|
I think what the UN does is more like...
Light a man a fire and you keep him warm for the night. Light a man on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
The arguments in favour of the continued existence of aid programs for Africa are racist at their core. A few centuries ago, Europe was just in bad a shape as Africa is today, if not worse. Who pulled them out of the mire?
And don't tell me it was space aliens... 
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: Who pulled them out of the mire?
The Marshall plan?
Edit/ I see how irony may get over ones head. I'm aware f the differences between the marshall plan and many development programs for africa.
I only have a signature in order to let @DalekDave follow my posts.
|
|
|
|
|
I dont know if the north Germanic (Saxon) states were this far in the sh*t, there was always a form of democracy and the law was very strong. Of course the south of Europe is as corrupt as anywhere in Africa by comparison.
|
|
|
|
|
To reiterate, I'm comparing the Africa of today to the Europe of a few centuries ago. Europe then had little technology, and a lot of disease, poverty, and other "good" things. Wars were frequent, if not as destructive as today's wars.
As you say, Europe started climbing out of the mire when a strong legal system that protected everyone's property rights came into being. This allowed people to invest in their land, business, etc. with some assurance that they would enjoy the benefits.
It is this legal system that Africa lacks. Establish that, and all the rest will fall into place.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: I'm comparing the Africa of today to the Europe of a few centuries ago.
Even a millennia ago Saxon states had democracy and the law was strong.
I think it is this that has been the shining light of freedom and the rights of man since then. The US is based on this sentiment, on this foundation. As is Britain today, in fact all the English speaking world.
Can this lesson, this knowledge, this mentality be implanted though? Can we just give Africa a legal system without a sense of law being fundamental to them?
I doubt it.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes the legal system did contribute although I think a large part was as industrialisation grew so did unions and as a consequence the unions were able to hold the owners to ransom. This then meant that provisions needed to be made by the factories for the workers and their families such as schooling and medical care.
There is no one thing that made the West what it is today however industrialisation is a key to the development of the West. If Africa could make more steps towards this then then too would benefit from what industrialisation brings with it - and as with everything in life it's not all positive, Amazon warehouses and Foxconn factories to name two horrors of the industrial world.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
Neither investments in land management (e.g. crop rotation, etc.) nor investments in industrialization would have come to much without a strong legal system, which enabled people to be reasonably certain that they would benefit from their investments.
The 19th-century and early 20th-century unions were indeed a great benefit to the working class. One of the the ways in which they benefited it was to agitate in favor of laws that limited the working day, required time off, workplace safety, etc., with the result being that no employer in his/her right mind would fail to address these issues.
Yes, industrialization has its dark spots; sweatshops and workhouses are far from unknown even in Western countries. One of the reasons that most manufacturing is set up in China these days is that the Chines don't have (or don't enforce) labor laws.
It still all comes down to Law; a strong legal system is the basis for everything else.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: A few centuries ago, Europe was just in bad a shape as Africa is today, if not worse. Who pulled them out of the mire?
We never were in the shape that Africa is in today. Not even at the time of the black plague.
Europe has a lot of fertile land. Enough so we could spend time doing other stuff, like making iron clothing. Something that may be a bit unpractical in Africa.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
A perspective I've espoused, which is a heavy root cause of the Africa disaster is that medical technology was brought there. Infant mortality (for example) declined and more children made it through to adulthood (breeding age) as they survived childhood diseases.
Unfortunately, they didn't bring the education (or perhaps weren't allowed by church influence) that having a lot of children is a bad idea. It deprives the whole family. Half of them don't die out so have half as many.
Result? Population increases at an unsustainable rate. Droughts, for example, have come and gone, yet the people survived. That was because the population fit the environment.
The "brains in the West" aren't able to think beyond zeroth and occasionally first order effects of what they do.
So now we're in a dilemma. Food, for example: give food to stop the starvation and yet, at the same time, make it more and more likely the starvation will persist because there's more food then their environment can sustain . . . guaranteeing another famine (recursion).
Yet - that logic means standing by and watching suffering that you could easily stop.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
Yep, can't disagree.
Of course war is a bigger cause of starvation that drought if you look at the details behind the headlines, not that the aid agencies (who are big business, with careers depending on success) will tell us that.
This tie in between 'disaster (supposed) + complicit media + misrepresentation by global agencies for gain (aid agencies, UN, etc)' is a nasty combination that does very little (or is even negative in effect according to the writer I quoted).
I know you disagree with me but fit Global Warming into that formula. 'disaster + complicit media + careers made'. It is the same scam for as far as I am concerned, the difference being the 'disaster' is global.
|
|
|
|
|
Skipping the global warming comment.
War is a bigger cause of starvation than drought.
Or - drought is the cause of the war.
These feed on one another (unfortunate pun). Ultimately, all wars are over power - which translates to resources. Resources, of course, give you a greater chance of winning wars.
But I totally agree on a subset of humanitarian causes really being in place only to keep those who administer them well paid (aside from embezzling their share). Not all. The UN is possibly the worst organization on earth to allow to oversee any sort of aid.
There are charitable organizations that do much good. Shrine Hospitals. Salvation Army. Nechama. We really can and should look after one another. We're a communal species.
We're also a greedy species. When it comes to true ethical solutions, saints are far outnumbered by sinners. So - we will keep wallowing in our own figurative waste: it's what we are
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
I should say 'war is the bigger cause of famine'.
That Live Aid concert back in the 80s (90s?) run by Bob Geldof was for a famine caused by war for example.
W∴ Balboos wrote: We're also a greedy species
Funny, I see man as actually a generous person, when he has enough to satisfy himself. Once fear is removed, man can, and does, behave in a compassionate way. Fear makes man into a vicious killer.
I remember the immense donation made by the people of the UK to the 2004 Tsunami in asia some years back. That it occurred on Boxing Day (day after Christmas in the UK) was a big factor in the £392 million raised. People were sitting there well fed, in the comfort of their homes, on a quasi religious day, and the response was extraordinary.
|
|
|
|
|
The Live Aid concert is not a proof of cause/effect. Do you think they'd put on an music fest to raise money for RPG's ? Yes - it was for famine relief, but what else could it be for. Always for symptoms, rarely for prevention.
As for greedy species? The new US Tax code is a classic example. More money for those who have the most. Take it to a further extreme: Enron. People who make more money in a year then almost everyone on earth could make in a lifetime, yet still they wanted more. And the peons who worked for the company? They lost everything. The entire S&L fiasco. Repeated with the mortgage fiasco (and the root cause, local mortgage brokers convincing people to borrow more than they can afford - never paid back their commission. It was Main St, more than Wall St, that caused the mess) Greed is rewarded.
For that matter, when the North Easter US was shattered by Sandy, the southern states held up the government aid. They, themselves, have received it time-and-again, but when it came to someone else getting help . . . suddenly they had problems with it. And they do it to please their constituency: because to them, charity-begins-at-home is very literal . . . and ends there, too.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
W∴ Balboos wrote: The Live Aid concert is not a proof of cause/effect
The media didn't report the war as the cause of the famine by the way, but anyway, any one money raising event cant prove anything, the proof has to come from the people on the ground. Actually read a very interesting book about the aid industry, and how useless-dangerous-evil it can be (UN save the children workers using child prostitutes for example).
If you judge people by their politicians, well, you are bound to come up with a skewed image. 
|
|
|
|
|
You look at a festering wound, and ignore the source of the wound ?
In Africa, as in India, and China, extant civilizations were destroyed systematically by western powers. [^]
Nehru once said: "India is a rich land of poor people;" a major historical source of the poverty was the systematic looting of the country by western colonial powers.
Of course, these statements are reductionist generalities; the realities involve "guns, germs, and steel" [^] as well as indigenous greed and predatory power structures.
But, there's nothing abstract, or general, in 1 million Bengali weavers having their thumbs cut off by the East India company, in 40 million Indians dying of a deliberately created famine resulting from rice stocks manipulation, in Queen Victoria enjoying the spoils of the loot of a China destroyed by mass opium addiction, and naming the captured Shih-Tzu of the deposed dowager Empress "looty."
«Where is the Life we have lost in living? Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?» T. S. Elliot
|
|
|
|
|
That is a completely off topic and ranting collection of lies and half truths. Take it to the Soapbox.
|
|
|
|
|
Survived second interview.
I think I might be on for a third one [that's when the hard tech stuff begins]. But they told me they are talking to several candidates so it might be a while before I hear anything. 
This seems to be a new trend here. To do the soft cultural stuff first, to see if there is a cultural fit. Very much unlike Joel Spolsky's phone screen approach...
The Phone Screen – Joel on Software[^]
"If we don't change direction, we'll end up where we're going"
modified 23-Oct-18 11:04am.
|
|
|
|
|
So it's beginning to look more and more like a soap series.
Confused ? you won't be after the next episode 
|
|
|
|
|
RickZeeland wrote: Confused ? you won't be after the next episode
I assume that is irony.
Peter Wasser
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
|
|
Nice paraphrase, used to love that show. I had to look up the exact quote. It was:
Quote: Confused? You won't be, after this week's episode of...Soap.
|
|
|
|
|
Congrats,know what that's like...
|
|
|
|
|
Does this company only interview unemployed people? Like, who can just take time off work for 3 different interviews for the same role
|
|
|
|
|
It's a 20 minute walk from my office. Our work hours are flexible.
"If we don't change direction, we'll end up where we're going"
|
|
|
|
|
I guess that's manageable for you then, but surely they are limiting the pool of possible candidates with such a system. Particular if people are looking to relocate and don't live locally, needing to sit 3 different interviews might put people off from applying in such a case.
Personally I would be a bit concerned that they don't know what they are doing if they need to interview so many times, it doesn't seem very efficient. However, I don't know what job you are going for so it could be completely justified to need to be so thorough.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
