General Chat

David You have completely misunderstood. Read again my posting of 12th. Len

Len Just suppose we followed your idea and stopped helping poorer countries - someone goes over and says sorry folks but we had LiveAid 20 years ago and you still haven't sorted yourselves out so you're now on your own. Time moves on - they all die and we're all a few quid a year better off. What happens next as the population continues to grow? Do we then look into our own back yard and start reducing support for our own less useful members of society to generate more revenue and cull our growing society? Do we stop giving benefits to the unemployed and pensioners? Stop wasting the countries money on palleative care or operations for people who smoke, drink or are overweight? And so on. And when will your and your descendants' turns come to be unproductive burdens on the world's shoulders? You may be right and there will only be standing room on this planet in the years to come - but, apart from yourself, who wants a nicer life in the future at the expense of those who were not born into an easier lot?

And meanwhile let people die of AIDS and other diseases for lack of money to buy expensive drugs produced in the west? And meanwhile let people starve despite the west having a surplus of food? I don't think so. Gwynne

Roger Highfield, Science Editor of the Telegraph writes (10/6/05): The Prime Minister's chief scientist has added his voice to concerns about Bob Geldorf's Live 8 Initiative, fearing it could be counter productive and that indiscriminate aid will not solve Africa's problems. Timed to influence the G8 summit, there have been concerns that Live 8s aims to double foreign aid and write off debt may do little to aid Africa's dependence on charity. Yesterday, Sir David King said 'I don't think throwing money at the problem is the way forward'. He agreed that it was critically important that attention was drawn to Africa's plight, 'Not Live 8 but if you go back to Live Aid I think it has served a tremendous purpose. At this stage, though, all my focus is on the political process of the G8. I don't want to be distracted from that. My concern about any other activity is that it may be counterproductive. The way we tackle problems historically in our own countries is through wealth generation and economic improvements. The focus on poverty and alleviating directly poverty through hand-outs is not a way forward. We have proved that over the last 50 years. Instead of using aid to solve short-term needs 'the focus has to be altered to looking at infrastructure development to improve self-generation of wealth and uplifting of standards' Sir David, who grew up in South Africa is no stranger to controversy and believes that climate change is more serious than even the threat of terrorism. Nor is he a stranger to the problems of Africa. He left S.A aged 23 after being hounded by the secret police for anti-apartheid activities and continuued his scientific career in Britain where he is now Professor of Chemistry in Cambridge. He said 'Africa has the biggest problems in the world . The help we can give from the North is through persistence in sustaining and improving education holistically. We are not going to do that by stepping in from the outside. The only way for it to happen is if Africa generates the capability itself' Len

Just because people live in countries that are poor then they have no rights to a pain free life and should control themselves better????? They are often not educated at all and contraception is the last thing they are worried about, plus alot of the african countries are predominately CATHOLIC and therefore contraception is banned by the POPE.... yep the one they have just elected forbids use of any contraception even if it helps prevent the spread of disease and famine!! Governments are corrupt in these countries and the aid people are trying their hardest to reach the right targets!! Would you have left the Tsunami victims to their own devices even tho it wasn't just nature that caused their problems? Had the poor communications systems been updated by their government then warnings could have been put in place and then not as many people would have been killed!! Had it not been the ideal holiday destination (no I haven't been) would so many people have cared? Nature kills off people in many ways and what Geldof is trying to achieve is to reduce the suffering people endure unnecessarily and he for one would probably put his hands up and say he knows it will NEVER be eradicated!! that doesn't mean we should IGNORE them!! Should we stop trying to find ways to cure cancer and various other life taking diseases because we are prolonging lives that add to the population? GELDOF deserves the knighthood that he recieved!! And just because he doesn't promote the money he donates does not mean he doesn't give his own hard earned cash!!

Jane Goodall, renowned authoress and life-long researcher into the lives of chimpanzees in western Tanzania, interviewed by New Scientist, June 2005: 'I made the decision to quit research literally overnight at a conference in 1986. I was planning to go back to Gombe, but after I heard all the delegates speak about the extent of habitat destruction across Africa, I came out knowing I would never go back.. Since that day I haven't spent more than 3 weeks in any one place, but have spent my time travelling the world lecturing on conservation and cooperation. We have been lousy stewards with our fancy, sophisticated language and all the technology we have. We have really, really betrayed the planet. Worst of all we have betrayed the future of our children and grandchildren, and that is why I am so passionate about my Roots and Shoots movement which aims to help young people change their world by learning about conservation'. Len

I am wryly amused that Tony Blair took this Country to war against a so-called corrupt regime and yet does NOTHING about the obscenely corrupt governments of various African states.But of course, the African Countries do not supply us with oil. There is talk of wiping out the Debts of these poor African countries - what were the debts incurred for, I want to know? Guns? Ammunition? Rolls Royces? DVD Players? If so, why should we wipe out these debts and how would that help any starving person? Do we really think these Corrupt Officials would then spend their spare cash on their own, starving people? That anyone, black, white, yellow or brown, should go without sufficient food in a world of excess is vile. That we should trade with Nations who allow their people to starve is even more vile. The answers are political. I have seen famine after famine and good people giving what they can spare, only to see it all happen again. I hold no hope that the G8 conference will tackle this problem in any meaningful way. Marjorie

I agree entirely with Guinevere, well said that woman.Just seen Bob Geldof on Jonathon Ross, you've got to admire his tenacity, go for it Bob.

Some rather strange arithmetic must have been used for it to be suggested that there will only be 2 square feet for each person by 2050AD. The surface area of the earth is, by my calculation, (very approximately) 500,000,000,000,000 square metres. If, by 2050AD, the population has reached 20 billion (quite a liberal estimate?) then there will be 25,000 square metres for each of you - I exclude myself as I have no particular ambition to live to 103. If only 10% of the earth is habitable, this still leaves about 2,500 square meters each - about a third of a football pitch - somewhat different from a broadsheet newspaper folded in half!

Climate change will decrease food production in developing countries, according to a report by the U.N's Food and Agriculture Organisation. In Africa, for example, the area of land with a growing season of less than 120 days, due to lack of water, will increase by by 50 to 90 million hectares by 2080. Top UK business leaders representating 12 companies have written to Tony Blair pushing for long-term policies to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The firms, with a combined turnover of more than £450 billion, want to avoid the 'catch 22' situation of goverment being afraid of business reacting badly tp CO²-curbing policies while businesses can't justify low-carbon steps because of uncertainties over future policies. (New Scientist June 9 2005.) len

One of the quickest ways to reduce the number of children a woman has is to educate her. Societies where women have opportunities other than wife and mother have lower birth rates. Even if a literate lady chooses the traditional role, she will have fewer children and hers will have a greater chance of survival. It may seem obvious to us, but thousands of kids die of dehydration because their parents mistakenly think that giving water to a child with diarrhea is the wrong thing to do. Don't forget that many people in Africa are deeply religious and they truly believe that contraception is a sin, and that it does not work. It is actually very difficult to access in some areas. Africa is not to blame for the world's expanding population; look at Asia and South America too. And they aren't, on the whole, afflicted with famine. But they are continents where women generally stay at home and where the population is very religious. Personally, I won't give money to foreign-based charities. Whole armies are fed with food parcels meant for the starving, and buy guns with donations from us the public. Britain sold Tanzania a new air defence system a few years back. Why? Tanzanian children die daily because there's no clean drinking water but the government ministers have shiny new cars.

Len, I'm not sure that personal attacks on Bob's appearance are particularly constructive. Like many others on this thread I have great admiration for Sir Bob. Instead of sitting at home and saying how sad it all is and pontificating he has twice now tried to do something about it. I haven't read anywhere that he claims to have all the answers I don't think anyone has. If your concerns are about population control maybe you should write to the religious leaders who speak out against it. If it wasn't for 'woolly-minded do-gooders' we'd still have child labour and slavery in this country. And there would be no welfare state. Gwynne

In the early 70's Grenada tried to solve the problem of a corrupt Government by The New Jewel Party overthowing it! As soon as that government turned to Cuba for Aid (although we are a commonwealth country and still have the Queen on our currency) no one else would help..the Americans in their wisdom decided this was not on and together with some of the other Caribbean Islands invaded Grenada! They Bombed the Mental Home (thinking it Maurice Bishops headquarters) wrong.. destroyed the canning factory and killed innocents.... So we now have a government who are supposedly democratic....but a lot of ordinary people remember the days when you couldn't speak out without getting beaten or worse. This doesn't apply just to Grenada.... Corrupt Governments use all sorts of wiles to stop people talking!!! I'm not saying our government is corrupt....I have no proof but a great deal of aid came into our Country, not much got to the people. I would, however, still send Aid and did contribute to the people who suffered in the Tsunami. I'm not particularly up on what Bob Geldorf is doing because I don't get English Newspapers and World Service doesn't always give all the English News. I just felt the need to comment on Aid arriving or not arriving. My two daughters sent me and my husband and my sister Barrels with food stuffs and essentials....things given by friends and old work colleagues. This arrived and was picked up by us because they left sending it until it had been brought under control by foreign armies. Compared to the plight of some here I was relatively fortunate if only because I have children in the UK who could help. I chose to live here....the others didn't! I was only without water for about 4 days but believe me as I said previously I now know what it is like to be thirsty!!!!! Jacquie with her roof on!!! xxxx

I imagine that if each of us had a magic wand and the ability to wield it to solve the world's problems we'd all find different spells to cast. However, it has always seemed to me that the developed world is very good at telling the so-called Third World what and how they should be doing differently in their lives to solve their corruption and population problems ( amongst other issues). In fact isn't it the Caucasians who have managed to populate 3 continents and have managed to deal with corruption by 'legalizing' it for the most part? I suspect the underdeveloped nations wouldn't be so underdeveloped if the developed ones hadn't spent so many centuries exploiting them. Third World countries still have high population growth for exactly the same reasons that Europe did a century or so ago. Our development has gone a long way to keeping other countries in a time warp and contraception is not as globally available as we might wish for a whole variety of reasons.

Lynda Apologies for mispelling your name. I agree, for a parent there is no greater tradegy than losing a child. I know from experience. It goes against nature for a child to pre-decease it's parents. I have also experienced, first hand, death in many forms, mostly very violent. So maybe my outlook is warped. len

On the other hand, much of the world's population could be wiped out with a new version of flu, or we could be hit by a meteorite, or the huge volcano under Yellowstone Park could erupt... In the meantime, the poor are always with us and we must do what we can. Just under 200 years ago the British government sat back and watched Irish people starving with a 'let them eat cake' attitude when the potato blight struck. People don't want to starve. If their corrupt government prefers to spend aid on weapons or luxury trappings for its leaders, that isn't the fault of the mass of the population, any more than the fact that Britain went to war was the fault of the British population. nell

I can only repeat what I have said so often. 'As long as there are those who have more than they need, there will be those without the bare necessities.' I am afraid that we will all have to drastically reduce ourr own standards of living if we are going to make any kind of a difference. I have read somewhere that in order to raise the standard of living of the whole world to the level of Middle America we would need two more Worlds the size of our own in order to produce it.

Brian At last - a lateral thinker! There's none so blind as those who will not see. Linda I don't think many people saw the underlying message which is that we are dissipating our energies and money on a lesser evil. There are more catastrophic issues looming which most prefer to ignore Perhaps I could take to Geldorf more if his hair appeared washed and combed..... although he probaby spends a small fortune having it coiffed, enough to feed a village in Ethiopia for a year. len

the 'comic relief' organisation,has got it dead right...they spend the money donated on projects,which are overseen,by experts from here and other countries,the donations are well spent. this new venture by sir bob geldoff,is not to collect money,its simply to raise awareness of the plight in africa,and tell the 'fat cats' at the g8 conference,that weve had enough...were fed up with seeing children dying every three second,because of sickness and malnutrician. by the time ive typed this,sixty children have died in africa,well done bob,lets shout it from the rooftops...ive had a dinner,millions of kids haven't eaten for weeks! bryan.... one..two..three..another child has died!

I think that Len has a very valid point about population growth. Not only in underdeveloped countries but closer to home, too. If the UK stabilised or reduced it's population problems like water shortages, housing costs and traffic jams would disappear! It can't be beyond the wit of man to work out how many humans the planet can support on a sustainable basis. Waiting until we get to the point of having standing room only is not an option. Maybe we need some lateral thinking: If the reason for large families in underdeveloped countries is to provide for the parents in old age, then maybe aid would be better spent on providing pensions?