Sir David Attenborough: sending food aid to countries enduring famine is “barmy”

We in the West are (partly, at the very least) responsible for the situation these people find themselves in. We're morally obligated to help them.

The size of families is more a result of poverty (high infant mortality rate; poor access to contraception/family planning; diseases such as malaria and HIV/AIDS which prevents parents from working which means that they then rely on their children to provide for the family) than tradition (the number of children you have is a measure of success for men in some African cultures rather than their wealth, for obvious reasons, but again this is linked to poverty).

I know it's cyclical (poverty = more children = greater poverty = even more children) but we should be tackling the causes of poverty, not neglecting these people and "letting nature take its course" as Attenborough seems to be suggesting.

 

Sorry, I basically posted the same points again. Higher geography, eh? :smiley-laughing002:

 

Thats what the globalists are all about. A phoney environmentalist agenda when their real agenda is all about eugenics and depopulation through starvation and bad vaccines given to third world countries. They want less population because less population is EASIER TO CONTROL. It has nothing to do with the environment. They're all scum like him. David De Rothschild is another one. Globalist elite scumbags.

 

How so? Look at the environment in many of these countries. Human life was never intended to flourish in them.

 

World War 3 will probably please some on here,after that a good chunk of the population will be no more,hope it isn't you...

 

No we aren't.

 

How long have you got?

 

Don't worry Obama is hard at work trying to start that with Russia, Iran, and China.

Thank * one of his advisors let him know that attacking Syria without congressional approval is an unconstitutional, impeachable offence.

It could have come sooner than later..

 

All night... but if you're busy, then I'd be happy just to hear your views on the single point I've raised about the environmental limitations to life.

 

Alright. For how many years have we raped Africa of its resources and subjugated its population? Who is responsible for the climate change that has caused desertification in large swathes of that continent, which itself produces only 3.63% of the world's CO2 emissions?

I'm not going to give you a history lesson but we are one direct cause of Africa's poverty.

 

These regions weren't always inhospitable. Desertification & soil erosion is occuring throughout the continent and it has huge socio-economic consequences for Africa. The Sahel (just south of the Sahara) is one of the worst famine & drought hit regions and it was inhabitable not so long ago.

 

Be 'we' do you mean the UK taxpayer?

 

We have no obligation to help the Africans, they all wanted full independence from European powers and they got it. Deal with your * yourself.

 

Those with land need more children to farm the land, take care of the cattle, go to market and sell vegetables/fruit/dairy products etc.

It's really selfish when you look at it, they see children as two more hands to use the plough, they see them as consolation if another child dies and so on. Their role in the world is already predetermined and they work their arses off since early age, often without going beyond primary school or even finish just few grades.

 

Charming................

 

I was really meaning states, multinationals, etc. rather than individuals.

 

Are you serious? You're a disgrace if so.

 

Ah, gotcha. That's okay then, because morally I don't feel obliged at all.

 

Deadly serious. It's their problem and they need to sort it out, not us. We're not obliged to do anything.

 

Surely this statement is one massive piece of bait and the end of a fishing rod