Vaccinations are a wonderful thing and quite cost effective in a modern industrial/technological society. After all who wants the workforce to die off before it actually has a chance to work? However vaccinations in a struggling, debt ridden, drought ridden and overpopulated might not be the wisest choice on spending our money, yet that is what David Cameron is choosing to do.
DAVID Cameron announced that Britain is to donate £814million to vaccinate children against diseases in the developing world today.
More 80 million children are to benefit from the cash over the next five years, in a bid to protect them from diseases such as pneumonia and diarrhoea.
Speaking at the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation conference, Cameron announced that Britain was to play its full part in helping the world’s poorest children.
World leaders, charities, private companies and philanthropists including Microsoft’s Bill Gates all attended the event in a bid to generate the funds to ensure children receive protection against the potentially fatal diseases.
Yes, I know this is going to make me sound as if I’m coming from somewhere to the right of Attilla the Hun, however what is the point of vaccinating children in societies which may be unable to support the additional mouths to feed? Surely if we must spend this cash it would be better to improve the the countries infrastructure to the stage where they can grow enough food and provide enough work for them?
Are we actually just giving these kids a poisoned chalice in which they’ll live longer only to either have to migrate causing pressure elsewhere or die of starvation at a later date? One of the reasons so many Africans have such big families is that the die off rate is fairly high, in this country we overcame that problem by having smaller families, but contraception does not appear to be on the cards for the moment where the vaccinations are going. Same with aid, we can feed a starving nation through our generosity for a while, but what happens when the food./aid/money runs out? We’re simply delaying the inevitable, or so it seems to me.
No-one likes to see kids or people starving, but, are we simply by our choices making starvation an inevitable outcome of making sure more people live?
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish… Trite, but true, perhaps we ought to be looking for the equivalent means to teach these kids to keep themselves fed, rather than simply keeping them alive on charity, because that’s where this program is potentially heading.