Indirect Consequences and Moral Choices of Inaction

SLAM: debunk creationism, pseudoscience, and superstitions. Discuss logic and morality.

Moderator: Alyrium Denryle

User avatar
Boyish-Tigerlilly
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3225
Joined: 2004-05-22 04:47pm
Location: New Jersey (Why not Hawaii)
Contact:

Post by Boyish-Tigerlilly »

How realistic is the alternative long-term goal of solidifying the infrastructure and eliminating the undermining elements, given their conditions? If it works, it would be a good thing because it prevents the core problems while preventing expansion of the starving population. But that's if it actually has results and they don't die anyway while not really fixing those problems.
User avatar
Singular Intellect
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2392
Joined: 2006-09-19 03:12pm
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Post by Singular Intellect »

Boyish-Tigerlilly wrote:How realistic is the alternative long-term goal of solidifying the infrastructure and eliminating the undermining elements, given their conditions?
Obviously this would take some serious looking into, planning and investment.

However that still doesn't excuse making the problem bigger for future generations.
If it works, it would be a good thing because it prevents the core problems while preventing expansion of the starving population. But that's if it actually has results and they don't die anyway while not really fixing those problems.
It's better that a smaller population died of starvation than feeding that population, making it bigger, and than it starving when you lack the resources to feed it via charity. Unless there's a real working plan in motion to ensure stability and self sufficiency for the current population and growth, I'll pick the lesser of two evils, as cruel as that may sound to some people.

With problems like Peak Oil approaching which will have a massive impact on agriculture for first world countries (never mind third world ones dependent upon excess from said countries), feeding these populations without solving the core problem is essentially extending the life of one at the cost of it combined with additional news ones dying later the same way.

It's like that saying "Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime." It's the same idea, but on a population scale. So far as I've seen, we're just giving them the fish, with greater demands for that fish being the result, with no thought as to what will happen when that fish supply is either drastically reduced or cut off completely.
Post Reply