Why do progressives, or the left, or whatever ideological label you want to use, support 'humanitarian' aid, when the very thing they do is negative for humanity? Is this not ironic? The view of the religious right is at least consistent.. they think God has put them in charge of 'helping the poor', and they don't believe overpopulation is a problem, at least from what i've heard from them. So while creating a breeding ground has some moral questions for them, it fits into their world view.
But progressives think overpopulation is a big problem. So why would they support sending food to overpopulated countries to encourage overpopulation?
Personally, i don't think govt should be involved in these kinds of moral decisions. They should stick to the basics, & let the religious or humanitarian groups agonize over the plight of the poor. It borders on 'establishing' religious views, not legal or ethical responsibilities of govt.
I understand those with a religious motivation. They feel God has given them the charge to care for the poor. Any human suffering causes them to ache in empathy for their plight. But the secular humanism of the progressives does not have that religious motivation. Neither does a govt.. especially the US govt, which is supposed to be separate, religiously.
And where do you draw the line? There are suffering poor all over the world. Some places there are political injustices.. syria, for example. Innocent people do not receive justice. Many 3rd world countries do not have any kind of economic justice.. some are rich, exploiting the poor for their own enrichment, but most of the workers are dirt poor, eking out an existence that makes American poor look wealthy by comparison. Why do the progressive govts or groups not labor as hard to bring justice to them? We dump some food in ethiopia or somalia, but let the oppressed poor in china or india suffer. We 'liberate' iraq, yet let the syrian govt oppress the people.
And all during this, the progressives will bring alarming statistics about the horrors of overpopulation to the health & welfare of the planet, yet do the very things that make it worse. How is this reconciled in a logical way? How do american progressives support 'humanitarian' aid, when it is mostly a religious motivation?
Logical motivations are cold hearted. The 'heart' has no place in a discussion about motivations, unless that is the motive. Do progressives, even though they know it is bad for the planet & humanity, support aid to the world's poor because of religiously motivated compassion?
I think it is inconsistent.. and ironic. If 'job 1' is saving the earth & cutting back on world populations, then artificially feeding people in large breeding grounds, with no strings attached, is illogical. Some have suggested exchanging food for sterilization, but this hasn't gotten much support from the progressives as a whole. Why not?
My part in this discussion is a philosophical one. There are many poor, disadvantaged, hungry, homeless, & people without ipads all over the world. Many humanitarian efforts are made, & have been made over the years to alleviate their suffering. Humanitarian groups have formed to help those in need. Govts have instituted social programs to combat the problems. Cell phones, sodas & chips are provided for free. But they have not been effective, & have only worsened the problems & compounded them. Not only have the poor increased, but their dependency has increased, & our efforts to 'help' have only provided a breeding ground. Giving away free food, housing, medical care, etc, only taxes the resources of those who are providing for themselves. It does not promote independence. It promotes a culture of crime, irresponsibility, & unchecked procreation. The productive citizens of the world cannot afford to keep a 'zoo' for the amusement of social engineers & religious ideologues.
Here are a few of my basic objections for the motive for govt humanitarian aid:
1. Govt sponsored 'humanitarian' aid does not help humanity, but only makes things worse.
2. It seems to be a religious motivation, to 'help the poor', which violates the no establishment clause in the american constitution. Other nations may have religious values embedded in their govt, but the us does not.
3. Medical care, national protection, food, water, & housing are all necessary for people's survival. None of these things are free or a 'natural right', but must be worked for. Someone must pay for them. There are not enough prosperous people in the world to support all the poor, or provide a breeding ground for them.
I have not addressed solutions. I am only defining & identifying the problem, & the failure of the status quo & the programs of the last 50 yrs or so. But to continue with the same failed policies is madness & folly. We need real solutions. The working people of the world cannot support a larger & larger dependent class. The working people of america cannot afford to support a massive dependent class, or the rest of the world's poor. We need to grow the productive working class of the nation, not shrink it by moving them to dependency. Our policies should be motivated by that concept.. that is the underlying philosophical basis for determining govt's role.
For some things in life, there are no solutions. We cannot end death. We cannot stop gravity. We cannot end war or human violence. We cannot stop earthquakes, hurricanes, or tsunamis. We cannot end poverty or provide free food, housing, medical care, or any other survival necessity to the world. Individually, as a nation, & a world, we can only deal with things the best we can, & try to provide the best environment for people to work & provide for their families. Redistribution does not solve any of these problems. It also just compounds them. It is clear that the cost to support a larger & larger dependent class is unsustainable. Our budget is bursting with entitlements & welfare redistribution programs. It is bankrupting us.
Some believe very strongly that americans have a divine responsibility to police the world, & seek international justice. This, too, is a noble cause, motivated again, by a religious opinion. But the underlying basis for the opinion is the same. It is motivated by compassion for the poor & disadvantaged. It is a religious view, not a logical one. The basic 'rule' in the universe is that the fit survive. You may try to work against that rule, but that is a religious goal, not a natural one.
Now if you want to argue the need for man to manage the earth, then other considerations should be made. Overpopulation is a major problem. Providing a breeding ground for unchecked population growth directly violates the goal of reducing or checking the world's population. Unchecked human breeding diminishes the habitat of other species, & taxes the environment. So the religious concept of humanitarian aid is diametrically opposed to more earth based concerns. A balance should be sought, to satisfy both concerns. But again, the current trend is unsustainable.