Were you also drunk while writing that? Possibly on drugs? Cause those are some of the most incoherent and yet actually somewhat understandable sentences I've read in a long time. The whole post doesn't make much sense though. The best that I could grasp from it is that you hate journalists and bloggers. Also Jews and Chinese.
Damn boy... Didn't your pappy thought you ANYTHING, boy? Jews, Chinese, Commies, Faggots and NIGGERS! How could you forget that?!
Wanna be an Ãoeber-admin - register with your Name, Home Phone number and Address. Possibly a photo of you holding an ID and a card sent by Wikipedia to the address you listed. You know - something you know, something you are, something you have.
Hey... with great power and all that. Naturally, anything but the name would not be available to general public.
You mean like, like what they do to... JOURNALISTS? Or, or, or... BLOGGERS!?
Yeah... It is really terrible to see those weekend beheadings of journalists at town squared and daily burnings of bloggers by the mad masses who disagree with their news stories on every corner. But what can you do?
It's not like there is some sort of a law and order structure out there that would police the laws and do other stuff to protect the people from being lynched by a mad mob.
Turrets which can be knocked over by a stiff breeze ARE NOT adequate protection from actors performing any kind of kinetic attacks. Why use bullets at all then? If the laser is sufficiently destructible, just toss rocks at it. Or fart in its general direction.
On the other hand, why use lasers at all? A thin sheet of paper with "Please don't shoot. Thank you." printed on it in large enough letters should do just as well. AND it is a lot cheaper. AND biodegradable.
Morally, USA is a far greater "evil" than Nazi Germany. Morally, drinking Coca-Cola is an immoral act. Or Lipton tea. Or Pepsi. Using anything made in China is utterly fucking immoral. And don't get me started on driving around/having your stuff driven to you using Saudi oil.
At the same time, it used to be perfectly moral to have yourself a herd of human cattle - not so long ago. You could hunt them, kill them, skin them, cook them, fuck them (not necessarily in that order) - and no one would say that is immoral.
Now, you can only do all that to your human cattle only in certain countries. People in other countries find it immoral. Well... unless you pay your cattle some trivial amount of money, then many of those things suddenly become perfectly moral.
And so are explosives, grenades and various other area-effect "tools" that one could use to disable/destroy that very expensive laser. So not only would the enemy kill you (cheaply), they'd bankrupt you as well.
Also, unless the laser would actually vaporize incoming bullets, the entire thing just turns into a statistical exercise. Cause, as we all know - where there is one bullet, there are more bullet.
'Once we take control of the PLC we can do anything (PDF). Not just open and close doors. We can absolutely destroy the system. We could blow out all the electronics.'
Right there. Your average reader now doesn't visualize a circuit-board somewhere fizzing out and releasing some of that mythical white smoke. He sees **BUM!***BUM!***EXPLOSIONS!!!***BADA-BUM!!*** instead. Followed by rapists and serial killers and cannibals being armed with rocket launchers and AIDS and set loose onto a kindergarten city somewhere. You know... a city made entirely out of kindergartens. And diaper factories.
Too bad Numb3rs was canceled... Or there would now surely be an episode in the making about just such an escape attempt. Fortunately, CSI: Miami is still on the air. We may yet see 2 million convicts across USA blowing up prisons with internet viruses and then rampaging across the land... no... wait...
QUICK! Someone get me Michael Bay and Jerry Bruckheimer - I've got their next blockbuster right here!
...at the box office, this seems like a rather logical way to go if looking for readily exploitable stories and characters. I'd say that there is at least half a century of blockbusters right there.
The second district had parents who cared. They wanted their kids to be successful like they were. The teachers however, were there for a 8 to 4 job, and didn't give a damn if the students learned or not.
And? Where is the rest of the story/comparison with the first district?
Did the kids in the second district get better education/better grades? Or did they win the basketball game with the help of a crazy inventor/a teenage werewolf? You can't just leave us hanging there.
Same goes for Netflix. Who according to Wikipedia "announced they will expand into the European market... by 2012". Just as most of the world didn't use Macs enough for them to have an actual effect on the "death of the floppy", most of the world can't even use Netflix for it to have an actual effect on the "death of the DVD".
You want an actual DVD killer?
For video content that will be flat-rate broadband internet + "free TV and movies" sites + your average consumer catching on to them. For blank media it will be the moment when your average consumer catches on the fact that the retail price of a spindle of DVDs costs more or the same as an external hard drive of the same capacity. For software... When Windows becomes "automagically" installable over the internet, or when it starts being distributed on a USB stick. Or a Blu-ray Disc.
In all those cases, reports of DVDs death have been greatly exaggerated. A decade from now it will probably still be in use - perhaps not as much as CDs are still used for music (there IS a backward compatible alternative physical medium for video/software out there already), but technology has a habit of sticking around. As for recordable DVDs, an average portable 500 GB drive costs around $60+shipping on Amazon, while a 100 disc spindle of Verbatim DVDs costs around $24+shipping. Wait for those prices to start to match.
And even then, it will still be years. I don't use/burn CDs as much as I did 10 years ago, but I still have to keep some blank CDs at home.
No person in the world makes a single influence on society. Or a single kind of influence. "Negative" OR "positive". It is a highly complex chaotic system where one person continuously influences many other persons and objects (which in turn spread their own "influenced" influence further and so on, and so on...) in many different ways. Butterfly flapping its wings can cause a hurricane somewhere else - or a new iPhone to be produced.
A "bad, bad, BAD" person may commit a series of crimes and be killed or jailed for that (or not) - but his/her actions may trigger a change in law enforcement, justice system or locksmithing that would prevent such acts in the future, maybe saving lives in the process. Which may lead to increase in population, causing crime rates to rise etc. Or not.
Only thing that is certain is that the system (society, civilization, humanity...) still keeps working - with continuous mending and upgrades. Remember, slavery used to be all the rage at one time. Or feudalism. Or treating people from another village like beasts.
And yet we got to where we are now. Not an utopia, but not that bad either.
> I wasn't arguing against any points you made. Read again: me:...Especially when it's sufficient to say "I don't believe". you: "I don't believe" is not enough when you actually want to take an active stand...
So, if you were eating an apple and saying that it tastes funny for an apple, tasting and looking more like an orange, and I came along and pointed out that you are actually eating an orange - I'd be arguing against your point? I just pointed out a simple misconception you were working with there.
Arguing would be me claiming that it is NOT enough for ATHEISTS to say "I don't believe". Pointing out that those are not the atheists you are looking for does not argue any of your points.
The strawman: "anti-theism" because of crimes committed in the name of religion (are you "anti-math" because of financial frauds?), the circular reasoning: No god/s exist, therefore worship is "a decision" by early men.
How is explaining ones stand/belief on the subject a strawman? Are you saying that antitheists don't actually favor taking an active stand against religion for all those reasons I mentioned originally? And not just "because of crimes committed in the name of religion" - that would be like being against death penalty because electric chairs use up valuable electricity.
You know... a highly limited and specific example of one aspect of negative effects of a phenomenon that has far greater and wider range of negative effects and influences on society and humanity in general.
Also, THAT what you did there - that is a straw man argument.
the circular reasoning: No god/s exist, therefore worship is "a decision" by early men.
For someone who apparently can't tell a strawman from explanation of a misconception you are quite adept at using them.
If anything, your "definition" should say something like:
There is no PROOF that god(s), by any definition of god(s) that does not also define superheroes, exist. BUT the abundance of various gods in human cultures who could be influenced by prayer/sacrifice indicates instinctive human tendency towards worship in order to secure favors from supernatural beings, while at the same time huge discrepancies and differences among AND WITHIN religions, gods and their associated myths proves that every single one is simply made up by humans. Therefore there are strong indications that worshiping is an instinctive reaction by the more primitive parts of the human logic/mind, as an attempt to answer to uncertainties of existence and life and provide some protection from them - by trying to gamble and haggle with the universe for favorable results. Kinda like five stages of grief - only stopping at "bargaining". Ergo, every religion and every god humans ever worshiped was invented by humans - proof of that is in the fact that every single religious text is riddled with logical and plot holes and falls apart with mere introduction of an inquisitive five-year-old in the equation. That is if you need more proof than the fact that bargaining with the universe does not work - you can't pray away gravity when falling from a roof.
THAT would make sense from an atheist or antitheist point of view. Also, that would no longer be circular logic. Yours is, because it is a strawman.
There is no "deciding" in deity-worship-in-order-to-secure-favors, no more than there is deciding in love. It's an instinctive reaction. Like vomiting when anxious. But, as we are smarter than the average bear, we want to logic-out the world around us. We NEED the world to be logical, with OUR logic, which is favorable to US - so we invent logic that will fill for us all those scary "holes in the world". We take that instinct and make into a tool to control the world around us.
And what better tool for that than an all powerful anthropomorphic being which created and controls everything?
On 1 - unless those individuals live off sunshine and rain (and discarded food and other items) and never EVER pay for anything. They are paying taxes through the cost of items/services they pay for, which have their own taxes and levies included in the price, which is then pushed on to the final consumer. Basically, if you are using the "coin of the realm" you are paying taxes - through the wonder of inflation.
On 3 - First problem with defining contribution to society is that it can't be defined no more than you can define all water everywhere simply by the H2O formula. There is positive contribution, negative contribution, active, passive, voluntary, involuntary and coincidental etc. etc. Then you can go through economic, sociological, biological, physical etc. ways of contribution and influence and "cross-join" that with all those mentioned above.
Only thing that is for certain is that EVERYONE contributes to the society by simply being there. Even just as the sum of all their molecules. Most people contribute WAY more than that. Even when considered as simply "consumers", disregarding all other ways they influence the society.
What I'm saying is that it is not just "better to assume most people contribute to society in some way", it is a MUST. Well... unless you don't mind operating with faulty logic, untruths and misconceptions.
I wasn't arguing against any points you made. If you actually made some. I'm not really sure what you were trying to say, your sentence structure being rather incoherent there.
I was simply informing you that those are not atheists but ANTItheists. Cause the difference is rather huge. I.e. like between agnostics and atheists. Or agnostics and Major ReligionTM on the other side of the scale.
How can I be putting up a strawman argument if I'm not arguing any points you made? Or did you confuse my explanation of antitheist motives with me arguing against some point you made?
I mean, I know that most people come here expecting an argument (or abuse) but some comments ARE just attempts at being informative. I mean, there's even a moderation option recognizing exactly that.
Especially when it's sufficient to say "I don't believe".
Pastafarians, Jedi etc. are ANTI-theists.
"I don't believe" is not enough when you actually want to take an active stand AGAINST the waste of humanity's money, time and other resources, exploiting of the gullible and promotion of hate and alienation and other fun activities organized religions have been into since the first manlike creature decided to worship the first piece of rock that looked interesting to him.
Did you ever have to dig several deep holes, then build wooden structures over them - just so people could shit all over your work? Did you have to do it for free?
Digging holes is hard work. Building wooden outhouses is less hard but it still has costs in tools and resources. Both activities require compensation of some kind. Preferably monetary, with the rock-bottom price being somewhere around what you'd have to pay for about 4000 calories per worker. But you will most likely have to pay a lot more than the rock-bottom price on account of that being hard work. Repeat that every couple of weeks/months depending on the population numbers divided by the number of holes.
And that can add up to be quite a cost for an extremely poor community.
I know it's somewhat cruel and elitist, but I often can't understand the dynamics of these places in Africa... if you have these millions of desperately starving children, WHY do they keep having children?? And, if "we", the outside world, keep providing food don't we realize that we're just creating an unmanageable problem? If you have 10M people that can't feed themselves, so you feel sorry and give them food, you'll just end up with 20M that can't feed themselves on the budget of 10M persons worth of food you provide... thus you must provide even more food...
Humans are not perfectly rational automatons. Well... not counting the psychos. That's regarding your "WHY do they keep having children?" question.
As for "our compassion to save millions of starving people will only serve to create TENS of million of future starving people" - it doesn't work that way. You are working with an assumption that people in those countries are "just like you only poor". Thing is... most of those extremely poor are closer to your ancestors 10000 years ago than to you. Culturally, educationally and most important in this case - regarding health and life expectancy. There are places in Africa where a 40-year-old man is a rarity - most people die long before that.
Only way for ANY humans to survive in such conditions is to start breeding like mad. Propagate the species, follow the instincts of the hunter-gatherer.
By providing food and medicines to those people and raising their standard of living you are not creating "TENS of million of future starving people" - you are providing a window for generations to be raised in conditions good enough so that they can dedicate resources to more than just eating, sleeping and breeding. Instead, they can work on their education and ways of solving their problems so you will not have to provide more help in the future but less or no help at all.
Naturally, that education (and other forms of help) will have to be provided too. You can't expect of them to "come up" with all the civilizational advancements on their own once they are not hungry and sick any more.
Why? Well, besides most humans not being heartless bastards (or perfectly rational automatons) there are also perfectly rational reasons. You need those people, their land, their resources, their workforce. And no. Just killing them off or enslaving them wont work. You need their genetic adaptations to the environment as well (can't kill them unless you want your 1st world ass to live in their 3rd world conditions yourself) and enslaving them does not solve any of the problems that are there already - it only makes them YOUR problems.
Which is... wait for it... to mock religions. ReligionS. As in plural. Not "one sect's beliefs". That would be religious bullying, which is the first cousin (on its mother's side) of religious persecution.
Besides. Every religion out there already has its own methods and channels for that particular activity, on sect by sect basis. Mostly based around claims that everyone else who is NOT a member of their sect is going straight to hell.
Slashdot Mirror
Shouldn't the "invisible hand of the market" have fixed this?
A PROBLEM is there to be solved.
A puzzle is there to confuse and distract.
Sometimes, puzzles are good training for problem solving, more often than not they are simply a time-killing device.
Were you also drunk while writing that? Possibly on drugs?
Cause those are some of the most incoherent and yet actually somewhat understandable sentences I've read in a long time.
The whole post doesn't make much sense though.
The best that I could grasp from it is that you hate journalists and bloggers.
Also Jews and Chinese.
Damn boy... Didn't your pappy thought you ANYTHING, boy?
Jews, Chinese, Commies, Faggots and NIGGERS!
How could you forget that?!
Some days boy... you just really disappoint me.
Wanna be an Ãoeber-admin - register with your Name, Home Phone number and Address.
Possibly a photo of you holding an ID and a card sent by Wikipedia to the address you listed.
You know - something you know, something you are, something you have.
Hey... with great power and all that.
Naturally, anything but the name would not be available to general public.
You mean like, like what they do to... JOURNALISTS? Or, or, or... BLOGGERS!?
Yeah... It is really terrible to see those weekend beheadings of journalists at town squared and daily burnings of bloggers by the mad masses who disagree with their news stories on every corner.
But what can you do?
It's not like there is some sort of a law and order structure out there that would police the laws and do other stuff to protect the people from being lynched by a mad mob.
Particularly since it is such an old idea.
Turrets which can be knocked over by a stiff breeze ARE NOT adequate protection from actors performing any kind of kinetic attacks.
Why use bullets at all then?
If the laser is sufficiently destructible, just toss rocks at it. Or fart in its general direction.
On the other hand, why use lasers at all?
A thin sheet of paper with "Please don't shoot. Thank you." printed on it in large enough letters should do just as well.
AND it is a lot cheaper.
AND biodegradable.
Morally, USA is a far greater "evil" than Nazi Germany.
Morally, drinking Coca-Cola is an immoral act. Or Lipton tea. Or Pepsi.
Using anything made in China is utterly fucking immoral.
And don't get me started on driving around/having your stuff driven to you using Saudi oil.
At the same time, it used to be perfectly moral to have yourself a herd of human cattle - not so long ago.
You could hunt them, kill them, skin them, cook them, fuck them (not necessarily in that order) - and no one would say that is immoral.
Now, you can only do all that to your human cattle only in certain countries. People in other countries find it immoral.
Well... unless you pay your cattle some trivial amount of money, then many of those things suddenly become perfectly moral.
Except fucking them.
THAT'S fucking immoral.
Because bullets are.
And so are explosives, grenades and various other area-effect "tools" that one could use to disable/destroy that very expensive laser.
So not only would the enemy kill you (cheaply), they'd bankrupt you as well.
Also, unless the laser would actually vaporize incoming bullets, the entire thing just turns into a statistical exercise.
Cause, as we all know - where there is one bullet, there are more bullet.
This IS scaremongering.
'Once we take control of the PLC we can do anything (PDF). Not just open and close doors. We can absolutely destroy the system. We could blow out all the electronics.'
Right there.
Your average reader now doesn't visualize a circuit-board somewhere fizzing out and releasing some of that mythical white smoke.
He sees **BUM!***BUM!***EXPLOSIONS!!!***BADA-BUM!!*** instead.
Followed by rapists and serial killers and cannibals being armed with rocket launchers and AIDS and set loose onto a kindergarten city somewhere.
You know... a city made entirely out of kindergartens. And diaper factories.
Too bad Numb3rs was canceled...
Or there would now surely be an episode in the making about just such an escape attempt.
Fortunately, CSI: Miami is still on the air.
We may yet see 2 million convicts across USA blowing up prisons with internet viruses and then rampaging across the land... no... wait...
QUICK! Someone get me Michael Bay and Jerry Bruckheimer - I've got their next blockbuster right here!
...at the box office, this seems like a rather logical way to go if looking for readily exploitable stories and characters.
I'd say that there is at least half a century of blockbusters right there.
Or better yet, they should film this.
The second district had parents who cared. They wanted their kids to be successful like they were. The teachers however, were there for a 8 to 4 job, and didn't give a damn if the students learned or not.
And?
Where is the rest of the story/comparison with the first district?
Did the kids in the second district get better education/better grades?
Or did they win the basketball game with the help of a crazy inventor/a teenage werewolf?
You can't just leave us hanging there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQOu0IAdgaA
Whadsa me-sure in food-baal feelds?
Same goes for Netflix. Who according to Wikipedia "announced they will expand into the European market... by 2012".
Just as most of the world didn't use Macs enough for them to have an actual effect on the "death of the floppy", most of the world can't even use Netflix for it to have an actual effect on the "death of the DVD".
You want an actual DVD killer?
For video content that will be flat-rate broadband internet + "free TV and movies" sites + your average consumer catching on to them.
For blank media it will be the moment when your average consumer catches on the fact that the retail price of a spindle of DVDs costs more or the same as an external hard drive of the same capacity.
For software... When Windows becomes "automagically" installable over the internet, or when it starts being distributed on a USB stick. Or a Blu-ray Disc.
In all those cases, reports of DVDs death have been greatly exaggerated.
A decade from now it will probably still be in use - perhaps not as much as CDs are still used for music (there IS a backward compatible alternative physical medium for video/software out there already), but technology has a habit of sticking around.
As for recordable DVDs, an average portable 500 GB drive costs around $60+shipping on Amazon, while a 100 disc spindle of Verbatim DVDs costs around $24+shipping.
Wait for those prices to start to match.
And even then, it will still be years.
I don't use/burn CDs as much as I did 10 years ago, but I still have to keep some blank CDs at home.
No person in the world makes a single influence on society. Or a single kind of influence. "Negative" OR "positive".
It is a highly complex chaotic system where one person continuously influences many other persons and objects (which in turn spread their own "influenced" influence further and so on, and so on...) in many different ways.
Butterfly flapping its wings can cause a hurricane somewhere else - or a new iPhone to be produced.
A "bad, bad, BAD" person may commit a series of crimes and be killed or jailed for that (or not) - but his/her actions may trigger a change in law enforcement, justice system or locksmithing that would prevent such acts in the future, maybe saving lives in the process.
Which may lead to increase in population, causing crime rates to rise etc. Or not.
Only thing that is certain is that the system (society, civilization, humanity...) still keeps working - with continuous mending and upgrades.
Remember, slavery used to be all the rage at one time. Or feudalism.
Or treating people from another village like beasts.
And yet we got to where we are now. Not an utopia, but not that bad either.
> I wasn't arguing against any points you made. ...Especially when it's sufficient to say "I don't believe".
Read again:
me:
you: "I don't believe" is not enough when you actually want to take an active stand...
So, if you were eating an apple and saying that it tastes funny for an apple, tasting and looking more like an orange, and I came along and pointed out that you are actually eating an orange - I'd be arguing against your point?
I just pointed out a simple misconception you were working with there.
Arguing would be me claiming that it is NOT enough for ATHEISTS to say "I don't believe".
Pointing out that those are not the atheists you are looking for does not argue any of your points.
The strawman: "anti-theism" because of crimes committed in the name of religion (are you "anti-math" because of financial frauds?), the circular reasoning: No god/s exist, therefore worship is "a decision" by early men.
How is explaining ones stand/belief on the subject a strawman?
Are you saying that antitheists don't actually favor taking an active stand against religion for all those reasons I mentioned originally?
And not just "because of crimes committed in the name of religion" - that would be like being against death penalty because electric chairs use up valuable electricity.
You know... a highly limited and specific example of one aspect of negative effects of a phenomenon that has far greater and wider range of negative effects and influences on society and humanity in general.
Also, THAT what you did there - that is a straw man argument.
the circular reasoning: No god/s exist, therefore worship is "a decision" by early men.
For someone who apparently can't tell a strawman from explanation of a misconception you are quite adept at using them.
If anything, your "definition" should say something like:
There is no PROOF that god(s), by any definition of god(s) that does not also define superheroes, exist.
BUT the abundance of various gods in human cultures who could be influenced by prayer/sacrifice indicates instinctive human tendency towards worship in order to secure favors from supernatural beings, while at the same time huge discrepancies and differences among AND WITHIN religions, gods and their associated myths proves that every single one is simply made up by humans.
Therefore there are strong indications that worshiping is an instinctive reaction by the more primitive parts of the human logic/mind, as an attempt to answer to uncertainties of existence and life and provide some protection from them - by trying to gamble and haggle with the universe for favorable results.
Kinda like five stages of grief - only stopping at "bargaining".
Ergo, every religion and every god humans ever worshiped was invented by humans - proof of that is in the fact that every single religious text is riddled with logical and plot holes and falls apart with mere introduction of an inquisitive five-year-old in the equation.
That is if you need more proof than the fact that bargaining with the universe does not work - you can't pray away gravity when falling from a roof.
THAT would make sense from an atheist or antitheist point of view. Also, that would no longer be circular logic.
Yours is, because it is a strawman.
There is no "deciding" in deity-worship-in-order-to-secure-favors, no more than there is deciding in love. It's an instinctive reaction. Like vomiting when anxious.
But, as we are smarter than the average bear, we want to logic-out the world around us.
We NEED the world to be logical, with OUR logic, which is favorable to US - so we invent logic that will fill for us all those scary "holes in the world".
We take that instinct and make into a tool to control the world around us.
And what better tool for that than an all powerful anthropomorphic being which created and controls everything?
On 1 - unless those individuals live off sunshine and rain (and discarded food and other items) and never EVER pay for anything.
They are paying taxes through the cost of items/services they pay for, which have their own taxes and levies included in the price, which is then pushed on to the final consumer.
Basically, if you are using the "coin of the realm" you are paying taxes - through the wonder of inflation.
On 3 - First problem with defining contribution to society is that it can't be defined no more than you can define all water everywhere simply by the H2O formula.
There is positive contribution, negative contribution, active, passive, voluntary, involuntary and coincidental etc. etc.
Then you can go through economic, sociological, biological, physical etc. ways of contribution and influence and "cross-join" that with all those mentioned above.
Only thing that is for certain is that EVERYONE contributes to the society by simply being there. Even just as the sum of all their molecules.
Most people contribute WAY more than that. Even when considered as simply "consumers", disregarding all other ways they influence the society.
What I'm saying is that it is not just "better to assume most people contribute to society in some way", it is a MUST.
Well... unless you don't mind operating with faulty logic, untruths and misconceptions.
will increase battery capacity 1.5 to 3 times
I wasn't arguing against any points you made. If you actually made some.
I'm not really sure what you were trying to say, your sentence structure being rather incoherent there.
I was simply informing you that those are not atheists but ANTItheists.
Cause the difference is rather huge. I.e. like between agnostics and atheists.
Or agnostics and Major ReligionTM on the other side of the scale.
How can I be putting up a strawman argument if I'm not arguing any points you made?
Or did you confuse my explanation of antitheist motives with me arguing against some point you made?
I mean, I know that most people come here expecting an argument (or abuse) but some comments ARE just attempts at being informative.
I mean, there's even a moderation option recognizing exactly that.
Hey, you know the difference between a unicorn and a horse? One has a horn on its head, and the other exists.
Nicely put.
Especially when it's sufficient to say "I don't believe".
Pastafarians, Jedi etc. are ANTI-theists.
"I don't believe" is not enough when you actually want to take an active stand AGAINST the waste of humanity's money, time and other resources, exploiting of the gullible and promotion of hate and alienation and other fun activities organized religions have been into since the first manlike creature decided to worship the first piece of rock that looked interesting to him.
Religions mock themselves well enough without our help.
...Nazis will eventually die from old age well enough, without our help.
Did you ever have to dig several deep holes, then build wooden structures over them - just so people could shit all over your work?
Did you have to do it for free?
Digging holes is hard work. Building wooden outhouses is less hard but it still has costs in tools and resources.
Both activities require compensation of some kind. Preferably monetary, with the rock-bottom price being somewhere around what you'd have to pay for about 4000 calories per worker.
But you will most likely have to pay a lot more than the rock-bottom price on account of that being hard work.
Repeat that every couple of weeks/months depending on the population numbers divided by the number of holes.
And that can add up to be quite a cost for an extremely poor community.
I know it's somewhat cruel and elitist, but I often can't understand the dynamics of these places in Africa... if you have these millions of desperately starving children, WHY do they keep having children?? And, if "we", the outside world, keep providing food don't we realize that we're just creating an unmanageable problem? If you have 10M people that can't feed themselves, so you feel sorry and give them food, you'll just end up with 20M that can't feed themselves on the budget of 10M persons worth of food you provide... thus you must provide even more food...
Humans are not perfectly rational automatons. Well... not counting the psychos.
That's regarding your "WHY do they keep having children?" question.
As for "our compassion to save millions of starving people will only serve to create TENS of million of future starving people" - it doesn't work that way.
You are working with an assumption that people in those countries are "just like you only poor".
Thing is... most of those extremely poor are closer to your ancestors 10000 years ago than to you.
Culturally, educationally and most important in this case - regarding health and life expectancy.
There are places in Africa where a 40-year-old man is a rarity - most people die long before that.
Only way for ANY humans to survive in such conditions is to start breeding like mad. Propagate the species, follow the instincts of the hunter-gatherer.
By providing food and medicines to those people and raising their standard of living you are not creating "TENS of million of future starving people" - you are providing a window for generations to be raised in conditions good enough so that they can dedicate resources to more than just eating, sleeping and breeding.
Instead, they can work on their education and ways of solving their problems so you will not have to provide more help in the future but less or no help at all.
Naturally, that education (and other forms of help) will have to be provided too.
You can't expect of them to "come up" with all the civilizational advancements on their own once they are not hungry and sick any more.
Why?
Well, besides most humans not being heartless bastards (or perfectly rational automatons) there are also perfectly rational reasons.
You need those people, their land, their resources, their workforce.
And no. Just killing them off or enslaving them wont work.
You need their genetic adaptations to the environment as well (can't kill them unless you want your 1st world ass to live in their 3rd world conditions yourself) and enslaving them does not solve any of the problems that are there already - it only makes them YOUR problems.
...mock-religions.
Which is... wait for it... to mock religions. ReligionS. As in plural.
Not "one sect's beliefs". That would be religious bullying, which is the first cousin (on its mother's side) of religious persecution.
Besides. Every religion out there already has its own methods and channels for that particular activity, on sect by sect basis.
Mostly based around claims that everyone else who is NOT a member of their sect is going straight to hell.