Third worlds are manipulated through the need for aid. Humanitarian organisations are playing cards with people’s lives in these countries via politics and political intervention for the purpose of gaining alliance.

Thousands of testimonies from citizens of these countries have outlined the fact that there is a presents of interference in their way of living including ideals in life.

Fact is that third world countries survive of food donations of flour and wheat but also really on there of food sources to make up for the short fall such as fruit and rice.

GM seeds are here and have not been elected by these countries because it loses favour with the organisations currently supporting.

Over the last 15 years genetic foods have been produced around the world, these foods come in a range of variations from wheat to foods, vegetables, fruits even meat for lasting freshness.

These foods have been vigorously tested over and over more than any standardise current market foods with the thumbs-up on all cross checks including a 10 year study of consumption.

With our reluctance to taking up on foods that have as much protein, more potential and allot more variations’ that could be introduce into restaurants and logistical outlets costing us less with more interest, not to mention always perfect in quality and taste has brought about the rejection and continual struggle of farmers producing regular produce, GM an income earner they could rely on annually more than seasonal hope.

GM seeds are the way of the future to guarantee good produce under any condition, that’s designed for the farmer’s needs, consumer’s choice not to mention look, taste and longer lasting freshness without the need to add preservative chemicals currently done on your regular foods including meats daily before sale.

These countries need food, their land is dying; their produce is getting more and more uneatable. The foods they rely on such are on a time limit with less and less areas being able to grow healthy foods because the soil is contaminated and diseased not to mention spreading with each harvest annually.

Definitely money as charity has not produced the results we all had thought.

But how many of the poorest countries are also run by corrupt governments? It is a tremendous dilemma: helping people that have no way to help themselves, but at the same time propping up a corrupt government through aid handouts or payments. Regardless of the left/right, big/small lean of the government, a corrupt government is no help to its citizens.

As for the people who equate a large number of children=poor country...have you thought why people in developing countries tend to have more children? It's usually because of non-existent health care, lack of vaccinations etc that contribute to high infant mortality. If you want 2 kids in Australia, Europe, Japan, North America...then you have 2 kids. If you want 2 kids in a country that has yearly epidemics, famine etc then you would probably have more than 2 kids in the hope that at least 2 of them survive. It sounds like a vicious cycle and it doesn't really take an expert to realise that in most cases it is.

Micro-loans have been widely reported to be great at helping people in developing countries bring themselves out of poverty. Plus, it looks like they have taken off in developed countries too: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703735804575535900346930486.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Priorities are difficult to set: help with the healthcare of the most needy or provide capital for business development. Bill Gates at least has the means to help out and it seems like he knows about microfinancing: http://www.microfinancefocus.com/news/2010/01/13/gates-foundation-grants-38m-to-top-microfinance-organisations/ (and no, I am not trying to be a sycophant here)

Now, to lighten the mood....I wonder if someone has done a recent study on the pros and cons of Bill Gates' software empire.

http://currentglobalperceptions.blogspot.com/

Jorge says:
“have you thought why people in developing countries tend to have more children? It's usually because of non-existent health care, lack of vaccinations etc that contribute to high infant mortality. If you want 2 kids in Australia, Europe, Japan, North America...then you have 2 kids. If you want 2 kids in a country that has yearly epidemics, famine etc then you would probably have more than 2 kids in the hope that at least 2 of them survive. It sounds like a vicious cycle and it doesn't really take an expert to realise that in most cases it is.”

Sorry Jorge, that's an old MYTH that's been peddled by groups like Oxfam.

Let's test it –and we’ll use Yemen as a test case.

In 1975, Yemen's population was only 7 million… by 2004 it was 21 million ..and it's excepted to reach 43 million by 2035.

Here’s what Yemen’s population growth over that period looks like
(it even looks like a pregnant woman side on!)

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=sp_pop_grow&idim=country:YEM&dl=en&hl=en&q=population+growth+graph+yemeni

Now lets look at its infant mortality rate over the same period

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=sp_dyn_imrt_in&idim=country:YEM&dl=en&hl=en&q=infant+mortality+yemeni

Hmmm…they don’t seem too closely related !

But here’s a clue as to the real reason for Yemen’s population explosion :
“A recent study revealed that 75 percent of Yemeni women marry at an early age (between 15-20 years old).
”http://www.yemenpost.net/39/LocalNews/20084.htm

And-bingo!

“Over 80 percent of the population know about family planning methods, but the problem lies in practice he said
He said some thought family planning would lead to health problems and that it was not allowed in Islam.

http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher,IRIN,,YEM,487f10c3c,0.html

So there you have it, another Myth busted!

Ok Horus, so maybe Yemen is an exception. Maybe some developing countries do not fall into the category that I mentioned. I did say "usually" - there are exceptions to all assumptions based on regional/national factors etc.

But back to Yemen, looking at the CIA Factbook, it is the 39th highest in infant mortality. Pretty much all developed countries/territories are down the bottom of the list.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html

And, while Yemen's infant mortality has declined, it is still quite high.

According to this data, Yemen still has 41.8% of people below the national poverty line.

http://data.worldbank.org/country/yemen-republic

Also, infant mortality rate is usually taken as the death of an infant under one year of age. I haven't been able to look up any data on mortality rates of children etc so if anyone can look data up then that would be great. (Though then this would become a discussion on Yemen...)

http://currentglobalperceptions.blogspot.com/

I think that powerful people in the third world would feel greatly threatened were poverty reduced. Throngs of destitute people are a great source of cheap labour, willing to work all day for a couple of dollars, and if a few should fail there are many to fill a vacancy. Why would the powerful in these parts of the world want to see the lot of the poor improved? Is it any wonder that there is little support for the provision of free contraception amongst them? The only ones who stand to gain are the poor themselves, not their masters.