Making Poverty History

May 31st, 2005 - 23:48 | 15 comments

This afternoon, Bob Geldof stood in front of a packed press conference and launched Live 8 with the following words:

Still 20 years on [from Live Aid], it strikes me as morally repulsive that people die of want in a world of surplus.

Bloody right. He pointed out that more people die in Africa from hunger every day than die of AIDS, conflict and other major diseases combined. It’s ridiculous, appaling, stupid and disgusting. But we can do something about it, and thousands of people are doing their best to get the message out.

However, in a hideous display of irony, this is a comment on the BBC Website regarding Live 8:

I was 14 when Live Aid was on and donated my pocket money to help. I wont donate anything this time because it’s nothing more than a political racket!

Let me make this clear: Nobody is asking for any money. Live 8 is not asking for your money (the tickets are free). Make Poverty History is not asking for any money. While they could and would be entirely justified in doing so, they are simply asking for our voices. The G8 conference is in Gleneagles on July 8th. The G8 has it within its power to eradicate poverty by 2025. The point of the concert is to draw attention to the Make Poverty History campaign, the aims of which are:

Trade Justice

Drop the Debt

More and Better Aid

The first two aims are for long-term benefit. Africa currently pays more back in debt than it receives in aid. That’s insane. The third is for the short-term while the effects of the first two are felt.

Incidentally, Bob Geldof and Bono studied under Jeffrey Sachs, a professor of economics, until they gained an understanding of how the international economic system works. They’re not seeking publicity, they genuinely believe in this. Hell, everybody believes in this. It’s just a matter of convincing those in power to act.

Please, please visit the Make Poverty History website. Spend a couple of minutes reading up on their goals and aims. If you agree, and I expect you will, send emails to your MP and Tony Blair. Every voice counts. If you can march in Edinburgh on the 8th, brilliant. I want to and am going to try. It’s not marching against anything or anybody. It’s not politically biased or based on complaint. It’s for the greater good, the betterment of humanity, of standing up for what we know to be morally right.

This is no hollow cause, no political racket, no publicity stunt. Just imagine what we could do.

-----

15 Responses to “Making Poverty History”

1 Lynsey Jun 1st, 2005 at 11:58 am

I’m disappointed yet again by our Tone! He has said that the Make Poverty History campaign will be the number-one priority at the G8 summit. Presumably, climate change comes somewhere below that. Somewhat short-sighted, perhaps..! The poverty campaign is all about encouraging development in Africa. Fair enough, in terms of reducing human suffering etc. But by developing, there is encouragement for greater exploitation of natural resources, an increased population, further degradation of the natural environment…and with that, accelerated climate change. And climate change will likely lead to increased poverty and suffering on a global scale
2 Andrew Jun 1st, 2005 at 12:24 pm

I don’t think that makes much sense…The people are there already and suffering. Stopping this is more important than the potential ramifications of Africa working towards becoming a ‘developed’ nation. These problems may well be solved in the meantime. There are many international conferences and meetings with the sole aim of working on environmental issues, and just because climate change isn’t the ‘highest priority’ doesn’t mean that it’s being ignored - we can do more than one thing at once.

Climate change isn’t *currently* killing people. Hunger is. Yes, I know that climate change will have consequences for the entire world (and that’s being worked on), but don’t you think that when there’s a chance to stop the countless deaths happing right now it should be seized?
3 Lynsey Jun 1st, 2005 at 1:32 pm

It makes sense to me
The international conferences are all very well, but it requires strong political will to do something about climate change - just like it requires political motivation to make changes in Africa. And politicians only have a certain amount of time and energy.

I think we have different points of view Climate change isn’t just about saving humans, it’s the environment as a whole. There are too many of us on the planet anyway
4 Andrew Jun 1st, 2005 at 1:56 pm

Interestingly, the decline of poverty is inversely proportional to average family size, so helping out Africa will likely reduce the rate of population increase.

Politicians are there to do what’s best for whatever body they represent, as well as the will of the people (to an extent). I think they’re capable of handling more than one challenge simultaneously…The UN does it all the time.
5 Lynsey Jun 1st, 2005 at 4:03 pm

I realise developed countries have smaller family sizes. What results though, is that you get more and more people concentrated into small areas. The point was that globally, there are too many people for the planet to support.

But how successful is the UN, really? Environmentally, it has a very poor record of success I’m afraid Plus, when it comes down to it, if a country wants to do something, it’ll do it regardless of what the UN thinks (UK and US going to war in Iraq is a case in point )
6 Andrew Jun 1st, 2005 at 4:37 pm

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.
7 Lil Jun 1st, 2005 at 10:29 pm

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’ ;)..)
8 Lynsey Jun 2nd, 2005 at 9:00 am

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.
9 Lynsey Jun 2nd, 2005 at 9:07 am

…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.
10 Andrew Jun 2nd, 2005 at 10:35 am

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
11 Lynsey Jun 2nd, 2005 at 12:48 pm

‘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
12 Lynsey Jun 2nd, 2005 at 12:54 pm

Just thought!

- I bet God knows
13 Andrew Jun 2nd, 2005 at 12:59 pm

Had to happen
I refer you to the Offical God FAQ.
14 Lynsey Jun 3rd, 2005 at 4:00 pm

No offence, but have you lost a finger?! All of a sudden you’re missing letters out all over the place!
15 Andrew Jun 3rd, 2005 at 4:02 pm

[checks]

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

-----

Commenting Policy: Thoughts, observations, argument, debate and all other conversational wonderments are encouraged, but personal attacks or general trolling will result in your comment being deleted and your account/IP banned. If you're nice, however, you get strawberries.