Third world keeping itself poor

[Conservationist]

The UN's goals for reducing poverty are "difficult or impossible to meet" because a high birth rate in poor nations creates poor health and education and environmental damage.

Over the course of the last century, the global population rose from under two billion to just over six billion.

The bulk of the growth came in developing countries.

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Birth rate 'harms poverty goals'

We can't fix this for them. They breed beyond their resources. How is this going to be fixed?

 

[Patrickt]

Why in the world would poor people have so many children? Are they stupid? No, they're not. They know they're going to get old and be dependent on their children and having ten makes a secure old age more likely than having one. If there were other means of caring for the elderly poor then the birth rate would drop. As people move out of the bitterly poor ranks, which don't exist in the U.S., the birth rate drops.

 

[Conservationist]

Yet the population keeps growing, and it dwarfs those who have wealth and foresight, potentially dooming us all.

 

[1069]

Why in the world would poor people have so many children? Are they stupid? No, they're not. They know they're going to get old and be dependent on their children and having ten makes a secure old age more likely than having one. If there were other means of caring for the elderly poor then the birth rate would drop. As people move out of the bitterly poor ranks, which don't exist in the U.S., the birth rate drops.

I agree entirely.

 

[Synch]

Why in the world would poor people have so many children? Are they stupid? No, they're not.

They're poor and uneducated with no lack of foresight, of course they are.

They know they're going to get old and be dependent on their children and having ten makes a secure old age more likely than having one.

They also know they're more likely to get monetary aid from first world donors..

If there were other means of caring for the elderly poor then the birth rate would drop. As people move out of the bitterly poor ranks, which don't exist in the U.S., the birth rate drops.

Changing governmental economic policy is the most important step in pulling the poor out of poverty. What is needed is strong property rights, to insure that the wealth they have accumulated in their lifetime won't be redistributed. People respond to incentives.

 

[Makhno]

We can't fix this for them. They breed beyond their resources. How is this going to be fixed?

Here's an idea - we stop stealing their resources.

 

[Kandahar]

They're poor and uneducated with no lack of foresight, of course they are.

No. Their foresight is the reason they have lots of kids. In most poor countries, children are an economic asset rather than a liability. As the standard of living increases, the birth rate drops.

They also know they're more likely to get monetary aid from first world donors..

The average poor person in Africa receives almost no monetary aid from foreign governments. Most of it ends up in the pockets of their own government officials.

Changing governmental economic policy is the most important step in pulling the poor out of poverty. What is needed is strong property rights, to insure that the wealth they have accumulated in their lifetime won't be redistributed. People respond to incentives.

I agree with this. Property rights, and law and order are the most important things most extremely poor countries need to encourage investment and grow their economies.

Also, many of them need to invest in their own infrastructure and get their public health disasters under control. That's not an easy thing to do when you start with very little money, but some well-governed countries have managed to do it.

 

[Kandahar]

Here's an idea - we stop stealing their resources.

If you've been stealing their resources, then yes, I agree that you should stop. But don't say "we" as though I (or most other first-world residents) have been doing that, and as though that was the primary cause of their poverty.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

The UN's goals for reducing poverty are "difficult or impossible to meet" because a high birth rate in poor nations creates poor health and education and environmental damage.

Over the course of the last century, the global population rose from under two billion to just over six billion.

The bulk of the growth came in developing countries.

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Birth rate 'harms poverty goals'

We can't fix this for them. They breed beyond their resources. How is this going to be fixed?

No one else than the developed nations are keeping the third world poor, which means the US and Europe.

 

[Makhno]

If you've been stealing their resources, then yes, I agree that you should stop. But don't say "we" as though I (or most other first-world residents) have been doing that, and as though that was the primary cause of their poverty.

That's not what I said. But the first-world, keep the third-world poor by exploiting it . . . "we", is to say our nations and TUCs.

 

[Red_Dave]

That's not what I said. But the first-world, keep the third-world poor by exploiting it . . . "we", is to say our nations and TUCs.

trade union congresses?

 

[PeteEU]

There are many things keeping the third world poor.

Population increase is one, but then again its always been the way for "poor and uneducated" people to secure ones old age. The problem here, is that we have gotten better to save babies and children with modern medicine, even in the 3rd world. In the old days child mortality was huge, so they needed more babies to keep populations up. This mentality is still in place in many areas of the planet, especially where women have almost no rights over their own bodies. Add to that we have gotten better in food production and helping famine areas around the world.

But take China, better medicine, longer lives but same production of babies and lack of disasters, wars and famine = 1 billion people plus. Chinese have always been high baby producers, but that was because of cultural aspects, like children taking care of their elders. To make this viable they needed children, children that lived.

Another huge factor in India and even China, was the wish for male children. Now days saddly they just abort female fetuses because they can see the sex via modern medicine. This saddly gives a wacked out balance between women and men.. in India its getting closer to 40% women and 60% men... and that is scary. Same thing is happening in China.

However saying that, this problem might just solve it self in Africa at least, in the most horrible way.. AIDS. With some nations populations over 30 to 40% infected, its only a matter of time. But that will not solve the India and China problems, unless AIDs spreads like wildfire in those countries (and we dont know as both goverments are rather... lets say protective of the facts).

On the political front, the 3rd world was left by its former colonial masters in shambles. Africa with the exception of South Africa and some what Egypt, was left to themselvs, without localy educated technocrats or goverment. With such a power vacum, many saw fit to grab power and well thats been the history of Africa for the last 60 years.. war and dictators. This also had impacts on the infrastructure, that was crappy at best. South America faired a bit better, as many former colonial powers citizens stayed behind to run things, plus goverment and educational institutions were created there. However the political instability there during the last part of the 20th century hurt them quite a bit.

On the economic front, the 3rd world is only good for 1 thing.. cheap labour. However the lack of educated workers is a problem, with the execption of China and India. Africa is hopeless and totaly unusable for anything frankly and hence the lack of investment there. However if the political and educational, and infrastructure improves there, then who knows.

Then there is of course the first world who do keep 3rd world countries "down" via their economic policies and even political policies, but thats out of self interest.

 

[Kandahar]

That's not what I said. But the first-world, keep the third-world poor by exploiting it . . . "we", is to say our nations and TUCs.

That's simply not true. Africa is very resource-rich, but most of the resources aren't used at all. Political instability, rampant disease, and lack of infrastructure prevents first-world nations from "exploiting" them even if they wanted to.

What's so special about Africa? If first-world countries "stealing their resources" is what is keeping them poor, then why hasn't the Middle East suffered an even worse fate than Africa? We certainly depend on those resources than we do on whatever we get from Africa (which isn't much). And why are African countries without many resources (Mali, Chad) not doing well? Other countries (Japan, Hong Kong) have done well without many resources.

 

[RightinNYC]

Here's an idea - we stop stealing their resources.

Examples?

Really, I'd love to know what resources I'm stealing.

 

[Makhno]

That's simply not true. Africa is very resource-rich, but most of the resources aren't used at all. Political instability, rampant disease, and lack of infrastructure prevents first-world nations from "exploiting" them even if they wanted to.

What's so special about Africa? If first-world countries "stealing their resources" is what is keeping them poor, then why hasn't the Middle East suffered an even worse fate than Africa? We certainly depend on those resources than we do on whatever we get from Africa (which isn't much). And why are African countries without many resources (Mali, Chad) not doing well? Other countries (Japan, Hong Kong) have done well without many resources.

Well look at the US attitude towards Venezuela, that is a good example or a nation nationalizing resources . . . and the US are having none of it. Nicaragua is another example . . . this is nothing new.

Although this obviously isn't the case all the time (You mention Chad, Mali . . .).

 

[Kandahar]

Well look at the US attitude towards Venezuela, that is a good example or a nation nationalizing resources . . . and the US are having none of it. Nicaragua is another example . . . this is nothing new.

Although this obviously isn't the case all the time (You mention Chad, Mali . . .).

Nationalization of industry in Venezuela is only a secondary concern for the US. Most oil-producing countries have nationalized or semi-nationalized the industry, and it hasn't been a long-term problem for American relations with them.

The main problems with Venezuela have nothing to do with resources... they are Chavez's support of terrorism in Colombia, his friendly relationship with Iran, and his cracking down on democracy at home. Regardless of whether or not you agree that those are valid reasons to oppose him, they ARE the reasons moreso than resources.

Venezuela is hardly one of the poorest nations in the world anyway.