Richer For Poorer - Should Richer Nations Support Poorer

I believe that those who have been gifted with knowledge and experience, and those who have the power should utilize it for the betterment of others so that the entire world can rise together.

Poor health and lack of education are the two main reasons why underdeveloped countries are left in suffering and richer nations do have the power and resources to help these unfortunate ones to rise. It seems senseless to allow the poor nations to go through the suffering if one has the ability to free them of the pain.

Not only will the poorer nation spend more money and waste resources in over coming health problems but these problems will leave them more crippled. Also education is the birth right of each and every individual and the richer nations should help in spreading this and establish a better future for the coming generations.

At this point I would like to take the example of the tsunami disaster that left a scar on the face of the earth, leaving millions to scum to their own deaths. However due to the responsible actions of many, a lot of people have lived to see the light of a better future ahead, for their families and generations to come. Had it not been for the support of many, the very few remaining would have also perished.

It is not a lot that is demanded or expected from those who have but a small token can bring an entire nation out from the pit falls of poverty from which they might take ages to arise from on their own.

I would like to conclude by saying that it is not compulsory for the richer nations to take responsibility of poorer ones but a little help will only result in a better tomorrow for all


Comments ?

 

 

 

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

What you are describing is a New World Order. "What kind of New World Order?" You ask?
A socialist and communist one.
I do not agree with what you feel should be the way things go in the world. Nor do I agree with what people say about the UN and how it helps the world. The UN is a one world government and it's president is bent on total world domination.
In spite of that, I do feel that the larger and wealthier countries such as the US and England should help poorer countries in the times after natural disasters.

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

Sure, it would be nice if the rich countries gave to the poor. But most people aren't going to give to the poor. (Unless some major disaster happens)
People do help out the poorer nations... but people are still starving...
There's just not enough people giving I guess. And I don't think things will change much. (In NA, pets have it better than people from poor countries... People would rather feed their doggies and kitties than people..)
lol.. Sorry for the ranting... But what my point is... Not enough people from richer nations care enough to give to the poor.

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

I personally don't think that rich countries need to share with poor countries in most cases. The most we should do in most cases in my opinion, is buy stuff from them like if they sell bananas, computers, or whatever. Buying stuff to help people will help them not be leeches so that eventually they will have a strong enough economy to be a self sufficient country. If a natural disaster hits then money should be donated because sometimes disasters destroy alot of the country.

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

Yes, wealthier nations should give to poverty-bound nations. However, I don't believe in wealthier nations spoiling these said nations either. In many of the poorer nations [ I'm leaning towards the Central African nations ], they have two major causes of their "destitution": a) very corrupt governments and women having far too many children. I'm not saying that they should go down the way of the Chinese [ killing off the daughters, isn't it? ], I'm saying that those women shouldn't have so many children in the first place.

Unfortunately, these nations will stay destitute and will even decline further as the other nations become wealthier in an overly "corporate" world. I'm not implying that we should just stop providing them with provisions and money because they're basically going to hell in a hand basket, I'm just saying that these nations are in a terrible predicament that may never be resolved.

 

 

 

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

In my opinion richer nations should share wealth to achieve one world.
We all have to share this one planet, so why not make the best of it?
Too bad I see only people sharing when there is suffering, but when it's over, the support is gone.



I would agree, but the problem is when stuff is bought or saled, it goes to the government of that nation... Nothing to the suffering people, since most rulers of poor nations keep resources and money to themselves.

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

Well, let me tell you about an article I read in a magazine recently (USA Today I think) about this ship, I believe it was called The Mercy if I remember right. The ship set out to help people from the Tsunami with volunteers and on the way ended up finding many, many people to help and went well out of its way to help them. What's more, the volunteers went all out willingly all choosing to go the extra mile and spend their own time to help people in need. A physician said feelingly that it was what he had become a physician for. Because of this India and nations around it which once hated our guts have suddenly overwhelmingly changed their attitudes towards us. This because of ONE act of kindness done by a few people with compassion in their hearts for the suffering of those they didn't know. We are not just responsible for those of our country, the suffering of others should be as ours, period.

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

Richer nations?
Richer For Poorer

Well, firstly we have to look into what richer means. Does education and health really play a part? I thought richer only refers to resources.

-reply by gisele

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)