I just thought I was being innovative and progressive?
It is overpopulation that's the problem in these places. Why not treat the problem at the very start? Free contraceptives? Sounds like a great idea to me anyway.
See ya's.
Sponsoring a Child
- Thread starter LoneWolf
- Start date
I just thought I was being innovative and progressive?
It is overpopulation that's the problem in these places. Why not treat the problem at the very start? Free contraceptives? Sounds like a great idea to me anyway.
See ya's.
Actually in a lot of places this would be very well received. My sister ( a doc) did some volunteer work for Voluntary Services Abroad. The programme works like this - young fellow docs fund-raise for a year, then bring the money to a hospital (in Kenya in my sister's case I think ) and do volunteer work for a few months. They decide when they are there how best to spend the money and are very careful about this. After a month or so my sister and her friends approached a particular local doctor they trusted for advice. Half the money bought a new van so that outreach clinics could be run again (hadn't been run for over a year since last van died), the other went to a one day sterilization clinic for women. Despite the fact that there was very little advertising and notice, they had women queuing around the block for the op when was not carried out in circumstances we could consider comfortable.
Women being able to control their fertility is a necessary first step towards prosperity in my opinion.
Personally I will not donate to Catholic charities because I strongly disagree with their approach to contraception, and I think Catholic lobbying to prevent poor women accessing contraception (e.g. in the Philippines) is a disgrace.
We have sponsored two girls over the last twenty odd years from other Countries - from age 11 until adulthood.
Last one ended about 2 years ago.
Not at the same time - one after the other.
I too am sceptical as to how much of the money actually reaches the intended end users, and not the pockets of the "administrators".
LOL!
I'm hearing myself!!
By the way; your views will probably not soften as you get older....unless you withdraw from the human race and go live in the forest with only the animals.
It would make much more sense, be cheaper, safer and easier to sterilise the men wouldn't it? However I suppose in these places It's always going to have to be the women who undergo the procedure as the women are regarded as inferior?
Agree totally.
See ya's.
It has to be the women who make the choice, as the men wouldn't get the procedure done. To many men in third world countries (and lower socio economic levels in first world) see their fertility as their masculine prowess.
Sad really.
That is why I choose to educate girls. It is proven, in both first and third, that educated women have significantly less children.
David Attenborough did a brilliant doco on world overpopulation and covered this topic considerably.
Birth rates generally go down naturally once standard of living and life expectancy improves. This has been proven.
Going around sterilising people seems a bit pointless. Such measures have never been required in history and could never be widespread enough to make a sufficient difference.
It also annoys me so much when privileged people in developed countries talk about overpopulation. The population itself isn't the problem - the problem is the distribution and consumption of resources (or overconsumption, in our case). If you have your own biological children, don't talk about overpopulation. It makes you look very silly
Personally, I don't like multinational NGOs and in most cases, don't support them. If I donate money, I prefer to give to grassroots, local charities that don't have millionaire CEOs. I also refuse to donate to anything with a religious affiliation.
Going around sterilising people seems a bit pointless. Such measures have never been required in history and could never be widespread enough to make a sufficient difference.
It also annoys me so much when privileged people in developed countries talk about overpopulation. The population itself isn't the problem - the problem is the distribution and consumption of resources (or overconsumption, in our case). If you have your own biological children, don't talk about overpopulation. It makes you look very silly
Personally, I don't like multinational NGOs and in most cases, don't support them. If I donate money, I prefer to give to grassroots, local charities that don't have millionaire CEOs. I also refuse to donate to anything with a religious affiliation.
Birth rates generally go down naturally once standard of living and life expectancy improves. This has been proven.
Going around sterilising people seems a bit pointless. Such measures have never been required in history and could never be widespread enough to make a sufficient difference.
It also annoys me so much when privileged people in developed countries talk about overpopulation. The population itself isn't the problem - the problem is the distribution and consumption of resources (or overconsumption, in our case). If you have your own biological children, don't talk about overpopulation. It makes you look very silly
Personally, I don't like multinational NGOs and in most cases, don't support them. If I donate money, I prefer to give to grassroots, local charities that don't have millionaire CEOs. I also refuse to donate to anything with a religious affiliation.
Kudos Cimbom. Agree with you.
Over population may be a problem in certain regions but that is just one among many others they face. And I wouldn't support organisations providing food etc. (it is similar to giving FHOG to tackle housing issus. Affordable houses have to be built) Education is vital for these communities to make informed decisions.
Many multi nationals including religious ones just manipulate the situation for their own agenda.
Once a couple has had all the kids they want, whats wrong with sterilisation? It's what me and the wife choose to do, and I got done, as it's so easy for the bloke, and it's only fair after all the things my wife has put up with. I'd bet that people in third world countries would love to have the option if it was free. And the sooner they get the birthrates under control, the sooner they can improve their standards of living.
It also annoys me so much when privileged people in developed countries talk about overpopulation. The population itself isn't the problem - the problem is the distribution and consumption of resources (or overconsumption, in our case). If you have your own biological children, don't talk about overpopulation. It makes you look very silly
.
There are plenty of third world countries who won't ever be wealthy countries because they are already so overpopulated. You base your assumptions on the model that 1st world countries took 100 yeas ago. There's no rule that says the same thing will happen now with third world countries that already have too many people, and especially if they have backward religions that regard women as being inferior.
If you have your own biological children, don't talk about overpopulation. It makes you look very silly
.
So only childless people can discuss overpopulation? How bloody ridiculous!
See ya's.
I'm sure they'd like the option but with over two-thirds of the world's population in developing countries, it's not physically possible. It would be extremely difficult to even offer the option to 10% of them.
Can you please explain the link between population and a country's wealth? I don't see it.
You can't care too much about it if it didn't influence your decision.
There is a reasonable inverse correlation between population size and wealth if you consider it on a per capita basis.
Australia is one of the wealthiest countries in the world. China for all their economic might, is okay, but still a fair way behind.
source: List of countries by GDP per capita
As someone with no children, I feel entitled (in fact obligated) to talk about sterilization. In fact, let's go one step further and proactively deal with the problem in an old fashion religious way. We can go Old Testament and murder the first born in every household...
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go spill some goats blood on my doorway and increase my life insurance.
Australia is one of the wealthiest countries in the world. China for all their economic might, is okay, but still a fair way behind.
source: List of countries by GDP per capita
As someone with no children, I feel entitled (in fact obligated) to talk about sterilization. In fact, let's go one step further and proactively deal with the problem in an old fashion religious way. We can go Old Testament and murder the first born in every household...
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go spill some goats blood on my doorway and increase my life insurance.
Or -
The demographic-economic paradox is the inverse correlation found between wealth and fertility within and between nations. The higher the degree of education and GDP per capita of a human population, subpopulation or social stratum, the fewer children are born in any industrialized country. In a 1974 UN population conference in Bucharest, Karan Singh, a former minister of population in India, illustrated this trend by stating "Development is the best contraceptive."
Total Fertility Rate vs. GDP per capita by country, 2009.
Only countries with over 5 Million population were plotted, to reduce outliers.
Source: Wikipedia.
i think I will be cancelling my surf life saving one?62% of all donations are spent on administration ??? that is crazy!
http://www.couriermail.com.au/busin...nistration-costs/story-e6freqmx-1226174582139
am ok with my vision aus one
62% is probably not too bad considering some are up to around 90%
Anyone want to sponsor one of my kids?
Cimbom
The graph isn't about fertility rates and population.
It is about fertility rates and GDP per capita....
As someone on this thread said.....
Birth rates generally go down naturally once standard of living and life expectancy improves.
I'm guessing GDP per capita is a reasonably good proxy for those.
Birth rates generally go down naturally once standard of living and life expectancy improves. This has been proven.
Going around sterilising people seems a bit pointless. Such measures have never been required in history and could never be widespread enough to make a sufficient difference.
It also annoys me so much when privileged people in developed countries talk about overpopulation. The population itself isn't the problem - the problem is the distribution and consumption of resources (or overconsumption, in our case). If you have your own biological children, don't talk about overpopulation. It makes you look very silly
Personally, I don't like multinational NGOs and in most cases, don't support them. If I donate money, I prefer to give to grassroots, local charities that don't have millionaire CEOs. I also refuse to donate to anything with a religious affiliation.
Cimbom access to contraception is a public health issue. No-one is talking about forcible sterilisation - just about offering women in poorer countries the opportunity to control how many children they have.
The absence of fertility control was the leading cause of death for women probably throughout history.
I think that standards of living and fertility control go hand in hand - reducing the number of children you have improves life expectancy for women and in many countries/circumstances would also improve the standard of living.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-19134777