Will you give donations to SNIP when it comes on line?

**Epidemic** · June 29th, 2005, 09:00 AM

You'd get a much better return on your 14% investment if you stopped buying food and bought them some birth control instead.

I love those links. Gomer and I agree on something! eek

Are you a humanitarian? Then donate to SNIP charities!

Donating to your standard charity Like CARE or blah blah blah... Is not the way to go. There is a negative return on your sentiment. If you wish to end suffering then donating money to create more suffering would not seem to be the best alternative. Each dollar you spend not only helps a starving child but it also allows them to grow up in squalor to create several new starving suffering children

Be kind to your fellow under privleged 3rd world neighbor, donate to the international SNIP Charity. We are an organization which gives food, clothes, medical care and shelter to people who can't afford it, the only thing we ask in return is that these people voluntarily be sterilized so that their children will not suffer the same hardships. Truely this is the kindest charity in the world and it is a green charity as well. By donating world suffering will be reduced and greenhouse gasses will be reduced. Our goal is to eliminate starving children world wide by 2050. Give generously.

www.SNIP_The_Starving.com

My new charity SNIP (Sterilize Non Income Producers) will be going on line shortly. Who will donate?

**Siliconjunkie** · June 29th, 2005, 09:11 AM

Sign me up!

**sixf00t4** · June 29th, 2005, 09:12 AM

Originally Posted by Siliconjunkie

Sign me up!

**Epidemic** · June 29th, 2005, 01:14 PM

How much will you be donating?

**Siliconjunkie** · June 29th, 2005, 01:33 PM

I will pony up the $10,000 I won off Vern in the other thread once I get it.

**sixf00t4** · June 29th, 2005, 02:00 PM

while we're using farm animals for verbs, i'll piggy-back on Sil's 10k donation.

**Epidemic** · June 29th, 2005, 03:22 PM

Someone does not like the idea. Come on be lion hearted and speak out.

**Hungrycookpot** · June 30th, 2005, 03:29 AM

I think its just assumed to be completely ridiculous and flame-bait really, so theres no need.

**ClubMed** · June 30th, 2005, 06:29 AM

I'll donate money if the first one's to get sterilized are the people of SNIP

**Epidemic** · June 30th, 2005, 07:24 AM

Not flame bait, I am semi serious, I think this would truely be among the kindest charities going.

Megar assistance from Care International is survival level assistance. It does little to uplift a region which seriously makes more suffering in the end or at the very least more requirement for aid. For every 2 lives you save you create 8 living a megar assistance in 16 to 18 years. I offer here a voluntary solution on two fronts we assist and we also reduce strain on resources allowing for prosperity.

The completely serious is that I think it could be a working charity in that I know many would donate. How many takers on the otherside would be the only question.

**Warthog** · June 30th, 2005, 07:30 AM

Sure.

I honestly don't see what the problem is. It seems quite logical to me. There is no killing of anyone, simply preventing less fortunate people from bringing more less fortunate people into the world.

Warthog

**ClubMed** · June 30th, 2005, 09:09 AM

Mismanagement of the economies, improper use of the agricultural and industrial land, unqualified persons in key government positions, corruption and fraud, none of these will disappear if we sterilise the less fortunate. The real problem in such countries is that those who are in charge aren’t qualified for the positions they hold, they get their jobs because they know someone higher up.

The fact that many are poor has to do with wrong government decisions, mediocre to superficial social development efforts, short-sightedness and narrow mindedness on the part of the governments.

Having less people in such countries is not an educated solution:

No matter if you have 10 or 10,000,000 people in a country, if they mismanage their economy and society the results are the same.

I can give you the example of Syria, my country of origin:

One of the biggest round-a-bouts in Damascus is constantly congested, its a traffic nightmare.

Over the years the government has paid a number of companies, both local and international, to come up with plans to improve the situation, and recently a team of EU experts were on site to give their advice too. What does the government do? It decides to go ahead with a 10 year old study that was carried out by a relative of the president who owns a construction company, the study was full of mistakes as was highlighted by most of the other consultants. They spent one year building tunnels, turning the square upside down etc.. now its worse.

This would have happened even if the population of Syria was reduced by 50%.

Another example, the government has been selling prime agricultural land to companies and allowing them to set up factories there. The farmers have been paid peanuts for the land and have been forced to go to regions threatened by desertification with low yielding soils.

Again this would have happened no matter what the population of Syria is.

Yet another example, for a while there existed a number of companies competing in the bottled water sector. Some of them owned by families with a long tradition in this business. Recently a relative of the president decided to set up their own company, they were not able to compete due to the lack of experience which led to a crappy product with low grade bottles that leaked. So the government, through corruption makes the raw materials of the other long established competitors stay at the customs office for months "due to logistical and legal reasons of course". These companies have gone out of business, and the Syrians now have the honour and pleasure of running around with low grade crappy bottles simply because the relative of the president wanted to make money.

Again, these problems have nothing to do with population numbers.

I’m on a role, so some more examples, thanks to mismanagement, the government does not carry out a proper educational development plan. for example they recently made it easier to achieve medical degrees by lowering the entrance grade requirement. Thanks to their short sightedness, the Syrian economy cannot at the moment generate any more positions for doctors, so we have loads of unemployed doctors.

Again, this problem exists regardless of the population numbers since a smaller population would mean a smaller job market and less demand too. (imagine the cool SNIP scenario of Syria having only 200 citizens, thanks to mismanagement it would still go ahead and create 150 doctors. so 100 doctors would be unemployed, great well done SNIP).

Shall I go on?

The SNIP idea is not a solution, it is an egoistic attempt at not having to share the worlds resources.

The SNIP theory works only under the requirement that you have a stable and profitably managed economy. Lets say the economy generates enough resources for a gradual population increase of 1.2% annually, but you have an increase of 5%, then yes I would agree that less “users” is the solution.

But what SNIP doesn’t seem to realise, is that you don’t even have a stable and correctly managed economy to begin with. The system is shit, so not matter how many users you have, it is constantly breaking down because it is maintained by idiots.

The current assumption amongst certain circles that the worlds poor are poor because of their high numbers is IMO an urban legend that is milked by politicians on both sides of the fence who want to steer attention away from the real issues which would require them to get off their fat well fed butts and work hard for once.

My €0.02.

**Siliconjunkie** · June 30th, 2005, 09:19 AM

Your overcomplicating the issue.

Here is how I see it:

Regardless of reasons for it, people in these countries seem to not understand the concept of not popping out kids like they are going out of style. Many of these countries are overflowing with people they cannot support (regardless of reason).

We can't fix the reasons for the situation exsisting, but we can do damage control by preventing them from reproducing like rabbits.

**Epidemic** · June 30th, 2005, 10:27 AM

Bring it down to a personal level CM,

You are starving and have had 3 neighbors lose their kids to starvation due to governmental mismanagement induced poverty. Would you personally choose to have kids with your wife under these conditions?

I am not laying blame here, simply attempting to reduce the volume of children, and ultimately people who are suffering. Blame may be deserved but blame aside the people are suffering and new people in that condition will starve as well. Is it kinder to enable them to have children by rendering sustenance existence or to offer them sustenance and not allow their indiscression to make children suffer?

**Epidemic** · June 30th, 2005, 10:32 AM

No matter if you have 10 or 10,000,000 people in a country, if they mismanage their economy and society the results are the same.

well I disagree and agree, I disagree because no matter how you slice it resources increase, aggricultural pressure is relieved, money used to feed children is now spread only to adults, doubling, trippling financial power of the people. Finally even if everything remains the same 10 people suffering is a hell of alot better than 10 people suffering and their 20 kids suffering as well which is better than the 40 kids suffering they will beget.