[fluff]

The Bhopal distaster is a landmark because the offending party was brought to justice and punished for their negligence... something that wouldn't and couldn't happen under communism. Get over yourself. You've lost this argument, so stop trying to use it.

WTF... I cannot believe you typed that! Where is Warren Anderson now? He certainly is not where he should be - languishing in an Indian Jail. If you seriously think Union Carbide (or Dow) have paid their dues for Bhopal I have lost all respect for you.

Gobsmacked.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Also, as for the feed/breed argument, that's ridiculous. As toshi points out, we don't follow that idea in other areas because we would find it reprehensible. Further, this problem is not just because they have more kids than they can feed. A large part of the problems in the third world, or whatever you want to call it, have been caused by the West. We need to do something.

I'm with you on this one bro...........

FWIW, I think one of the biggest communial sins of the church today is that we haven't done more in these kinds of instances. And I don't mean more like hand food out but only after you hear about/accept Jesus - love with and agenda is not love. I heard something disturbing - only like 7% of evangelicals polled would give money to help AIDS victims in Africa..............to me as a Christian that is VERY disturbing.

Anyway, back to the regularly schduled thread..................

 

[JRogers]

I'm with you on this one bro...........

FWIW, I think one of the biggest communial sins of the church today is that we haven't done more in these kinds of instances. And I don't mean more like hand food out but only after you hear about/accept Jesus - love with and agenda is not love. I heard something disturbing - only like 7% of evangelicals polled would give money to help AIDS victims in Africa..............to me as a Christian that is VERY disturbing.

Anyway, back to the regularly schduled thread..................

This segues nicely into another point I wanted to bring up (briefly). What I mean by the West screwing things up is not necessarily the current conditions, but the past ones that allowed the current ones to develop. Colonialism and Imperialism started it. Then Western ideas and technology continued it. What I mean by the latter part is this: the West introduced ideas into societies that might be incompatible with them. It messed things up. Also, the West greatly accelerated the demographic transition of the third world with dangerous speed and without any future acceleration. The result: a bunch of countries with lowering death rates and higher birth rates.

As for education vs. other factors, think of it this way. AIDS could be largely slowed with education, increasing the availability of birth control and increasing women's rights (a function of industrialization and education). AIDS doesn't just kill people. It kills economies. It kills countries. How can a nation survive if half of its population is dead at 35? Education and some low-cost investments could fix a lot of that.

 

[Changleen]

Apparantly there are a number of people who do not consider these lives worth saving.

 

[ohio]

WTF... I cannot believe you typed that! Where is Warren Anderson now? He certainly is not where he should be - languishing in an Indian Jail. If you seriously think Union Carbide (or Dow) have paid their dues for Bhopal I have lost all respect for you.

Gobsmacked.

I don't believe they've paid their dues, and yes Anderson should have to face criminal charges. There's no question that Bhopal is one of the most horrific industrial tragedies ever to have occured, and it will never be possible to account for the true cost of the deaths/damage.

However, what we are discussing is whether this is the fault of the economic system. The answer is no. Similarly horrific anecdotes have occured under communism. The difference is that capitalism at least gives the people a means to pursue punishment and obtain restitution (if only partial). Those means are what insures that companies will go to far greater lengths in the future to insure that the mistakes are not repeated. Dow will not make the same again.

I'm not saying what happened at Bhopal is fair, but to blame it on capitalism is to misunderstand the cause, the effect, and the broader impacts of the tragedy.

 

[ohio]

Also, the West greatly accelerated the demographic transition of the third world with dangerous speed and without any future acceleration. The result: a bunch of countries with lowering death rates and higher birth rates.

I'm in agreement with most of your post, but can you clarify what you mean by "demographic transition?"

 

[JRogers]

I'm in agreement with most of your post, but can you clarify what you mean by "demographic transition?"

Demographic transition model. Basically, it is an conceptual model that has proven itself true in many places. Here's quick rundown (there are many versions of this model, so some may have seen different things).

BR=birthrate, DR=deathrate. Premodern/preindustrial times have a high BR and high DR because there is no medical care, absolute food supply, sanitation or anything like that. Then, in the second stage, BR decreases only slightly or stays stable but DR starts dropping dramatically as conditions improve. In the third stage, BR starts to fall more and DR continues falling and levels out. In the fourth stage, DR levels off and BR does as well, right near it so population is close to stable. Some could argue that the next step is a reversal, where DR overtakes BR and population decreses.

The point is that, largely because of Western nations, many places (though not all...and AIDS throws a wrench into the whole thing) are in the second phase area: high birthrate, dropping death rate. The result is an exploding population that needs to be slowed. The solution is to get to the next phase and force the birthrate down/ let the birthrate go down.

 

[B_A_MTBIKER]

Or some countries act in the way China does, by placing legal restrictions on family planning and allowing couples to have only X number of children if any, due to their extremely high population. (A little off topic I suppose)
As to the Aiding of other countries:
Personally I don't see why the U.S. needs to be the "savior" of every struggling nation, unless they are directly impacting the people of the U.S. We have plenty of problems within our own country, and I feel they need to be dealt with at top priority.

 

[TheInedibleHulk]

Or some countries act in the way China does, by placing legal restrictions on family planning and allowing couples to have only X number of children if any, due to their extremely high population. (A little off topic I suppose)
As to the Aiding of other countries:
Personally I don't see why the U.S. needs to be the "savior" of every struggling nation, unless they are directly impacting the people of the U.S. We have plenty of problems within our own country, and I feel they need to be dealt with at top priority.

You dont know what a problem is compared to people in Burundi. Its not just the US, the entire first world should be working to aid the suffering of humanity. Why should we? Because we can. Not everyone necessarily needs to give money for hunger in Africa, but certainly on a large scale at least the governemnt should be doing what it can to help. Bush said in his SOTU address three years ago that he was going to work to end aids in Africa... then he said how much he was goign to pay for it, 200 million I believe. Total spent on war in Iraq... 86 billion(last I heard). Draw your own conclusions.

 

[ohio]

The point is that, largely because of Western nations, many places (though not all...and AIDS throws a wrench into the whole thing) are in the second phase area: high birthrate, dropping death rate. The result is an exploding population that needs to be slowed. The solution is to get to the next phase and force the birthrate down/ let the birthrate go down.

So we're calling the dropping death-rate a bad thing?

I agree that the birth rate needs to be lowered through education and birth-control, and eliminating incentives to "over-produce" but it's awfully hard to "blame" (rather than "credit") western nations for a dropping death rate.

There's plenty of other things to blame on western nations... (I think you hit the nail on the head with the imperialism and cultural darwinism reference)

 

[B_A_MTBIKER]

Bush said in his SOTU address three years ago that he was going to work to end aids in Africa... then he said how much he was goign to pay for it, 200 million I believe. Total spent on war in Iraq... 86 billion(last I heard). Draw your own conclusions.

And there are different views of which budget option was more necessary when we were faced with the Iraq incident. I don't think that the initial invasion of Iraq was needed at the time, but by the time we got into it, over our heads I might add and with Americans fighting for an F-ed up commander in chief, the money was needed, and is still needed until we pull the forces we have over there out.
But how much do you actually think Bush was focusing on Africa when he stepped into office? I would assume very little.

 

[JRogers]

So we're calling the dropping death-rate a bad thing?

I agree that the birth rate needs to be lowered through education and birth-control, and eliminating incentives to "over-produce" but it's awfully hard to "blame" (rather than "credit") western nations for a dropping death rate.

There's plenty of other things to blame on western nations... (I think you hit the nail on the head with the imperialism and cultural darwinism reference)

Dropping the death rate is not a bad thing per se. It is always good, I suppose, but it needs to be complemented by an eventual decrease in the birth rate. Otherwise, population spirals out of control when there are not checks or structures to care for that many people.

I know I cannot "blame" a nation for dropping the death rate (once again) per se. But, it seems to me to be somewhat reprehensible to go into a country, screw it up with colonialism (destroy traditional power structures, create arbitrary borders, strip resources without compensation etc) and then leave it with a bunch of problems. Even if colonizing nations saw what they were doing as good, it was not, no matter how you cut it.


As for the argument that we should be taking care of problems in the US, I say bull. Once again, consider AIDS. Give people education, access to birth control and some medical care and the problem goes way down (the biggest problem, to me, is to increase women's rights). It does not take incredible amounts of money for a Western nation to make an impact. But, look at AIDS effects on third world countries. AIDS kills people, destroys economies, ruins families, stigmatizes people for life, descreases labor and productivity, increases healthcare costs, destroys futures... It is a terrible humanitarian crisis that we have the power to help prevent. And here's the catch: we can start just by TELLING THEM HOW IT SPREADS! We know and many others do not; they die and we live because we didn't make an effort to just tell them. I suppose patriotism is the order of the day, but I have said this before: I am a man first and an American second.

Here's the facts: the development problems of the third world are the biggest, most serious and most damning issues in the world today. In my opinion, it is the most complex and difficult problem that the world has ever faced.

 

[TheInedibleHulk]

And there are different views of which budget option was more necessary when we were faced with the Iraq incident. I don't think that the initial invasion of Iraq was needed at the time, but by the time we got into it, over our heads I might add and with Americans fighting for an F-ed up commander in chief, the money was needed, and is still needed until we pull the forces we have over there out.
But how much do you actually think Bush was focusing on Africa when he stepped into office? I would assume very little.

Im not entirely sure what point you were trying to make, but I dont think we disagree. There's alot of talk about how it has to be the Presidents first priority to watch out for the best interests of the US. This is true, it's his job, but what many people fail to realize is that what is good immediately for one people is often good for the world in general in the long run. This goes for humanitarian work in Africa, stopping AIDS, and our relations in the middle east. Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians to protect the US from terrorism may be immediately in our best interest(pragmatically speaking), but in the long run I am quite sure it will only cause exponentially more anti US sentiment and therefore more terrorist attacks. I dont believe this neccessarily has to happen at this point, but the way things are going I dont see how it can be avoided. Resentment doesnt die with the dead, and it will surely come back to bite us eventually. The same goes for ignoring the AIDS epidemic, or world hunger. In the long run what is best for all of us is a sustainable, educated world population. Hell it will even be beneficial for America's wallets, which is all that really matters in this country.

 

[fluff]

I don't believe they've paid their dues, and yes Anderson should have to face criminal charges. There's no question that Bhopal is one of the most horrific industrial tragedies ever to have occured, and it will never be possible to account for the true cost of the deaths/damage.

Good.

However, what we are discussing is whether this is the fault of the economic system. The answer is no. Similarly horrific anecdotes have occured under communism. The difference is that capitalism at least gives the people a means to pursue punishment and obtain restitution (if only partial). Those means are what insures that companies will go to far greater lengths in the future to insure that the mistakes are not repeated. Dow will not make the same again.

I'm not saying what happened at Bhopal is fair, but to blame it on capitalism is to misunderstand the cause, the effect, and the broader impacts of the tragedy.

Why is it wrong to blame it on Capitalism, what would you blame it on? That similar (Chernobyl) has happened under Communism is not really relevant as I am not holding communism up as a paragon of virtue.

And do you see only two economic systems, Communism and Capitalism? If so do you see any pure implementations of either?

 

[DRB]

Or some countries act in the way China does, by placing legal restrictions on family planning and allowing couples to have only X number of children if any, due to their extremely high population. (A little off topic I suppose)

These artifical controls lead to all sorts of other problems. You mentioned China. The one child policy has certainly slowed the population growth but at what effect? With the cultural preference of boys over girls, a growing imbalance is already occurring. It is predicted that at the present rate in the next 10 years, there will be in upwards of 50 MILLION Chinese men without a potential mate. Can you imagine the social implications of that?

India is facing a similar problem and that is occurring without an official government policy in place.

 

[fluff]

It is predicted that at the present rate in the next 10 years, there will be in upwards of 50 MILLION Chinese men without a potential mate. Can you imagine the social implications of that?

Can I have multiple choice:

A: Lots of fighting
B: Lots of masturbation
C: More gay men than we'ev had hot dinners
D: Lots of paternity questions
E: Civil war

 

[ohio]

Why is it wrong to blame it on Capitalism, what would you blame it on? That similar (Chernobyl) has happened under Communism is not really relevant as I am not holding communism up as a paragon of virtue

It's simply incorrect to point to Capitalism as the cause. I threw in the Communism anecdote to show that such tragedies can occur under ANY economic system during periods when development outpaces the governments ability to handle it. In a roundabout way, you could say that Capitalism creates faster development than any other system (that I know of), so it's asking for trouble to mix it with under-resourced or corrupt governments. Thankfully, threat of punishment for wrongdoing has introduced a degree of restraint and self-policing (not nearly as much as I would like, but still a degree) among corporate players. You could also point out that capitalism encouraged Dow/UC to build the factory where labor was cheap and regulations lax... but under a fully developed communist system a smart planned government would ALSO outsource labor if the domestic work force was more valuable performing other tasks. Every type of government still has to deal with the fact that international business is inherently capitalist.

And do you see only two economic systems, Communism and Capitalism? If so do you see any pure implementations of either?

I don't see only two systems, and I certainly haven't seen, nor do I believe to exist such a thing as "pure" versions of either. You'll note that in many of my domestic policy opinions I lean towards government intervention, and redistribution of wealth (especially when dealing with issues such as education and poverty), but even in those cases the government can apply capitalist principles to it's use of funds. I am such a staunch advocate of capitalism because I have seen the amazing things that can be accomplished by leveraging basic human behaviors that result from a capitalist model.

 

[DRB]

I am such a staunch advocate of capitalism because I have seen the amazing things that can be accomplished by leveraging basic human behaviors that result from a capitalist model.

I just cried a little.