Gee, well that settles that, then.
Colonization in the UFP
- Thread starter Penta
- Start date
- Status
Gee, well that settles that, then.
Actually, Africa isn't a nation at all: it is a continent.
It does, however, contain many developing nations. However, many developing nations are not in Africa, and the only one specificly mentioned in the article you referenced was India. And it said nothing about giving condoms away; on the contrary, it mentions how many condoms India buys.
I only find 2 things of relevance there, both listed under the heading Philanthropy: one is an organization started in 1989 in response to AIDs, and the other sells condoms in countries like Bangladesh and Kenya. Both are private projects.
That doesn't even say whether they ever got the "federal support" they wanted, although the first article you liked to did address that when it said "The U.S. Agency for International Development pushed condom use in developing countries".
NONE of that says that the US government was giving condoms to anybody.
That they are doing it now does not relate to whether they were doing it before AIDS. That they are spending money with the goal of increasing contraceptive use does not indicate how that money is being spent, so that article doesn't even prove we are giving away condoms now.
My first reaction was that I'd like to see that article, but since 20 years ago would be 1990, I doubt that article would support your assertion that we have been giving condoms to Africa since "before AIDS came about".
No, it isn't.
What I have been saying all along is that more people is not necessarily a bad thing, and that you have failed to prove your assertion that the US gives condoms to Africa to prevent to overpopulation of the planet and has been doing so since before there was AIDS. And that a complete end to unintended pregnancies in a utopia such as the Federation as presented would not necessarily mean zero population growth, or even small population growth.
Nobody here is advocating "breeding willynilly", rather that one might reasonably plan to have more than two children.
And you still haven't apologized for your ad hominem attack. Instead, you repeat it.
None of the sites you have listed, actually.Plus all the sites I listed.
'Meanwhile, the post–World War II concerns about overpopulation led philanthropic foundations and activist organizations, including the Population Council, the Ford Foundation, and the Population Crisis Committee, to join Planned Parenthood in calling for federal support for international and domestic birth‐control programs and reproductive services'
Spy one: They call for 'federal support'. That means money. that means money paid for out of taxes from people who have money. They mention 'international'. That implies countries poorer than America
Why do you find this so hard a concept? America gave crops to Russia, during the cold war, for free. People exhibit altruism.
http://www.populationaction.org/Pub..._Planning_in_Sub_Saharan_Africa/Summary.shtml
See paragraph 2:
'A recent report by an independent task force enlisted by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR, More Than Humanitarianism: A Strategic U.S. Approach toward Africa, 2005) recommends that the U.S. government 'step up' funding to 'international family planning programs'in sub-Saharan Africa as part of a strategy to increase U.S. engagement and prioritize assistance to that region' .
'Step up' implies they were doing it before. 'Family planning' is not aids prevention.
And further down:
Conclusions
There is no time like the present to 'step up global funding for family planning programs in sub-Saharan Africa.' The severity of the ongoing HIV/AIDS pandemic only makes Africa’s needs more imperative. The U.S. could lead the way in helping encourage Africa’s demographic transition – 'much as it did in East Asia four decades ago.18 'A recent article by demographer John Cleland and Steven Sinding, executive director of the International Planned Parenthood Federation,19 recommends that African states, bilateral and multilateral donors, foundations and non-governmental organizations collaborate to:
Rather than preparing to meet this challenge, U.S. assistance in family planning has actually declined. Since 1995, U.S. international funding for family planning services, contraceptives and related programs, which serve both women and men in more than 50 countries, has fallen by more than $100 million – a 35 percent reduction when adjusted for inflation. 'During fiscal year 2005, the U.S. spent $437.3 million on its international family planning program, an amount equivalent to about 9 hours of U.S. defense spending.21'
Certainly, our country could do better. 'The U.S. government would be strategically wise to prioritize its spending on a program that has already demonstrated its successfulness,' at a time when sub-Saharan Africa countries, and African women and their children, are desperately in need of success.
Spy one: They call for 'federal support'. That means money. that means money paid for out of taxes from people who have money. They mention 'international'. That implies countries poorer than America
Why do you find this so hard a concept? America gave crops to Russia, during the cold war, for free. People exhibit altruism.
http://www.populationaction.org/Pub..._Planning_in_Sub_Saharan_Africa/Summary.shtml
See paragraph 2:
'A recent report by an independent task force enlisted by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR, More Than Humanitarianism: A Strategic U.S. Approach toward Africa, 2005) recommends that the U.S. government 'step up' funding to 'international family planning programs'in sub-Saharan Africa as part of a strategy to increase U.S. engagement and prioritize assistance to that region' .
'Step up' implies they were doing it before. 'Family planning' is not aids prevention.
And further down:
Conclusions
There is no time like the present to 'step up global funding for family planning programs in sub-Saharan Africa.' The severity of the ongoing HIV/AIDS pandemic only makes Africa’s needs more imperative. The U.S. could lead the way in helping encourage Africa’s demographic transition – 'much as it did in East Asia four decades ago.18 'A recent article by demographer John Cleland and Steven Sinding, executive director of the International Planned Parenthood Federation,19 recommends that African states, bilateral and multilateral donors, foundations and non-governmental organizations collaborate to:
- make family planning information and services more widely available;
- fund communications efforts providing clear and credible public messages that legitimate smaller families and contraceptive use; and
- more closely link family planning and HIV-prevention programs.
Rather than preparing to meet this challenge, U.S. assistance in family planning has actually declined. Since 1995, U.S. international funding for family planning services, contraceptives and related programs, which serve both women and men in more than 50 countries, has fallen by more than $100 million – a 35 percent reduction when adjusted for inflation. 'During fiscal year 2005, the U.S. spent $437.3 million on its international family planning program, an amount equivalent to about 9 hours of U.S. defense spending.21'
Certainly, our country could do better. 'The U.S. government would be strategically wise to prioritize its spending on a program that has already demonstrated its successfulness,' at a time when sub-Saharan Africa countries, and African women and their children, are desperately in need of success.
Last edited:
Bush defunded abortion services. Otherwise money to Africa increased.
( President George ) Bush has increased direct development and humanitarian aid to Africa to more than $4 billion a year from $1.4 billion in 2001, according to the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. And four African nations -- Sudan, Ethiopia, Egypt and Uganda -- rank among the world's top 10 recipients in aid from the United States.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/30/AR2006123000941.html
Bush has spent more money on aid to Africa than his predecessor, Bill Clinton, and is popular for his personal programs to fight AIDS and malaria and to help hospitals and schools.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL17797120080217
As I already said, it never says they got that aid, merely that they "called for" it, and it does not say if that aid was to take the form of condom handouts or something else, like an advertising campaign.
I have no problem with the idea that individuals, organizations, and governments exhibit altruism.
Although I do suspect that if you look closely, you'll find that the US government sold that food to Russia, if only because Russia was too "proud" to accept a gift from the US. But that does not preclude the idea of the US government giving gifts just because it is the right thing to do, like recently to Haiti and a few years ago to tsunami victims.
Is it your contention that AIDS did not exist prior to 1995? If not, how does this bear on your claim that the US was giving condoms to Africa before AIDS? (Although this article comes closer to mentioning condoms than anything you linked to previously, as it says that the US has provided "funding for family planning services, contraceptives and related programs, which serve both women and men in more than 50 countries", which sounds like it probably includes condoms, but isn't at all clear about that.)(emphasis mine)
Spyone:
Unless I can find a website that says:' The USA gives condoms for free to Africa, as Cheapjack says,' I think you will continue to nitpick.
I've given enough evidence. Ring the Whitehouse and ask them!
That would certainly be a step in the right direction. As would any site that says explicitly that US funding to "promote family planning" in Africa, or anywhere else in the world for that matter, goes to programs that give contraceptives away.
Even that would only prove a point we have stipulated to agree on: that the US gives free condoms to Africa currently. The contentious point was whether the US did so "before AIDS came about".
According to wikipedia (a dubious source at best), the first reported case of AIDS was 1981, and the name AIDS was being used by the CDC by 1982, although the first case of HIV in the United States may date to 1969.
I'm certainly not going to insist on 1969 as the inception of AIDS. How about 1982? Is 1982 good for you?
Can you produce any evidence that the US was funding programs that gave away condoms in Africa before 1982?
In the alternative, are you willing to admit you might have been mistaken about the "before AIDS" part of your statements?
You have given quite a lot of evidence to suggest that the US is not just fighting the spread of AIDS in Africa, but is also supporting the ability of people there to avoid unplanned or unwanted pregnancies. You have provided essentially no evidence of anything else.
If you consider the amount of evidence you have provided sufficient, then perhaps this conversation really is pointless, as I could provide a similar amount of evidence that the US was giving nuclear weapons to Iraq prior to 1992.
Which is to say, none that explicitly states it, but plenty that refers to a broader category that might include it, and some for the relevant time frame but mostly for the present. "See, it says right there we were selling them military equipment. That must mean we gave them nuclear weapons." I could even ask my Mom.
What? You are still reading Cheapjack's posts? And all the responses? I'm just waiting for the thread to resume after everyone finishes feeding the trolls.
I think that someone posited the idea that colonisation would be driven by the desire to fill up the galaxy with human beings. I said that it would be driven by curiousity and the instinct to place humans on other planets in case anything happens to this one. I have given proof that overbreeding is not thought of as good, by the USA and the UK.
Ah, revisionist history at it's best.
I think if you look at the first page of posts, you'll find that Cheapjack was the first to bring up the idea that colonization would have anything to do with a desire to "fill up the galaxy with human beings".
And Cheapjack: overbreeding is, by definition, a bad thing. Where the disagreement lies is your bizarre notion that anything above zero population growth is "overbreeding", especially if there is a galaxy full of basically empty planets out there.
I think if you look at the first page of posts, you'll find that Cheapjack was the first to bring up the idea that colonization would have anything to do with a desire to "fill up the galaxy with human beings".
And Cheapjack: overbreeding is, by definition, a bad thing. Where the disagreement lies is your bizarre notion that anything above zero population growth is "overbreeding", especially if there is a galaxy full of basically empty planets out there.
No, I didn't say that at all. I said humans would only move to other planets, in case anything happened to this one. I said that right from the beginning.
And, I also said that you would eventually agree with me, but that you would say that that's what you said all along.
Last edited:
You brought it up first. You brought it up as a characterization of the opinions of others who had posted before you, but none of them said anything remotely like that.
You still haven't proven that the US was giving away condoms to Africa before AIDS, nor have you admitted you might be wrong about that. You haven't provided any proof that the US gave away condoms ever, to anyone. You have provided lots of evidence of stuff that nobody asked you to prove, though.
And you haven't apologized for your personal attacks. Instead, again, you have repeated them. Again, I will ask you to cite proof they are true or rescind them and apologize.
Last edited:
Spy, you are starting to give yourself away as a troll. I have provided numerous evidence that the US has in the past and in the present, family planning,(not anti-AIDS) programs and that they are paid for by the US government, not charity and are not sold. If the government spends money, they are not selling them. Ring the Whitehouse and ask them. Then, create a website saying 'Spy One rang the whitehouse and they are not giving condoms as Cheapjack says'. If you want to be as pedantic with yourself as you are with others. You are trying to get this thread closed down and are going off-topic.
http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/global_health/pop/techareas/repositioning/index.html
This is about as good as it gets. Does it say:'Cheapjack is right and Spyone is wrong'? No, but just about.
Last edited:
What? Did you say something? ^.^
This. But in addition there would be a desire for challenge and adversity. To build something with your own hands, to prove something to yourself, feel a sense of accomplishment and see approval in the eyes of your peers.
Not everyone want to live in a civilization. Paradise. Utopia. As I posted before, like minded peoples will communicate, band together, plan for the right new colony to appear. When a new world is first "opened up" hundreds of separate groups with different wants and belief systems will be scattered across that globe. Some colonist groups will number in the hundreds. Others will form a close collection of settlements with populations initially of tens of thousands, arriving in waves over the course of decades.
I don't believe a hundred people can land in a valley and claim the entire world.
A world might be settled by multiple races, Humans in the temperate areas, Vulcans in the dry plains, Andorians in the northern regions. Planets with chlorine or methane atmospheres (or no dry land) would have a different mix of member species. Federation sponsored colonies would be a effort to try a more neapolitan mix. With over a hundred and fifty member worlds the colonies cities would be interesting and exciting places.
Colonists might also come from outside the Federation's body of members, people from worlds who've decided not to join the Federation, but who themselves wish to participate in the Federation's growth.
------
As a separate idea, a non-member world's mature colony might want to join the Federation, where the original home world doesn't.
-------
.
I've always had the sense from canon that while that could be an interesting way for colonies to work, it's not how they do work.
It really does seem like "First one to the planet (if even by days) claims it", Wild West land-rush style.
Which has the benefit of settling things. Your approach is interesting, but risks every single colonizable world devolving into land wars. Which with 23rd/24th Century tech would be utterly devastating.
---
A non-member world's colony trying to join the UFP would, I think, be rejected out of prudence. That's essentially violating the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the independent world/other sovereign. More than anything else, even the option would seem a recipe for war.
---
The way I see it, while people aren't racist in the 23rd/24th Century, that doesn't mean they don't prefer to live with and alongside their own kind. Mixed-species crews are pretty much a new thing even in the TrekLit, except for very similar species (in TOS, even, wasn't Spock something like the only non-human aboard?). I can't imagine civilian society being more integrated than Starfleet - that just seems backwards from how it'd likely work.
Hence, most colonies will be single-species. The larger colonies, it's certainly possible it's more diverse...But likely, for a lot of reasons (many environmental), diverse only within a limited spectrum.
(This reminds me: If I wasn't *certain* the thread would devolve into unpleasantness, I've a thing on "The Catholic Church in the Age of the Federation" I did a while ago on another forum that I'd post here, in another thread. I did it purely because I was curious how an institution like that would work across interstellar distances - partly because I was bored, like with most of my things. As it is, I'd be willing to PM it, but I'm not sure posting would be the best idea. But I'm willing to be argued off that if people want to see it.
How this relates? I'll get to that.)
One of the questions I've always wondered is: Colonization in Trek does not seem cheap or easy. Part of that might be me projecting my preferences (it just seems more exciting to be a colonist if it's a hard life), but from where I sit, there's gotta be plenty of colonies set up with multiple sponsors. (In my Catholic Church writeup, I posit that one of the first major sponsors, with the UEG, of human colonies is the Church, as part of the "Mission Among The Stars". Which of course leads me to wonder how the heck you'd balance two occasionally divergent perspectives like that.)
- Status
Similar threads
