Interesting point.
Is money better spent feeding/clothing a bunch of Africans and preventing aids _or_ on research, bio-engineering, space/ocean exploration, education etc. here at home?
Which one is short term and which one is long term?
Is money better spent feeding/clothing a bunch of Africans and preventing aids _or_ on research, bio-engineering, space/ocean exploration, education etc. here at home?
Which one is short term and which one is long term?
Most African economies are agricultural and it is therefore alarming that the EU uses 40% of it's budget(about 48B Euros annually) on agricultural subsidies. The US uses about $20B every year on the same.Ending these subsidies would enable Africa to export more, buy more products from the US and Europe as well as form the basis for industrialization.
We need more trade and less aid. Is that asking for too much?
More info;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy
http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/agriculture/subsidies
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1978963,00.ht...
The problem is that many Americans (I don't know as much about Europe) aren't actually that wealthy. Without food subsidies, our food quality would probably increase, but so would our costs. Poor Americans are overweight today because the distorted food costs make it cheaper to eat processed food (that is more expensive to make overall) than to eat basic fruits and veggies and grains. Without subsidies, they would be starving, or at least calorie deficient.
Nixon put in our current system of subsidies because "food should never be an issue in a presidential race". And since then, it hasn't. America may be wealthy, but the wealth is very unevenly distributed. Without social programs, many of our people would be starving as well.
Productivity and efficiency have increased much faster than when subsidies were in place.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspon...
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/02/business/worldbusiness/02f...
Although I'm not in a position to give away large sums of money, I don't believe in _just_ investing in people.
Investing in their economy, industry etc. makes more sense in the long term than investing in food/water and short term solutions.
Of course, It is very easy to talk about this sitting on my couch with a full stomach.
Nobody wants to put all their eggs in one basket, especially if it's someone else's basket. And from what I hear of high-yield food production, the good baskets all have problems down the line. Meat has disease and animal rights activists, fish has chemical pollution and overharvesting, fruit has pollination and insecticide issues, grain has crop rotation neglect and nutritional deficiencies.
Add to that the issues global trade is facing, such as rising fuel costs, treat of piracy, troublesome weather, looming threat of magnetosphere and solar interference, and politicians, and you can understand why I'd be reluctant to designate Africa as the world's breadbasket. Perhaps I've just watched too much TV, but food is one of the last things I want outsourced.
The continued existence of the entire human race may depend on space exploration and subsequent colonization. One comet or black-swan type disaster could wipe out humanity as a whole. This is not without precedent (dinosaurs).
Each time we leave this planet we punch a whole in our ozone layer that can't be repaired! Some things were meant to be left alone. Simple education like teaching man to fish and read (not like our socialist education system here in America) will improve life and decerease deficits on this earth! Socialism is not the answer!
Can you provide a source for the ozone whole claim? Where did I mention socialism?
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/information/shuttl...
With that much money you can do both.
That's very harsh and insensitive. There are millions of people dying of hunger and all you care about is space exploration?