Poverty
Follow
Find
14 views | +0 today
 
Rescooped by Nasry Says Hi from Geography Education
onto Poverty
Scoop.it!

One billion slum dwellers

One billion slum dwellers | Poverty | Scoop.it
One billion people worldwide live in slums, a number that will likely double by 2030. The characteristics of slum life vary greatly between geographic regions, but they are generally inhabited by the very poor or socially disadvantaged.

 

There was significant publicity last year when the world population reached 7 billion.  Barely a whisper was heard when the global population of slum dwellers exceeded 1 billion.  When the world's population reached 7 billion, it was used as a moment to reflect on sustainable growth, resources and the common good for humanity.  This 'milestone' of 1 billion slum dwellers needs to also serve as a teaching moment to reflect on urbanization, migration, human development and the underlying causes that have lead to this explosive growth primarily in the developing world. 


Via Seth Dixon
Nasry Says Hi's insight:

So, by 2030, its likely that there will be 2 billion people living in slums.

 

Wonderful.

 

What I find most peculiar is, that no matter how much the first world nations insinuate that they are doing their best to solve the problem, work together to end world hunger, blah blah blah. The fact is, according to a video I recently watched, that no matter how much money in alms are given to those in poverty, the country will almost always include taxes, pay deductions, etcetera, and this amount is more than the amount that they had given to them. So technically, the situation is getting worse.

 

Fantastic.

 

I understand that money is a sensitive matter, but really, if you think about it, the government of poorer countries would be overrun by corruption. All because the richer nations care about making money and put that priority over everything else. And here in the fourth richest nation in the world (as of now), our ministers are getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars monthly to prevent corruption, but we're still rolling in seas of money.So why not help these less privileged countries?

 

I can think of only one reason, and that reason i have mentioned earlier: Corruption. We might be donating to the people of a country, but before that money goes to the people, it would have to go through the government. And there it begins. Say we donate 2 Million Dollars. A lot of money, right? Well, say that Country X has a hundred members of parliament. And to shut everyone up, everyone gets ten thousand dollars. Common sense tells us that they will not get the full amount. Count the authorities the money has to pass through, how many hands the money has exchanged with, the number of pockets that amount of money has filled, and you get only a fraction of what we gave. Considering Country X is a fairly large country, the amount of money will get further divided and the people will only get probably a millionth of what they were supposed to get.

 

Now I have lived in Singapore all my life, and I know I am not in the right position to say this, because i probably will never know how the poorest of the poor survive. But I'm gonna say it anyway.

 

WHY SO MATERIALISTIC???????

 

The money you have is only temporary. Its just a piece of paper. If you have been corrupted, please stop. Because the poorest people in your country are probably farmers. And farmers make food. More money for them,  more incentive for them to work. More work done, more food you get. The more food you get, the less starved you are, the better your country will improve, and eventually, Country X could be a powerful nation.

 

Singapore is a perfect example. Back when it gained independence in 1965, the entire country was practically a slum. But now, less then half a century later, we are now the fourth richest nation in the world.

 

And for the record, I have no idea why I sounded so angry at the beginning.

 

more...
Sean Lim Lin Yuan's comment, January 27, 2014 11:15 PM
Hi wow
Jung Dohun's comment, January 27, 2014 11:43 PM
It is not so easy as you think. There are many countries that does not have land suitable for farming. Also, farming requires water and many countries does not even have water for people to drink. If it was so easy for a country to be wealthy, there might not even be a poor country at all. There must be a good reason behind it and we, for now should not interfere. At most we can do is to donate :)

From around the web

Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Rescooped by Nasry Says Hi from Science News
Scoop.it!

Young children learn about prejudice by instruction, older children by experience

Young children learn about prejudice by instruction, older children by experience | Poverty | Scoop.it
For a six-year-old, one of the most powerful educational tools may be direct instruction, according to new research on how children learn about prejudice.

Via Sakis Koukouvis
Nasry Says Hi's insight:

This really shows how prejudice can spread. Prejudice is often likened to a disease. It spreads easily, infecting many. It ruins lives. It can kill. Take a look at the conflict in Northern Ireland not long ago. Or even the countless lives lost as you read this post right now in Gaza. Parents who grew up as children amidst this conflict will grow a deep-seated hated and resentment for the other party. And they in turn will pass that hatred on to their children, telling them that "Those people are bad people, they will kill you," and the rest of it. then, these children, probably taken in by their parent's words, will learn to hate the other party and in turn pass this on to their future children. On and on and on. The vicious cycle will never end. unless we, as impartial third parties, step in to dissolve the sitaution before it's too late.

more...
Jared Kwang's curator insight, July 29, 2014 2:16 AM

I feel that this is a good example of how prejudice is infecting people  through the youth. it starts with primary school when they start learning about each other, why they are different from each other. when they slowly grow up, they start using actions or talking bad against each other. Children should learn that we are all the same underneath. Beneath all that skin and muscles we are all the same we shouldn't discriminate other for we are al the same.

Sein's curator insight, July 29, 2014 8:10 AM

prejudice can spread among the children with their personal experiences baceause children usually donot have much though and get influence and to be belive  easily.Many times parent pass on prejudice beliefs to their children and some  told  their  good friends and most of the time they belief and follow.It will also pass down to their next generation and will keep going.It is because they soak in the assumption and prejudices around them and take them in by way of vicacious learning without thinking about what they are learning with any critical awarness.Therefore,young children often experiences some of prejudice against them throughout their time in school.However we can prevent prejudice from happening among our younger generation.I feel that firstly adult must set good example or role model for them to follow.By allowing them to explore and discover other people cultures ,beliefs, and the things around them,in order to do this adults need to educate and teach children to understand and respect other people differences and the diversity of nature.

Jasmine Choo's comment, July 29, 2014 8:21 AM
This shows how prejudice can actually be developed in an early age if not taught properly. "external instruction and experiences play distinct roles in how children characterize other groups of people" stating that we have to be good examples, not promoting prejudice in any way, so as to prevent children at a young age from getting a habit in criticizing other people, be it their skin shade or negative things that they hear from others. Parents should do their part by focusing more on teaching kids at an early stage about positive elements of equality and diversity, as "young children's "expectations about experiencing prejudice will be shaped by the beliefs that are communicated to them by adults"" Young children should be taught about different cultures and how everyone is equal despite having different racial or religious groups and that the heart is all that matters and nothing else.
Rescooped by Nasry Says Hi from COOL 3DPRINTING
Scoop.it!

The 3D printer that can build a house in 24 hours

The 3D printer that can build a house in 24 hours | Poverty | Scoop.it

 

The University of Southern California is testing a giant 3D printer that could be used to build a whole house in under 24 hours.

 

Professor Behrokh Khoshnevis has designed the giant robot that replaces construction workers with a nozzle on a gantry, this squirts out concrete and can quickly build a home according to a computer pattern. It is “basically scaling up 3D printing to the scale of building,” says Khoshnevis. The technology, known as Contour Crafting, could revolutionise the construction industry.

 

The affordable home?

 

Contour Crafting could slash the cost of home-owning, making it possible for millions of displaced people to get on the property ladder. It could even be used in disaster relief areas to build emergency and replacement housing.  For example, after an event such as Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines, which has displaced almost 600,000 people, Contour Crafting could be used to build replacement homes quickly.

 

It could be used to create high-quality shelter for people currently living in desperate conditions. “At the dawn of the 21st century [slums] are the condition of shelter for nearly one billion people in our world,” says Khoshnevis, “These buildings are breeding grounds for disease a problem of conventional construction which is slow, labour intensive and inefficient.”

 

 

As Khoshnevis points out, if you look around you pretty much everything is made automatically these days – “your shoes, your clothes, home appliances, your car. The only thing that is still built by hand are these buildings

Via Annie Theunissen
Nasry Says Hi's insight:

They're planning on using 3D printing to duplicate organs and replace parts of the body lost during an accident or even printing limbs for handicaps. 

 

Here in Singapore, where most is usually reasonably priced, there are only two things that stand out as expensive: Homes and Cars.

 

We don't have to bother much about cars;  just take public transport.

 

Homes, on the other hand, are so expensive that its even seen as a luxury to be able to buy one. even as the market prices are falling, It is still very hard to get one at a decent price.

 

Even worse off are the more unfortunate people who are unable to find a home after their home lease has expired, etcetera. So instead of these 3D printers just laying around waiting for use, just have one make a block of flats. It would take just a little while longer,maybe a week or so, but imagine how many people would benefit from just that.

 

Singapore, being the fourth richest nation, there is not much that we cant buy. so why not just get a few of these printers exclusively for this purpose?

 

Who knows, maybe with this new home, the more unfortunate residents can have a decent environment to live, learn and perhaps contribute to making Singapore a better place.

more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by Nasry Says Hi from Geography Education
Scoop.it!

One billion slum dwellers

One billion slum dwellers | Poverty | Scoop.it
One billion people worldwide live in slums, a number that will likely double by 2030. The characteristics of slum life vary greatly between geographic regions, but they are generally inhabited by the very poor or socially disadvantaged.

 

There was significant publicity last year when the world population reached 7 billion.  Barely a whisper was heard when the global population of slum dwellers exceeded 1 billion.  When the world's population reached 7 billion, it was used as a moment to reflect on sustainable growth, resources and the common good for humanity.  This 'milestone' of 1 billion slum dwellers needs to also serve as a teaching moment to reflect on urbanization, migration, human development and the underlying causes that have lead to this explosive growth primarily in the developing world. 


Via Seth Dixon
Nasry Says Hi's insight:

So, by 2030, its likely that there will be 2 billion people living in slums.

 

Wonderful.

 

What I find most peculiar is, that no matter how much the first world nations insinuate that they are doing their best to solve the problem, work together to end world hunger, blah blah blah. The fact is, according to a video I recently watched, that no matter how much money in alms are given to those in poverty, the country will almost always include taxes, pay deductions, etcetera, and this amount is more than the amount that they had given to them. So technically, the situation is getting worse.

 

Fantastic.

 

I understand that money is a sensitive matter, but really, if you think about it, the government of poorer countries would be overrun by corruption. All because the richer nations care about making money and put that priority over everything else. And here in the fourth richest nation in the world (as of now), our ministers are getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars monthly to prevent corruption, but we're still rolling in seas of money.So why not help these less privileged countries?

 

I can think of only one reason, and that reason i have mentioned earlier: Corruption. We might be donating to the people of a country, but before that money goes to the people, it would have to go through the government. And there it begins. Say we donate 2 Million Dollars. A lot of money, right? Well, say that Country X has a hundred members of parliament. And to shut everyone up, everyone gets ten thousand dollars. Common sense tells us that they will not get the full amount. Count the authorities the money has to pass through, how many hands the money has exchanged with, the number of pockets that amount of money has filled, and you get only a fraction of what we gave. Considering Country X is a fairly large country, the amount of money will get further divided and the people will only get probably a millionth of what they were supposed to get.

 

Now I have lived in Singapore all my life, and I know I am not in the right position to say this, because i probably will never know how the poorest of the poor survive. But I'm gonna say it anyway.

 

WHY SO MATERIALISTIC???????

 

The money you have is only temporary. Its just a piece of paper. If you have been corrupted, please stop. Because the poorest people in your country are probably farmers. And farmers make food. More money for them,  more incentive for them to work. More work done, more food you get. The more food you get, the less starved you are, the better your country will improve, and eventually, Country X could be a powerful nation.

 

Singapore is a perfect example. Back when it gained independence in 1965, the entire country was practically a slum. But now, less then half a century later, we are now the fourth richest nation in the world.

 

And for the record, I have no idea why I sounded so angry at the beginning.

 

more...
Sean Lim Lin Yuan's comment, January 27, 2014 11:15 PM
Hi wow
Jung Dohun's comment, January 27, 2014 11:43 PM
It is not so easy as you think. There are many countries that does not have land suitable for farming. Also, farming requires water and many countries does not even have water for people to drink. If it was so easy for a country to be wealthy, there might not even be a poor country at all. There must be a good reason behind it and we, for now should not interfere. At most we can do is to donate :)
Rescooped by Nasry Says Hi from MOVIES VIDEOS & PICS
Scoop.it!

David Attenborough: Stop Feeding Third World Nations to Reduce Population

David Attenborough: Stop Feeding Third World Nations to Reduce Population | Poverty | Scoop.it
Anthony Gucciardi | Celebrated eugenicist Sir David Attenborough calls on nations to stop feeding third world citizens.

Via Troy Mccomas (troy48)
Nasry Says Hi's insight:

No matter how cruel and pernicious the headline may sound, the article actually makes some sense. Don't get me wrong. By not feeding them, true, they would probably succumb to hunger, and most probably, without leaving behind any children. Expecting mothers may also have a miscarriage due to malnutrition, thus eliminating any chance of having kids. Similar to how people are advised not to feed stray cats to prevent them from breeding, this method is not impossible. Per contra, its millions of people we're talking about. We couldn't possibly let the whole lot of them suffer that way. Anyone perfectly sane would agree. Instead, I suggest that the some of the first world nations could set up an organization, one that sends its members to third world countries to help those who can still be helped; not those who suffer from severe malnutrition- They are beyond helping. Similar to how after a while, when anorexics try to eat even small meals, their stomachs would reject the food by making you throw up, these people's stomachs are too used to hunger and starvation that probably even an applewould make them spill their guts out.

 

And this David Attenborough has really messed up perspectives towards life.

 

But, oh well, to each his own.

more...
Li Miaozi Lostsoul's comment, January 28, 2014 10:46 PM
Well having kids would make you even poorer as youll have more mouths to feed. If you cant even live well yourself why bring another life into the world to suffer with you? Setting up an organization is a good idea to help those that suffer from malnutrition. Get the first world nations to donate and give some funds to help those people and get them back into good health. Yea.