Humanitarian Priorities.

It looks to me, from a general cultural perspective, that the following are the worlds' greatest humanitarian issues:

AIDS
Malaria
Malnourishment
Dehydration
Torture
Trafficking

There's no telling which one's the worst to experience, simply because each appears to be inconceivably horrific.

So I feel the need to prioritise them by giving each a "score" which equals n/(c/r)

Where n is the amount of sufferers, and c/r is currency per unit reduction of n.

Whichever gets the highest score will be my top humanitarian priority.

Getting the data might take a while though.

Well some of those have an identifiable solution that doesnt require an as of yet totally unknown invention(Dehydration is about managing and sharing resources) and some do (HIV cure). The HIV cure might take a thousand years because research is hard and a little unpredictable. You could give 10 billion dollars to it and have no promised results. It could be a tonne of dead ends or mutant strains or anything to prevent said cure from happening. This is something that, no matter the money or man power is devoted to it, is pretty uncertain. The same goes with Maleria. Those cures could be just around the corner or require technology we have yet to invent. This doesnt mean its not worth donating to. Its just if youre going to rate them you need to keep this in mind. Some solutions are a matter of "Well all we need to do is build X and move resource Y around more efficiently" and some are a matter of "We have no idea where to begin looking for a solution to this problem".

An issue that is arising is antibiotic resistant strains. Tuberculosis was all but rooted out, but it's returning with a vengeance. I expect other diseases that have so far been curbed might make a comeback as well. No cure works forever.

Vegosiux:
An issue that is arising is antibiotic resistant strains. Tuberculosis was all but rooted out, but it's returning with a vengeance. I expect other diseases that have so far been curbed might make a comeback as well. No cure works forever.

exactly right. we are all fortunate to be living in a brief period where humanity has for the most part got the advantage of bugs.what people dont grasp is that it is only a short period and we are at war with the bugs and they are counterattacking and will eventually overcome our very best antibiotics.

i dont want to go into hospital in 15 years for something minor and die of an infection that cant be treated.

there is also the issue of new emerging diseases comming out

BiscuitTrouser:
This is something that, no matter the money or man power is devoted to it, is pretty uncertain. The same goes with Maleria.

There are reliable treatments for malaria, though, it just generally happens to affect areas without the resources to deal with them. As opposed to HIV/AIDS, which hits developing nations (which also don't), and developed ones (so it gets lots of attention).

IIRC, malaria kills more people, but less people the west cares about.

some people are resistant to Malaria however the flip side is a propensity for sickle-cell anaemia.

to quote wikipedia "Sickle-cell disease occurs more commonly in people (or their descendants) from parts of tropical and sub-tropical sub-saharan regions where malaria is or was common."

it can be viewed an example of one form of "evolution" occurring in human beings.

sickle-cell anaemia is quite prevalent in the African-American population (1 out of 500 African-American children carry the disease) but less so than in equatorial Africa where carrier rates range across 10% to 40%.

we may be able to look at the genetics of that now and produce a new form of "cure" or "vaccine" in the future.

i have also read stories about a supposed African prostitute who was immune to AIDS...which i admit is like something out of a movie...but those stories kind of dried up...dun dun dur !..so who knows.

such a thing occurring (and a "cure" of "vaccine" being developed from it) is maybe a possibly tho.

i think the two most loaded ones in your list are "Malnourishment", which lets face it can go all the way up to an argument about "welfare", and "Dehydration" because water...water is being commercialised and corporatised...some people have even suggested "resource wars" may be fought over it in the future ( which imo is dumb. seriously just build a nuclear and desalination plant and park it on the coast if you have no rain...and seriously if you have rain stfu. you think people absorb water ? if anything in the world is "just passing through" it's water. )

Sleekit:
i think the two most loaded ones in your list are "Malnourishment", which lets face it can go all the way up to an argument about "welfare", and "Dehydration" because water...water is being commercialised and corporatised...some people have even suggested "resource wars" may be fought over it in the future ( which imo is dumb. seriously just build a nuclear and desalination plant and park it on the coast if you have no rain...and seriously if you have rain stfu. you think people absorb water ? if anything in the world is "just passing through" it's water. )

Fighting over water is hardly impossible, but it has to be in an area where water is scarce. Water being the direct cause of WW3 or whatever is ludicrous, but if you're in the middle of the desert it's no so strange.

...

As it happens, though, dehydration isn't a humanitarian issue. Lack of water isn't a problem, it's lack of clean water...lots of effort being spent on cheap water filters because of this.

thaluikhain:
As it happens, though, dehydration isn't a humanitarian issue. Lack of water isn't a problem, it's lack of clean water...lots of effort being spent on cheap water filters because of this.

you are right. i tend to see the lack of clean water as an infrastructure problem which in turn rests on, at the very least, stable and existing government. "Africa" (and other regions) seem to actually be getting better in a lot of respects in that department recently for various geopolitical and economic reasons.

things are slowly getting better in the shitholes of the world.

or at least it seems that way to me when viewed overall over the time ive seen pass.

ps. eh...it just occured to me maybe i'm being a bit too...colloquial ? please don't take my swearing personally....i'm Scottish and i just tend to talk like that and my posts aren't always 100% personal responses and often i'm just commenting on the wider topic.

i should maybe add being Scottish informs my view on water. water is "free" up here (it's not in England). it's "free" because it would be suicide to suggest charging for it. you'd only have to spend a couple weeks here (any time of year -.- ) and you'd find out why...

so that probably colours my view a bit about water and who should supply it...

thaluikhain:

Sleekit:
i think the two most loaded ones in your list are "Malnourishment", which lets face it can go all the way up to an argument about "welfare", and "Dehydration" because water...water is being commercialised and corporatised...some people have even suggested "resource wars" may be fought over it in the future ( which imo is dumb. seriously just build a nuclear and desalination plant and park it on the coast if you have no rain...and seriously if you have rain stfu. you think people absorb water ? if anything in the world is "just passing through" it's water. )

Fighting over water is hardly impossible, but it has to be in an area where water is scarce. Water being the direct cause of WW3 or whatever is ludicrous, but if you're in the middle of the desert it's no so strange.

If you want an interesting read, look up stuff on the effects of the Indian Hydro-electric industry on Bangladesh... just don't forget your tinfoil hat for some of it.

thaluikhain:

Fighting over water is hardly impossible, but it has to be in an area where water is scarce. Water being the direct cause of WW3 or whatever is ludicrous, but if you're in the middle of the desert it's no so strange.

Rhombus above is right in a sense.

Water is in fact a major cause of diplomatic wrangles, and even in some pretty wet places. Some countries that get plenty of rainfall can still be highly dependent (or at least, part of the country is) on rivers that originate elsewhere. If the upstream countries start damming those rivers or pouring a lot of pollutant chemicals in, it can be a big issue for water supply or economic damage. IIRC, at least one southeast Asian country has protested against China over this sort of thing.

On the other hand, it is indeed unlikely to directly cause WW3. It might indirectly do through any number of ways. Water disputes could lead to heightened tensions and potentially wars, and water scarcity to famines, refugee crises, destabilisation, and resource wars.

"World war" is usually thought of in quite a Eurocentric fashion, but I would suggest widespread conflicts across Africa or South Asia could have a scope similar to WW1. And the world's major powers probably couldn't resist getting at least a little bit involved anyway.

Agema:
Water is in fact a major cause of diplomatic wrangles, and even in some pretty wet places. Some countries that get plenty of rainfall can still be highly dependent (or at least, part of the country is) on rivers that originate elsewhere. If the upstream countries start damming those rivers or pouring a lot of pollutant chemicals in, it can be a big issue for water supply or economic damage. IIRC, at least one southeast Asian country has protested against China over this sort of thing.

Oh certainly, rivers running through more than one country are asking for trouble.

Agema:
On the other hand, it is indeed unlikely to directly cause WW3. It might indirectly do through any number of ways. Water disputes could lead to heightened tensions and potentially wars, and water scarcity to famines, refugee crises, destabilisation, and resource wars.

"World war" is usually thought of in quite a Eurocentric fashion, but I would suggest widespread conflicts across Africa or South Asia could have a scope similar to WW1. And the world's major powers probably couldn't resist getting at least a little bit involved anyway.

True, though any number of things can indirectly cause a world war. A car taking a wrong turn in Sarajevo, for example, isn't normally that bad, but under the right circumstances sparks all sorts of things.

 

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked