*DAMN R6 Forum

www.wewerehumans.com/WWH_ingles.htm (http://www.wewerehumans.com/WWH_ingles.htm)

Sigh....We can't support the whole world. It's impossible. We can only do one piece at a time. These developing countries are struggling because their governments are corrupt and/or have poor governmental skills. We can't just throw out our money to the world to have everyone fed. Our economy would collapse. It needs to be recycled through the consumer markets. The video failed to mention that.

screw Lucca/Co.

Instead of actually taking time to respond to that, I'll pose a question for all the idealists out there:

How can you justify living your lifestyle why such things as this site describes are going on elsewhere?

I mean, surely these people need your aid more than you need a new computer, new clothes, or any number of other items. For all the people who have been bitching about what the US does at the governmental level, why do you not do the same at a personal level?

blah blah blah......my thoughts exactly Ace...just like these boneheads outside protesting McDonalds with ?Meat is Murder? signs...while at the same time they sport leather boots and belts. I'll wear it, but I will protest you if you eat it...no sense to these treehuggers. Smoke another bowl and tell me how righteous you are while you support drug dealers...lmao, I am so sick of these ppl.

Kilzo, they only support drug dealers because the goverment insists on making it illegal to sell.

As for vegetarians wearing leather, I suppose some do, but I personally wouldn't think to buy something leather because it isn't really that useful of clothing.

Finally, about saving everyone in the world, I quote Jesus Christ Superstar, "Surely you're not saying we have the resources to save the poor from their lot.  There will be poor always, pathetically struggling, look at the good things you've got"  It isn't possible to save everyone, it isn't mandatory that you deprive yourself completely to try to save them, but that still doesn't remove responsibility to not be greedy or over the top with wealth.

Makes me wonder how much, if any, of Bill Gates Wealth goes to charity.

As much that helps his taxes.

as is written in his will. gates's children are only getting enough money to pay till they go through college. everything else is going to charity

Wow bondo...for once I actually agree with you.

The root reason these governments are struggling is not because they are corrupt or stupid, but because they are still reeling from the after effects of Western colonialism. We caused many of these problems by colonizing them and then trying to convert them to Western capitalism, a transition their infrastructures and economies were not prepared for. This caused unstable governments to be set up and the continuation of these problems. We continue to excacerbate the problems through ineffective international organizations that have only western solutions to their problems, solutions that do not work well in different cultural contexts.

Also, couldn't our resources be recycled through them instead of wasteful US consumer markets? If these nations did have food and education, couldn't their citizens grow up to be productive consumers of US food, industry, and culture?

Ace, I agree with what you say (as illustrated by the Julia Butterfly Hill quote in my footer). People do need to personally reflect their beliefs. What am I doing to help starving children? Admittedly not much, but more than the average citizen does. I don't buy any sweatshop produced clothing, I buy my food from a local organic cooperative, I eat only vegetarian food, I bicycle everywhere, I recycle everything I possibly can. And I do own a computer and a number of items that are complete luxuries. I don't think that it's necessary to deprive oneself to live a moral lifestyle, just to keep in mind the privilege one has and not pursue ostentatious wealth. No one really has any excuse for making more than (arbitrarily picked) 200 grand a year. Why don't those people do something helpful to society with all their extra money, especially since society has generally done so much for them.

Kilzo, your argument requires that everyone be a complete absolutist in all their beliefs. Since I'm confident that you are pro Iraq war, I will apply your statement to this argument: since you support a war to liberate oppressed people from a cruel dictator, you must support the US immediately starting wars in Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Libya, North Korea, Columbia, Uzbekistan and Kazahkstan. Think about all the waste that goes into producing meat for fast food consumption as opposed to the production of one pair of leather shoes, which can be worn for years if properly cared for.

Maybe instead of thinking about justifications for not helping problems it would be more practical to think about how you can be part of the solution.

Im not saying you need to be an absolutist in your beliefs, Im saying don't be a hypocrite. And yes I would support going into all those countries and removing anyone or anything that threatens peace and stability. Do you think we can let just anyone build nuclear or chemical weapons? How else can we keep psycos with big dreams of  world chaos out of power and out of weapons? Trust the UN...the same ppl who opposed the Iraq war because they would lose oil money...really what are the solutions to the growing trouble of WMD and wackos who own them? I have no idea, so I go with the force tactic.

Tasty, what does being vegetarian have to do with solidarity?

kami, all of these problems are intertwined. through my dietary choices i choose not to support corporate or factory farms, farms that wreck environmental havoc and take jobs away from independent farmers. the US could feed the entire world with the resources we use to feed our cattle alone. by eating vegetarian food i am choosing not to support our fuxxored food industry and impractical allocation of resources.


If this is what you believe, than you should be in the streets trying to use force to overthrow our current administration, because that's exactly what they are. Those countries I named are not aggressors. And no one threatens peace and stability as much as the US. Absolutely ludicrous.

tasty,

youre whole colonialism arguement is a nice way of letting ppl like idi amin or saddam hussein off the hook. too bad there have been former colonies that dont have sociopath leaders and are prosperous.


WOW, if all of us did that, there would be no enviromental problems or hunger in the world. you are a great person tasty. congratulations. i thank you on behalf of mother nature and all the starving children of the world.
point is, those are all just trivial things you can do to relieve your conscience, but you are still just as responsible as any of us.

Abe, the point is, since Saddam or Idi Amin or whatever other horrible person, SHOULD be let off the hook by us because they aren't a threat to us.  They shouldn't be let off the hook by those in their countries.

The UK used to be a monarchy, yet it, without a foreign power telling it to fix itself, is now a democracy.  You don't think Henry VIII was as bad as Saddam?  It is Iraq's responsibility to fix Iraq just as any other country has the responsibility for its domestic affairs.  The US has no right to mess with said domestic affairs.  For a foreign country to mind the domestic affairs of another country is colonialism plain and simple, and colonizing is wrong, plain and simple.  With the US being the #1 colonial power they are the #1 country in the wrong.

Oh, and how Tasty just as responsible as any of us for world hunger.  What can he do differently that would have more impact than he is currently having?  I too am vegitarian, it is ridiculous how much is wasted in feed, water, and energy in raising livestock for consumption.  I have stats if you really want to hear them about how much of the above is used on livestock.

Abe, I said in my post that I didn't believe my actions did that much to help. But you had to go be an asshole and make a dumbass comment. Despite what you may think, what you buy does matter. If everyone did the same there would be an incredible change in how things are produced around the world, a good change. And how can I be held as responsible for world hunger and pollution as you, who presumably does nothing to alleviate either? That's just not fair. Our current system is set up to stratify the balance of economic power further than it already is, and my actions fight the companies behind those strategies

also, my colonialism argument is directed specifically toward Africa (seemed to be the focus of the video) but can be applied to any third world country. Iraq and Syria are not third world countries, they have lots of wealth from oil except that their leaders distribute the wealth extremely unfairly. I don't think that corrupt leaders should be held unaccountable, not at all. The leaders of those countries are in this case directly responsible. I'd like to see you name a former colony that is prosperous abe. People like to hold India up as the example of a British colony having positive effects from colonialism, but that country is still quite poor and extremely backward in the rural parts.

Tasty, I think he was thinking of the US as the former colony that is prosperous.  Although there is a huge difference between the US colonies and most in that the US colonies were made up of European immigrants, not the native populations of the area.  And if you consider the impact on the natives, the colonializing of the US was catastrophic for the native population.

I don't think not being herbivore alleviates any problems at all, here in the EU we have a huge problem with our farmers being rediculously subventioned so that no one can export basic agricultural products to the EU. I agree that they should change this but not being a carnivore, as I am, is not the answer.

tasty

maybe my comment was worded a little agressivly, but i still feel that those are all just little things you can do to alleviate our conscience, but that dont really require any sacrifice and ultimately dont really make any difference. its like protesting the war in iraq, from the comfort of times square, when you know fully well that no war means that iraq gets raped by saddam and his sons for another 30 years. i was not saying that you are responsible for anything tasty, im just saying that doing all those things doesnt let you off the hook any more
 than the rest of us.

as for the colony thing: Botswana, South Korea, Morroco, Ghana, Cote d'Ivoire (unti recently), Singapore and Malaysia are all countries that were colonies at some point and are relativly prosperous today. yes, India is a good example of a fmr colony that has a stable political history. economic development has been problematic, but for a country with that kindof population strain and rural-urban divide, its actually not bad. im not saying colonialism has been good for the third world ( far from it), but i dont see how you can use that to explain why shitheads like saddam or kim jong il are in power.

Kim Jong Il is there is there as a direct effect of the Soviets. Saddam is there as a direct effect of the cold war.

its cute what some people write here...

the wealth of the western world is to a certain extend based on colonialism and exploitation of what is the 3rd world today. therefore we sure have a responisbility.

...but i guess that goes to far back to be taught in american schools.

Alright abe, I'm glad to see that despite our bickering we actually generally agree. Colonialism isn't good for 3rd world countries, cruel despots need to be held responsible for their actions. These leaders grab power by taking advantage of the lack of concrete government and instability within their respective countries.

Btw I still disagree on one thing, I do think living a certain lifestyle lets me off the hook more than others. 8)

Here is something from economics 101. The poorer countries are not able to prosper not because of corrupt dictatorships. They are down the shit because they never had any money start off with. The US didnt have to pay for much when it was a colony nor was the populous particularly poor. Zaire has to pay for social services, debt to world bank, develope infastructure, and fight a few wars all at the same time. All their resources (ie diamonds) are owned by foreign companies. At the end of the year they loose money from the cost of living as a country. They are not able to purchase or develope any capital. They are not able to get out of this spiral of debt, and thus not able to prosper.

kami: i was talking about colonialism, not the cold war. and so what if those scumbags are in power because of coldwar politics......it doesnt excuse anything. A lot of countrys were on one side of the cold war or the other and didnt murder half their populations, while starving the rest. dont cut these guys slack because the US or USSR helped them out at some point. they are still responsible.

slingblade: shut up and get back to your vocational school. moron. everytime you have a comment its about how stupid americans are when you behave exactly like the dumbest redneck in alabama.

tasty: thank you. i just felt that your other comment put the whole blame on colonial powers, which is a little too easy, imo. yes, colonialism destroyed the traditional fabric of just about every 3rd world society, but the ones that don't have psychotic or kleptocratic rulers tend to do alright.
btw: have you ever considered that for some ppl in certain countries, the paycheck from the sweatshop is the only source of income?

cossack: nice example. and mobutu had nothing to do with zaire being a shithole. its not like he and his family lived in luxury, while the rest of zaire sat hungry in diamond mines?? yes, the US put him in power, but does that completely absolve him?? just think about iraq: it used to be a quite modern middle-income country, until saddam began lining his pockets with oil and spending exorbitant sums of money to build wmds....but hey, its the US', err USSR's, err UK's fault, right???

This is one reason I don't pay attention to the news about sweatshop made clothes.  The quality of life in China is much improved over a few decades ago, specifically because of the abundance of jobs from American companies, even if those jobs seem horrible to us, the life of the people in those factories tends to be better than it would be without the job.

The downside is that Americans are losing the jobs that the Chinese are getting so it is in some regard lowering the American quality of life.  On the other hand, the products we buy at the store are cheaper thanks to this so that mitigates the cost from lost jobs.

I kind of used Zaire (Congo for you geographical sticklers) as a random example, any third world country can take the place of it. The issue remains the same. Third World countries are not able to produce any capital because the cost of being independent is too high.

Even if Mobutu were to live in poverty, it would not be enough to develope mining and infastructure in the back country, and keep repairing them after rebel attacks to produce a surplus.

A little off topic, but here goes:

Every time I see an example of someone criticizing a dictator for living in wealth while their country suffers, I have to wonder what's the big deal.  Sure, it's selfish, rude perhaps, although a leader should expect some perks.

But what's the terrible issue of a few people having a lot of wealth?  It's not as if, were Hussein or Mobutu, or anyone's wealth distributed equally - that the net standard of living would be any better.  That's like saying that because the queen of england has millions of pounds, every englishman that's a pauper should be upset and demand their share.

Likewise, I find it bizarre to hear Republicans noting the prosperity of Hussein's palaces in Iraq - as though his money belonged to the people.  Are they communists now?  There will always be those more prosperous than others, and it's no secret that a capitalist society encourages that prosperity to be built off exploitation.  It seems outrageous for the US of all places to criticize Hussein for extravagance of wealth.

After all, the President here gets a mansion, two jets, a mountain retreat, limos, helicopters, bodyguards, cooks, choffers, etc.  Not exactly ruffing it.  I'm sure those on welfare or those who are homeless really appreciate that (especially when they whine about not getting paid enough...when they keep many benefits for life).

Oh and Cossack, Zaire is an ok naming...it is probably for the best when talking to a non-Geographer or political crowd.  Saying Congo is too vague because there is the Republic of Congo (Zaire) or the Democratic Republic of Congo.

I can only hope they've made the switch  ;D Maybe when they revolt against the oppressive capitalist system they will rip down all the Ronald McDonald statues so the Chinese, Scandinavian, and Cuban press can take pictures of it.

As for that thing about the substandard paystubs improving people's quality of life in Malaysia and whatnot, I don't think this provides a very good justification. Look beyond the numerical wage they earn. What about the cruel tactics employed by management to keep workers in line and destroy any sort of unionization or intercommunication? What about the way many of them are tricked into working in a modern version of indentured servitude? Also, it's not as if Nike and Gap couldn't afford to pay a decent wage, so why do we need to go around justifying their ridiculously low wages. If a company can't survive without paying slave wages, than it isn't a good business plan and doesn't deserve to exist in the first place. Just look at the human rights violations made by Coca-Cola in Columbia. I think you can read about it on Amnesty International's website, and I can guarantee you will find it disgusting.

I really don't care about what Coca-Cola did in Columbia, I'm too much of a Coke fanboy/addict :(

Tasty, there are certainly cases where it is inhuman.  But much of the low wage labor in Chinese is done by companies that don't ignore human rights.  They may work long hours at low pay, but they make sure to provide quality housing for the workers along with health care, food, etc.  I think the minority that don't put out this effort make the impression on the whole worse than it is.

Bondo, if your definition of "quality" is housing, healthcare, and food that would be considered below the level of poverty, than yes they do provide quality surroundings for workers. Think about how little freedom those workers have too; just because they are getting paid doesn't mean they aren't slaves. What companies do you know of that are helping workers in China? I've read very bad things about Nike, Gap, and Reebok.