Delta4Embassy
Gold Member
Since I'm like totally loved anyway I'm gonna ask a question I've been wanting to but reluctant to so far. 
Question: Is it ethical to continue sending food, medicine, money to African countries every time there's a famine, disease outbreak, or other mess they themselves can't remedy? Before you answer, consider this:
Africa's current population is 1.11 billion people. If every time there's a famine the rest of the world sends food to the afflicted nation or region saving everyone, don't the survivors then live long enough to reproduce and add to the population? If the only aid that was rendered was sending food, but not teachers to teach how to grow or otherwise make your own food, isn't another even greater famine just a matter of time?
If disease outbreaks in Africa are tied to population and lack of education and other cultural practices (as mentioned with the current ebola outbreak,) but we send medicine and doctors to save as many as we can, but then the survivors reproduce and keep their cultural practices until the next outbreak, isn't the next time just going to be worse?
If all we ever do is 'kick the can further down the road' aren't we really only making them dependent on foreign aid programs instead of learning to sustain themselves? And if they can't sustain themselves at their current population, isn't letting them die when problems arise the better solution? Fewer people means less likely famines, fewer diseases from overpopulation, etc.
I don't actually propose letting them or anyone else die when at risk, but as an ethical exercise it's a valid topic to discuss.
Question: Is it ethical to continue sending food, medicine, money to African countries every time there's a famine, disease outbreak, or other mess they themselves can't remedy? Before you answer, consider this:
Africa's current population is 1.11 billion people. If every time there's a famine the rest of the world sends food to the afflicted nation or region saving everyone, don't the survivors then live long enough to reproduce and add to the population? If the only aid that was rendered was sending food, but not teachers to teach how to grow or otherwise make your own food, isn't another even greater famine just a matter of time?
If disease outbreaks in Africa are tied to population and lack of education and other cultural practices (as mentioned with the current ebola outbreak,) but we send medicine and doctors to save as many as we can, but then the survivors reproduce and keep their cultural practices until the next outbreak, isn't the next time just going to be worse?
If all we ever do is 'kick the can further down the road' aren't we really only making them dependent on foreign aid programs instead of learning to sustain themselves? And if they can't sustain themselves at their current population, isn't letting them die when problems arise the better solution? Fewer people means less likely famines, fewer diseases from overpopulation, etc.
I don't actually propose letting them or anyone else die when at risk, but as an ethical exercise it's a valid topic to discuss.
