much suffering you will cause if you choose to "help", this is a topic most people would rather avoid. Of course, one might want to draw a distinction between aid in the case of brief random disasters (like hurricanes or tsunamis) and persistent ever-worsening cases. Even though some of the death toll during disasters is due to bad preparation or reckless behaviour, aid may be OK as it only gives some help to restore a previously working system, and aid can, in such cases, be compared to an insurance system. But supporting a seriously flawed system does not help, it harms. () intervention would be a better word, because the word "aid" makes it sound like a good thing.