well? if you knew that you barely make living for yourself because u live in the middle of the desert would u still make like 20 fuqin babies and watch them suffer?
share[deleted]
they're uneducated to contraception.
shareTo those that have posted so far, esp the OP, your lack of education on this topic is dumbfounding, and the nature of your posts lead me to believe you really don't care to hear an actual answer. You just want to feel some sort of mental and moral superiority over people in a culture very dissimilar from your own. Let me assure you, you have neither.
I don't think I can even begin to explain it to you is a short IMDB post, but if you truly do care to know, start by researching the "demographic transition" of societal development, make another post that indicates you actually have learned something about the world since third grade, and prove that you're willing and ready for an actual intellectual discussion.
Or just go back to playing video games on your brand new cell phone and enjoy your ignorance.
You could not have put it any better.. i loved your answer!!
shareQuestion: Two groups of people. One group likes big houses and big cars, small families. The other likes large familes and small houses, no cars. Which group is still here in 500 years. You think that's an easy question? It isn't, but it explains (to the careful observer) why one group is busy buying seeds and water.
Your question is an attempt to dehumaninze the people suffering.
The answer that people don't want to hear is that the expectation is that a certain percentage of children will die, and that this is acceptable. Then of course there's things like rape, and religious denial of access to contraception.
Of course, it's much worse when people in the first world do the same kind of reckless reproduction, for ego-maniacal reasons like promoting their religion, as I recently saw some claiming to do on TV, or because they have a psychological sickness like the "Octo-Mom". Each of those offspring will suck away hundreds of times the resources as any of the ones born in the third world.
Along with the Right to Water should come a worldwide restriction on excessive reproduction. The vast majority of the world's most important problems disappear if we cut our population down to a normal size. This idea that you have the right to reproduce yourself five, ten, fifteen times has got to stop.
The answer is that as someone mentioned many if not most born in the poorest region will die. Thus people have more children because they need help with their crops, and general means of survival. More people=less work. More people= more food. They have the same right to survive we do, the same right to enjoy themselves as well. :D
As explained societies go through stages of development, although you wouldn't know it because few countries have actually progrssed because of the free market holding them down while we exploit them to death.
The OP asks a genuine question, whether out of ignorance or not. The tone of the replies are both amusing and irritating in their short-sightedness. The logic on display is rediculous. Let's take this rather questionable statement: "More people=more food". The logic behind this is: "more people to farm crops".
That is an astoundingly stupid statement that is seriously in the realms of 'laughable'. "More people" DOES NOT mean "more food" even if the whole population farmed crops. When famine hits the thirld world countries, are you seriously saying that if there was MORE people it would improve the situation?
Likewise the "survival odds" excuse. If you DO NOT have food/water to feed 2 babies, will having 6 more babies make things better? Of course, believing the first stupid statement will of course naturally lead you to believe this one also.
Finally, vespid23 does not even make a point but simply adopts a position of assumed superiority without even showing why. His argument is: "you're obviously not as intelligent as me - therefore I am right". Of course, he says absolutely nothing to back this up of course. He is "just right".
I'm not surprised by any of this. It's obvious the type of person these unbalanced, one-sided, propaganda films attract. People who lack reasoning and logic, or just dismiss alternative viewpoints for simply being different (vespid23). It's even evident in the reviews, as one of the only negative reviews (interestingly, also one of the non-US reviews) is attacked later on and dismissed because it "doesn't agree".
The OP's initial post was hostile and demonstrated no capacity to learn, hence I didn't even bother to try and teach.
The point is, you can't answer this well in just a few paragraphs. leeakaneotheone is close to the mark, but you don't believe it anyway because of your lack of understanding of the topic (well, perhaps leeak's answer could have been worded better, too)
The shortest possible answer I can give is that for families in the pre- and transitional stages of development, children are a necessity for survival to grow/obtain food and other subsistence items. They also depend on their children to take care of them when they grow older. When infant mortality is high and death rates low, fertility rates remain high to compensate. Only when survivorship curves rise will total fertility tend to fall, although usually after a significant delay resulting in a large population increase overall.
I know you don't get it. I know you don't believe it. You apparently don't know enough yet to understand it. Go do some research on your own.
If that answer appears stupid to you, ask yourself why families in North America and Europe were equally big when they were agrarian societies. It takes bodies to work a farm. Where do you get them from if you're too poor to hire help?
shareSo you really think those populations are jst as educated as we are in terms of reproduction and consequences?
Guess what! All those right wing evangelical 'Christian' organisations massively supported whenever a right winger is in the white house, and moderately so when not, spread their 'word' throughout Africa, saying(preaching) all they need is the bible - education is not needed, nor is contraception. That is what these despicable modern day 'missionaries' teach them. For most, that is the only education they get from outside their tribal structure.
But you think they're making calculated decisions. I'm sure you love your explanation, but it's utterly laughable with a basis in ignorance to what such people experience in terms of how choices are made in those areas.
People don't want to hear it, huh? How come it's one of the most common misconceptions known about this issue? We've heard it time and again - and it's yet another way to make them seem they're not like us. You may have good intentions, but you've fallen into the trap of seeing them as wild animals.
The ignorance in this thread is astounding. Especially from the likes of people like pp_uk.
share[deleted]
What else would you do with all your time if you didn't have all the forms of entertainment/pointless distractions that we have in the developed world? Your priorities would change if you weren't programmed to sit on the couch and watch TV at the end of the day.
shareThey have no social security, they are hoping that some of these children will survive and feed them when they grow too old to feed themselves.
share