Re: Suggesting birth control to starving Africans against their human rights?

David wrote:

> > Many people tell me this would be an abuse but I disagree, it would be
> > like doing them a favor......
> >
> > Birth control would save their lives! :)
>
>
> I do see what you are saying, and agree that some form of population
> limiting program would pay dividends in the longer term.
>
> Involuntary sterilisation "For their own good" has a long history. See
> http://www.vasectomy-information.com/moreinfo/history.htm for more info. The
> idea of sterilisng certain sections of the poulation were discussed in the
> late 1800's and became law in some US states early 1900's. Prisoners were
> pretty much routinely sterilised. The Eugenics movement was also popular in
> certain European countries. It has a long lasting legacy, as many of those
> who were forcibly sterilised are still alive and very much kicking.

My great uncle was forcibly sterilised at the Johns Hopkins (IIRC) 
hospital. He had been injured at birth and was mentally retarded. I 
think he was "snipped" in the 1930's. He died around 1980 or so.


> recently, one US govenor had to publicly apologise to men forcibly
> sterilised. So, even if people are morally OK with enforced sterilising of
> the masses, I doubt it would ever happen these days.

Hell, I'm OK with it,  but it'll never fly in these days.

> OK, so is there an alternative? Maybe. In the 1950's India (and China) did
> research into how to stem the population rise. They realised that though
> they weren't the richest countries in the world, they would soon be the
> poorest if they didn't do something. There is less known about the Chinese
> research as it was a fairly closed society at the time, but there is a good
> deal of the Indian research available. In the late 1950's India was
> aggressive in the research into vasectomy techniques, and China gave us the
> NSV procedure.

Interestingly enough, I think the populations of India and China are 
both *still* on the rise! I haven't heard that they made a bit of 
difference. Sad, that.
> The way the Indians in particular got widescale acceptance of vasectomy was
> via financial initiatives. Somewhere along the line somebody got something
> out of it from the government. The programs where there was no financial
> initiative had much poorer take up. Not perfect by any means, but it did the
> job. Maybe the answer is some sort of initiative that would benefit those
> who volunteered to be sterilised.

I haven't heard that any improvement has happened in India.

> I am aware how simplistic this sounds knowing what world politics are like.
> I remember the time of the first big Ethiopian famine where we were all
> trying to get food to the starving, the government of Ethiopia still had
> shipments of Scotch for their consumption! Governments are corrupt - I'm
> aware of that. Maybe some of the larger international charity organisations
> could succeed where governments would certainly fail - they'd spend the
> money given on themselves and not what we sent it for.

Then we need to send *people* over there, not money! People equipped 
with the surgical supplies and equipment to do the job. As for food, we 
need to ship over kitchens and supplies that are run BY the UN and NOT 
by the country at all. They can set up and feed people without the 
governments getting their grubbies on them.

Swan