Re: An interesting view on how 'green' CFLs really are:

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:E9OdndpoQ8FseQ3VnZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxx:


Kris Krieger wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:vq6dnfJPk7-8Xg3VnZ2dnUVZ_tHinZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxx:


Kris Krieger wrote:

Also, from all I've read and heard, there is a US policy of not
exporting birth control to the poor in various nations, a policy
which is not based upon the would-be recipients own needs,
desires, or choice, but rather, upon the personal beliefs
regarding morality of people here.


Over the years I have seen a bunch of news stories about attempts
to
provide birth control pills in poor African nations. They provided
the pills and classes on how to use them, then ome back to find
they weren't taken properly, or the women made jewlery out of them.
It's just like drilling wells and providing modern farming tools.
They tach them how to farm, then the next year they just eat the
seed corn and let the tools rust away.

I haven't read that this happens after the proper useage of the
thigns has been explained.


I saw the issue covered on TV network news in the '70s.

One forblem with condomns BTW is cultural -
although, in some cultures, a woman's desire to have fewer children
and/or space them out better is considered to be irrelevant, and/o
the use of a condomn is seen as "unmanly".


No, it's considered unmanly by some to not have a horde of kids they
fathered, whether they can take care of them, or not.

That's also true, but it doesn't negate what I said. The two are not
mutually exclusive. There are probably many additional variations on the
general theme, and combinations thereof, as well. I don't ever pretend
that I'm writing some sort of comprehensive thesis - that simply can't be
done in a venue such as this, even if one *is* an expert/scholar in the
particular topic being discussed - I only try to offer one or a few
examples of whatever I'm trying to illustrate, as thougt experiments and/or
points to consider.

We see the same
thing in other countries of so called men that get a woman pregnant,
then look for another. They don't give a damn about the women or any
of the kids, as long as they can brag about how much of a man they
are.

Sure there are men like that. There are plenty who beleive they have a
divine right to reporduce by rape, too. But certainly not ALL are like
that. ((Same goes with women - self-centeredness, willful ignorance, and
other negative traits which I'll just summarize as "overall suckiness" are
by no means the exclusive purview of any particular chromosomal
configuration, gender iddentity, or sexual preference.)) I just think that
one needs to be receptive to individuality/individuals, and be wary of the
very-human tendency to generalize - I say "very human", because
generalization, after all, is a very useful tool for making sense fo the
world - teh human brain categorizes and organizes what it perceives; that's
part of how one learns from experience - one encounter with an angry wasp
(as an admittedly simple example) is enough for one to quickly generalize
that experience and stay as far away as possible away from *all* wasps. As
in all things, extremes tend to be at best not useful, and at worst
destructive.

That's pretty much my main point: be wary of generalizing - it's human,
it's part fo learning, and we all do it, but taken to an extreme, it's
often not a good thing.



It's how they were brought up,
and it's nto some simple matter to get around cultural beliefs.


Isn't that what I said?

It might be what you intended, but what I perceived in your post *seemed to
me* to be a sense of fatalism or determinism. That's not intended as any
sort fo a"put down" or any such nonsense, it's just *what I perceived*,
and I can only address what I perceive.

That's why I try to talk to the points people make, and avoid tha ll-too-
populat Ad-Hominem Attack. It's just a factthat this is a very imperfect
form of communication, becasue all one sees is typing - no body language,
no facial expressions. Also, differences in writing styles and vocabulary
can in and of themselves lead to mis-communication. So it's very easy to
miss a writer's intent. THat's not at all a matter of someone being
"stupid" - people who are stupid can't produce well-crafted sentences.

So, my main point is just that I don't accept determinism - if nothing
else, the fact that I'm here disproves it, and I therefore have something
of a compulsion to express my wariness of it, when I perceive it. That
being said, however, I also know at least some of th huge obstacles that
exist in terms of (1) realizing tht choices exist; (2) understanding how to
make choices; and (3) getting into a position, be it financially, socially,
psychologically, and so on, to make a choice. The obstacles aren't
insurmountable, and yet, there *is* such a thing as accountability, but
circumstances have a large influence.



Some people don't want a better life, if it
means they have to do anything for themselves. that is why thye
live like they do. It's the same, all over the world. If those
people were in the US, they would be trailer trash. If they wanted
a better life, they would move to a town where they could find
work, better food, and a better life. You just can't help spme
people.

I think that's both incredibly harsh, and at best inaccurate.


I said some, not all. You are trying to twist my meaning.

If I misread, then I'll admit the error; I certainly accept "some". Heck,
some people also choose self-destructive lifestyles despite have a great
many advantages, and even good parents. IOW, true, some are just whacked
in the head.

I'm not trying to split hairs. I was going on my perception, and if I
*misread* what you wrote, all I can say is that that's not the same as
intentionally trying to twist your meaning.



Yes,
"some" people choose to live in ways that are self-destructive. But
you're treading perilously close to implying that anyone who, for
example, lives way out in the countryside of a poor nation, who has
never had access to an education, and leads a hand-to-mouth
existence, is only that way by choice.


Yawn. you are saying that. I AM TALKING ABOUT THOSE WHO WERE
OFFERED
HELP TO MOVE TO WHERE THEY COULD IMPROVE THEIR LIVES, BUT CHOSE TO
REMAIN WHERE THEY CAN'T EVEN FEED ALL OF THEIR KIDS.

Arrrgh, don't shout.



Not everyone has access to the things that would
even make them aware they might have achoice, never mind to the
things that woudl allow them to actualy implement a choice to change
their situation.

It's also inflammatory, and not relevent, to claim that someone would
be "trailer trash" if they lived in the US, becasue:


Someone who refuses to work will do so where ever they live,
anywhere
in the world. You stated above that cultural change is slow. Are you
saying you were wrong?

I'ts not "right" versus "wrong" per se; I'm saying that what might appear
to someone in one culture as being one thing might in mean something very
different in another culture, and that people in general, and I'd hazard to
guess especially uneducated peole, tend to have rather huge blind spots
where things like tradition and culture/cultural history are concerned.
THat's as true in First World societies as it is in Third World societies.
All I'm saying is that one has to separate tradition/culture, from things
like laziness and willful ignorance - culture and tradition *are* slow to
change, however, education can influence certain aspects of it in a helpful
way; OTOH, a deliberate and conscious decision to be lazy and remain
ignorant (and/or pursue self-destructive actions) is almost impossible to
change.

So, of course I'm not going to say I'm "wrong" in pointing out that all
poverty (and/or other bad personal situations) around the world can't be
chalked up to personal choice; I'm also not saying there is no such thing
as choice. I'm saying that *education* (which was the original point I was
addressing) can't work if one works on the assumption that poeple are only
poor becuase they choose to be, becasue it just isn't that simple.



(1) unless you know specific cases, it's an unproveable accusation;
and
(2) it ignores the cultural, environmental, political, and material
realities that exist in other parts of the world - not everyone can
simply move to a town, and a great many towns/cities are worse tahn
the villages becasue of extremely high unemployment, poverty that
can't even be relieved by planting soemthign, due to there being no
land, and an overall dismal quality of life.

People improve their lives only when they WANT to.

Assuming they perceive that they can.


If you want to question whether any nation has an obligation to
support people in anotehr nation, then address *that* question, but
don't justify an unwillingness to help/educate/etc.


I am the last person to deny help, but for how many generations?

THat's a whole different question. Also, there is the problem that all too
often, "help' means "send food and money" - when that does nto include
educating people re: how to help themselves, all that results is
dependency, which in turn mostyl seems to turn into resentment.


I am
now 100% disabled, forced to live at a below poverty level on a VA
pension that says I am not allowed to work, at all, yet I continue to
help others. I learned long ago to limit the help for people who keep
coming back, because they are too damn lazy to help themselves. If I
had all the time and money I've given away in the last 45 years, I
would have my home paid for, a newer vehicle, money in the bank, and
not have to worry till I died. I don't, because I helped, and
continue to help others.

THat's certainly valid and admirable.

Again, tho', my own intent wasn't to attack, and it was a miscommunication
on my part if what I wrote came across as such. At this point, I better
understand what you were saying, and I think we're actually in agreement,
and what occurred was a comn\bination of "communication clash" (different
styles and so on) and misperception.


by merely implying that people
choose to live in countries such as Burma, where the military
dictatorship takes pretty much everything away from them, or in
countries where roving armed bands randomly commit acts of robber and
genocide, and so on, and so forth.


Where did I even imply a dictatorship? You're trying to put your
words into my mouth, again.

OK, that was a really bad example on my part, I'll take ownership of that.


At the same time, it's well-known that brain development suffers when
a child doesn't receive (or can't be given) adequate nutrition. When
this is combined with lack of education, and/or a damaging
upbringing, it can make "choice" *extremely* difficult.

So, that is an excuse to leave them in that condition for more
generations, with a large percentage of the children dying before
puberty?

No, all I meant was that, when someone grows up with such deficiencies,
they tend to have inadequate decision-making skills.


Now, I am a big beleiver in choice,
because of my own life, but I also know that there are a lot fo
circumstances taht make chocie difficult.

You aren't the only one. I was born with health problems. I could
have applied for, and been declared disabled at 18, but I chose to
start working at 13, and worked until a few years ago when I couldn't
pass an employment physical.


And in the case of, say, the
people victimized by situations such as that in Darfur, the only
"choice" is to stay, of walk across the desert - they cannot "choose"
to not be poor.


If enough wanted to leave, provisions can be made. Look at the
people who make rafts to leave Cuba, and the South Americans who make
their way to Mexico, or the United States. It takes planning, and
persistence. People will help, if you approach them the right way.

Provisions could be made, yes, but many die without any assistance - ina
way, their decision is "am I more likely to die here, or die while trying
to get there". Those are the sort of poeple I feel badly for. THey were
living their own lives in their villages, basically on their own, maybe a
little trade with some distant town, and were disrupted because of this or
that group of genocidal maniacs. But as above, nto saying you said this or
that, but just pointing out as a continuation of my own thought, "help"
isn't jsut doing the usual and throwign food and money at them - that's at
best a stopgap measure; real help is giving them a hand to get back to
living their own independent lives.


As for education, anyone involved in education must take into account
the previous experience, education level, nutritional situation,
culture, and other aspects of the lives of the poeple being educated.
One can't just go in to some traditional village, give a short talk,
and claim to have "educated" the people - even under teh best
circumstances, education is a *process* that requires understanding,
openmindedness, and creative thinking on the part of the educator.
Any doof can stand in front of a group of well-nourished, well-reared
children with above-average intelligence, and have them parrot back
pretty much whatever is presented, regardles sof how it's persented.
WHen one goes into a group of disadvantaged children/adults, however,
it's an entirely different, and very challenging, situation.


You stated above that they can't learn because of nutrition
problems.

That makes it very difficult. I didn't say imposible. It's a factor that
ahs to be taken into account when one is an educator.

These will not be solved in the desert. It will take several
generations of them living where food, and education are available to
get even some of them to even care. No one needed an education
before, so what do they care? They see no reason for it, and never
will, as long as they are isolated, by their on choice.

All one can do is try. I just believe in the "try" part. Sometimes it
takes effort, is all. It's just a personal matter of hope.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: An interesting view on how green CFLs really are:
    ... provide birth control pills in poor African nations. ... although, in some cultures, a woman's desire to have fewer children ... had access to an education, and leads a hand-to-mouth existence, is only ... HELP TO MOVE TO WHERE THEY COULD IMPROVE THEIR LIVES, ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: An interesting view on how green CFLs really are:
    ... provide birth control pills in poor African nations. ... had access to an education, and leads a hand-to-mouth existence, is only ... If you want to question whether any nation has an obligation to support ... other aspects of the lives of the poeple being educated. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: ATTN, MUST READ/Abuse Risk Seen Worse As Families Change
    ... We live in a culture where if you are not gifted ... an education superior to Albert Einstein? ... and the lives of young children? ... a medical problem, I really don't want to talk ...
    (alt.true-crime)
  • Re: The South Shall Rise Again
    ... Perhaps Glen may have a point about Southern Education. ... There is some scholarship to support your view regarding the first 'crime.' ... What needs to be separated from the culture is the view itself. ... The contradiction lies in the fact that the southern mentality, which accounts for the southerners' continual wrapping themselves in the flag and standing on their patriotic soapboxes, is compromised by the fact that these companies are foreign, and thus producing a conflict. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: ids on the clowns broken britain....
    ... Crap education system and lack of opportunity for many. ... complications into their lives and they can't cope. ... We don't have freedom. ... I agree there's a fair bit of socialism in all parties. ...
    (uk.politics.misc)