Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Krishnan spends a considerable amount of time describing what she refers to as “medical apartheid.” Richer countries have mostly wiped out the TB bacteria with powerful drugs, while in places like India, scores of patients die while waiting for a diagnosis and medication.
The same narrative is playing out now with vaccines and drugs for the coronavirus, so those chapters are even more relevant. But I could have done without the long forays into the intricacies of patent law.
The question the review (and quite possibly not the book) addresses are:
Should the West bear the responsibility of ending "medical apartheid"? and
From where do the resources come to solve all the problems of the Third World?
At the time of liberation of the colonies (other than the First World liberations of Canada, Australia and like countries) during the years after the end of WW II, there was a fair argument to be made that these countries were literally bled dry. More than seventy years later, how extensive are our responsibilities?
Some, such as Singapore, South Korea and Israel have "made it." Is the West responsible for the cultural organization of Third World countries that encourage population explosions, desultory methods of agriculture, and endemic corruption?
Of course, we all feel badly for these countries' plight, including, yes, prevalent tuberculosis. Does that mean we have to solve these problem? And equally to the point, do we have the right to attach strings to aid that is given so it doesn't get wasted in corruption?
Yes the West has a very important stake in curing Third World diseases; and it's quite a self-centered one. Combatting/curing diseases in the Third World lessens the chance that the said diseases have the chance to mutate and spread to the First World.
If my response does not meet this forum's requirement for word length, please notify me and I shall become verbose in my subsequent postings to this thread.
Basically, our duty to lesser nations is to lead them up out of their poverties, set a good example, shepherd them along, help raise them up, following the old saying that "to whom much is given much is required."
There are tremendous biblical foundations for helping third world peoples . . . which parts of the USA seem to resemble these days, from downtrodden rural areas, inner cities, and along our southern border.
1. Matthew 25:34-40 “Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, my Father has blessed you! Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the creation of the world. I was hungry, and you gave me something to eat. I was thirsty, and you gave me something to drink. I was a stranger, and you took me into your home. I needed clothes, and you gave me something to wear. I was sick, and you took care of me. I was in prison, and you visited me.’ “Then the people who have God’s approval will reply to him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you or see you thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you as a stranger and take you into our homes or see you in need of clothes and give you something to wear? When did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ “The king will answer them, ‘I can guarantee this truth: Whatever you did for one of my brothers or sisters, no matter how unimportant they seemed, you did for me.’
2. Isaiah 58:10 If you give some of your own food to [feed] those who are hungry and to satisfy [the needs of] those who are humble, then your light will rise in the dark, and your darkness will become as bright as the noonday sun.
3. Isaiah 58:7 Share your food with the hungry, and give shelter to the homeless. Give clothes to those who need them, and do not hide from relatives who need your help.
4. Ezekiel 18:7 He is a merciful creditor, not keeping the items given as security by poor debtors. He does not rob the poor but instead gives food to the hungry and provides clothes for the needy.
5. Luke 3:11 He answered them, “Whoever has two shirts should share with the person who doesn’t have any. Whoever has food should share it too.”
6. Matthew 10:42 I tell all of you with certainty, whoever gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones because he is a disciple will never lose his reward.
7. Proverbs 19:17 The one who is gracious to the poor lends to the Lord, and the Lord will repay him for his good deed.
8. Proverbs 22:9 A generous person will be blessed, for he gives some of his food to the poor.
9. Romans 12:13 Distributing to the necessity of saints; given to hospitality.
10. 2 Corinthians 9:8 And God is able to make all grace abound toward you; that ye, always having all sufficiency in all things, may abound to every good work.
11. Genesis 12:2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing.
12. James 2:15-17 Suppose a brother or sister does not have any clothes or daily food and one of you tells them, “Go in peace! Stay warm and eat heartily.” If you do not provide for their bodily needs, what good does it do? In the same way, faith by itself, if it does not prove itself with actions, is dead.
13. 1 John 3:17-18 Now, suppose a person has enough to live on and notices another believer in need. How can God’s love be in that person if he doesn’t bother to help the other believer? Dear children, we must show love through actions that are sincere, not through empty words.
14. James 2:26 A body that doesn’t breathe is dead. In the same way faith that does nothing is dead.
15. Proverbs 14:31 Whoever oppresses the poor insults his maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors him.
16. Proverbs 21:13 Whoever shuts his ear to the cry of the poor will call and not be answered.
17. Proverbs 29:7 A righteous person knows the just cause of the poor. A wicked person does not understand this.
18. Proverbs 25:21 If your enemy hungers, give him food to eat; and if he thirsts, give him water to drink.
19. Romans 12:20 Rather, if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in doing this you will be heaping burning coals on his head.
20. Galatians 5:13 For you were called to freedom, brothers and sisters; only do not use your freedom as an opportunity to indulge your flesh, but through love serve one another.
21. Galatians 6:2 Carry one another’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ.
22. Philippians 2:4 Each of you should be concerned not only about your own interests, but about the interests of others as well.
23. Proverbs 21:26 Some people are always greedy for more, but the godly love to give!
24. Ephesians 4:28 Thieves must quit stealing and, instead, they must work hard. They should do something good with their hands so that they’ll have something to share with those in need.
25. Deuteronomy 15:10 You must by all means lend to him and not be upset by doing it, for because of this the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in everything you attempt.
Psalm 37:25-26 I once was young and now I am old, but I have not seen a righteous person forsaken or his descendants begging for bread. Every day he is generous, lending freely, and his descendants are blessed.
In addition to all of these references is the parable of the Good Samaritan. The question for western nations is how much of a Good Samaritan should we be, how do we go about it, etc.
What bugs me greatly is that we have tens of millions of people running around claiming they are "christians" but when it comes to "heal the sick" it was 80% of these "christians" who voted, twice, for a man who said that if elected then on day one he was taking health care away from 20 million of our fellow citizens. How can those two polar opposite stances be reconciled and how can these people still call themselves "christians"?
__________________
- Please follow our TOS.
- Any Questions about City-Data? See the FAQ list.
- Want some detailed instructions on using the site? See The Guide for plain english explanation.
- Realtors are welcome here but do see our Realtor Advice to avoid infractions.
- Thank you and enjoy City-Data.
Last edited by Mike from back east; 10-26-2022 at 08:37 PM..
Basically, our duty to lesser nations is to lead them up out of their poverties, set a good example, shepherd them along, help raise them up, following the old saying that "to whom much is given much is required."
There are tremendous biblical foundations for helping third world peoples . . . which parts of the USA seem to resemble these days, from downtrodden rural areas, inner cities, and along our southern border.
The question is, how do you make that work in the real world? Most but not all leaders of Third World countries insist that any such requirements amount to "colonialism" while our money is being frittered away and dissipated. Make no mistake; Raul Castro and his late brother Fidel were among the wealthiest people in the world. Ditto Jean-Bédel Bokassa, President of the Central African Republic and then Emperor of the Central African Empire. Ditto Yasir Arafat of blessed memory and Mohamed Abbas. By contrast, First World leaders my be independently wealth but rarely become rich on the job. Name me a U.S. President, or Canadian, British or Australian Prime Minister that came into office with modest means but went out wealthy.
The culture of most of those countries does not include a demand for good, competent government. Why should we fund it, to salve our consciences? Whether through the UNICEF box, our UN membership or the "Green Fund" I see and hear the tin cup being thrust in my face.
Poverty is an ordinary and eternal condition of humanity. There will be plenty more of it as we leave the industrial age, especially in the West as it declines while the East rises. Managing our own affairs will be more than enough of a challenge.
On tuberculosis, overuse of antibiotics, especially in livestock to stimulate growth, is pushing bacteria to evolve and become antibiotic-resistant. We could start with stopping that overuse, but that won't happen anytime soon, since that would lower the profits of big pharma and raise the price of meat.
Last edited by Nattering Heights; 10-27-2022 at 09:04 AM..
Yes the West has a very important stake in curing Third World diseases; and it's quite a self-centered one. Combatting/curing diseases in the Third World lessens the chance that the said diseases have the chance to mutate and spread to the First World.
If my response does not meet this forum's requirement for word length, please notify me and I shall become verbose in my subsequent postings to this thread.
I agree with you in regard to diseases. The idea that a disease will stay in one country or one regions is...as we have been learning...folly. So yes, I think the United States, through international organizations, should assist the third world in fighting and curing diseases.
Of course, the OP seemed to be talking about a lot more than just health issues. In terms of aid to foreign countries...I do think it should generally be restricted to aid and help that is ALSO in our best interest. Should we put conditions on foreign aid? Of course. But we also have to learn to treat other nations with fairness. I know that's a vague term; perhaps someone will expand on it.
To Mike I would have to say that christianity is a poor reason to help people in countries where the dominant religion is other than christianity. Taking that position, frankly, gets you on the road to talking down to people. Forget about christianity in this context. Just do what's right...you know...the Golden Rule.
Those duties were laid out and accepted in Breton Woods as WW2 drew to a close.
And the deal was, The US would open all markets to everyone and guarantee free passage on the high sea to all countries.
We, the people of last 70 years have not realized how unique our world is as a result of that agreement. Remember, before WW2 warring nations used to torpedo unwanted freighter ships all the time. Since the US had the only navy left afloat, it made a point to keep the seas open and no one has dared challenge that promise. Notice, if you will, who is called when Somalia pirates threatened to disrupt the order. And notice, also, that our greatest enemies in WW2 became our most prosperous trading partners because of Breton Woods.
That agreement - Breton Woods - made the world what it is today, and allowed countries like South Korea to become successful by being part of world trade. Take note of what has happened to North Korea, who became a soviet satellite.
Some countries simply do not have enough resources within their border to support the existing population. Egypt is one. Egypt has almost no fuel source. It no longer produces wheat because wheat can be produced by other countries cheaper, and Egypt can use what would have been wheat fields to produce something valuable to sell. Then Egypt can buy whatever wheat and fuel they need. Fair trade.
Libya has oil, but no arable land.
Countries squarely on the equator can never be huge agricultural success because they have no winter to kill off the insects.
South Sudan has almost nothing of its own. No food. No fuel. Poverty is permanent in South Sudan.
So what is the answer to the question, "What are The West's Duties to the third world?"
None. We have no duty at all beyond keeping all markets open to all participants. That does not mean we should not help if we can, because we should - and we do! But it is not our "duty".
Countries squarely on the equator can never be huge agricultural success because they have no winter to kill off the insects.
Singapore is 1.3°N of the Equator. While not agricultural it's doing fine. Nearby Malaysia, with greater scope for agriculture, not so much. Again, it's the way societies are organized. Kenya is doing much better than similar-latitude Democratic Republic of the Congo. No question I consider geography to be extremely important, as I have argued on these thread. Geography, however, isn't everything. Canada is geographically a lot like Russia. The countries' trajectories could not be more different. Canada has never had a famine or genocide on the scale of the Holodomer. North and South Korea, same story.
Singapore is 1.3°N of the Equator. While not agricultural it's doing fine. Nearby Malaysia, with greater scope for agriculture, not so much. Again, it's the way societies are organized. Kenya is doing much better than similar-latitude Democratic Republic of the Congo. No question I consider geography to be extremely important, as I have argued on these thread. Geography, however, isn't everything. Canada is geographically a lot like Russia. The countries' trajectories could not be more different. Canada has never had a famine or genocide on the scale of the Holodomer. North and South Korea, same story.
Assets matter. What Singapore lacks in geography it can make up in trade as long as free trade remains a fact. Take away free trade and Singapore collapses.
Canada rests easy because of its southern neighbor and Canada's sparse population. If Canada had 144 million people like Russia, or an inconsequential neighbor it would have a big problem. And we need to remember, the Great Famine of Russia happened long before there was world wide free trade as guaranteed at Breton Woods.
The greater famine of China happened in 1960. Would it happen today?........ I rather doubt it, unless it was caused by some war somewhere that interrupted the food supply chain. But it happened in 1960 to an isolated, belligerent China and it happened because China was isolated and belligerent. Free trade glues this world together.
Is it somehow America's job to go to every starving country and feed them?...... No, I don't think so. It is not our duty. The very best we can do is to insure all sea lanes remain open so that each country can fend for itself.
There are some who see an end coming to the Great Agreement that America has with the world. It could happen, depending on who is in leadership position and what events transpire. There may actually be de-globalization leading to de-industrialization of second tier nations at some point in the future as population declines.
Can you imagine the chaos of a world where every country was on its own to defend itself and live by its own resources alone?........ It would be awful. And yet I hear people call for that all the time, telling anyone who will listen that this event or that one does not concern them because it is not happening in our country.
Assets matter. What Singapore lacks in geography it can make up in trade as long as free trade remains a fact. Take away free trade and Singapore collapses.
Good points.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Listener2307
Canada rests easy because of its southern neighbor and Canada's sparse population. If Canada had 144 million people like Russia, or an inconsequential neighbor it would have a big problem.
Remember though it's a two-way street. The U.S. can afford to be a beneficent neighbor because Canada threatens no one. If Ukraine on the Russian border or Israel on the Syrian border tried that...well, don't try that at home. The wonder is other countries in the world don't try to duplicate the relative concord (albeit with anti-American rhetoric) that the U.S. and Canada enjoy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Listener2307
And we need to remember, the Great Famine of Russia happened long before there was world wide free trade as guaranteed at Breton Woods.
Russia was not a party to Bretton Woods, and that famine was quite deliberate.
The greater famine of China happened in 1960. Would it happen today?........ I rather doubt it, unless it was caused by some war somewhere that interrupted the food supply chain. But it happened in 1960 to an isolated, belligerent China and it happened because China was isolated and belligerent. Free trade glues this world together.[/quote]China's famines during the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution were quite deliberate as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Listener2307
Is it somehow America's job to go to every starving country and feed them?...... No, I don't think so. It is not our duty. The very best we can do is to insure all sea lanes remain open so that each country can fend for itself.
Here we agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Listener2307
There are some who see an end coming to the Great Agreement that America has with the world. It could happen, depending on who is in leadership position and what events transpire. There may actually be de-globalization leading to de-industrialization of second tier nations at some point in the future as population declines.
Can you imagine the chaos of a world where every country was on its own to defend itself and live by its own resources alone?........ It would be awful. And yet I hear people call for that all the time, telling anyone who will listen that this event or that one does not concern them because it is not happening in our country.
This will only happen by the continuation of mass stupidity that we see in some leadership circles. "Internationalism" and "one-country, one vote" is the quickest was to this kind of debacle.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
