In India, 50% of everyone born blind die in childhood.
People use resources but they mostly contribute to those resources in some way as well.
In an underdeveloped country it could be argued that blind people use resources but don't contribute.
In a developed country curing blind children means that more people contribute to the countrys' economy.
Therefore saving childrens' sight in a developed country means more people who can contribute.
However, in an over-populated underdeveloped country (India for example) there are less resources and less ability to be able to contribute.
Therefore curing blind children in India (or any over-populated under-resourced country) adds to that countrys' problems.
Therefore we shouldn't try to save the sight of poor Indian children
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Interesting.
India is a poor country, although now going throuigh a rapid period of growth and an increase in the standard of living for millions of people, but granted not all.
Blindness is an interetsing one - and a very unfortunare throwback to 400 years of colonial rule which stripped a rich country of mineral wealth, destroyed the most advanced textile industry in the world, and introduced syphilis to a population not prepared for diseases from the West. The legacy of this illnness still lingers on 20 generatiions, manifested by endemic blindness. The question is, should England now be subsidising medival treatment in India, to make up for all the suffering it created.
I think you've missed the point.
I'm saying that we are hurting India by helping these blind kids because it is adding to the already over-populated infrastructure...
You should have added in brackets after your little rant (with the help of the Sikhs)
Why have you got England down to pay up. Everybody knows the Jocks and Irish were the real empire builders, they should pay because it's a fair bet most of the syphilis was dished out by the sweatys.
post a new blog if you want to discuss British guilt for sorting India out (frankly I dont give a fuck!)
This blog is about whether we should be saving people in places that already have an over-population problem...
I don't get your argument IGOTLIFE, the children are alive so they already are a drain on resources, why not then give them sight so they may fend for themselves?
Because they are going to be a drain on resources families dont care for blind kids like their other kids - hence 50% die. We're talking about saving these kids (that would have died) - I'm saying that this is adding to the problem.
I agree with igotlife. How many of the resources we pour into keeping 80 year old people in rich countries alive could be used to help keep young healthy and productive members of developing countries alive? It is simple mathematics. It is not a pure zero sum game. But for instance, we easily spend 100 billion or 200 billion on war, but they say aids could be wiped out with 15 billion of investment immediately and with the same focus as a war. However, this all actually begs the question, what is good? The assumption that India hurts more by the economic burden of it's poor population is misleading. It suggests that good is the accumulation of riches. I know we've all been indoctrinated into this form of thinking, and we're doing a good job of telling developing worlds that they are "developing" and we are "developed". But what if good is not over-consuming the world, living a simple life, and helping those who are suffering and struggling. Then by this definition saving the eyesight of the children is good, and if that meant it cost India, and England a few extra refrigerators in houses, then that must be even better.
"I'm saying that we are hurting India by helping these blind kids because it is adding to the already over-populated infrastructure... "
"It is simple mathematics."
No it isn't, this is human life and it is precious in whatever form it comes in. When we start debating who deserves life then we take a step onto a very slippery slope and we've been there before too many times.
But we make decisions for the greater good all the time! Some would even argue that killing Iraqis in the war has been for the greater good!!
Some human life is more precious than others?
The loss of the rights of the individual is what led to the killing of 100 million people in the name of the greater good in the past century.
That may be, but as I say, many people dispute different ways of doing it all the time.
Dont people generally accept that if you can kill one person to save a thousand you should?
That is why 'we' decided to go to Iraq - we accepted many would die but the end (democracy etc) would justify the means. No?
I'm gunna agree with gipperfan here and say that the idea that life is sacred and to be treasured has to be the first principle.
In the event that someone shows that they don't deserve life, primarily by taking life, then it is just to take their life.
In this case that is not evident, the children are born blind and will cause others suffering (by adding to over population) through no fault of theirs.
Actually, what we are discussing is simple greed. The world's resources are more than enough to satisfy the entire population, but America and Europe must consume what they do, and spend the rest on bombs. So basically I got life and full english are arguing that victims should be further victimised and other victims should be blamed for our own greed.
If we can sacrifice a few cars to the greater benefit of humanity is that so bad? Forget the sacrifice one to save a thousand bullshit... sacrifice one car to save ten thousand lives!!
The ends never justify the means. That is/was the entire justification behind actually existing Socialism (for that read Communism).
What has any of this got to do with cars? One major volcanic eruption (Mt. Pinatubo in the 1990's) did more "damage" to the environment than every car combined since the car was invented.
"The ends never justify the means"
Not even in Iraq Gipperfan?
Post a Comment