I'm only 12, but I understand a lot about this world. If everyone was supposed to be created equal, why do others have a lot but others don't? Everyone deserves something, but some people ruin the balance. If you have the money, why not give some to help others? Technically, money isn't even a thing. It's just a piece of paper or a slab of metal that we call "money." It has no real value. So, by helping others, you aren't really doing anything to affect yourselves. Solved.
I think that rich nations should help the poor nations because if someone desperately needs clothes, food or drink then they should get it. Also imagine if you were living in Africa, and you were poor and in poverty. If that doesn't help then think of the poor little children walking at least 15 miles just to get some water, or think of the poor mums and dads not eating anything just so that they can give food and water to their children when we take everything we have for granted.
They need to be much more specific as to what the money will go for and follow up to be sure it was spent correctly. Plus tying the $$$ to "correct" political policy towards their own people in the area of human rights as well as world affairs should be a must as well. In other words no more money for Democratic Islamic peoples republic of's or just writing blank checks with 7 or 8 zero's.
Rich nations have a moral duty to help poor nations. Most organized societies and religious structures believe in the importance and goodness of giving back to those less fortunate. Therefore, it makes sense that just as rich people are expected to help those less fortunate in their own countries from a moral perspective, richer nations should help poorer nations, as a whole. There may also be a benefit of self satisfaction that you doing the good for mankind , and you may gain international allies and potential trade.
Aside from finances, is their some fundamental difference between people born into comparative royalty and those living without basic necessities such as drinkable water and shelter? As a fourteen year-old, I do not pretend to be worldly in my experiences. However, how can a rich country with a stable economy possibly live with other equally entitled inhabitants of the world starving and dying. By this, I mean that stable, wealthy countries should help out those ravaged by natural disasters, stricken by poverty or living with atrocities. This is not to say that countries in severe debt should assist countries that have caused their own downfall. Areas polluted by perpetual riots and civil wars are in most cases not to be a concern of other countries.
"Charity begins at home." I was taught that means we learn the importance of giving from our family. We learn how to share and how to recognize when we have enough. We learn how to be sensitive to the needs of others. It doesn't mean that we keep everything for ourselves. Certainly there are issues with foreign aid being diverted from the people who need it by corrupt governments who keep it for themselves. So we must learn HOW to make sure aid gets to where it's needed. We can't turn our backs on others in need. There may well come a day when we're the ones that need the help.
We've see it through history with nearly every developed society. Giving to the least fortunate is the sign of a truly developed society. We as human beings have the responsibility to help those who need it most. Not the higher classes that would do fine without it. If aid is denied to countries where mass startvation or even just a country whi don't have the means to support the growth of infrastructure, how will they ever develop?
I'm not saying that giving aid to countries who have completely incompetent governments and would just waste the aid is a good idea. I'm saying a reasonable ammount of controlled aid to a country who really needs it is never a bad thing.
Many people say we should stop giving aid to LEDCs to motivate them to make their own way out of their problems rather than just coping in the poor situation their in, but there is often no way out of the extreme poverty in these countries, and cutting off aid would just make it worse. People argue it's too costly for MEDCs but if the economies to one day develop, e.G. The BRIC countries, they can be reliable trading partners.
The money can assist and support these people obtain very basic human needs that many of us take for granted. I agree sometimes money can get lost through corrupt governments but it is our duty to help as best we can. We would want the same in their position. We all just want a easier life.
Well, not just the food, water and money, also education, jobs, and health care. The people can benefit from it and, in the future, help the others from suffering. This topic doesn't just mean to give basic necessities (short term) but also education (long term) to help them save themselves without aid.
The first advantage of this aid is to support poor countries in implementing large projects. Without a lot of money, poor countries can not build big schools, hospitals, entertainment areas or roads.
The second disadvantage of this habit is to give burden for later generations
it is, thirdly, believed that poor countries may lost their freedom
A lot of people are dying around the world at a fast rate simply because other countries don't have the same resources as we do. In this case, it's money = Food & clothes! In my opinion, I think that for a world to be fair, we must be fair to others.
Because if we were the poor country, WE would like help and WE would except it from other countries. What sort of person says NO to saving a life billions of them. In fact, it is immoral to deny someone a chance to be happy and anyone who disagrees should be ashamed of themselves.
We are lucky enough to be born in a country with such benefits but people who live in LEDC's have no choice that they were born poor, we should be helping them out! Why be selfish when you have more than enough to support your country? Be generous and save lives, these are families with children we are talking about. Now I am only in high school but we have been learning about this in geography and frankly I don't even know how you can debate this issue. I believe it is a one answer question... YES!
If people have the money to help out then they should if I'm honest. I definitely support charity events where the money is going to poorer countries because its helping pay for their vital needs, which are; food, water, health care, education and shelter. Therefore people should help out in charity events to make the world a better place to live in.
A lot of people are dying around the world at a fast rate simply because other countries don't have the same resources as we do. In this case, it's money = Food & clothes! In my opinion, I think that for a world to be fair, we must be fair to others.
Companies should be forced to help these countries as should the rich - it is a matter of morality that should not be thought about twice. Until people start to get angry in a proactive way then it will continue to be the only game in town, sadly. Maybe one day.
We buy raw materials and goods off of them at a low price, so why not? They are humans themselves, and deserve better lives. Why should we save poor peoples lives in hospitals? Because that's the humane thing to do, just as helping poorer countries is. We should help them!!
It's only fair that rich people like us who have a computer should help other poor people. Whoever does not believe in this has no heart whatsoever. We're all brothers and sisters and saying that I think we should help one another by giving to the poor and less fortunate.
Yes they should. We live in a world where food is plentiful. I believe we should help other regions anyway we can. We need to realize that we all live together on one planet. We should share are knowledge so future generations do not go hungry and can support their communities. No one should have to starve of starvation.
Imagine you were born in a poor country and someone for a rich country helps out your family and country. Would you go back one day and help the family and country if it is poor after they helped you? I would because I would be repaying my debt to that family and there country. I would help them get back to their feet and there country as well.
i think that rich countries should help poor countries because i should know because i came from one of the poorest, and that is Guyana, for those of you that don't know that is in south America.But now i want to say that we should help these poor countries because now i am in America and i am very successful and we should help them because without these little and very poor countries are where there are most of poverty, and to those who what that is, is that we need to get out there and help them because we are all humans and we all don't want to see each other suffer.
Nations should always help other nations in need. I mean, what happened to humanity? What happened to brotherhood and sisterhood? What happened to making peace peace and supporting those in need. Have you ever heard of the saying: "Killing one person is like killing the whole of humanity and saving a person is like saving the whole of humanity." Everyone should live by this rule.
I believe in the dogma of the brotherhood of man, we owe our fellow man more than simply not getting into their business. The obligation of solidarity, however, does not mean simply handing over massive amounts of money in the form of foreign aid. Help given a foreign nation could be given through intermediate organizations (NGO's Churches etc), particularly local organizations, who will make sure to give the kind of help those nations truly need. This would lower the impact of corruption.
Increasingly, through globalization, many countries have become dependent on each other. While some countries are endowed with better quality resources, others have to be satisfied with current resources. History have shown that the poorer countries are usually those more vulnerable to disasters (economically and socially) and are less equipped to overcome these disasters. Rich countries, therefore, are consistently required to support those poorer countries through international aid. However, the right type of aid is more important than the quantity of aid. Rich countries should invest in the human capital of poor countries, provide defense against wars, and help develop the skills of the people instead of simply providing donations. There should be agreements and follow-ups on how the aid is being used.
Some nations have more oil, more minerals or better farming land making it a rich nation, while poorer nations are poor because they've got hardly any rich resources or have been unfairly devastated by war. Therefore due to this unfairness that the people in the poor nation can do very little about therefore we need to give aid to poor nations to help them up. So that millions don't die of starvation, we should also give a hand-up so they have the training, education, and jobs to give them a reliable ongoing source of income. By doing this we can make the world a fairer place.
In my travels I have found very few places which are unable to support themselves due to resources. Majority of countries and nations are rich. The difficulty is that nations are made poor/weak through geopolitical attrition.
If attrition could be removed from the equation, I would vote a resounding no. However we are humans and "we do things because we can". Despite religious, cutltural, spirtiual, common sense directions to be in favor of bettering ourselves by bettering others, we still manage to do it completely opposite.
Due to this unfortunate fact, while rich nations are being made richer for their upper hand in geopolitical situations, they should readily pay out to recompense.
However this changes the nature of the discussion overall. What is "rich" and how is a nation made rich. Study history and see its ALWAYS due to some form of attrition, be it hegemony, monopoly, etc. Neutrality cannot be formed and the question becomes redundant.
I am rich because I took gained the upper hand over you and now you are poor. So in the act of becoming rich I should now recompense you and now I am less rich and you are now less poor.
The whole balance seems to become very unhuman. I would certainly hope we raise our level of consciousness first to a point where all of this becomes moot.
^ explains it all really....
If I have more money than I need, and see someone else, having a harder time, I would be inclined to help them out, past the point of them not doing anything to make their situation any better that is.
Most organized societies and religious structures believe in the importance and goodness of giving back to those less fortunate. Therefore, it makes sense that just as rich people are expected to help those less fortunate in their own countries from a moral perspective, richer nations should help poorer nations, as a whole. There may also be a benefit to helping them, as you gain international allies and potential trade.
Rich nations were not always rich and, oftentimes, got rich by taking from the poor. What better way to repay the favor than to help out the poor nations? If a rich nation has the money and the resources, then I think it is their moral duty to assist a poorer country.
Although no nation is obligated to do the right thing, they really should. When people are starving, sick, or suffering after some disaster, anyone who is able to offer help, should. The wealthier a nation is, the more of a duty
they have to come to the aid of others.
Rich nations who are able to take care of their citizens should help poorer nations develop better ways to help their citizens. It is only right that rich nations help feed and assist those countries. Poor nations, though, should have to show that they have their citizens interests at heart, and that the leaders of those countries will not try to pocket the money themselves. Many poor countries do not have the know-how to better the lives of their people, and need help to develop such skills, so they can take care of themselves.
The compassion towards other people is a unique and great virture of human being. When we see a tortured person, we will feel restless, despite his nationalities, which means when there is a need, we will simply have the urge to help. In poor countries, there are more poor people who desperately need our help.
I am from a nation that is both a Aid donor and an Aid receiver. Personally I do not think that any nation must be obliged to support any less fortunate nation, as this is merely a tax on first world nations for being.... first world. It is up to the people of certain nations to determine if they would like to help another, If they are not willing to help, it would be unfair to say that they should be pressured into helping a nation that has most likely been ruined by its own blunders, and not that of other nations. BUT (in the cases of many colonial nations), It must be accepted that these nations had a role to play in the general destruction of many countries they colonized, and therefore their responsibility of them to help out for a certain time period(maybe 50 years?) as then the reason for the ruining of a certain country, was not in the people of that nations hand, but of another(Such as the British Colonies, and Invasions lead by Western forces in Iraq and those regions). Otherwise I see no reason for a wealthy nation to be oblige to help another just because the other cannot look after themselves. Why must we help Somalia when they have managed to dig the hole they fell into?
America's debt rates are already so high, we should be worrying about our own problems, and not bothered by other people's problems. It is there own fault for getting themselves in the state they are in. Just like the fable with the grashopper and the ant, and ant worked hard and collected its food for the winter, and the grasshopper wasted time all summer and starved in the winter. Common sense, duh.
I don't think it is a good idea or these rich nations to help poor nations, because when we look at the economies today, most the income in poor countries is taken by foreign people such as US. Beside the Aid to poor nations is not given for free, there are some agreements made, and these rich nations convince the poor nations in such a way that they get back their half of the Aid. I don't think this Aid should continue because they are just brining more problems and sufferings to the people around. In addition, rich nations have got an advantage over poor nations because they have low systems of decision making.
If too much aid is given, the country will rely to much on developed and rich countries for aid. They will not be able to help themselves if the aid-providing country stops providing aid. They will become too dependent and won't be able to help themselves if they ever need to. Aid should only be provided if there has been a serious disaster like an earthquake or a volcanic eruption.
The survival of the fittest is a proper tool for nation building. If nations are granted money and supplies without providing services or trade to those giving it creates an artificial environment which is not sustainable. Thus the weak nation continues to demand more and more of the rest of the world to survive. Gaza is a perfect example of this. This latest war is another example of how they act to get more attention.
Giving money to foreign nations is not helpful. In many times, it just goes to building up military forces overseas and subsidizing death and devastation. Many times this money just goes to the wealthy people who run the gov't themselves and don't see the gov't. In the end, it's corrupt and useless, and harmful (many Pakistanis and Egyptians are opposed to US foreign aid to them). However, food aid such as corn or wheat shipments are beneficial, as they are often used to help real people in need in other countries.
A nation cannot have wealth except through theft from its citizens. Therefore, to help a poor nation it would have to rob its own people.
Unless an economy is prospering without a deficit and debt, giving aid is blessing other countries with your wealth. In the current state of all the countries though, no aid should come unless disaster has struck such as the Haiti incident.
The international realm is anarchic. Thus, there is no responsibility for rich nations to give aid to poor nations. They can if they want, but they do not have to...
The whole system of "money" and wealth is completely imaginary and only maintained by a system of global world leaders and used to keep people as slaves of authority. I think nations in poverty should help themselves with the means of their land's natural resources. It's called responsibility and intelligence. Don't build on the coast where hurricanes often hit every 5 years. Don't enslave our people. Don't be an enslaved people. When enslaved don't live that way, die trying to win freedom. Take the power from those who use you. Don't be an enabler. Secondly our country is no better. If you evened out the value of our dollar with everyone else's dollar (easily possible if you consider 100 years or less into the future with America losing manufacturing production jobs)... we are just as practically just as bad off. The answer is less spending and less aide and more national economic responsibility. But this will never work because the government controls the media and the schools and the government is controlled by those who own the businesses and national banks and they like having us as slaves.
the problem with giving aid to the countries, is it turns them into well fare countries. people already hate well fare in general because they add to the tax burden but this increases taxes and the countries become even more dependant
Nations haven't become rich from night to morning. It's been years of hard working and habitants' contribution, and that's the point that poor nations should have as example to grow up by themselves to better conditions.
If we continue to diminish our resources to help other nations then we too will end up with not enough to support our own nation. We can show these countries ideas and share technologies but they are responsible for their own survival. Its sad but people have to suffer sometimes to fix a major problem. The lifeboat can only hold so many people before it sinks. These poor countries should stop having so many offspring and get their population in check. If we stop providing for them they will quickly figure out that they need to slow down reproduction and learn how to salvage what they have. Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach him how to fish and he will eat for all his days. These poor nations need to stop sucking our blood and accept the consequences of their mistakes. Casualties are certain but necessary for change.
This country could have lots of gambler, therefore if the rich country helps the poor country they could just help the poor gambler instead of the poor. So it would be a waste of money. The Gambler will always be in debt and making the rich country waste money. Sad
You are just making them reliant on you and your money and they may never learn to be self-reliant. It is just hurting them more than helping them when you tell them you will give money when ever they think they need it. You might as well merge if your are going to do that.
"Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime."- Confucius
Let's say we send a bowl of rice to the poor African nation of Congo. That bowl of rice is used to feed one child a meal, which helps sustain him and keep him alive, for at least a short period of time. The local rice farmers, who've been using inefficient farming methods, are put under less strain to feed the country, so they take no action to improve their methods, as they are now comfortably productive. How will the rice farmer ever learn that he needs to use better farming methods? He will not, and the donator country is now stuck giving that aid, because if they do not, the child eating the rice will die.
It would make far more sense to send over specialists to help educate farmers on improved farming methods, who can then educate others. They can then produce more rice, and allow more children to live, who can then become productive members of society. The donator country is also not stuck in a constant loop of having to donate more and more, as, eventually, the recipient country can train it's own teachers.
Another way to help countries, without direct aid, is allowing free trade and economic integration between the countries. Many people complain that American businessmen go overseas to set up "sweatshops" for cheap labor. What they do not understand is that these "sweatshops" actually help the workers in both the long term and the short term. Say we allowed an American rice farming company to open up in Zimbabwe. Immediately, it hires workers, and improves the situation that they are in. Though conditions and pay are certainly not what they are in America, as businessmen still like to make a profit, they are an improvement over what the workers were previously enduring. Thanks to that businessman, more rice is being produced, and more people can now afford to eat the rice. And, the workers will, over time, gain experience in rice farming, and may eventually open their own rice farming business, successful enough to hire it's own workers at better conditions, and better pay. Over time, the quality of life will improve to match the world's standards.
We should give aid to poor nations, but through the free market and education, NOT through material donations. These only serve to make them dependent and remain impoverished.
There are few problems supporting poor countries. The very first one money, medications and even food gets stolen. For remaining little left it doesn't help those countries to develop. Why would you work if you can get welfare as big as your salary, but do nothing? Same is here. I am all for supporting emergencies such as earthquakes etc., but better control on those charities needed.
While there may be a need for money in poor nations, "rich" nations have needs too. Such as: more money. Not kidding -- how can America be considered rich with a national debt like it has? The answer to that is because it's PEOPLE are the rich ones. Let people make the donations, and the government can focus on its own problems.
Firstly because I believe that if a nation cant support itself then it doesn't deserve help, secondly although you may think that this is unfair and cruel I believe they don't deserve it as I think that these countries who have dozens of children knowing half of them will die slowly just as a insurance policy for them when they get older is cruel and lastly because if they want change THEY should do something about it not rely on others when they offer not much in return
As a nation, Britain is in some of the biggest debts and inflation in years, not long ago we were on the verge of hyper inflation and we are still not clear of these worries. Giving aid to other countries before sorting out our own is rather ridiculous. Just take this example, we made 8 billion pounds through cut backs and then a matter of weeks later gave 8 billion pounds to Ireland in the form of aid. What is the point?
Why should the wealthy help the poor and needy when we worked very hard to get where we are? There are some exeptions such as Haiti after the earthquakes, many were injured and left homeless. And what is "poor"? My family can be considered "poor" because of our overall income, but that doesn't mean we need aid from the considerably "rich" people, I have air conditioning, hot water three meals a day, and plenty of clothes to wear, and I am considered poor. Hmm... I think not