|
|
Post by cartertonian on May 3, 2024 13:07:42 GMT
There is an understandable, if rather parochial focus on 'stopping the boats' as they cross the English Channel. However, if you step back and take a global view, we can see people fleeing developing countries to destinations all over the world.
Why then, is there no overt international co-operation to try and address the problem in a coherent way? Desmond Tutu said, "There comes a point where we need to stop just pulling people out of the river. We need to go upstream and find out why they're falling in." Rather than Little England simply trying to pull up the drawbridge, why don't we have some sort of international partnership to look at and address the upstream problem?
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,698
|
Post by Steve on May 3, 2024 13:21:47 GMT
There is an understandable, if rather parochial focus on 'stopping the boats' as they cross the English Channel. However, if you step back and take a global view, we can see people fleeing developing countries to destinations all over the world. Why then, is there no overt international co-operation to try and address the problem in a coherent way? Desmond Tutu said, "There comes a point where we need to stop just pulling people out of the river. We need to go upstream and find out why they're falling in." Rather than Little England simply trying to pull up the drawbridge, why don't we have some sort of international partnership to look at and address the upstream problem? The public won't support such action and the West's track record on such isn't good. Regions have to start fixing their regional problems |
|
|
|
Post by montegriffo on May 3, 2024 13:24:51 GMT
Probably because investing money in developing countries in order to 'level up' is seen as creating competition for rich nations who rely on outsourcing production to nations with very low living standards and wages.
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,698
|
Post by Steve on May 3, 2024 13:28:01 GMT
You throw money at developing nations it just does more long term harm. We should be supporting them in education and trade engagement
|
|
|
|
Post by vinny on May 3, 2024 13:36:35 GMT
There is an understandable, if rather parochial focus on 'stopping the boats' as they cross the English Channel. However, if you step back and take a global view, we can see people fleeing developing countries to destinations all over the world. Why then, is there no overt international co-operation to try and address the problem in a coherent way? Desmond Tutu said, "There comes a point where we need to stop just pulling people out of the river. We need to go upstream and find out why they're falling in." Rather than Little England simply trying to pull up the drawbridge, why don't we have some sort of international partnership to look at and address the upstream problem? Absolutely. We should look at Albania, which is not war torn, and look at why so many gangsters wish to smuggle people here. Wages are shit there, but it is a safe country. There are things we can help African countries do to become developed and more prosperous, but one of the things we need to be doing is not flogging arms to dictators over there. |
|
|
|
Post by montegriffo on May 3, 2024 14:33:48 GMT
You throw money at developing nations it just does more long term harm. We should be supporting them in education and trade engagement Yes, we should just sit back and let China get all the influence. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on May 4, 2024 7:40:08 GMT
I'd love to help, any suggestions how?
I have a few friends in NGO's who have had limited success. The biggest problem in many cases is that as soon as there is measurable success a local warlord pops up and takes over.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on May 4, 2024 9:55:27 GMT
Probably because investing money in developing countries in order to 'level up' is seen as creating competition for rich nations who rely on outsourcing production to nations with very low living standards and wages. Competition would be allowing people to compete. Transferring resources from one group to another is something different. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on May 4, 2024 9:58:31 GMT
I'd love to help, any suggestions how? I have a few friends in NGO's who have had limited success. The biggest problem in many cases is that as soon as there is measurable success a local warlord pops up and takes over. The 'upstream problem' is intractable - i.e. part of the culture these people have used to survive. Moving them here and thereby destroying our culture's ability to help anyone should be entirely off the table as self destructive and daft, but for some reason, it seems to be the only option allowed. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on May 4, 2024 10:00:33 GMT
You throw money at developing nations it just does more long term harm. We should be supporting them in education and trade engagement Indeed. It's 'money for free' falling into a dysfunctional culture. The result is predictable |
|
|
|
Post by montegriffo on May 4, 2024 10:37:57 GMT
You throw money at developing nations it just does more long term harm. We should be supporting them in education and trade engagement Indeed. It's 'money for free' falling into a dysfunctional culture. The result is predictable Money on infrastructure doesn't do harm. Education, roads, railways, renewable energy, communications, internet etc. You can't build anything without the tools. Banks giving small loans to entrepreneurs has proved very successful. |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on May 4, 2024 12:11:15 GMT
There is an understandable, if rather parochial focus on 'stopping the boats' as they cross the English Channel. However, if you step back and take a global view, we can see people fleeing developing countries to destinations all over the world. Why then, is there no overt international co-operation to try and address the problem in a coherent way? Desmond Tutu said, "There comes a point where we need to stop just pulling people out of the river. We need to go upstream and find out why they're falling in." Rather than Little England simply trying to pull up the drawbridge, why don't we have some sort of international partnership to look at and address the upstream problem? Unless someone can convince the developed (western?) world that by not taking concerted action — eg, like Gordon Brown achieved during the international banking crisis — individual countries are in danger of being radically changed (probably for the worse) by huge influxes of alien cultures… |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on May 4, 2024 14:20:03 GMT
Indeed. It's 'money for free' falling into a dysfunctional culture. The result is predictable Money on infrastructure doesn't do harm. Education, roads, railways, renewable energy, communications, internet etc. You can't build anything without the tools. Do you know what a cargo cult is ? 'infrastructure' means brown envelopes for all my nephews and a computer graphic. 'Government' just means an office with oil paintings plus leather bound desk and armchair |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on May 4, 2024 15:15:45 GMT
I'd love to help, any suggestions how? I have a few friends in NGO's who have had limited success. The biggest problem in many cases is that as soon as there is measurable success a local warlord pops up and takes over. The 'upstream problem' is intractable - i.e. part of the culture these people have used to survive. Moving them here and thereby destroying our culture's ability to help anyone should be entirely off the table as self destructive and daft, but for some reason, it seems to be the only option allowed. I disagree, I would say that removing them from the grasp of the warlord to a land of peace is ideal. Where we might agree is in the limited number you can help in this way without risking the re-creation of the upstream problem. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on May 4, 2024 15:22:05 GMT
You throw money at developing nations it just does more long term harm. We should be supporting them in education and trade engagement Indeed. It's 'money for free' falling into a dysfunctional culture. The result is predictable In there defence groups like water aid are very different to how they once were, they no longer just come and dig a well or build an irrigation system. They are quite savvy in their help. One guy I know works for an NGO that encourages growing vegetables rather than crops. That's because vegetables are a constant crop, where you take some while others grow. This means you have a ready supply, but the warlord cannot rock up just after your harvest and take all your grain. However this is a long way from bringing Western civilisation to these areas. |
|
