The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Peter Singer on world poverty > Comments

Peter Singer on world poverty : Comments

By Alice Aslan, published 24/2/2009

Anyone who can afford to buy a bottle of water instead of drinking safe tap water has money to spend.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
I have a single objection to articles like this and it comes from having lived and worked in third world countries over a number of years: despite the best intentions of people like Peter Singer, the sad reality is that many countries are un-savable (I realise that's not a real word) because of cultural and political norms in those countries.

One of the third world countries I spent about a year living and working in had a AIDS rate of about 30% in the capital city (and higher in more remote areas) because, amongst other reasons, when Carnival time kicked off, people threw caution to the wind and would have sex with the closest person at the drop of a hat (and that's not an exaggeration). The thought of using protection wouldn't have crossed the minds of most locals because that's not their culture during that time. Sex education is generally well done, but culturally Carnival takes preference and so AIDS will be prevalent in that country for a long time.

Equally, politically, the country is un-savable in the short and medium term because addressing other basic education (this country had an illiteracy rate of around 50%), basic infrastructure and services wasn't a political imperative.

The money that Singer hopes to raise for these people is based on a good intention, however the reality is that until these countries decide to save themselves, throwing money at them won't help, let along solve, anything.
Posted by BN, Tuesday, 24 February 2009 8:58:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Turning a blind eye to the problems of the disadvantaged - unfortunately, the author of this article, and Singer, are themselves blind to the fundamental problem; and, without addressing that, the distress which disturbs us all will escalate further.

Until birth rates equal death rates there is no prospect of eventual success in elevating the relevant communities out of their sad state.
Minimising the current excess of early death has to be matched by minimization of excess births to the same degree. That is a huge task, but possible.

The new US president was quick to initiate appropriate action in funding for that task. In contrast, the new Australian Government delayed, for more than a year, even contemplation of funding. It then took a firm decision against funding. How cruel are some politicians!
Posted by colinsett, Tuesday, 24 February 2009 9:59:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“…influential Australian philosopher Peter Singer…”?

Just who does Singer influence? Although some of us on OLO often agree with him, he usually gets a fair going over by most.

As one who sometimes agrees with him, I totally disagree that we “affluent people” have an obligation to help the poor in other countries. Other countries should be helping their own poor, and if they cannot, they have to go under in accordance with survival of the fittest. There are too many people in the world, and it’s the poor who are breeding them – hence their poverty.

This author says that Singer “…offers a number of arguments to convince his readers why they ought to help poverty-stricken strangers…”, but gives only one about saving a drowning child (so why not give money to unknown millions).

Pretty silly argument really: of course anybody would do their best for somebody in immediate danger, but that simply does not translate to handing out money to people one does not know and does not see. One might help out a neighbour or friend, or even a perfect stranger; but not a horde of people who are being constantly shoved down our throats by activists with nothing better to do. Particularly those who try to decide for us what is ‘moral’ and what is not!

Singer certainly super-imposes his own values on his “evaluation” of other peoples’ objections to pouring good money after bad into poor countries, so that more poor people stay alive long enough to breed more poor people. The only people he can ‘influence’, apart from this author, are those posers and do-gooders who like to feel superior and higher principled than the hoi polloi and who hand out a few dollars to help continue the suffering and over-population of the world.
Posted by Leigh, Tuesday, 24 February 2009 10:04:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Today I am going to lose one of my teeth, at 3pm AEDT, in Sydney. I am off to have it removed, as it has deteriorated badly due to having to rely on public dental services. Public dental services refuse to give me root canal, and if I want root canal another dentist who looked said it requires a specialist practitioner plus bridge afterward, to cost between 3-4K. I refused extraction for a year, but am advised to either get specialist root canal or have it out, either being done on an urgent basis. Some churches and charities rejected my pleas for aid!! Another tooth is seriously at risk, and set to likely have a similar fate. In rich country, this should not happen. My father, MD/CEO at Active Lifting and well cocooned in Adelaide's privileged society, also baulked at paying, preferring a new seven series to my wellbeing.
Posted by Inner-Sydney based transsexual, indigent outcast progeny of merchant family, Tuesday, 24 February 2009 11:00:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr Singer, would you pay for my root canal please?

After this, I would need to have other treatments just to bring my mouth health, and presentation, up to whats in line with other females, of my age, and of my original social class.

I know words are cheaper, but its money that actually makes things happen.
Posted by Inner-Sydney based transsexual, indigent outcast progeny of merchant family, Tuesday, 24 February 2009 11:51:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Regarding the post where we should look at matching the birth and death rates in majority countries prior to sending money to them, I am a little confused. By funding sexual health and sex education, (which we have funding for in minority countries such as Australia) people become educated on sexual health and decrease their population. Education decreases population and education requires funding. By funding majority world countries to increase sexual education we will hopefully move closer to balancing the birth and death rate.

As a global citizen, I believe we all benefit by increasing the health and wellbeing of as many people as we can. I do believe that if, say we all had a choice on where we would live and what lifestyle we would have, BUT when choising a minority world country the only obligation we would have would be to give our excess (so the money we spend on items we don't really need) to poorer countries, most of us would openly choose to live in minority countries and give our excess without a second thought
Posted by Till, Tuesday, 24 February 2009 12:01:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy