Plumpy Nut

[BPA234]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n3386661.shtml


So I watched a report on CNN regarding the above product and its use in Africa. The argument by the doctors treating the starving children was that Plumpy Nut was a no-brainer and was saving lives.

If you read the article above, I think you will agree that Plumpy Nut is making a difference. At the risk of being branded the most evil bastard on this forum, I would argue that Plumpy Nut is going to kill more children than it saves and should not be used without mandatory birth control including sterilization.

Agree/Disagree?

[Nonfiction]

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n3386661.shtml


So I watched a report on CNN regarding the above product and its use in Africa. The argument by the doctors treating the starving children was that Plumpy Nut was a no-brainer and was saving lives.

If you read the article above, I think you will agree that Plumpy Nut is making a difference. At the risk of being branded the most evil bastard on this forum, I would argue that Plumpy Nut is going to kill more children than it saves and should not be used without mandatory birth control including sterilization.
Agree/Disagree?

[/ QUOTE ]

Pretty hard not to agree. Its hard to be like "omg don't save the children," but these mothers are already stupidly having children that they cannot support or feed. Once all their kids grow up and stupidly have their own children, the problem will be the same but simply multiplied.

From the article:

It's hard to imagine a less industrialized country than Niger. On a list of 177 developing countries, the United Nations ranked Niger dead last -- least developed. More than 70 percent of the people don’t know how to read. Most work in the fields and earn less than a dollar a day. Nomadic goat herders still roam this land -- their children and their kids travel by camel. Goats seem to be the main garbage disposal, but clearly the goats are falling behind. You can still spot a skinny guard dog, but we were told all the cats have been cooked.

In the countryside, where 85 percent of people live, girls start marrying as young as 11 years old. By the age of 15 most are wed, and by 16 most have already become mothers. The average woman here will give birth at least eight times in her lifetime. But largely because of malnutrition, one in five of their children will die before they reach the age of five. Of those who survive, half will have stunted growth and never reach full adult height.

I mean, why is money going to help increase the population of a society that already cannot support itself? More children living = more children in the future who face malnutrition and death

[Copernicus]

C'mon guys, surely you can think more deeply than this? Do you really think that if more of the children survive that birth rates won't go down?

Who knows where the balance is, but to simply assume that more survivals = more future deaths is nonsense.

[BPA234]

"C'mon guys, surely you can think more deeply than this? Do you really think that if more of the children survive that birth rates won't go down?"

I need to ask you to explain this more.

"Who knows where the balance is, but to simply assume that more survivals = more future deaths is nonsense. "

I don't see how the math is questionable. The system is in place and there is historical data that supports my assertion. But, please prove me wrong. I would love to be wrong on this.

[Jamougha]

Since there's no way you can predict the future consequences of these actions accurately the ethical imperative is clearly to save lives now.

[BPA234]

[ QUOTE ]
Since there's no way you can predict the future consequences of these actions accurately the ethical imperative is clearly to save lives now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Saving lives now, without making any other changes, just builds a bigger machine.

[Jeff W]

[ QUOTE ]
C'mon guys, surely you can think more deeply than this? Do you really think that if more of the children survive that birth rates won't go down?

[/ QUOTE ]

It will much more likely go up, since we are increasing the optimal number of children per parent(from a genetic perspective).

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
C'mon guys, surely you can think more deeply than this? Do you really think that if more of the children survive that birth rates won't go down?

[/ QUOTE ]

It will much more likely go up, since we are increasing the optimal number of children per parent(from a genetic perspective).

[/ QUOTE ]
This makes no sense at all.

[Jeff W]

Think in terms of birds.

Why would a bird restrict the number of children it rears?

Limited resources.

The bird's (more specifically the bird's genes) "want" to create as many copies of themselves as possible. If they create too many copies(too many offspring), then they will waste resources trying to raise children that will die that would have increased the survival chances of their other children.

Their is an optimal number of children that a bird can raise given its resources. If you then gave birds extra resources (like food), then over generations birds would start raising more children because it increases the number of genes they pass down.

[tame_deuces]

Since in very poor countries, one of the incentives to have many children is to ensure some of them lives to be your pension plan, lowering birth death rates is probably not that horrible if you give it some time to work. Obviously you'd have to work on spreading contraceptives, sex ed, general education and some form of functionable society also since you'd introduce much lower child death rates at a rather accelerated rate, so you will have to accelerate these others things also.

Taking some singular piece of work out of loose air and saying 'it will do this' is all nice and dandy, but it's better to say 'if we do this we will have to do that also'; problemsolving > letting it ride - and nice and clean solutions were we don't sterilize people is nice to avoid also.