You are here

Boycott charities until donations linked to conditional birth control and wealthy high-birth nations forced to fund their excess

One of our CanDoBetter commenters, 'RichB', has highlighted the site Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. This is a visionary site! The movement seems to have gone to some considered endeavour to explore the issues. I like the question toward the bottom of the site:

'What will the world be like when our population starts getting smaller?'

As more globally-aware people begin to question the 20th Century 'growth-only' tenet, alternative ideals such a 'Low Population Planet', deserve to be considered and debated. But where to start?

One practical moral campaign that would immediately start curbing the out-of-control human birth explosion would be to lobby against the funding requests of charities supporting countries that have high birth rates. Now before readers jump to questionning the morality of this, this is not to stop funding emergency life support needs, but to make non-life-support funding conditional on recipient self-change.

These are some dominant charities in this field.

* UNICEF

* World Vision
* Feed the Children

* Save the Children

* Food4Africa

While it would be callous to allow people to die from hunger and malnutrition, the charity donation system seems to only perpetuate welfare subsistence and not address overpopulation poverty in undeveloped countries. For time immemorial, the starving of Africa and India have been dumped on our television screens to make us feel guilty.

Why has the problem not been resolved since television was invented and before?
The starving message has become a cliché to the point that it has become a permanent human condition. This is unacceptable. The charity system needs overhaul.

Charities need to be held accountable for fixing the problem not perpetuating it.
Donations need to be channelled through independent organisations that require conditional offerings. Donations can end up anywhere and do, like in arms purchases. The charity donations must stop and be replaced with:

1. Physical shipments of emergency food, shelter and medical supplies

2. Conditional relief funding linked to population control measures - family planning and birth control measures should be advocated - female education, contraception, changing cultural traditions of excess children (more than 2), and UNHCR funded free and professional male vasectomies. Perhaps even a free dwelling could be offered to male heads of families that undertake vasectomy and have only two children. Think of this as an incentive in impoverished countries!

On issues of fundamental cultural change, financial carrots seem more effective and ethical than punitive sticks.

Until then those donating should boycott charities until donations are conditional on and accountable for birth control.

As for wealthy developed nations with high birth rates, they have the financial means to address their own population excesses. Any country over 3% annual growth rate is irresponsible and so a target priority.

According to Nation Master website, the top 20 highest ranked developed countries by population growth rate are:

We should refer to them as the G20 - 'The Greedy 20'.

Rank Country Growth Rate (2008)
1 Maldives: 5.566%
2 United Arab Emirates: 3.833%
69 Saudi Arabia: 1.954%
81 Malaysia: 1.742%
82 Israel: 1.713%
107 Bahrain: 1.337%
114 Australia: 1.221%
116 Luxembourg: 1.188%
124 Ireland: 1.133%
131 New Zealand: 0.971%
137 United States: 0.883%
139 Canada: 0.83%
140 South Africa: 0.828%
144 Iceland: 0.783%
151 Liechtenstein: 0.713%
153 Thailand: 0.64%
154 China: 0.629%
156 France: 0.574%
160 Hong Kong: 0.532%
165 Netherlands: 0.436%

These wealthy countries extravagantly impose a selfish disproportionate burden on the planet's capacity. They have wealth capacity and as global citizens and members of the UN, have an obligation to pay a Greedy Population Levy to fund underdeveloped countries in controlling their excess population growth. The wealthy with an excess problem need to be supporting the poor with am excess problem, because the poor do not have the means to do it themselves. Let's make it means tested and charge say 0.01% of each countries GDP.

As for those poor displaced peoples caused by civil unrest and arms conflict, why does not the UN with the support of developed nations impose a 10% levy on each item of weaponry sold globally, so that the revenue is channelled to allow the UNHCR manage humanitarian and peace-keeping operations for the civilians affected?

International arms sales is the world's largest and richest discretionary industry. It can easily afford such a levy.

A case in point is the plight of millions of Yemeni refugees having fled civil conflict and currently starving in al-Mazraq camp, Yemen:

'Millions of Yemenis starving as donors fail to meet pledges, says UN'

• £70m needed this year and next to feed poor and hungry
• Traditional donors, including Britain, have yet to offer aid


AttachmentSize
Image icon VHEMT.jpg16.57 KB
Image icon Children in al-Mazraq camp (Yemen).jpg22.32 KB

Comments

Once again John Marlowe prones somewhat intemperately. I was put off by the title, and made queasy by the first paragraphs, which seemed one dimensional, tub-thumping and probably racist. Then the article changed to allay my fears and I really couldn't see anything morally wrong with it. Does Marlowe have to be so confrontational, though, to make his points? And must they be so blunt and rather simplistic? A bit more work and detail and perhaps fewer articles would make for some real winners.

So a distant cousin, Julius, needles my blunt tone yet concurs with my message. Does he have nothing constructive to contribute?

The subject matter is one of recurring global calamity, perpetually ignored and assigned to the too hard basket - overpopulation in underdeveloped countries contributing to systemic widespread malnutrition and famine.

It is not a subject for polite reflection. I do not include the word 'please' in my article, likewise I have no respect for those with capacity to address the systemic causes - the wealthy developed nations and their religious charities - yet allow the problem to perpetuate.

A long time ago some religious evangelist prophesised: "Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth." [Matthew 5:5]. It was about keeping the downtrodden downtrodden.

More useful are those who act:

“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.” - Theodore Roosevelt (US President 1901-1909).

The dictionary definition of MEEK is: forbearing; yielding; unassuming; pacific, calm, soft, It is not about being placid to the point of allowing injustices and wrong-doing to continue. It is about inheriting the Earth - those who will belong to God's kingdom! Downtrodden, maybe, but ultimately victorious.
Christianity has for too long created a plethora of obedience, conservatism, and middle-class correctness. What we need is a radical church, not a silent one. As Jesus said of the Pharisees, they loved their laws and the greetings in the market places, but strained out the gnats and swallowed the camels! They discerned the trivialities of wrong and right-doings, and legalities, and neglected weightier matters, the importance, big picture concerns. These big picture concerns should be more than polite service to the community, good as it is, but about speaking out about the liquidation of God's Creation, about the mass injustices happening today on our planet's ecosystems, and violating Earth's life-supporting ecosystems and fauna so next generations will be denied of a future, a safe and intact planet.
The church's MAKE POVERTY HISTORY campaign was lofty in ideals, but is doomed to failure simply because they forgot to factor in population growth. Not one of these organisations mentioned contraception or family planning. There are pious attitudes that "Human beings are the greatest resource on the planet. We are the apex of God's creation"!
Until everyone of us stands up to religious interference in culture and demand contraception and sex ed for all there can be no solution to poverty. Poverty is after all promoted by religious corporate interests and results in overpopulation.

"Until everyone of us stands up to religious interference in culture and demand contraception and sex ed for all there can be no solution to poverty. Poverty is after all promoted by religious corporate interests and results in overpopulation."

I totally agree

I completly agree with both the premise and the way it's put forth. I might have lost a friend due to publicly responding to this self same issue. For too long this play has been writ large on our lives and it will not alter until we begin speaking some hard truths. Next, we need to act upon what we know to be true. I was involved in this back in "1982-83" plus, and the same players are still obstructing the field. Tx, Dave

China has too many Chinese even with the government's breeding control strategy, yet they keep making more Chinese.
Stop breeding. Give generously to organisations developing birth control.
Don't give to foreign charities. They just encourage breeding.

John Marlowe

Like Julius Marlowe, I detected the off note in the symphony.

I'm all for population control but, why attack those who attempt to address the human suffering generated by over population? Did they cause it?

Rather than blaming aid agencies that attempt to alleviate human suffering, I would focus my attack and subversive efforts on the religious and cultural institutions that undermine campaigns that promote contraceptive devices and methods.

Also, who is exploiting unsustainable population growth via immigration lotto?

Isn't it convenient that population growth feeds into the capitalist growth paradigm?

Do the capitalists who parlay population growth via immigration into Western nations care?

Does our aid program facilitate or inhibit global population growth? What influence does the christian lobby have on these policies? While everyone trusts government to act nobly in relation to foreign aid, what deals are done to appease moral perverts like Family First and George Pell?

Don't start shooting until you know who and what you are shooting to effect.

Re: 'Comment Power by numbers for cults' 12th August 2010.

Charities that seek donations to help increase human population in countries already overpopulated need to start thinking about the message they are sending and their role in perpetuating the over-population problem.

Until charities take responsibility for linking their donated millions to birth control, the countries and people that they are supposed to be helping will be forever welfare dependent and worsen the world's population problem. Start with the worst offenders - the top ten overpopulated countries!

The top ten countries by population (2009) are:

1. China with 1,338,612,968
2. India with 1,156,897,766
3. United States with 307,212,123
4. Indonesia with 240,271,522
5. Brazil with 190,010,647
6. Pakistan with 174,578,558
7. Bangladesh with 156,050,883
8. Nigeria with 149,229,090
9. Russia with 140,041,247
10. Japan with 127,078,679

Of these, the underdeveloped ones are all but the United States and Japan.

To curb the selfish overpopulation burden these underdeveloped countries are imposing on the planet, all charity, foreign aid, and World Bank funding, over and above non-emergency life support, needs to be made conditional on birth control.

It is time people stop sending cash to these countries.

Do not send unconditional cash! Do not send cash at all! Send solutions! Send condoms, education, vasectomy doctors, provide financial carrots (such as housing) to families with less than 3 children where the father undertakes vasectomy, and other birth control initiatives. But such strategies to be effective need to be long term and consistent, else they will fail. It takes generations to change entrenched cultures.

As for the worst overpopulated developed countries, the United States and Japan, the United Nations needs to demand they both contribute an annual overpopulation levy of say 0.1% of their respective GDP to a dedicated UN fund to fund the above-mentioned birth control initiatives in these underdeveloped nations.
Both countries can more than afford this irrespective of the GFC. Both the US and Japan spend considerably more on militarism (the term 'defence' is a euphemism).
The US and Japan are currently wasting hundreds of millions in chest thumping joint military exercises in the South China Sea as a show of force against North Korea. Yes they have the money!

Complimentary strategies include controlling the arms trade, dealing with government corruption, adjusting trade tariffs to favour underdeveloped countries and addressing the third world debt interest burden.

Charities are situated at the public interface. They are indeed perpetuating the overpopulation problem by doing nothing about birth control, yet they have the power and influence in the money they receive and the role they play to influence the outcome.

This is not to say that others need not be held to account as well (mainly the governments of the overpopulated countries). Others like the UNHCR and foreign aid giving countries are also in a position to tie money to birth control.

You can offer answers to your own questions. But until the rot is stopped by
exposing the falsehood that charities of underdeveloped nations are doing a good job, nothing will change. I do not donate to overseas charities for this reason.

Once such charities are deprived of unconditional donations, their population perpetuating behaviour will be forced to change.

Do no such charities exist? Why doesn't someone set one up?

I came across this article through a google search and fully agree with it. So whats the solution? Lobby the big charites or set up a new one with this ethos? Does one exist already?

I very much agree with your sentiments regarding the switching of charity funding. But you had China at the top of your "worst offenders " list of countries.
This is a mistake - China has done more to reduce it's population than any other country in history. If it hadn't , there would be many more millions of starving families in the world today.

Another financial incentive to encourage vasectomies/stop at 2, etc., is the provision of some type of security, however rudimentary, for the aged. Absence of an old-age security safety net in a society encourages parents to have numerous children to provide for them in their old age.

Link for list of charities including some that contribute to population control: http://nonprofit.about.com/od/fordonors/tp/globalpovertygiving.htm