Most rich countries are rich because they are fortunate with resources. America made its wealth through oil, Australia through its gold and coal, etc. Its like being born into a rich family vs being born into a poor family. The rich kids must help the poor kids to make the place a better place to live.
It is ridiculous that developing countries with starving children have to payback loans to developed countries! It is a global, political monopoly exploiting people. We are one world and we should start behaving like that. In addition, first world countries OWE third world countries not only because of colonialism but in the modern day, many super-chains like Tesco and Walmart obtain their goods from 3rd world countries and if that stopped,the 1st world economy would collapse!
Offering help to third world countries that are in a poor state in the morally correct thing to do. I also believe it's appropriate because when they are more financially viable, they are more likely to buy and trade goods which benefits the supporters economy as well.
If they are expected to repay the debt of support then how are they supposed to develop into a thriving country. I believe that would thrust them back into the same position they were in to begin with.
The only sustainable help that the developed countries could give is the support in nutritive food production for these countries. Most of the time these countries eat only starchy foods and that upsets the brain metabolism, of these people and that makes them lethargic, postponing things in life and alsunder development of the brain takes lace. There is a person in SriLanka,who has done a gigantic research on the subject and he has introduced to the leaders of SriLanka. But t has fallen on deaf years, as only then they can exploit the poor masses. If anyone is interested to know more of this subject, please let me know and I shall give more details of this person.
Yes, we have drawn borders between and within countries, and these borders have created special loyalties. But the more important commitment is to the human race whether in the USA or Nigeria or Cambodia or elsewhere. That's not a call for complete equality, but it does call for our help.
We can stop the death of young children so they can grow up and make a difference and provide food and money for their families. Also, so families can be healthy and try to help raise their family in a good nutritional lifestyle so they don't have to face unfortunate deaths.
Most of the problems were caused by us when we decided to invade their countries long ago! Now they are left to pick up the pieces after us! We would protest if it happened to us wouldn't we? Just because they aren't near us doesn't mean that we should blame them, saying that poverty is something that is their fault when we got them into it!
More developed countries should help third world countries without expecting repayment. We shouldn't be hypocritical to those lessons in life we learned as a child: "Lend a helping hand", "Give more", "Share"
If not donate, we should at least help to discover their undiscovered resources such as gold and diamonds.
The state of the third world or developing countries is a result of their past relationship with the exploiting capitalist countries who capitalized on their weaponry to cheat humiliate and degrade their society by colonization and the struggle to dominate and plant their ways of life on them in the name of modernization
Third world countries have been looted and their efficient governors overthrown by the developed countries in the past. In certain Asian countries like India,the loss has been unrecoverable so far. Linking the present economy with the past will help us understand that there is a difference between earning and stealing wealth.To mitigate that, the developed countries should take a stance and help third world countries to overcome barriers and develop friendly relations.
Help needs to be to promote a sustainable and independent future. We should not alter religions, ecological or biological systems and economies to our own way of thinking. Give without expectations. Give to promote productive, healthy, and happy lives. We will be giving to help those that need and ourselves.
Only sustainable help that the developed countries could give is the support in nutritive food production for these countries. Most of the time these countries eat only starchy foods and that upsets the brain metabolism, of these people and that makes them lethargic, postponing things in life and alsunder development of the brain takes lace. There is a person in SriLanka,who has done a gigantic research on the subject and he has introduced to the leaders of SriLanka. But t has fallen on deaf years, as only then they can exploit the poor masses. If anyone is interested to know more of this subject, please let me know and I shall give more details of this person.
I believe that the causes of poverty and backwardness in the third world are mainly the selfish and disastrous exploitation of the first world countries both during the colonial and post colonial -democratic and globalization eras. In addition the poor and under developed countries are suffering from ill effects of modernization and industrialization the developed countries in the form of the ozone depletion, global warming, environmental pollution and other calamities. In short the truly indebted countries are the developed countries which should pay back a lot to compensate the disasters they created on the poor both directly and indirectly. Thanks, Semahegn D.
True giving is to give without expectation. Although the US has our own problems, we can't seclude ourselves from the rest of the world. I also don't expect us to be able to fix everything just because we have money. I don't think that we can solve everybody's problems by throwing a bunch of money aimlessly either. It takes people who can educate others to foster self-sustaining communities in those that aren't able to help themselves to really make a change.
Do you ever think to yourself ugh I don't need these things and just get rid of them well you are lucky to even had that item people in third world countries have nothing and we have so much and the least we can do is help them. There are people who can't even afford their kids and have to send them to orphanages and people die every day there because the can't afford their basic needs and we have so much money; we need to help them!!
We are privileged to live in the country that we do, to have support when we need it most so I find it only our responsibility to help others. We describe ourselves to the rest of the world as a people who value freedom to a good life yet it seems to me that by saying this and acting in sometimes selfish ways that we are boasting when we could be boosting. Boosting third world countries and poverty stricken places find their feet and find good in the lives they live. We should not help for what we can gain from it and if not for the feeling of knowing someone is better off because of us then we should help to uphold the values we claim so often to have.
There is no denying that aid has had some positive effects on recipients especially in the case of the fighting diseases such as malaria and HIV. But, these achievements have caused undesirable side effects, as it comes at a cost for local people.
For example: The successful reduction of malaria, robbed people of their jobs and resulted in more poverty in certain areas.
Despite the hard work of local mosquito net manufacturers producing about 500 nets per week, they could not make enough nets to reduce malaria in equatorial parts of Africa.
A ray of hope came in the form of the Hollywood movie star that rallied the masses and goaded western governments to collect and send about 100,000 mosquito nets to the afflicted region at a cost of a million dollars. The nets arrived, they were distributed and indeed a good deed was done, as this was a positive step towards combating malaria in Africa (Brunel 1997, 44-45).
However, with the market flooded with foreign nets, the local mosquito net makers were promptly put out of business, each worker had dependents. Therefore, such failure resulted in at-least 15 workers losing their jobs. Their dependents were now forced to depend on aid hand-outs. Note the long lasting negative effect of this conflict is that the life span of the mosquito net is 5 years.
The above illustration is a typical example of aid paradox because, when viewed in close-up, the aid appears to have worked but, when viewed in its entirety, the reality remains that the overall situation has not improved and is worse in the long run (Brunel 1997, 45).
With all we have written so far about Aid and it implication, can you really see why aid does not work, why aid further marginalizes people in some African countries, why aid is just another excuse to make us perpetually indebted to the donors?
Sending aid helps other nations develop, meaning they can later become trading partners as their economy develops. This allows the sending of aid to be mutually beneficial in the long run, but a country that has good trade can be beneficial worldwide. Since all countries have the chance to benefit whether or not they contributed, countries should feel obligated to assist in the interests of fairness.
Yes, the developed countries should help the poor because it will give the environment a little break from pollution. However, they should not help too much, the country needs to be able to control itself, therefore, if they baby them, there economy shall die, they should only help the poor people, not the rich.
I think that we would (rich countries) benefit by knowing that we did the right thing, and as one of the more developed countries we would fulfill our role of helping those that are less fortunate than us. But I also think that when something horrible like a natural disaster or war would happen to us I think we should be able to count on that country that we helped to help us.
A good deed should be measured, not in the perceived debt owed, but in the peace and contentedness that arise in both parties when a good deed is done. A sense of pride should accompany the giver, as he or she gives of their time and money to someone who has little or no time or money for themselves. To be honest, the thought of giving a third world family food, water, clothing and money for education makes me feel joy on the inside. And if all else fails, just remember that some of these people could end up being your next door neighbor someday.
If everybody is equal then yes we should. We should give the opportunity of life to other countries. It's not equity or equality if the person cannot even glimpse that opportunity without pestilence and death around them or if the opportunity is never given in the first place. If America or any industrialized nation fell down we would want help. Morally if we are equal then we should help enhance the lives of others. For memory is the best thing you can have besides life. If everybody helped each other then the world would have a better image of itself.
If you consider that most developed countries are developed because they took resources from (currently) developing countries, or chose to colonise them, do things halfway, then leave. Its because of this that they got a headstart while developing countries are set back a few decades. An example would be how the Belgium people just went into Rwanda, screwed up the social system and divided the Hutus and Tutsis, which caused the Rwandan Genocide. Thus the obligation to help the developing countries. Even though they didn't do anything to hinder the development of the developing countries, it is still a moral obligation for the strong to help the weak; for those who have to help those who do not. Even in the animal kingdom, stronger members of the same species protect the weaker ones (given that they are not solitary animals), and are we not supposed to be of higher intelligence, morals or whatever of animals?
We all live in one world together. It's like living in a big home and having some family members starving and others having a golden bed. It's not right. If they can't help themselves fine, can't we be the bigger person and pitch in? It'll help later with there progress can later benefit us anyways so it's a win win. I'm not saying that we should change other countries to make it similar to America, but that we help so no one is starving.
Helping the poor can balance everything, and for everyone to receive the same share at the most basic of things like clean water or medication, that most 3rd world countries don’t even have, would make the world more justice. This method would make us all equal in the significant ways. So if this is right why should the 3rd worlds nation prepare for repayment, when it's a life and death situation for thousands of people?
to me developed countries should not help the poor properly and i cant say that?. wealth countries argue that they give humanitarian to poor. but
the main objective is economical and political issues ,and this not generous
Developed countries helping less fortunate countries is the right thing to do. What separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom is that we have morals and act on them. If a country is able to help, they must, because that is its moral responsibility and, also, people instinctively respect moral actions. Thus, the country would gain respect from the masses, and this respect is important in order to remain powerful and to hold power.
We are now a global economy. If we want that economy to thrive we must decide whether we want to be a world of have's and have-not's, or whether we want all of mankind to have a fair share in our resources.
The nations that are currently called "developed" got a head start on the rest of the world. That may have been through their own efforts and abilities--or it may have been the luck of the draw. We just happened to have the natural resources--we just happened to have wealth in the form of a wide variety of immigrants streaming in with their wide variety of skills and cultures. Or it was a fluke--we were the country in the right place at the right time.
Regardless of how we got here, we have abundance and many nations live in poverty. This is basically wrong! If we wish to continue as global leaders, we must take the moral high ground and help disadvantaged people with no expectation of repayment...other than what karma may send us.
To quote John Donne, "No man is an island, entire of itself...any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind..."
now a days half of the world is rich we should be more of a people world, now we only care about ourselves
Everyone suffers when there is poverty in the world. Poverty and desperation can lead to violence and corruption. Countries that can afford to support the poor in other nations benefit from this relationship, even though it is not through direct repayment. Violence and corruption can spread. In addition, it is a moral obligation to help those who suffer.
I believe that developed countries should help poor, third world nations without expecting debt repayment. First of all, there are poor countries, such as Haiti, that have suffered from natural disasters like earthquakes. This bad luck is not Haiti's fault; therefore, the citizens should not be indebted to those from developed countries who help ease their suffering. Also, the golden rule "Do unto others as you want them to do unto you" is very important. If a poor country is suffering and a developed country does nothing to help, then the developed country may bring bad karma upon itself. The developed country could become poor and may not have a lot of allies to bail them out, especially since the developed country did not show mercy on poor, underdeveloped countries.
the third world countries may be poor. we should give some technologies.
If developed countries never helped the poor countries, then the development will never come in the poor country.
Ninety-five percent of the world's wealth is currently owned by ten percent of the world's population. However, the world's economies are based on a consumer model of economic growth. Developed nations will not be able to sustain their standard of living if developing nations enter into the global economy with a culture of consumption. Therefore, developed nations must learn how to develop cultures of sustainability and export this culture to smaller third world nations. This will ensure the long-term sustainability of the world economy.
I don't believe that if a developed country did help a third world country and made that country incur more debt that it would help the situation at all. A better solution would be to help them with out expecting debt for a set time frame in order to help them in the long run.
If countries that could help would it would make this world a better place. It is unfair that so many countries are struggling right now because they don't have the money they need and they can't be expected to repay the debt. Many countries have more than enough resources, more than they could ever use. Why can't they help others?
If the governments of developed countries who wield great power and wealth do not help, who else can help them in a better way? Many people in the third world countries are trapped in the cycle of poverty and in the chaos of civil war. Worse still, their governments are corrupted and do not spend enough money in education to give people opportunities to break out of the poverty cycle. Imagine yourself in that kind of situation. Who can help you? And imagine you as a third world country citizen, seeing the luxuries enjoyed by people in the same world (though you are from a "third world?" Country and they are from a "first world?" Country, all of us are still from earth and hence the same world) - people who probably have not worked as hard as you or experienced as much hardship as you. How will you see them? They seem like aliens isn't it? Wouldn't it be nice for us aliens to help them so that we can all prosper together? Perhaps with education and a high standard of living their fertility rates will drop and their populations will decrease, freeing up resources to last us for a longer time.
First point from my view, is how these poor countries are going to repay their debts and they don't have enough resources! And the second question, is that. Why we're sticking to the financial support only, they can support them by exchanging the experiences, or even by applying the same model of the consultancy agencies, which is having a % from the net profit for an agreed period of time, but this is conditioned with giving them the full support and knowledge
If a nation cannot afford to pay itself for itself and its residents, then it cannot afford to pay back aid received. Rather than expecting repayment, the donor nation should consider the money well invested. The recipient of the aid should look for opportunities to help out another nation, so the cycle comes full circle- I helped you, you helped him, he helped her, she helped me, etc. Not a system of money paid and debts owed, but an acknowledgement of the fact that we've all stood by each other when we needed the others and the others needed us.
Because they need stuff from us and we have the stuff that they need (the stuff) so we don't use the stuff that they need because the stuff they need is the stuff that we have so we can give it to them because we don't need the stuff yeah.
Untapped human growth is at steak here. The uninformed can be educated, the hungry fed, working together developing relationships with countries of the world, using armies to feed and educate instead of kill and be killed. We are all in this together. A safer, happier, and healthier world is where all future children of the world deserve to live
Many of these third world countries are without rule of law due to bad governance (the people have no rights). No democracy, We could not imagine this being raised in western culture, to have our voice completely stifled by those few with money and power who value profit over people. I challenge those of you who think it is not our problem to not buy THERE resources on OUR shelves therefore you can honestly say you have not contributed to the millions in poverty. We don know what it is to struggle like this, our problems pale in comparison. Have a heart, give a lot or a little it all counts.
People who are in these third world countries could die any day and have to worry about things that Americans poorest wouldn't think of. Some people spend their whole day looking for water and the water they eventually find is not sanitary in the least but they have to give it to their families because it is the only way for them to survive, for now.
The first world uses third word resources at very cheap rates and we make contaminate their countries with factories that make products we make them buy. The first world uses third word resources at very cheap rates and we make contaminate their countries with factories that make products we make them buy.
We don't even like having money, why can't they have it? They are just so greedy that they take any money they can get. If we already have more money than we can use than why not give it away to some poor delinquents (all poor people are criminals). Also, How can other nations function without the God guided support of America?
I'm a seventeen year old high school student. I think what bothers me the most about this topic is the lack of empathy or hope from these nay sayers. "The money won't go to the people." Well I mean what would you like us to do? You want us to go individually hand each family 500 dollars? Yeah sure the money may not go directly to the people, but it will go to programs to help support the poor and vulnerable. A society's moral standard is determined by how it treats the weak and powerless. What kind of society do we live in if we do nothing to support those who need our help? Sure we don't want to be imperialists that think that our way of living, or our standards are the best. Because they might not be. But we should at the very least do something to help liberate the oppressed and take care of those who cant take care of themselves.
We don't realize the strength and beauty that can come from practicing good will. No one knows the troubles the lie ahead. "United we stand, divided we fall" Ask yourselves, who is our biggest enemy? My answer: Death. It will affect us all, what are you doing to prevent it?
Surely the most immoral thing to do would be to turn our backs to what is clearly an important issue. So what is if costs money - what's the value of a human life? I can't understand why people have an issue with helping others! If in doubt - help them out
In my opinion developed countries encourage ignorance towards third world nations. They allow people to die from starvation when they are fully aware they can help them, it's inhumane. There should be more awareness encouraged in society of global inequality, as people are losing site of the real issues .
I might start off by stating that perhaps we, as a society, expect some sort of repayment. But in actual fact, I would be wrong. Is it a bad thing to do a good thing? Why should we expect repayment from a third world country when some of them barely have enough money to actually feed their people. Altogether, it is a nice thing to do. And we as a collaboration are nice people, aren't we?
Yes, they have to. Because:
Frist, we are all human and boundaries should not stop humanity to work.
Second, the developed countries in order to get reach have been using more resources of the earth and they are also destroying the environment more which is effecting the poor nations. Thanks
We, as an industrialized nation (the U.S.), have been able to accommodate ourselves by the resources in which we utilize in order to become who we are today and now that we have exploited much of our resources we are having to import goods from developing countries to satisfy our material needs. We should at least have the decency to aid them in progress towards having the same achievement we obtained. In the United States we have the opportunity at the pursuit of happiness; should we not give them that same right, no matter where they live?
Developed countries use more than there fair share of natural resourses. We are wealthy and can easily afford to help those who have true need for basic necessities such as clean water, housing, nutritious food, health care, education, etc. All things that many take for granted would be a blessing to those who have not. Helping a person get on their feet is a moral obligation.
Of course developed nations MUST help developing nations! Most usually, they have a little extra to spare, and a little could go a long way! If all the developed nations of the world were to put together their extra resources, they would surely be able to help a lot of developing countries provide for their societies.
Everyday we throw away food in our homes because we have too much on our plates. The supermarkets throw away huge amounts of food at the end of each day because they are overstocked with vegetables and fruit which grows in abundance around us. Our shelves are filled to bursting with too many choices. How sad that I can't put a plate of food to one side for a guest in a third world nation where there is a family that needs to eat more than I.
Everyday one of us goes to the doctor for something that we could have treated at home.
We should ask ourselves, can I take one less trip to the doctors and give my medical treatment and the time of a doctor to that family far away that needs it more than I.
The world is a very unbalanced place. Those that have more than they need should give to those with less than them. We came into the world naked, and we will leave it naked. No possessions, property or land.
It goes without saying all men (and women) are born equal.
So what gives the 'wealthy' the right to survive and the poor naught?
What is Wealth, other then assets accumulated, and 'dictated' throughout history?
Wealth at one stage was only means of survival, now since our revolutions and industrial age we have the means to sustain Humanity with combined efforts of all nations.
Greed is the only thing that has held us back.
We are in a new Era, and this Debate raises question of a new Age to combat Said Era.
Will we rise up and help our fellow man? Or will we let ourselves remain shallow and self obsessed?
I'm highly Disappointed in the 30% that disagree that aiding foreign nations is not only the right thing to do, but that it would be Beneficial.
There has been a Repression for a substantial percentage of the population to develop, in more ways then one.
It's been stated here that throwing money at a problem doesn't solve it, Correct. But, when you consider money or our monetary system, dictates everything, then it can never be a bad thing right? There just need's to be terms put in place for a sustainable infrastructure towards economic growth. If the countries are not fit to govern the newly acquired assets, plans and agreements should be drawn and concluded to guarantee success.
There is always great potential for brilliant minds to develop and advance fields such as science and technology when you increase the size of the field you can select ideas from.
Not to mention there has always existed a chance to gain Enlightenment (in whatever form) through spirituality, lost arts and culture passed down through generations.
WE have been stalling progress for all Humanity, by restricting the development of 3rd world Countries/Nations. That can be taken as a fact, not a statement.
With a combined Frontier of Developed Nations worldwide the likely success for humanity to thrive increase's substantially.
The fact that we have been playing the 'Strong Survive and the Weak Die off' game, has only worked against us.
War is my prime argument to that fact.
If money is absolved as an issue so do all tensions associated.
United we Stand , Divided we Fall
Yearly we are getting most of the developing countries resources and when we pay their government their government takes it for it self. It's time for labor helps. We can teach people in developing countries to control their money. We can train their people to become good doctors. Not only it will influence on them but it also would influence us. In addition we are on a same planet, if we help each other we can build a better world for everybody and everything.
Also you should do it because it makes you feel good. I know I may sound like a really mean parent. But if you do community service, you should do it to help others not to do it just because you want something in return. 5 more words go here.
First world countries should help third world countries because sometimes the poor just need that little push to help them grow. If first world countries were to help the poor, for example, by providing education many of the students will begin to learn. Once students begin to gain the mind set of creating new andvacements or learning how the governments support themselves, they will begin to make changes. They'll make great technological changes that will be able to start creating a better country. And that way they wouldn't need help from other countries. If anything, they will have the moral idea of returning the favor to the countries that have help then grow.
We are losing nothing by helping the third world countries. In fact we're probably gaining a valuable alliance in the world by helping that country so if our country is ever in need of something we can turn to other countries that we have helped. That's why i believe we should help other countries who aren't as fortunate as us.
If we have the opportunity and chance, supporting people that are unfortunately suffering is a wise choice. We can drop everything and feel how it feels for a day in their shoes. They weren't born in the united states, which is something we take for advantage. I would say to hold out an open hand, and show some compassion.
Those countries having lots of money and wealth sometimes they destroy their food, but don't send to the third world countries while that may help them enough, if you help the third world your , people will like you and like your country and you can gain more than what you have.
People should be able to help those in need who are suffering. No one should be deprived of basic food, shelter and clothing. Everyone should have a chance to live their life and to be able to become successful. Humanity is part of being human. Those who would like to help should be able to do so.
I believe that more developed countries should help third world countries because it is our duty as humans. We are all of the same species, in a way we are all related. We must help each other out. With the world civilized, everyone could live together more fluidly. Second, we must help out of the goodness of our hearts, pictures of poverty stricken people should have a toll on your heart. Whether you are religious or not, it is in your right mind to help. If humans do not help humans, than god might as well take us off this earth. We need each other.
I think offering help to poorer countries is the more humane decision people have to make if they are from 1st world countries. Developed countries are richer, as there GDP, and GNP are higher, and can afford helping poorer countries. A country not expecting something in return would set an example for the population and the citizens of that country, and would even encourage other countries to follow suit. So I think that offering assistance to poorer countries, without expecting anything in return would be the right thing to do.
Why should the poor, third world countries suffer when we live in luxury compared to them? It's not their fault that they cannot afford the crucial things that they need to survive, and why should we not give them aid when they need it? Most of humanity that live in poorer countries live in hard labor, working day and night to try to provide necessities for their families, just to earn a penny. How is that fair? In the United Kingdom there are thousands of people who cannot be bothered to work, yet still being given money by the government to aid them. Why do they deserve that? We shouldn't ask for anything back either, seeing as they wouldn't be able to afford it. Imagine living in a third world country, knowing that in other richer countries, they are refusing to help you due to the fact that you cant repay them. It's humanly awful and something needs to be done.
Are we not all human? Money is only an object? Living in the developed world has created a sense of arrogance because although money is a factor, do we not all care for the same things? Good standards of living, schools for our children, good healthcare. These are fundamental things that developed countries take for granted daily. The world however will never be equal but equality will always exist.
Give the level of wealth creation, which in large part flows from using developing country labor. In the West companies focus on lowest possible cost to provide a cheap consumer product. Yet these companies give nothing to in return to the developing nations,but take - take - take! Is this right?
Nothing wrong with helping them but we can do that without giving them money that doesn't get used as it should. We can ship food, medicines, and help build schools and infrastructures. But we should not give them money for the projects directly as they never use it as it should be.
Outside of our comfortable houses, and countries that can support their population, there are countries who don't even have a government! These poor nations can be called failed states, a term used to describe a state perceived as having failed at some of the basic conditions and responsibilities of a sovereign government. Many people are living in slums, and the conditions are unbearable. Whether there is a lack of food, water, or shelter, or if there is a common plague of disease and bad weather in these countries, a person's only interest is to survive. This common drive can lead to crimes. Crimes are a very big problem in these poor countries because the people have no other way of getting the basic everyday things that they need. Big countries such as the USA's main problem with these countries are that they could be hosting, or are an easy target for terrorists. Many successful stable countries (Finland, UK, USA, France, Germany, Japan, etc.) have already, and should continue providing and helping these poor countries such as Somalia, DRC, Bangladesh, etc. Countries have provided money, troops, resources, and education, and this support should be continued to improve the company's economy. Providing education is crucial so the people can support themselves with their own money, along with the later generations. Overall, rich countries should help poor, third world nations without expecting debt repayment, because developed countries can already support themselves, and just small donation from many rich countries can make a big difference.
Many people suffer and is not their fault. Many reasons include poverty and climate change as many the countries live directly above tectonic plates in which cause them to have a very high risk of dangerous earthquakes!!! Also you need to take in account that God created us equally and in his image. Your basically saying that the other creations of God are not our brothers or sisters or equal as we are. Definitely YES!!!
I'm really shocked that so many people said no...
How would you feel if that was you suffering and watching the loved ones around you suffer. You would want help, so why not enforce the saying, treat others they way you would want to be treated. We are all human beings and no matter what we should all look out for each other because yet we are different, we are all the same. What happens if some tragic event takes place, and really it doesn't matter what country you are from but you need help from others. Do you really expect them to help you when you can't even go out of your way to support them. Just stop and think because I am from Australia and look at the size of our land and then look at the land of third world countries. We have got to do something about it because I feel as though it is inhumane.
Trish- Aged 14, Australia
The nature of modern Africa is very much our fault. At the end of World War I, and the Treaty of Versailles, all Western nations agreed to leave all colonies and keep to themselves, but what this did not account for was power vacuums and the racial inequalities that the European colonists installed. After an abrupt and non-transitional abandonment of Africa, various factional and ethical disputes came around, then bigger international African conflicts, and to fund the wars, they sought Western aid and weapons, usually because the Western nations had interests, such as Diamonds, Oil, or Gold. However, instead of contributing to the proper establishment of government, and economy, we provided money for wars and weapons, by which Africans slaughtered Africans, and WE did not care. Where America provided weapons for one side, the Russians or Chinese provided weapons for the other, and silently we have tormented Europe and permitted horrendous acts without even a scintilla of remorse. It is shameful. The Western World is indebted to Africa, as they have died for wars we finance and encourage. It is only in the last 20 years where we have begun to say, "no more." We need to repay the African nations for abandoning them, and for motivating them into killing each other.
Yes, because this would show good moral judgment on behalf of the developed countries. Everyone suffers when there is poverty in the world. Poverty and desperation can lead to violence and corruption. Countries that can afford to support the poor in other nations benefit from this relationship, even though it is not through direct repayment. Violence and corruption can spread. In addition, it is a moral obligation to help those who suffer.
It is like sticking up for the underdog. If you don't, you're one of the under dogs. We as Canadians should stick up for the under dogs. I'm pretty sure we have enough money to save, or at least help, one third-world country. So I'm asking strongly can we please stick up for the under dogs and be a hero.
This is very important for several reasons. First creating social and economic incentives in third world countries will stabilize the society. It will also put a damper on communism, autocratic abuse, and terrorism. We have spent over 1.3 trillion dollars on the war on terror sense 2001. Also, the country with the highest Muslim population (India) is also the country with one of the lowest terrorist rates. This is because there are social and economic opportunities in India unlike Iraq and other Middle Eastern and North African countries. Second our war in Iraq, and Vietnam, and multiple other countries ended in a very similar place as they started because we refused to reduce the incentive for communism, terrorism, and crime. However, if we were to simply create a reason for people to work hard, and get a job, let alone the fact that you're allowing them to get a better job which will continue to boost the economy, it will start a cycle in which economic and social growth and reform can and will take place. These factors will save our country money, while improving living conditions in third world countries, increasing their GDP as well as boost the global economy which will have a positive affect on American Industry.
It is not inconsequential that those nations that are the richest are also responsible for the vast vast majority of energy consumption and pollution. In short the 90% whose living standards are desperately poor are having the planet that they live on rendered uninhabitable by the overindulgence and negligence of the 10%. I think, speaking as a tremendously fortunate member of that minority, it is nothing short of pure evil for us to withhold from that majority whatever assistance is needed. Coming from a nation that has, over many centuries, subjected a large proportion of the poorest and politically helpless human beings (and in actual fact played a not insignificant role in ensuring they are and remain in that position of poverty) to cruelty and ruthless exploitation, i consider it to be that not one of those people owes or will owe me my country anything whatsoever until such time as the moral debts that we owe to them have been thoroughly replayed.
If i defrauded you and then loaned you back the money i had gained from my crimes, would you consider yourself compensated?
Helping these countries would, if we went about it in the right way, would help make a drain of resources into a participant of the wider world community. We just need to give the country a head start into the wider world with simple things, possibly build a school to educate the children, or a hotel to be run by native workers. I do not believe that we should poor so much resources into a country, as the saying goes feed a man a fish and he won't be hungry but teach a man to fish he will never go hungry again. If we only give them a chance to "get up on their feet" then they will not begin to depend on us for aid. If such a country such we will not need to expect debt repayment as in not being in a 3rd world state, they will contribute more so in wider world affairs and politics and that is all that we will require from such a country.
Now they're just having to repay the debt pack from interest rates. Why do the rich need more money? As long as they've paid back everything they've borrowed call it quits. The money shouldn't be given to dictators or to fund militaries and war but to charitable organisations that have the masses at heart. The people want it it's just the minority ruining it for the majority, again.
We don't owe them anything. They are a burden on society and humanity in general. They have produced NOTHING throughout history and when they come to other countries, they try to enforce their 3rd world primitive and inferior ways and culture that they tried so desperately to escape onto developed countries. They live off the dole and commit crimes and produce nothing good towards society.
Why should we give money to third world countries when Great Britain is in the worst debt ever.Will these countries help Great Britain out when we become a third world country. Why is Mr. Cameron giving tax payers money to third world countries such as China & India who are in a far better situation then Great Britain at this present time.
The giving of charity only this?uades the governments on the recieving end from generating money for themselves, seriously think about it, we have been providing aid to 3rd world countries for over 60 years and have seen very few results. The fact of the matter is that the charity money goes into the pockets of the wealthy people, the people in charge of the country, and it is in their interest for the poverty of the country to continue. Another major problem with charity is that if we give resources such as food or wheat to the citizens free of charge, then we prevent their farmers from having any opportunity to sell their wares for a reasonable price, therefore ultimately having a negative effect on the countries overall economic status, as not only the poor would have access to free supplies, but so would the rich and upper-middle class. Unless we know for sure, that our 'aid' is actually helping these countries, then our 'charity' is really, not charity at all.
Yes, I agree that developed countries should help poor, third world nations without expecting debt repayment. I feel that the developed nations were responsible for the third world nations poverty at some stage of time. They exploited these nations out of their resources and left them with nothing. And this is the pay back time that the developed should help financially at least without any expectation of debt repayment.
I don't think we should be throwing our hard earned money away. Take Africa for example: they have tons of gold and diamonds and they're not a thriving continent because the government is corrupt and doesn't spread the wealth where it is needed. When we throw money away to places like that the money doesn't go to aid it goes to the corrupt leaders. Canada is having enough financial problems. We can hardly take care of ourselves, yet they are shipping millions if not billions of dollars by the boat load to third world countries. It's called natural selection. If they can't make it on their own then they will simply die out. By us giving them money to survive, it messes with the natural selection. That's why the world is so over populated.
If countries want to help less fortunate countries, then they should do that out of the kindness of their heart, and not expect anything in return. Some third world nations simply have no way of paying back. They should not be helped, if the helping nation is expecting something in return. If they want to give back, then that's one thing. But, they should not be expected to give anything in return.
Developed countries should not simply hand money over to third world countries, as this gives no incentive to develop responsible government or fiscal policies. If a third world country knows it must make payments back, then there is more incentive to use the money in responsible revenue-generating development projects, as opposed to military spending or prestige projects (e.g. palaces, statues) for the current government.
All charity should come from private sources, and it should not be subsidized by the respective governments through tax deductions or credits. If someone, or some group wants to make large charitable contributions.. let them, but don't expect the governements to take the funds of the taxpayers and squander it on half baked ideas to make themselves feel good about themselves.
no, we should help third countries, the more money we send, the more money goes to the dictators, and other corruption that plagues there country. The world population is increasing and to stable that, we need to stop our aid. Sure i believe in karma, but truly those countries cannot be brought back up, unless a powerful nation controls it. We need to use our money on our own economy and pay off our debt, along with stabilizing our economy instead. In conclusion, the more we help 3rd world countries and dont realize that our own economy is failing, then pretty soon we our selves will be in a slump.
Governments will *always* fail to really help alleviate poverty, because they either give money to corrupt governments or they disrupt the normal economic incentives.
Charitable and religious organizations are present in the countries and can better encourage positive and sustainable growth.
The idea that we owe them something because our society has been more successful is ridiculous. The only thing we owe them is a blueprint for them to raise themselves out of poverty and despair.
No. There is a common misunderstanding that the troubles of the third world which includes starvation, bad government and is somehow connected to First World, which is absolute and total nonsense. the first world has given countless billions in dollars over decades of aid to the Third world, Medicines, aid food help with infrastructure, education. You can help them people some of the time .but they have got to learn to help themselves. I think maybe that is the reason the third world is like it is .we keep giving and giving. Its not our duty as a first world country to take care of everybody else who can't make it work themselves And they automatically think everything is for free.
First World countries send money to these nations without requiring them to use it in helpful ways. So leaders simply use it to build lavish palaces for themselves while their people continue to suffer. If developed nations are going to send funds to these countries, then they should find a way to guarantee that they are spent the way they should be.
While I am saddened by suffering around the globe, I think that our country often ignores its own poor. The gap in income between the "haves" and "have nots" in the U.S. is ever-expanding. I think that those who can spare money to help others should, but I think our government should take responsibility for helping its citizens first.
There is little incentive for developed nations to help third world countries financially if they are not going to be repaid. If necessary, aid to third word nations could be repaid in annual payments over several years. Without consideration on both sides, there is no contract to improve.
These are countries with extreme overpopulation problems, regardless of what developed nations do, the per capita GDP will be almost impossible to raise and the quality of life will not increase because these countries simply do not have the massive amount of resources necessary to support these people. Unfortunately, unless 75% of them die, it will be like throwing pennies into an ocean, we can't help these people, they greatly outnumber us. Other than satisfying some moral obligation, there really is no reason to help, its not like these countries are ever going to repay us or will ever produce anything of value.
We have people in the us starving, no health ins, , homeless ,no jobs before u worry about other countries first take care of the us citizens ,no us citizens should go without . Make sure every us citizen is taken care of in every way,we have to defend for ourselves let them take care of their own. Stop the lying about where the money is really going. Helpless and without in the us
We have our own issues right here in America, plenty of starving, needy, underprivileged people that we should be looking after RIGHT HERE! I don't think that we need to extend our already limited resources to other countries, what we need to do is focus on our own issues and our own people.
United States was once a colony. It WAS a third world country once, but developed theme selves, bough land, won the war, found resources and became rich. Japan became wealthy after they accepted western culture and started industrial revolution on their own. Germany struggled from treaty of Versailles and ultimately is one of the wealthiest nation in Europe right now because they themselves worked hard. If you want to compare education and moral value of third world country, look at South Korea. It was second poorest nation in Asia at the time, but now one of the top 10 economically stable nation. How could South Korea change that much? Because they themselves revolutionized their nation. Yes,Japan gave them money, but that was Korea's choice. All the third world country has the potential. If you talk about dictators, democracy and capitalism can only be gained through sweat, tears, and blood. Wealthiest nation all did SOMETHING to fight off dictatorship and stood up for themselves. Third world should just stand up for themselves.
The money that we are giving to the "hungry" does not actually go to the people who need it. The food and supplies developed countries send in support is actually be taken by the governments of those nations. We are supporting those oppressive governments that are keeping their people poor and hungry to stay in control. On the other hand the food that does reach these countries is harming the developed farmers of those nations. The US gave dry milk packets to the people of El Salvador and yes it helped them but then the farmers of El Salvador lose business and money and they can no longer support their farm and there is one more person in poverty due to our "support".
If my neighbor doesn't have a lawnmower should i give him mine? Chances are he will never even use it. The people in the country wont see the money. The people running the country will miss use the money just as they have done with their existing funds. That is the reason their nations are doing poorly to begin with.
What happened to the funds we sent to Haiti? It never went to the people!!!
One very old saying is that give a man a fish he will eat for a day, teach a man to fish he will eat for a lifetime. This is the same for poor countries because by just giving them aid keeps them in the same spot that they are. Instead educate them and give them the means to be able to pull themselves out of their own mess.
Sadly we cannot make money appear from thin air, if we could know one would have debt. Giving away vast amounts of money that technically has no value is not a good idea, as it will ultimately bring money to be worthless. Countries should give aid to developing countries as an investment knowing that someday these countries with have an economy with a stable enough infrastructure to pay the money back. But of course it would be expected to be interest free, and would have to be re-paid in relation to inflation over time.
Equivalent exchange works on the principle that in order to get you must give something of equal value. Basic principles of mathematics, relationship, history etc work on the same premise. Equations, what you take from one side you must add to the other, and vise verse, expecting help is a sure way to know that help is not deserved.
Something earned has more value than something given. I come from one of those developing countries, the reason why they are still 'developing' is because the culture they follow.
Overpopulation, lack of individuality, willingness to be blindly loyal simply because you originated from X country rather than understand than to be more you have to shed your culture behind if it is inefficient.
Developing countries will become world superpowers when they stop following the culture which keeps them at "developing" countries. Chile is a prime of example of how they have acquired something new, Japan after the Boxer rebellion.
Take what works, ditch what doesn't and add your own twist, and if most of what makes you...You doesn't work then is time to remake your identity by emulating something or someone more efficient. We all have paragons heroes, they are flawed and far from imperfect, the same should apply to culture.
If you do not understand the basic concept behind learning what works and disregard what doesn't, then no amount of explaining will do it. And if your native culture is the problem, then you must make a conscious choice to leave most of it behind and adapt a new one. Again, Chile and Japan are prime examples. When you adapt to a new culture willingly but keep bits and pieces of your old one the transition will be rocky at firs but in the long run it will be smooth and efficient.
In other words, you can't help an alcoholic kick the habit until he stops drinking and wants to be something more. And even then you do so at a cost to make sure he has a personal stake in it. For if you don't have a financial stake in it you won't learn.
The practice of giving to developing nations with expectations of measurable improvement has shown to be a failure of the 20th century. The country have not improved to a degree that the vast majority had hope to. Although the notion of giving without debt repayment is generous and noble it is also bad. After living in Uganda I have heard enough wise men complain about the west giving without a responsible return of help, without showing them how to spend it. That is probably because few are really willing to sacrifice their life, their time, their expertise with a true helping hand. It just makes people feel good if they throw money at something as though they were at a wishing well or fountain. A "pay it forward" mentality has to be in place . A multiplication factor of good deeds to help the needy is mandatory, and that idea has worked in many areas of underdeveloped countries. We all owe something to someone, and that notion, feeling, sentiment is good for our conscience and good for social advancement.
We have our own problems we dont need to help them theres no reason the can live by their own thier just want our money thier soo smelly and dirty. If they die it would be less people to look after a ad add
so we qwerty free poo in the sun fart
We are trillions in debt so how can we help other countries if we are putting ourselves more in the hole then we already are...You thought billions was a big number we are 16 trillion in debt think about that and how we can further develope our education roads food jobs before helping anyone else we did it ourselve they can do it bythemselves as well
It's always good to give to others in need, but that notion is often unrealistic. Before helping other countries, we should help ourselves first. The economy is sinking, thus resulting in unemployment that occurs in every country - including our own. How can we help third-world countries if we are sliding down the slippery slope of debt ourselves?
Also, giving a monetary supply to third-world countries won't help much. As others have said before me, the money will most likely end up in the hands of corrupt governments, as evident in the case of Somalia. Plus, if we keep giving third-world countries money, they will just become dependent on our countries for money, and may never reach first-world country status.
Moreover, there are a lot of third-world countries, although only a few are highlighted in our news. Just giving money to a few won't eliminate the problems of the rest.
The transfer of resources from wealthy, developed nations to poorer, less developed nations on the surface seems like a noble cause. The financial assistance is popularly claimed to help the malnourished, diseased and socioeconomic status of impoverished individuals directly to attempt to curb human suffering immediately, while also supporting and improving the economic infrastructure to allow the nation to develop. The goal of the national development is to help the nation attain demographics and economic prosperity similar to the developed nations.
The problem I see with this system is how does one define a developed nation? Many developed nations are no better off fiscally than even the poorest nations in a debt to revenue ratio. The heart of this issue is the whole concept of sovereign debt. Voters seem to always favor programs and bureaus that provide 'assistance' without the stomach to pay for them. More retirement, more healthcare, more welfare, but never more taxes to support the programs. This is of course human nature, but the same situation then presents itself internationally with support programs; more benefits without paying for them. Without hard work and being responsible for paying back assistance, it simply becomes another political game where voters want more benefits and less responsibility.
I disagree with developed countries helping for the reason that their is still work to do in the developed countries. Take America for instance. It is considered the land of opportunity but it has a high infant mortality compared to other developed countries it is even behind Saudi Arabia. The other reason is that charity groups and non profit organizations like doctors without borders should step in. It also makes it a choice for an individual to give time or money to help instead of having no voice where there taxes are going. The other factor is that developed countries are still in debt. If the USA would have no debt and have money saved then it might be different story of lending money with not expectations of getting that in return. As it is now we are bleeding money and lots of countries owe us money and we owe several countries money
-Overpopulation. If everyone has the same standard of living then many people who would have died if they had a poorer living standard would live and therefore would cause the world to be come even more overpopulated than now.
-If everyone had the access to technology such as cars and laptops then the word would not be able to cope, the pollution and fuel would be used up so fast that there would soon be none left and we would have depleted all of the natural resources. The pollution and chemicals produced from using and acquiring the fuels will ruin the ozone layer and could kill off things such as plants and animals.
-There wouldn't be enough resources such as food, drink and fuels to keep everything and everyone equal. There could end up being wars, and everyone would have to ration their food because prices would go up and there would be less.
Britain, as a developed country, is in a huge recession. Which therefore means they have a large amount of debt to pay off. If we, as Britain, have our own problems and have a large debt, why would you give aid to others when there will be no repayment for the money?
With the exception of regions that are displaced through the search for: raw materials, oils, and precious metals; the nations that receive aid for feeding starving children trains them to only wait for aid and creates a loss in traditional knowledge for methods of obtaining food and shelter. This loss is of cultural significance and continues to augment the amount of people needing support.
The years of aid will lead to an exponential growth in population which will need an exponential growth in support, without said support you will end with a larger number of starving people.
Giving help to another country is a tax on our own with no benefits whatsoever to claim. If we give people food they will eat it, starve, and complain or die until we continue to support them. Their own leadership should advise having too many children if their own land can't support the populace, and economy doesn't allow them to import food. Simply put; supporting other countries is stupid.
We have enough people that are starving in our country, so why help out another one? Its like if you had a child and could barely afford to feed that one then you go ahead and adopt another child it just doesn't make sense to waste our money on some country that doesn't matter to us.
We help those who cant help themselves, I know. But we are in so far over our heads in Debt, war, and nosing around with other countries who probably don't want our intervention. Here's some advice: LEAVE THEM ALONE! We are still at war and we still have troops deployed in the Middle East. Plus we're in debt up to our eyes. We can't take care of other countries when ours is going down the toilet. We still have a large rate of unemployment, we're running out of natural resources, and we do rely too heavily on exports from China and the like. Wake up people, Nothing is "Made in America" anymore. As soon as we get all our problems on track, then we can drag ourselves into other peoples problems, or not.