STORM2K

We have thousands of fertile islands. Some are big with little or no population to speak of. Why can't we take the suffering African people who are basically healthy, take them to these islands, give them animals and seeds, etc. and let them start a new life? All the islands started off this way and grew.

History, culture, political ties, traditions, rituals, family, friends, "homelands" ... I can think of many more reasons.....

Can't - and should not - "take" them anywhere.

Offer as a haven ? Maybe. Depends on who lives there now and what claim they already have.

Well, I am talking about the ones who are starving and being raped and killed. Thousands of them. They will never have any other quality of life than what they have now.

Yes, offer them first. But, who would not take that offer?

Parts of northern and eastern Africa are fertile as well, aren't they?

Didn't apartheid involve relocating people to new "homelands?" That's probably not an ideal solution in some minds.

And for the most part, I don't think it's a matter of fertile soil. It has to do with the government/rebel problems. Since it's more of that Arab/non-Arab conflict, I won't say anymore about whether "we" or anyone else can resolve that without getting to involved.

i agree to bring them here put them on islands into a place with freedom and government.

Yes, I was just trying to think of some options there would be for these poor people. I just hate to see them suffer without anyone helping them. Where is the UN in this?

If we were a true egalitarian society, it might work. But we are not.

Who provides the infrastucture, the tools, housing, roads, security, education, to get them started? What happens the the people living there now? What political system is put in place?

Nice idea, though. If only it were that simple.

Who would pay for all that? And why are those folks entitled to it any more than hungry folks here in the US?

Well, most hungry people in the US can get food. And all people in the world are worth the same. Americans are no better.

There is free food for everyone in the US. If they need it and don't go get it, it is their fault.

Huh? what the heck are you talking about?

besides you cant save the world....

and you didnt answer who would pay for all that. it doesnt just happen....

Who cannot get food in the US. If they are hungry, social services will supply the means for them to get it. I was a social worker in the states and all states have food banks for the hungry.

whatever, those food banks arent always accessible to the people who need them most. A lot of the poor people in the US live in isolated locations.

As a social worker, you should already know the answer to your original question. The logistics and infrastructure required to help that many people is just phenomenal. It's a nice notion but not very realistic. There are people starving all over the world, not just Africa.

I think all mankind is responsible for others. Every country goes to the aid to help the starving around the world. It is called compassion.

i just dont see whats wrong with taking care of your own first instead of subsidizing an effort like that in another country at great expense. Nothing wrong with having compassion at home either.

Janice wrote:I think all mankind is responsible for others. Every country goes to the aid to help the starving around the world. It is called compassion.

That seems to be a very "Soviet" way of thinking!!

Whatever happened to natural selection and the weak dying off to keep the "pack" strong?

Well, I don't have anything to add. We just feel completely different which is ok.

Janice wrote:We have thousands of fertile islands. Some are big with little or no population to speak of. Why can't we take the suffering African people who are basically healthy, take them to these islands, give them animals and seeds, etc. and let them start a new life? All the islands started off this way and grew.

Islands are small. Africa is a continent. With between 700-800 million people. With 54 countries. With thousands of tribal groups, languages, and cultures. Yes, thousands of languages.

And you are going to take them from their homes, and place them on islands? Are islands magic cure alls for societal ills and the limitations of the macro-economy? Further, what gives any individual, organization, or nation the right to pick up people and remove them from their communities. This is actually by the definition of the UN Treaty on the Crime and Punishment of Genocide, a crime against humanity.

While Africa is wracked by many social ills along with medical hazards like Malaria, HIV, malnutrition and childhood mortality, moving them across the oceans to new lands has been proven to be not in the interests of Africans. Further, there is an undeniable correlation between population density and the spread of disease and the probability of civil conflict. To take the people of Africa and place them on these habitable islands (most of which are I would hope already inhabited) and make them adapt to the new environment and their cramped space would be strange indeed.

Africa is a continent. It is paradoxically rich and poor at the same time. There are immense natural resources, from oil in the northern sands to diamond and gold mines in South Africa. There is great wealth in between. Yet, throughout history Africa has been isolated, at least the interior. The continent suffers from a steep escarpment that causes rivers to be unsafe for navigation even moderately far inland. As such, infrastructure has remained hard to produce. Like South America, most infrastructure that exists goes from the interior to the coast, where not too long ago the goods which passed on them were controlled by European interests. Africa has suffered as the result of its unique position north and south of the equator, and as a result of human pillaging, and a hundred other factors.

Nevertheless it has much greater potential than any island, and Africans are better off living there than being forcibly migrated. The wealth that might be seen on Puerto Rico is the result of being a link in the Western economic chain, over hundreds of years. Haiti is more demonstrative of island life when there is overpopulation and bad governance (aided in large part by these United States), and personally I'd take being born in Morocco over Haiti any day of the week.

I hope this answers your title question.

No, Kevin, I am just thinking of a way to make their lives a little better. There will never be a cure for them where they are. They will starve to death, die of disease or worse. I feel for these people and all who suffer on earth. I just fear everyone will abandon them and just let them all die. And, I don't see of any way they can help themselves there. No food, no protection, no jobs. I just care too much for people, I guess.

I think the best solution for Darfur (which is I assume the catalyst of this thought) is several thousand UN member state contributed soldiers with a mandate to stop conflict not simply monitor peace, or without that 500 ex marines with assault rifles.

Moving them to islands wouldn't work. There are two million people who will die in the Sudan from starvation because food aid cannot reach them as a result of janjaweed militias. The only way to really end it is to harass your congressman and have everyone else do this. Puerto Rico doesn't have one, so you can harass one of ours.

It won't happen, because states do what is in their interests and none of our interests are harmed by them because the two million people who will die don't produce either goods or services, but it should happen, I agree with you about caring too much. There are so many problems in the world though, its better to build up a wall between what you wish could happen and what is possible.

Did I not read somewhere that the Chinese recently made it rain? Surely this is the best solution to the lack of food and starvation although not a cure for disease and the fighting that seems to be rife over there.