Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihuxl.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!grkermit!masscomp!clyde!burl!hou3c!hocda!houxm!mhuxl!cbosgd!ihnp4!ihuxl!pvp From: pvp@ihuxl.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: More Joy of Starvation Message-ID: <858@ihuxl.UUCP> Date: Tue, 24-Jan-84 15:46:20 EST Article-I.D.: ihuxl.858 Posted: Tue Jan 24 15:46:20 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 27-Jan-84 09:13:43 EST Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL Lines: 153 >OK, Mr. Polli (if I spelled it right), since you insist on bringing >up the word Christianity, etc, consider this: > "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" >(Yes, I know it's a far-fetched paraphrase, but... >I also don't dispute your good intentions.) Is this quotation one of your basic moral and ethical principles? What profound words to live by! Right up there with "An idle mind is the devil's workshop" and "It will make you go blind". >Certainly it feels good for you to attack someone who argues that we >shouldn't feed all the world's starving. At least you understand what you're saying. > Certainly it must be comforting to >accuse someone of not being a Christian, since you know that manuver >will bring you the sympathy of most of middle America. I didn't accuse you of not being a Christian, I said that I hoped you weren't one. Because you argue that we should let starving people die (for their own good, of course). A distinctly un-Christian position. Apparently, though, I have managed to insult some other religions by implying that you might be of some other faith. They don't want you either. Are there any atheists out there that support letting starving people die? > Certainly >you feel good trying to drag someone down. Now, consider for a minute: >Who ARE you to judge? has me seeing red, blue, black, and green, all at once> You presented an argument for the desireability of letting starving people die while the U.S. stockpiles food. I have every right to judge the asininity of that argument, and make my opinion known. I had hoped that your original article was written in jest (a la Swift's "Modest Proposal" ) but apparently you are serious. Have you ever read Swifts' essay? You would probably find a wealth of ideas for your philosophy. E.g. as long as all those children are going to starve anyway, why not put them to good use? How about a chain of McRenner's Restaurants, serving the world famous "Third World Burger"? >Have YOU considered ALL the problems inherent in your own "solution"? I don't recall offering a solution to the problem of worldwide hunger. I did point out that I believe your "Final Solution" of letting people starve to death until they practice birth control is morally repugnant. The real solution probably does not include the deliberate starvation of large numbers of people. >What was said was EXACTLY true. If a population with no way of >reducing it's birth rate is fed more, it will expand. Let's say >we DO send all the food we have to spare, OK? So, what happens? > . > . >Not only will everyone who would have died die, people who >would NOT have died will die, and some who would not have >come into existance will die. The preceding argument (which I haven't reproduced in full) establishes that a growing population requires more & more food to sustain itself. So what else is new? The conclusion is that if we feed starving people, they will just have more babies, and more people will starve later. The hidden assumption here is that the people that you feed today will be either unwilling or unable to free themselves from their dependancy upon the free food. Haven't I heard this argument somewhere before? Oh yes, I remember. If you give people welfare, they'll never bother to go out and get a job to support themselves. So if you really want to help those poor people, you just have to cut out their welfare benefits to force them to go out and get a job. I understand your argument, I just happen to find it morally reprehensible. I consider people who use it right up there with Hitler, Amin, and Stalin. (Didn't Stalin use the same argument when he starved several million peasants?) To allow people to starve while you have the ability to feed them is evil. Withholding food from the starving today because you might not be able to feed them tomorrow is abominable. >Is that what you wish to do? Kill even MORE people? >Grow people just so that they can die? >(I do understand the pain involved in seeing someone >starve. Unfortunately, the world is not a painless place.) I understand the pain you must feel when you see pictures of someone starving. Perhaps you should write to the news media and complain about the pain those pictures cause you. You might suggest that they not print them, so you don't feel all that pain. ( I know that the above comment is rather sarcastic, but if you read Mr. Renners statement you will find in it no mention at all of the pain the starving person feels. And he doesn't appear at all cognizant of the moral responsibility that the wealthy and fortunate have towards the poor and unfortunate. I suggest that he read the story of Lazarus and the rich man, and reflect on where the rich man ended up.) >I must say that IF there were a chance at bringing about self-sufficiency >before we ran out of surplus then the idea would have merit, and in fact >would be compelling. However, the problems involved in bringing about self- >sufficiency are NOT solvable in 2-5 years, or even in 20. another story, and influenced greatly by religious and political beliefs.> So based on this masterful economic analysis, Mr. Renner, you soothe your conscience. Such brilliant logic, such economy of words! You KNOW that the rest of the world can't become self-sufficient, so why bother feeding them? You don't owe them anything after all. Too bad if they didn't have the good sense to be born in a self-sufficient country. And then you trumpet this self-deluding drivel to the world, and wonder why people in other countries hate you. If you want to see an ugly American, Mr. Renner, just find a mirror. >I must also say that I find the method and tone of argument that >you use to be completely offensive. The vituperitive (sp?) attitude >that you display and the gratuitous references to Christianity that you >make seem deliberately calculated to cause emotional knee-jerking >rather than calm thought. Such behavior in a time of crisis >is more than thoughtless. >Good day! (Now that you've ruined mine, sir!) You realize, of course, that I intended to be offensive and ruin your day. I'm glad to see that you have enough of a conscience left to have it ruined. As for the reference to Christianity, it was made because feeding the hungry is a moral imperative, not an action taken directly from self-interest. ( Unless, of course, you are concerned that the starving people may take from you by force that which you will not give freely. ) Since Christianity is the faith which I understand better than others, and it is most likely that you, as a U.S. citizen, profess to be one, I submit that your rationalizations are a direct denial of the basic teachings of Christ. He did not say to feed the hungry only when the economics are right. He did not say to do unto others as you would have them do unto you, but not if you think it isn't in their long-term self-interest to do so. Would you want to starve to death while food rots in a granary because somebody decided your country has too many people? ( I know that most other religions would also find Mr. Renners philosophy execrable and monstrous, so you don't have to write me and tell me that. However, if your religion supports starving millions of people, please write and tell me. Always interested in learning something new. ) Phil Polli ihuxl!pvp