The issue of Pakistan...

[SeriousSam]

I have a question…

Do you think that the amount of political haranguing in order to obtain aid for the victims of the floods in Pakistan is in any way influenced by the following?

(a) We need Pakistan’s assistance ref. the Taliban threat in Afghanistan
(b) They’re a nuclear power so any collapse in democracy could lead to the creation of a hard line religious state, with their finger on “the Button”

The reason I ask is because there seems to be a lot more furore about this globally than other disasters that have happened both recently and before. Now obviously the potential scale of the issue has a part to play with the number of people and size of the area affected. However, we still have countless millions facing hardship in Africa, Asia and parts of South America.

It is also worth pointing out that the reason so much land is under water is because the rivers are full of sediment and thus no longer capable of dealing with monsoon levels of rain, with the cause of this being excessive irrigation for farmland to feed an unsustainable level of population. Consequently the situation is of their own making and thus it could be argued as being something that they should sort out for themselves, with expert assistance as required. There is also the other issue of where the actual aid will go, as a significant portion will not even make it into the hands of those that need it. We could very easily end up funding “local government” that is heavily involved in the trafficking trade creating misery for the local people plus Afghans across the border.

I know this sounds harsh but there are far bigger issues facing us globally that any aid money would be better spent on, such as; perfecting and distributing “draw solution” desalination technology, education programs for women which help reduce excessive birth rates and heaven forbid actually putting our own debt ridden house in order. Added to which a significant reduction in population would actually benefit Pakistan in the long term, especially in terms of preventing / dealing with future disasters. Until the rivers are freed of sediment and the amount of irrigation is reduced this will happen every monsoon season. Perhaps not on this scale as the rain this year is heavier than normal due to the temporary halt of the Gulf Stream, but enough for it to be an annual disaster.

[kalniel]

I have a question…

Do you think that the amount of political haranguing in order to obtain aid for the victims of the floods in Pakistan is in any way influenced by the following?

(a) We need Pakistan’s assistance ref. the Taliban threat in Afghanistan
(b) They’re a nuclear power so any collapse in democracy could lead to the creation of a hard line religious state, with their finger on “the Button”

No.

I think there's actually a good deal less furore about this horrific disaster than it deserves. (on a scale we can't even imagine - 1/5th of the landmass is now underwater..) Political bodies are trying to get involved because the level of apathy and lack of support from outsiders is staggering.

There's no question of leaving them to sort it out for themselves - this is a sudden event and they have nothing close to the ability/resources to deal with it.

I know this sounds harsh but there are far bigger issues facing us globally that any aid money would be better spent on, such as; perfecting and distributing “draw solution” desalination technology, education programs for women which help reduce excessive birth rates and heaven forbid actually putting our own debt ridden house in order. Added to which a significant reduction in population would actually benefit Pakistan in the long term, especially in terms of preventing / dealing with future disasters. Until the rivers are freed of sediment and the amount of irrigation is reduced this will happen every monsoon season. Perhaps not on this scale as the rain this year is heavier than normal due to the temporary halt of the Gulf Stream, but enough for it to be an annual disaster.

And efforts continue in those areas as well. But none of those long term programs will have any affect on the sudden suffering of millions that need help NOW.

[SeriousSam]

The reason I asked is because the areas affected are those where disillusionment with the government and separatist feelings are at their highest, plus there is the greatest risk of religious fundamentalism taking hold. It has also been noticeable since my original post that articles in the comments sections of the broadsheets have tried to make this point, some more vociferously than others, that it is in our best interests to send aid to Pakistan. Finally it also struck me that the tone of the language being used by politicians etc. does have a hint of desperation about it.

Now you may be right in that it is the lack of public support for aid which has precipitated the greater than usual political involvement. However, I doubt that it is all altruistic in intent on their part as there are always strings attached to such things beyond the usual “it better not line your own pockets” stance. As for the public apathy then that in part may be due to the general perception of Pakistan being a reasonably developed country, so people think that they should in fact be able to deal with it themselves, irrespective of the reality. There is also the fact that this is another disaster in a long line of them and combined with the economic climate people don’t have either the money or energy to help out. Rightly or wrongly there comes a point where people start to think “I’ve done my bit so it’s someone else’s turn now and besides I have enough on my plate keeping my own head above water”.

Personally I believe that we should refrain from giving large amounts of aid in these situations, because irrespective of intentions trying to fix other peoples problems always makes things worse in the long run. It doesn’t matter whether it is one person or a Billion at risk the principle still stands. That’s not to say you can’t give assistance such as the loan of helicopters & trucks, or specialist personnel when requested, but as we in this country should be all too aware throwing money at situations doesn’t work.

The simple fact of the matter is that the area of land in question is not capable of sustaining that level of population irrespective of how much we help them improve irrigation and farming practises. So by sending lots of aid etc. there is a real risk that we will just help store up a bigger problem for them later on which we won’t be able to solve. At worst case it could become virtually uninhabitable so where would all those people go then? It’s not as though there is anywhere else in the world that isn’t either uninhabitable or already overpopulated.

I know that in some respects it is easier saying these things sat here, but it’s not as though we don’t have our own unsustainable population problem in the west. It may take longer to come home to roost but when it does we have a lot further to fall. At some point we have got to shed ourselves of the anachronistic concept of the “sanctity of life” and accept that people dying is sometimes a necessity to ensure a “natural balance”. We are part of the natural order, not above it…

As a final aside I noticed the number of people affected by the freak weather in China, something we hear very little about. It is a staggering 305million

[format]

Mental that an act like this could actually increase faith in god!

More later - I'm just out of bed