View Full Version : I'd never considered this before....

14th Apr 2014, 10:38
Had this sent to me today, makes for some considered reading. I think I am now proud to have never contributed to the problem....

This report by K. Myers appeared in The Irish Independent:

Somalia is not a humanitarian disaster; it is an evolutionary disaster. The current drought is not the worst in 50 years, as the BBC, and all the aid organisations claim. It is nothing compared to the droughts in 1960/61 or
73/74. And there are continuing droughts every 5 years or so. It's just that there are now four times the population; having been kept alive by famine relief, supplied by aid organisations, over the past 50 years. So, of course, the effects of any drought now, is a famine. They cannot even feed themselves in a normal rainfall year.

Worst yet, the effects of these droughts, and poor nutrition in the first 3 years of the a child's life, have a lasting effect on the development of the infant brain, so that if they survive, they will never achieve a normal IQ .
Consequently, they are selectively breeding a population, who cannot be educated, let alone one that is not being educated; a recipe for disaster.

We are seeing this impact now, and it can only exacerbate, to the detriment of their neighbours, and their environment as well. This scenario can only end in an even worse disaster; with even worse suffering, for those benighted people, and their descendants.

Eventually, some mechanism will intervene, be it war, disease or starvation .
So what do we do ? Let them starve ?

What a dilemma for our Judeo/ Christian/Islamic Ethos; as well as Hindu
/Buddhist morality.

And this is beginning to happen in Kenya, Ethiopia, and other countries
in Asia, like Pakistan.
Is this the beginning of the end of civilisation ?

AFRICA is giving nothing to anyone outside Africa -- apart from AIDS and new disease

Even as we see African states refusing to take action
to restore something resembling civilisation in Zimbabwe, the Begging
bowl for Ethiopia is being passed around to us out of Africa, yet again.

It is nearly 25 years since the famous Feed The
World campaign began in Ethiopia, and in that time Ethiopia's population has grown from
33.5 million to 78+ million today.

So, why on earth should I do anything to encourage further catastrophic
demographic growth in that country? Where is the logic? There is none.
To be sure, there are two things saying that logic doesn't count.

One is my conscience, and the other is the picture, yet again, of another
wide-eyed child, yet again, gazing, yet again, at the camera, which yet
again, captures the tragedy of children starving

Sorry. My conscience has toured this territory on foot and financially.
Unlike most of you, I have been to Ethiopia; like most of you, I have
stumped up the loot to charities to stop starvation there.
The wide-eyed boy-child we saved, 20 years or so ago, is now a low IQ,
AK 47-bearing moron, siring children whenever the whim takes him, and
blaming the world because he is uneducated, poor en left behind.

There is no doubt a good argument why we should prolong this predatory
and dysfunctional economic, social and sexual system; but I do not know what
it is. There is, on the other hand, every reason not to write a column
like this.

It will win no friends, and will provoke the self-righteous wrath of, well,
the self-righteous, hand wringing, letter writing wrathful individuals, a
species which never fails to contaminate almost every
debate in Irish life with its sneers and its moral superiority. It
will also probably enrage some of the finest men in Irish life, like John
O'Shea, of Goal; and the Finucane brothers, men whom I admire enormously.
So be it.

But, please, please, you self-righteously wrathful, spare me mention of
our own Irish Famine, with this or that lazy analogy. There is no
Within 20 years of the Famine, the Irish population was
down by 30%. Over the equivalent period, thanks to western food, the
Mercedes 10-wheel truck and the Lockheed Hercules planes, Ethiopia's population
has more than doubled.

Alas, that wretched country is not alone in its madness. Somewhere, over
the rainbow, lies Somalia, another fine land of violent, AK 47-toting,
khat-chewing, girl-circumcising, permanently tumescent layabouts, and
housing pirates of the ocean.

Indeed, we now have almost an entire continent of sexually hyperactive,
illiterate indigents, with tens of millions of people who only survive
because of help from the outside world or allowances by the semi communist
Governments they voted for, money supplied by lending it from the World Bank!!!

This dependency has not stimulated political prudence or commonsense.

Indeed, voodoo idiocy seems to be in the ascendant, with the president of
South Africa being a firm believer in the efficacy of a little tap water
on the post-coital penis as a sure preventative against AIDS infection.

Needless to say, poverty, hunger and societal meltdown have not prevented
idiotic wars involving Tigre, Uganda, Congo, Sudan, Somalia, Eritrea

Broad brush-strokes, to be sure. But broad brush-strokes are often the way
that history paints its gaudier, if more decisive, chapters. Japan, China,
Russia, Korea, Poland, Germany, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia in the 20th
century have endured worse broad brush-strokes than almost any part of

They are now -- one way or another -- virtually all giving aid to or
investing in Africa, whereas Africa, with its vast savannahs and its lush
pastures, is giving almost nothing to anyone, apart from AIDS.

Meanwhile, Africa's peoples are outstripping their resources, and causing
catastrophic ecological degradation. By 2050, the population of Ethiopia
will be 177 million; the equivalent of France, Germany and Benelux today,
but located on the parched and increasingly Protein-free wastelands of
the Great Rift Valley.

So, how much sense does it make for us actively to increase the adult
population of what is already a vastly over-populated, environmentally
devastated and economically dependent country?

How much morality is there in saving an Ethiopian child from starvation
today, for it to survive to a life of brutal circumcision, poverty, hunger,
violence and sexual abuse, resulting in another half-dozen such wide-eyed
children, with comparably jolly little lives ahead of them? Of course, it
might make you feel better, which is a prime reason for so much charity.!
But that is not good enough.

For self-serving generosity has been one of the curses of Africa. It has
sustained political systems which would otherwise have collapsed.

It prolonged the Eritrean-Ethiopian war by nearly a decade. It is inspiring
Bill Gates' programme to rid the continent of malaria, when, in the almost
complete absence of personal self-discipline, that disease is one of the
most efficacious forms of population-control now operating.

If his programme is successful, tens of millions of children who would
otherwise have died in infancy will survive to adulthood, he boasts.

Oh good: then what? I know, let them all come here (to Ireland) or
America. (not forgetting Australia!) Yes, that's an idea.

14th Apr 2014, 10:57
It certainly is a dilemma. I wish I had some answers. Sometimes being kind is the cruelest thing of all

14th Apr 2014, 10:59
This article has been doing the rounds for a few years. A fine piece of writing and very true.

Politically incorrect and unacceptable it may be, but it is the truth that few people want to accept, let alone express.

14th Apr 2014, 11:15
There was a jet blast thread on this about a month ago.

14th Apr 2014, 11:43
It is absolutely pointless giving money to "Africa", whether you are an individual or a nation.

Except in one circumstance. If you are on business or holiday there (or Asia or anywhere) and you find a deserving individual, assess the situation and help that person.

It can be very rewarding.

Dr Jekyll
14th Apr 2014, 13:05
When population increases exponentially it's usually because people fell they need to have several children to be sure one or two survive. So reducing infant mortality soon reduces the birth rate to replacement levels or less.

14th Apr 2014, 14:59
Depends exactly what you mean by 'soon'.....

Solid Rust Twotter
14th Apr 2014, 15:55
When population increases exponentially it's usually because people fell they need to have several children to be sure one or two survive. So reducing infant mortality soon reduces the birth rate to replacement levels or less.

Not really. Folks are just having a dozen or so kids they can't take care of and all (or most) are now surviving into adulthood. It's cultural and you won't change that any time soon.

14th Apr 2014, 16:52
Next time an Oxfamer shakes a box in your face just explain to him or her that the reason they are there is because Bill and Melinda, through their foundation, spend billions each year keeping people alive so that they can then starve to death. Then sell them an apple.