millions starving anyone care.?

It is estimated that 50% of the worlds population do not get enough to eat and countless millions die of starvation every year.

So what does Great Britain do to help,apparently we dump 4 million tons of food every year because the supermarkets think it to ugly to put on there shelves ,although everybit as good to eat as there glamorous neighbours.:|
I give up.


"17 million tonnes of food waste is ploughed into the UK's landfills every year, with around 4 million tonnes of that being perfectly good to eat."

Earl

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

It's the costs unfortunately. While they would probably prefer not to waste food, the cost of transporting 4 million tonnes of food overseas would be massive.

As for UK based homeless people, it's an unfortunate issue of human behaviour. There WOULD be many people out there who would complain that homeless people receive free food like this whilst they have to pay. We're very egotistical creatures.

 

[Beachcomber]

Isn't it a case of tax deductable losses?

 

[JustOneUK]

Food? We can't even supply people with clean water :|

I have a packet of biscuits I'd happily send - who wants to pay the postage for me?

The world sucks mate when it comes to humanity, greed and fighting is all we care about - add religion into that and it's a frikkin' joke. Fortunately MORE is being done for humanity now, and at a faster rate, than any other time in the history of mankind. Things are probably better now than they have EVER been before although it's hard to see that what with all the problems that still exist. 100 years ago and the majority of people wouldn't even know where Africa was :|

30,000 kids die every day from starvation... even more from cholera and that only takes clean water to cure.!!!

 

[gogul2k]

Politikos ... load of bolloktikos.

Small things you can do though are help support a charity such as Oxfam or The British Red Cross, whether it be in the form of time, donated items to sell or money.

 

It's the costs unfortunately. While they would probably prefer not to waste food, the cost of transporting 4 million tonnes of food overseas would be massive.

As for UK based homeless people, it's an unfortunate issue of human behaviour. There WOULD be many people out there who would complain that homeless people receive free food like this whilst they have to pay. We're very egotistical creatures.

Rubbish how many military aircraft and ships are swanning around the world playing there war games.

I would also bet that if you asked the public to load there personal transport up with food for the starving,there would be more than enough volunteers willing to do a run to an airport or docks for a good cause.

Earl

 

[Cornish Steve]

So what does Great Britain do to help

Wrong question, Earl. The right question is: What do you do to help, and what do I do to help? Quite frankly, what others do is immaterial. They must answer to their consciences. I only answer to mine.

 

Wrong question, Earl. The right question is: What do you do to help, and what do I do to help? Quite frankly, what others do is immaterial. They must answer to their consciences. I only answer to mine.

I don't believe it is .I may be in a position to send a few quid to various charities ,but I am not in a position to commandeer a 50,000 ship or a boeing 747 ,but my small contribution did help to pay for those resources .

It is I think only nations that can help other nations and nations are people,but one individual in general can do so little.


Earl

 

[Beachcomber]

Every time you try to apply 1st world thinking to third world problems you are doomed to fail.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

When it comes to third world countries I think the only way they will ever become second or first world is to develop naturally. In some circumstances I actually believe that first-world intervention slows long-term development.

EVERY country has been 'third world' at one stage or another. In most cases, this can stretch as far back as 100, 200, 500 or more years. The third world countries of today are, for reasons which are probably rather complex, at least a few hundred years behind places like the UK and the US.

Only a few hundred years ago, most of the population of the UK were very poor and living in third world conditions whilst kings, queens and nobles lived a life of luxury. Sound familiar?

Developed humanity is a fairly new thing. Some established countries have reached the point of advanced development, some have not. Eventually though, I believe all countries will reach the same status, unless governments and other countries intervene.

 

[Cornish Steve]

I don't believe it is .I may be in a position to send a few quid to various charities ,but I am not in a position to commandeer a 50,000 ship or a boeing 747 ,but my small contribution did help to pay for those resources .

It is I think only nations that can help other nations and nations are people,but one individual in general can do so little.

My point, Earl, is that we suffer from the following syndrome: "What an awful situation; someone ought to do something." Usually, that "someone" is the government, who steals from everyone, wastes vast amounts in bureaucracy, and supports inefficient and inadequate programs because they are politically correct.

We'd transform the world if we started to think: "What an awful situation; is there anything I can do to make a difference?"

 

We'd transform the world if we started to think: "What an awful situation; is there anything I can do to make a difference?"

Unfortunately most of my neighbours do not feel the same way as I do,about the starving millions.

Hence why I would suggest that it may take the weight of the law ( parliament ) to get anything meaningful done.

Earl

 

[Cornish Steve]

You used the word "neighbours" in the plural, so they outnumber you by at least 2:1. Since we live in a system governed by democratic principles, their views outnumber yours and nothing will be done. Which means it all comes back to what you personally are willing to do and sacrifice for the sake of others. There are plenty of practical ways to help.

 

[Iwillmakeit]

Let's not forget that 1st world countries do give money to the third world. However with a high interest to be paid on it. If 1st world countries really wanted to help why not send skilled people to these countries in need and teach them how to do certain things. This will lower corruption and also help the people who are really at need.

One individual told me a saying once it went down the lines of: "Buy a hungry person fish and they will live for a day, teach them how to fish and they will survive their lifetime"

It went down this line, can't really remember it but you get my drift

 

[FelixSilver]

Supermarkets do currently have different ways of getting rid of the unwanted food:

• Cutting prices sharply day before a product's sell-by date, to entice shoppers to buy it.
• Offered to store staff at rock-bottom prices.
• Many retailers give food to charities.
• Send unwanted food to be converted into animal feed, for composting, or for conversion to bio-fuels.

But seems like this is still not enough as supermerket waste is at an all time high.

One way to reduce this wastage would be to impose a rubbish tax on supermarkets.

One of the ways we can all help is to stop wasting the food we buy, as it seems like Britain wastes a third of the food it buys

Unfortunately most of my neighbours do not feel the same way as I do,about the starving millions.

You don't live in the House of Commons by any chance?

 

[Beachcomber]

One individual told me a saying once it went down the lines of: "Buy a hungry person fish and they will live for a day, teach them how to fish and they will survive their lifetime"

I heard a slightly different version.

Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day.
Give a man a net..............and he will swap it for a fish.

 

[Cornish Steve]

The best thing we can do to help is outsource work to developing countries. It gives them work and hope and allows them to climb the first rung of the economic ladder. Yes, many say we're exporting jobs overseas, but that's the natural backlash when we decide to help others (while, of course, reducing our own costs).

I was reading another of Tom Friedman's books yesterday, and one statistic he quotes (if I remember correctly) is that, because of emerging economies and outsourcing and other recent trends, more than 200 million people have been lifted out of poverty. That makes outsourcing the most effective foreign aid program in history.

 

[papverpoppies]

One small contribution we ALL can make - take/donate your old books to Oxfam.

15 books will buy 1 goat which we enable a family to survive.

Oxfam has become the 2nd largest book seller in the UK and 87% of everthing they raise ie 87p in every £1.00 goes into helping (not tied up in admin or funding the military in some of these Countries).

So we can make a small difference (and if we ALL did this - we would make a HUGE difference).

Poppy

 

http://www.jolibatrust.org.uk/index.html

^^ A very sensible aproach by a charity is seen at The Joliba Trust, who provide useful wells, agriculture assistance, mid-wife training, etc, etc.

 

To put some perspective on the food waste.

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal...rlds-starving-seven-times-over_100214017.html

Earl

 

[Barnie]

swings and roundabouts

cutting down on waste means cutting down on purchasing, this means loss of jobs here, and loss of jobs from the source country, which in some cases are 3rd world countries

money is better off being sent over to build agriculture than to send over food

only downer is corruption wipes out any money as it does food supplies

 

[Cornish Steve]

To put some perspective on the food waste.

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal...rlds-starving-seven-times-over_100214017.html

Earl

So what's the answer? "Is there anything I can do to make a difference?"

Let's take one sentence from that report: "food chucked away in households in UK alone could feed 113 million people, which means on an average, people in the country discard enough good food to save two people from hunger."

The population of Britain is about 61 million. The average family size is about 3 people, so on average there are about 20 million British homes. The "food chucked away in households in UK alone could feed 113 million people." That means the food your family chucks away, Earl, could save about 5 people from hunger. So, when you next go shopping, what about reducing your budget by 20% and then a little more and then a little more. What about a total ban on sweets and desserts? What about fruit and veggies instead of processed foods? What about drinking water instead of fizzy drinks? You could donate the savings to Oxfam or to some other organization that addresses world hunger.

It's pointless waving our arms and saying "someone should do something". It's quite within our power to do something. We don't need government to forcibly steal our money. Let's set the example and give - right now.

 

The truth is that mankind does not care that millions are dying of starvation.

So long as there bellies are full.

And nothing you or I can do will change that as history will show us.

Caring only goes as far as satisfying the individuals needs.

And thats a fact.

Earl

 

[Cornish Steve]

The truth is that mankind does not care that millions are dying of starvation.

So long as there bellies are full.

And nothing you or I can do will change that as history will show us.

Caring only goes as far as satisfying the individuals needs.

And thats a fact.

Earl

So, in other words, you're going to let "history" dictate that you do nothing - the easy way out! Come on, Earl. We're among the world's richest 1% of citizens and probably within the world's richest 0.1%. Isn't it hypocritical to complain when we have the means to make a difference yet choose to do nothing? You and I can actually do something, and we can make a difference.

You've heard the starfish story, right? A father and son walk along a hot sandy beach. The tide is going out and thousands of starfish are stranded on the hot shore, left to die. From time to time, the father bends down and throws a starfish back into the sea. The son complains: "There are thousands of starfish dying on this beach. Almost all of them are going to die. Why bother making the effort to throw some of them back in the water? What difference does it make?" The father bends down and picks up another starfish: "Son, it matters to this one."

So, by giving as an individual, we can save a handful of people. If others follow our example, together we can save hundreds of people. If other communities do the same, we can can tens of thousands of people. If other countries follow suit, we can save hundreds of thousands of people. And none of those funds are wasted by government bureaucracy and petty politics. Our help becomes personal, not anonymous funds stolen in the form of taxes.

 

So, by giving as an individual, we can save a handful of people. If others follow our example, together we can save hundreds of people. If other communities do the same, we can can tens of thousands of people. If other countries follow suit, we can save hundreds of thousands of people. And none of those funds are wasted by government bureaucracy and petty politics. Our help becomes personal, not anonymous funds stolen in the form of taxes.

Steve your quite right but so few people care ,oh plenty say they care but so few will give up lifes little luxuries to help there fellow man with a bit of cash..

or in this case a crust of bread.

Earl

 

I get your point Steve, though I do reckon Earl is onto something when he makes his generalisations about human nature.

I mentioned a charity I like earlier in this thread, but take a look at the following page, just as a taster for what a very small amount can do for one family.

http://www.jolibatrust.org.uk/gifts-list-Joliba.html

Now, imagine everyone you knew, I knew and Earl knew giving a goat each, or a pig each, etc.... it would and could make a serious difference to a lot of people and their families. For what, the price of a couple of pints lol.

Now, consider how many families could be helped by the efforts of a few people clubbing together and providing the funds for a new well? I have seen many 'decent' causes being gathered for in local pubs, etc, but personally I think a new well for a whole community is a bloody worthwhile one.

This is not 'wasted' money going to charities 'playing' at making a difference, this is dosh that goes straight to the problem, providing money for things that make a family more self-sufficient, and providing a boost to agriculture, etc.

Preaching over, now dig deep, send these people the price of tomorrows family dinner, have a bowl of stew instead, and feel a little better about what you did this weekend

 

[Cornish Steve]

OK Earl (and everyone else). Time to put our money where our mouth is. I just purchased 5 pigs. I dare you to outdo me!

 

I wasn't actually working today, but I did slip one little repair in.

I just mailed the price of the job to Joliba, and it'll buy a couple of Breeding Ewes.

I hope they go to a good home

 

OK Earl (and everyone else). Time to put our money where our mouth is. I just purchased 5 pigs. I dare you to outdo me!

From little acorns.

Oh I believe for many years there has been quite a few bacon and egg breakies being served up around the poorer quarters of the world and a hospital in Cambodia all helped courtesy of all the dumb clucks who want to be No 1 on Google.:|

And of course charities that I deem worth while I.E helping to save lives get free SEO consultations and advice.

I think we all need our memories jogged now and then as to what terrible conditions some of our fellow humans live in ,and what a huge difference quite a modest sum can make to those lives.

Comspec's couple of ewes will have a profound effect ,as will your 5 pigs and you may get one named after you.

The argument about making poorer countries self sufficient is very true,but there are kids dying right this minute for want of a Big Mac.

Earl

 

[Beachcomber]

.......but there are kids dying right this minute for want of a Big Mac.

As I mentioned before, judging 3rd world problems with 1st world thinking leads to more problems.

Infant mortality in this country is very low and has been for a long time. As a consequence of this we have few children.

Traditionally infant mortality in 3rd world countries is far, far higher which is why they tend to have many more children - it is a more accepted fact of life that a good % of your kids will die before they are 5 years old. Sounds harsh, but it's a fact.

Now if we intervene and ensure all of these kids survive there will be a massive population explosion which will compound the shortages, further streach limited resources and move the country backwards rather than forwards.

Investment in infrastructure and self sufficiency is the way to go - the long term view is always preferable to the short term 'sticking plaster' approach as these often cause more problems than they solve.

Of course, we first need to ensure these countries have stable governments as a large amount of charity is simply syphoned off - I recall a report concerning one 3rd world government who's people were starving despite the fact that they had warehouses stuffed with EU food packages. They stated that if they were to distribute the food then they would then be required to replace it which would cost them in more 'loans' so the food stayed where it was.

 

[Esk247]

the world population is already living outside it's natural means...if we all went to the shops, everyone in the world, right now and bought all the food many thousands...or millions even..would not get a scrap of food..we've run out! and thats the fact.

it's a much bigger problem than just saying 'the people in africa are starving, let us feed them' if we do that then there wont be any fish in the sea, no cows on the land, no pigs in the farm.

it really is that bad! the world is actually broken and world leaders have no intention to do anything about it. I honestly believe that everyone in the UK would be prepared to splash £1 a week on buying food or hospital equipment for a 3rd world country but we simply DO NOT TRUST the politicians to deliver that £1 to the right place...we all know that 25% (or something) is wasted on 'ADMIN' fee's and 'PETROL'. a further 25% probably goes to the President of said country.

I care about feeding the 3rd world, building schools, building hospitals and laying down roads and railway tracks but i don't care much for sending £1 in a sticky envelope to some Head office in the centre of London with hundreds of staff all on expenses and getting free transport everywhere. It's not right.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

As harsh as it sounds, I actually think aid for the poor in third world countries is prolonging some of the problems.

As I said in my earlier posts; every country was 'third world' at some point Even the UK was, many hundreds of years ago. Imagine how every country was 2000 years ago. Third world countries literally seem to be behind in development, that's all.

As I said, every country has been of a third world status throughout history. However, many of these countries received no aid, no help, no intervention etc. The UK was filled with millions of poor people whilst Kings and Nobles lived in luxury. It went through wars and diseases just like some countries do today.

However, through the hundreds of years, the humans in countries like the UK have managed to adapt, learn, expand, and reach a developed status.

It's nature really. We're animals and this is the way we have developed.

Now in this modern age, government intervention may be causing problems:

-Millions of pounds of food aid is being used as a short-term fix to help people live and survive.

-Once this is taking place, more people are surviving than they naturally would. This is while the development of the country is moving at the same, if not slightly slower, rate.

-I say slower because, even though the living conditions are terrible, they are being improved slightly by government intervention. This gives the people slightly less of a reason to adapt and develop as a nation. It's a subtle change, but it will make a whole lot of difference long-term. If you lift people just an inch above 'rock bottom', they aren't going to adapt as fast as they would.

-Absolute morons (probably religious) are not allowing the use of contraception. This is again resulting in a rapidly growing population.

Basically, if a slowly developing third world nation wasn't bad enough, they're keeping more people alive than ever and these people are having more children than ever before. How do people think that these countries will develop? Intervention by other countries is artificially inflating the population (compared to natures natural course) whilst very little is being done to look for long-term developments.

As harsh as it sounds, humans are letting their emotional mind and their own experience get in the way of natures course and natural development. If you give a child a vaccine to prevent a certain illness, what will it achieve? They will continue to live in poverty for longer, use up more resources and live a rather unpleasant, third world life. They would probably have more children too.

Sure it sounds like 'the right thing to do' but at the same time, it is not helping the country mature into a developed country, it's hindering it. Any currently developed countries will have had these problems hundreds (or even thousands) of years ago. Whilst leaders were lopping eachothers heads off to claim ownership of the throne, you can be confident in assuming that thousands of people becoming sick and ill didn't receive aid or medicine.

Countries like this need to cultivate resources and allow these resources to grow and expand. At the moment resources are being used up by a MASSIVE population, so they never develop beyond anymore than an extremely basic level.

I genuinely think, if other nations completely left some third-world countries alone, they would eventually become developed nations over hundreds of years. The only way we can artificially quicken this process is to avoid hindering the natural development and to focus on long-term solutions.

 

I think this guy has got the problem summed up.And a possible resolution.

But as they say "it only takes good men to do nothing"

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1734834,00.html

Earl

 

As harsh as it sounds, I actually think aid for the poor in third world countries is prolonging some of the problems.

As I said in my earlier posts; every country was 'third world' at some point Even the UK was, many hundreds of years ago. Imagine how every country was 2000 years ago. Third world countries literally seem to be behind in development, that's all.

As I said, every country has been of a third world status throughout history. However, many of these countries received no aid, no help, no intervention etc. The UK was filled with millions of poor people whilst Kings and Nobles lived in luxury. It went through wars and diseases just like some countries do today.

However, through the hundreds of years, the humans in countries like the UK have managed to adapt, learn, expand, and reach a developed status.

It's nature really. We're animals and this is the way we have developed.

Yep if you think going forth and commiting murder, theft and enslaving millions of people is adapting so be it.

Don't kid yourself,your well being and affluence was paid for by someone else's life.

The UK was the most murderous cruel bunch of international bandits the world has ever seen.

Just have a peek at the Irish famine 30 miles from the richest country on the planet.

Earl

 

[Subbynet]

Yep if you think going forth and commiting murder, theft and enslaving millions of people is adapting so be it.

Don't kid yourself,your well being and affluence was paid for by someone else's life.

The UK was the most murderous cruel bunch of international bandits the world has ever seen.

Just have a peek at the Irish famine 30 miles from the richest country on the planet.

Earl

Earl, honestly, wtf?...

You invite a serious topic, and then from what I can see take the piss out of anyone who replies. Your opinion on this topic doesn't appear to span a single complete paragraph, which is a shame considering others are giving you the courtesy of a proper reply - even if you disagree with it.

Bringing up the Irish Famine for gods sake... crazy.. You need to fast forward a few hundred years, because no one can change the past, no matter how much it annoys you.

Also sod nationality being pot luck hey, I am now being blamed for people who died hundreds of years ago. The British keep taking the brunt of all past problems (mostly by disgruntled Brits who don't have a full grip of history), but the reality is, that was the world... It was a wild west were tribe instinct was strong, for all nations... Just because the British were #1, don't forget about the #2, #3, #4, #5, #6 ,#7 and so on and so forth! There were a lot of battles in which we did not instigate - and which were fought and won not for wealth or influence.

Get over it...

 

Earl, honestly, wtf?...

You invite a serious topic, and then from what I can see take the piss out of anyone who replies. Your opinion on this topic doesn't appear to span a single complete paragraph, which is a shame considering others are giving you the courtesy of a proper reply - even if you disagree with it.

Bringing up the Irish Famine for gods sake... crazy.. You need to fast forward a few hundred years, because no one can change the past, no matter how much it annoys you.

Also sod nationality being pot luck hey, I am now being blamed for people who died hundreds of years ago. The British keep taking the brunt of all past problems (mostly by disgruntled Brits who don't have a full grip of history), but the reality is, that was the world... It was a wild west were tribe instinct was strong, for all nations... Just because the British were #1, don't forget about the #2, #3, #4, #5, #6 ,#7 and so on and so forth! There were a lot of battles in which we did not instigate - and which were fought and won not for wealth or influence.

Get over it...

afraid its peoples history that in general makes them think they are what the are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_empire

The transatlantic slave trade resulted in a vast and as yet still unknown loss of life for African captives both in and outside of America. Approximately 8 million Africans were killed during their storage, shipment and initial landing in the New World.The amount of life lost in the actual procurement of slaves remains a mystery but may equal or exceed the amount actually enslaved. These figures would indicate the total number of deaths at around 16 million.

Makes old Adolph's little venture look a bit puny.

and if you think that is not related to whats going on in the 3rd world countries now think again.

Earl

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Yep if you think going forth and commiting murder, theft and enslaving millions of people is adapting so be it.

Don't kid yourself,your well being and affluence was paid for by someone else's life.

The UK was the most murderous cruel bunch of international bandits the world has ever seen.

Just have a peek at the Irish famine 30 miles from the richest country on the planet.

Earl

It's natures course in the world.

It's such a huge span of time Earl, you can't be sure of exactly what did anything. You're basically saying if one country ends up having a small war, then it tarnishes their entire history. Sure the UK has been involved in war and enslavement at some points in the thousands of years history. However, has it paid for my well being and affluence? I highly doubt it. The course of history is so long that the UK has invaded, and has been invaded, many times over. There are even many developed countries which haven't engaged in such practices; the UK is just an example.

My point is, so many things can happen over hundred of years and this applies to third world countries too. They just need time to evolve and some intervention by other countries may be slowing this evolution down, just for short term solutions (i.e. keeping as many people alive as possible through food aid, which is just bafflingly pointless and only occurs to fulfil the basic human behaviour of wanting to help others).

Highly developed countries have only appeared in the last few hundred years. When you take into account the thousands of years humans have been around, is it really that unusual for some countries development to be more delayed than others? Why do people automatically expect every country on Earth to develop and advance at the same rate? Some countries will plain and simply be anywhere from 100-500 years behind in development. Given this time, I think they would develop exactly the same as we have.

However, this won't happen now as many other countries intervene. It's a good thing if they work towards long-term solutions which accelerate the process. However, at the moment they seem to be blinded by the natural urge to help and provide short-term solutions which probably do more harm than good.

I know it sounds harsh but let me give an example of two countries:

Country A
Barely any drinking water
Barely any food
No medicine and aid which means thousands of impoverished, third world people have died
Population: 1,000,000

Country B
Barely any drinking water
Barely any food
Millions of pounds pushed into short-term edible food and vaccines/medicine for poor people
Population: 100,000,000

Which one, over the long-term, is more likely to create a stable system and then slowly evolve and expand? Which one, given 500 years, is more likely to become a developed, stable country with millions of healthy people?

Developed countries are pushing first-world influences on third-world countries when they simply aren't ready for them yet. They're, in a sense, interfering with nature.

 

[Subbynet]

afraid its peoples history that in general makes them think they are what the are.

So what makes you blame the British Empire in a thread about anyone caring for the starving millions? Where is your focus? Helping or Persecuting? What in history makes this happen - which didn't take place in mine?

I don't doubt the history of the British Empire had a huge effect on many people in many ways, and some even barbaric, but - so what? All nations have a nasty history, so its not really a big surprise to find the largest empire of them all had a particularity brutal history...

How about a little recent history, massive efforts in Africa in the past few years, with the CAP being scaled down - the CAP btw which means so much food goes to landfill because its more profitable to grow and "dump it" than it is to use it!

In 2007 in response to a parliamentary written question the UK government revealed that over the preceding year the EU Public Stock had amassed "13,476,812 tonnes of cereal, rice, sugar and milk products and 3,529,002 hectolitres of alcohol/wine”, although the EU have claimed this level of oversupply unlikely to be repeated. In January 2009 the EU had a current store of 717,810 tonnes of cereals, 41,422 tonnes of sugar and a 2.3 million hectolitre wine lake. They also intend to purchase and further subsidise the export of 30,000 tonnes of butter and 109,000 tonnes of powdered milk to the third world.

13,000,000 tonnes of foodstuffs stored away for a rainy day! You don't just amass 13m tonnes of food if your primary purpose is to feed the hungry.

Why do they "store" it? I mean if its made/grown - and surplus to requirements, why not distribute it straight away as Aid? I personally think it makes for a good tool to manipulate markets, but you decide.

The problem is the CAP, and the EU (and US) - and which nation in the EU has been most vocal about CAP reform, the UK. Comparatively, the US is just as bad as the whole EU, which means miles worse the any single EU nation, but that has to be expected given its size - but of course this realisation of size is ignored when dealing with slaves from Africa.

The transatlantic slave trade resulted in a vast and as yet still unknown loss of life for African captives both in and outside of America. Approximately 8 million Africans were killed during their storage, shipment and initial landing in the New World.The amount of life lost in the actual procurement of slaves remains a mystery but may equal or exceed the amount actually enslaved. These figures would indicate the total number of deaths at around 16 million.

Makes old Adolph's little venture look a bit puny.

Until the abolition of the slave trade in 1807, Britain was responsible for the transportation of 3.5 million African slaves to the Americas, a third of all slaves transported across the Atlantic.[27]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_empire#cite_note-26 (Taken from the same link you used)

Not saying it was right, but just to put some perspective on it.

 

[Esk247]

The way to solve 3rd world poverty is to build lakes to hold water, these can then be used pump the land full of water and nutrients to grow crops..the countries then have a sustainable farming base to build upon with the potential to build small woodland areas..even in africa! thus reducing the effects of CO2 and slowly increasing the amount of tree's and green farming land at the equator.

will it happen? nope! never! it's difficult and it means sending engineers over there with plans and stuff...pfftt..too much hard work, easier to eat pies and go to the pub and enjoy the increasingly wacky weather until we either sink or bake to death.

the ordinary man on the street in ANY country would like everyone to be pretty much equal, have a good start in life, have food and drink....the politicians are more interested in exchanging oil barrels, making a buck and selling the gold reserves of a nation so they can buy a few more jaguars for the missus.

it's not US HUMANS that are the problem..its the people in power around the world, they continually back out of agreements, move the goal posts. same with climate change...its happening whether you believe it or not, the coral reef is dying, the forests are still being cut down and the scientists have no idea if we're going to burn up in a fire ball or freeze in the coldest blizzard for thousands of years.

we've got a few years to sort it out...but we wont! its too hard isn't it, i mean...we'd all rather go and play golf or go and get a pizza than bother to install renewable energy centres and build new lakes for water storage in africa.

 

The point, as I understood it, seems to be getting lost here in this thread though.

We were saying that everyone can make a small difference, and if everyone did, it could accumulate up to a big difference.

It is impossible to sort the 3rd world out instantly, but our nation (since we preach our humanity and human/civil rights so loudly) should take the lead. If we did, others would follow.

So, in the spirit of this, and to provide some sustainable relief, not just a bag of food which goes and is forgotten, please dig a few quid out and send it to these people.......... it is at least worthy of a few moments of your time to read.

http://www.jolibatrust.org.uk/gifts-list-Joliba.html

Shameless plugging on this thread for which I apologise to the mods, etc, but it's all in a good cause