Cholera kills up to 500 in Zimbabwe: WHO

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by Asguard, Dec 2, 2008.

  1. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    the fact that this diease still exists is a crime against humanity, there is no excuse for the fact that the third world still doesnt have decent sanitation

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/12/03/2436181.htm

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/12/03/2436104.htm

    its sad that there is so little infomation on this sort of incident in the media. No offence is ment to india over this but more than 24 hours straight of reports on the atack in india which killed what? 200 but only one small report i happened to catch on this which has already killed 500 with at least 11,000 currently infected and the out break has now spread to south africa.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Roman Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,560
    Yeah.
    Australia should send in the marines and force regime change.

    Or were you suggesting stealing from Australians to give money to a corrupt African government?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    actually i was thinking more along the lines of increasing funding to organisations like the WHO, world vission and the red cross. Those are the organisations which do the work after all where the local govermental organisations are unable to do so. You do realise that australia gave money to the relief effort for katrina and after 11/9 dont you? why the hell would we give money to a first world country which SHOULD be able to take care of itself when we are doing didly SQUAT for countries which DONT have those resorces. Not to mention that the fact you were willing to TAKE that money gives you a duty to pay the effort back. You put out international aid drives, now its your turn to help
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    I think UNICEF should prioritise vaccination, ORT and agriculture in the Third world. Its a shame how many children die of preventable causes EVERYDAY!

    http://www.globalissues.org/article/715/today-over-26500-children-died-around-the-world
     
  8. Roman Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,560
    No, it really doesn't.
    There are obligations to charity; otherwise it's a business transaction.
     
  9. Roman Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,560
    Is it?
    Imagine if that everyone that would die, didn't. How long could that last, before we ran out of space & food?
     
  10. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Like all things birth rate would reach a peak and then plateau, you only keep on having more children if you think less will survive.
     
  11. Roman Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,560
    Not exactly. Population explosions occurred everywhere life expectancy went up, since people didn't realize they needed eight children. I have a hypothesis that it is these population explosions that drive economic change in countries, but of course, I have no way of showing that the explosions are instead a result of economic change.
     
  12. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    I have the reverse theory, that when people have more money, they want less children.
     
  13. Roman Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,560
    In time.
    But radical population growth can only occur when the environment reaches a new carrying capacity.

    The population explosions in India & China, this century, are a direct result of lowered infant mortality due to better health care, lengthened life span, and earlier menses because of better diets.

    The same population explosions happened in Europe last century, when Western medicine made some progress beyond voodoo and quackery.
     
  14. CheskiChips Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,538
    I think both are true...

    But there is a lag time that needs to be recognized. There's 2 to 3 generations between longevity and wanting less children due to wealth.
     

Share This Page