Comments on: Making Poverty History

By: Andrew

Andrew — Fri, 03 Jun 2005 15:02:48 +0000

[checks]

Nope, they all appear to be here. I see ‘official’, what else?

By: Lynsey

Lynsey — Fri, 03 Jun 2005 15:00:07 +0000

No offence, but have you lost a finger?! All of a sudden you’re missing letters out all over the place!

By: Andrew

Andrew — Thu, 02 Jun 2005 11:59:03 +0000

Had to happen
I refer you to the Offical God FAQ.

By: Lynsey

Lynsey — Thu, 02 Jun 2005 11:54:15 +0000

Just thought!

- I bet God knows

By: Lynsey

Lynsey — Thu, 02 Jun 2005 11:48:34 +0000

‘Tis most tricky, and I don’t pretend to have the answers cos I ain’t got a clue what the solution should be … Ooh we’re agreeing on something for once

By: Andrew

Andrew — Thu, 02 Jun 2005 09:35:46 +0000

Yep, I agree that science and morality are entirely separate. It does indeed get very very difficult to say what “should” be done in situations, as I think we’re showing
I’d be very interested to read that, it sounds fascinating.

Fair enough - I won’t argue with an environmental science graduate about the environment

By: Lynsey

Lynsey — Thu, 02 Jun 2005 08:07:20 +0000

…And with regards to the UN - whether countries can go against its wishes or ignore it completely … wasn’t an effective organisation in terms of the Iraq war.

By: Lynsey

Lynsey — Thu, 02 Jun 2005 08:00:21 +0000

My point was that morality is a human concept - so what may be ‘morally right’ isn’t necessarily scientifically sound. And that it would be irresponsible to encourage something to happen without considering its long-term implications.

I can’t remember the bloke’s name, but someone of importance within the scientific community recently said that we need the pick *the* most important issue facing the world over the next century and focus efforts into that - more effective than trying to solve everything. Will try and look up his name
And climate change *is* affecting people *now* - I read in New Scientist last week that Argentina is experiencing a 30% reduction in electricity generation due to changing rainfall patterns. And there are signs of ecosystem stress everywhere.

By: Lil

Lil — Wed, 01 Jun 2005 21:29:09 +0000

I agree with Lynsey that it would negatively contribute to environmental issues - but on the other hand there’s no way the countries can consider taking action with regards to climate change etc. (beyond using even more wild land for crops and resources!) while they’re suffering from disease and famine.

If only there was an easy way to reverse the world population growth rate! It would solve pretty much every problem going Disease and starvation are natural ways of controlling population size - if we can get rid of them totally, we have to take the responsibility ourselves (I hasten to add that here I’m thinking more ‘1 child policy’ than ‘annual deer cull’ ;)..)

By: Andrew

Andrew — Wed, 01 Jun 2005 15:37:28 +0000

That’s undoubtedly true, but what’s your point? We can’t let people suffer just because there are too many people on the planet.

The UN has many major successes in terms of preventing wars, negotating treaties and getting countries to talk to each other. Nuclear proliferation is a good example. The US and UK circumvented the UN by not asking permission, which is different from going against its wishes.

But I was just using the UN as an example of a multitasking organisation. Companies, governments, trade unions…all these groups can (and do) do more than one thing at once, and just because something isn’t number one priority doesn’t mean it isn’t important. Things just aren’t that linear.