AIDS expenditures and Nation States

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I'm speaking about US spending on AIDS research which far exceeds cancer even though cancer deaths are about twelve times greater. We should address local problems before world problems.

OK. But as the wealthiest nation on earth, do you think we have any responsibility (moral obligation, whatever) to help the poorest nations on the earth deal with a crisis that completely dwarfs anything we have ever faced?

We will always have local problems. At what point would you look beyond our borders?

Are you supportive of our effort to bring democracy to the Iraqi people? I dare bet we have spent far more on that effort than we have spent to solve the crisis in Africa. I am not saying democracy is not important nor do I want to get into a debate over which is more important. But the fact of the matter is, we are already sending a fortune beyond our borders. It's partly a question of allocation.

Ah shoot, I should give this thread up. I am starting to repeat myself. And it just occured to me that whole debate started with Lingo calling Hoya an "asswipe". Yikes.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by homeboy

But as the wealthiest nation on earth, do you think we have any responsibility (moral obligation, whatever) to help the poorest nations on the earth deal with a crisis that completely dwarfs anything we have ever faced?

No. The world bitches about our unsolicited help - and I can't really blame them - but bitches even more when we don't place money in their open hands.

Originally Posted by homeboy

Are you supportive of our effort to bring democracy to the Iraqi people? I dare bet we have spent far more on that effort than we have spent to solve the crisis in Africa. I am not saying democracy is not important nor do I want to get into a debate over which is more important. But the fact of the matter is, we are already sending a fortune beyond our borders. It's partly a question of allocation.

You make a very good point about spending money outside our borders. I would say that the difference between the situation in Iraq and AIDS in Africa is that the Iraqi people had no choice as to how they were treated, whereas in Africa, they do know about preventative measure to prevent AIDS, yet have made the choice to ignore it.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

No. The world bitches about our unsolicited help - and I can't really blame them - but bitches even more when we don't place money in their open hands.

You make a very good point about spending money outside our borders. I would say that the difference between the situation in Iraq and AIDS in Africa is that the Iraqi people had no choice as to how they were treated, whereas in Africa, they do know about preventative measure to prevent AIDS, yet have made the choice to ignore it.

Your post reveals a lot of ignorance about Africa, and hints at an underlying perception that AIDS victims deserve what they get.

The overwhelming majority of Africans have NO IDEA how to prevent AIDS. AIDS education, like formal education, has not found its way to most areas in Africa. Apparently you don't understand the complexity of teaching AIDS prevention to Africans. Millions of Africans speak local dialects that few Westerners understand. Millions are located within areas that are not easily accessible or located within countries engaged in civil war where political conditions make teaching people about AIDS prevention an impossibility. Many Africans are poorly educated, and don't know how to react to a statement that somehow having sex makes you sick (particularly with religious tribal influences that tell them to "spread their seed" and be polygamous).

Millions more are BORN with AIDS, or get AIDS through breast feeding from mothers who have AIDS. With no money to purchase formula, what would you teach a breast feeding mother to do to prevent spreading AIDS to her child?

You are trying to view the AIDS experience in Africa through American eyes, something that will only result in disaster and death for that continent.

Your statement that they have somehow "made a choice to ignore" AIDS preventive measures sounds more like your choice to ignore their plight.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

You are trying to view the AIDS experience in Africa through American eyes, something that will only result in disaster and death for that continent.

Your statement that they have somehow "made a choice to ignore" AIDS preventive measures sounds more like your choice to ignore their plight.

I do view it through th eyes of an American. Probably because I am an American. I'll admit that I'm not up to speed on sex education in Africa. How much of that is based on corrupt political leaders in the African countries? My point is that it shouldn't be The US's job to finance everything for everyone. We should take care of things at home first.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by homeboy

OK. But as the wealthiest nation on earth, do you think we have any responsibility (moral obligation, whatever) to help the poorest nations on the earth deal with a crisis that completely dwarfs anything we have ever faced?

We will always have local problems. At what point would you look beyond our borders?

Are you supportive of our effort to bring democracy to the Iraqi people? I dare bet we have spent far more on that effort than we have spent to solve the crisis in Africa. I am not saying democracy is not important nor do I want to get into a debate over which is more important. But the fact of the matter is, we are already sending a fortune beyond our borders. It's partly a question of allocation.

Ah shoot, I should give this thread up. I am starting to repeat myself. And it just occured to me that whole debate started with Lingo calling Hoya an "asswipe". Yikes.

No I am not supportive of trying to bring democracy to the Iraqi people. I did not support it, but I support our troops and would do nothing to undermine their safety.

I am more of an isolationist than most.

"Wealthiest nation" rhetoric isn't persuasive.

We have a duty to ourselves and our children and our future. If we can be a good neighbor without harming our interests, then you can sell it to me. Research in general doesn't offend me, but targeting our research to principally benefit others does. It's our tax dollars, and nobody cares at all about us. If we do it, we will be condemned. If we don't do it, we will be condemned. There is NO gratitude in the world.

We have a duty be fair within our borders. We have a duty to set an example.

We are not the world's policeman. We are not its physician. We are not its conscience. The world has no conscience. Nobody cares. Nobody ever will. Everybody only looks out for self-interest. This paragraph is meant to speak to nation states, not individuals.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Archaea

We are not the world's policeman. We are not its physician. We are not its conscience. The world has no conscience. Nobody cares. Nobody ever will. Everybody only looks out for self-interest. This paragraph is meant to speak to nation states, not individuals.

Archea, I am continually amazed at the depth of your cynicism on some (most?) topics.

[JohnnyLingo]

Archea, I am continually amazed at the depth of your cynicism on some (most?) topics.

How about you find a way to make an argument against what he's saying, then?

I tend to agree, Archaea. The world has shown the US that, at least in the past 50 years, we're damned if we do, and damned if we don't. Throwing our resources into solving the world's problems doesn't work more often than it works (ie. African leaders taking money sent to help the AIDS problem).

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

How about you find a way to make an argument against what he's saying, then?

I tend to agree, Archaea. The world has shown the US that, at least in the past 50 years, we're damned if we do, and damned if we don't. Throwing our resources into solving the world's problems doesn't work more often than it works (ie. African leaders taking money sent to help the AIDS problem).

Your post, and Archaea's, are built on the presumption that countries (and people) should only help others when they get a big pat on the back for it. Isn't there anything to be said for simply helping others because it is the right thing to do? Maybe I missed the part in the New Testament where we were counseled to turn the other cheek, but only if it would result in a reward or affectionate response.

The US has the ability, more than any other country in the history of the world, to positively impact our surroundings and to help those most in need of help. Not doing so is shirking our responsibility.

You have asked where our responsibility to others comes from. I think it comes from a moral obligation. To whom much is given, much is expected. What does that mean, if not help others when given the opportunity?

Keeping what we have and focusing on our own shallow self interests sounds a whole lot like burying our talents in the sand.

Lots of gospel references here, but in a conversation regarding our "responsibilities" as a country, I don't know how to avoid it.

I am not arguing that we should simply throw money at other nations either, as Archaea suggests. He is correct that simply giving away money is not the solution. Neither is surrendering to cynicism as Archaea does later: "We are not the world's policeman. We are not its physician. We are not its conscience. The world has no conscience. Nobody cares. Nobody ever will. Everybody only looks out for self-interest. This paragraph is meant to speak to nation states, not individuals."

What are nation states, if not a mere collection of individuals? If helping others is important at an individual level, how could it not be important at a national level?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

I do view it through th eyes of an American. Probably because I am an American. I'll admit that I'm not up to speed on sex education in Africa. How much of that is based on corrupt political leaders in the African countries? My point is that it shouldn't be The US's job to finance everything for everyone. We should take care of things at home first.

Taking care of business at home is a process that will NEVER end. There is always something to take care of at home. In the meantime, an entire generation of Africans will die.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

Your post, and Archaea's, are built on the presumption that countries (and people) should only help others when they get a big pat on the back for it. Isn't there anything to be said for simply helping others because it is the right thing to do? Maybe I missed the part in the New Testament where we were counseled to turn the other cheek, but only if it would result in a reward or affectionate response.

The US has the ability, more than any other country in the history of the world, to positively impact our surroundings and to help those most in need of help. Not doing so is shirking our responsibility.

You have asked where our responsibility to others comes from. I think it comes from a moral obligation. To whom much is given, much is expected. What does that mean, if not help others when given the opportunity?

Keeping what we have and focusing on our own shallow self interests sounds a whole lot like burying our talents in the sand.

Lots of gospel references here, but in a conversation regarding our "responsibilities" as a country, I don't know how to avoid it.

I am not arguing that we should simply throw money at other nations either, as Archaea suggests. He is correct that simply giving away money is not the solution. Neither is surrendering to cynicism as Archaea does later: "We are not the world's policeman. We are not its physician. We are not its conscience. The world has no conscience. Nobody cares. Nobody ever will. Everybody only looks out for self-interest. This paragraph is meant to speak to nation states, not individuals."

What are nation states, if not a mere collection of individuals? If helping others is important at an individual level, how could it not be important at a national level?

I do not extend personal responsibilities to that of nation states. Personal ethos should not be transferred en masse to nation states. This appears to me to be presumptuous, not looking at a more sophisticated manner in which nation states have traditionally interacted and probably will always interact.

Nation states usually do NOT act altruistically. I am aware of very few instances, usually one blow deals, where that has been done.

The only nation of which I have read that has acted altruistically, has been the US, under things like the Marshall Plan, although one might argue it furthered the self-interest by having a strong Western Europe.

Anybody who wants to postulate a role of altruism for nation states is charmingly naive.

Christ spoke to the individual, he did not give political advice, other than to render unto Ceasar's that which is Ceasar's. Anybody going further than that is extrapolating more than they should from his teachings.