babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » international news and politics   » Forgotten urban poor a living time bomb: UN

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Forgotten urban poor a living time bomb: UN
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 16 June 2006 12:23 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
he world will pass a critical point in 2007 when the majority of its 6 billion people will be urbanised, the world body said.

One-third of them will be slum dwellers, many trapped in poverty but overlooked by governments and with no prospects of improvement.


http://www.metronews.ca/reuters_international.asp?id=155708


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684

posted 16 June 2006 12:48 PM      Profile for 500_Apples   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
In the Star Wars expanded universe; in the undergrounds of Corsucant which was a fully industrialized planet of I think 40 billion people covered in many metals of metal and which nobody knew where the original surface level was, the underground was populated by zombies and ghouls and communities; those who had been lost over the countless generations as countless galactic governments centered on Coruscant had been etablished, from way before the Old Republic.
From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 16 June 2006 01:03 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yeah, yeah, and here on earth, in the contracted universe, on the deforested clay of 6 billion real people, fantasy provides an excellent escape for those who can afford the action figures produced by the fingers of those who can barely afford clean water.
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684

posted 16 June 2006 01:19 PM      Profile for 500_Apples   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
FM, you seem to have missed the point. Lietrature, fantasy and stories often present ideas and visions of a potential alternate universe or future. In this case, I was highliting at a type of long-term nightmare scenario which I think could happen. A future of a permanent underclass completely separatred from those who live "aboveland". At least these days there is some fluidity to the class structure, however viscous it may be.
From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 16 June 2006 01:34 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Globalism is a lie, and capitalism is a colossal failure.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
obscurantist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8238

posted 16 June 2006 02:34 PM      Profile for obscurantist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The question is, what are we going to do about it? What are we aleady doing, and what else can be done?

As the article notes, the third meeting of the World Urban Forum is being held in Vancouver next week. I've posted links to a few articles about it in a thread in the environmental issues forum (link). Like all such conferences, there's probably no small amount of self-congratulatory back-patting involved. But you can judge for yourselves whether there's anything worthwhile to this exercise.


From: an unweeded garden | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 16 June 2006 03:39 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by 500_Apples:
FM, you seem to have missed the point. Lietrature, fantasy and stories often present ideas and visions of a potential alternate universe or future. In this case, I was highliting at a type of long-term nightmare scenario which I think could happen. A future of a permanent underclass completely separatred from those who live "aboveland". At least these days there is some fluidity to the class structure, however viscous it may be.

My apologies. The reality just pisses me off as it occurs to me all the misery in the world is directly related to the accumulation of wealth at the expense of everyone else and the expenditure on the weapons of mass murder to keep it all without the undue burden of sharing with others what we took from them.

From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Jerry West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1545

posted 16 June 2006 05:40 PM      Profile for Jerry West   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:

FM:
The reality just pisses me off as it occurs to me all the misery in the world is directly related to the accumulation of wealth at the expense of everyone else and the expenditure on the weapons of mass murder to keep it all without the undue burden of sharing with others what we took from them.

Grossly unequal distribution of wealth and the expense of maintaining it is only one facet of the problem.

Overpopulation is the other. World population needs to be reduced to the point that when shared equally there is more than enough resources to go around without degrading the environment. This would include repairing our forests and watersheds to previous states and replenishing aquatic life to bring the oceans back up to the numbers of fish and other organisms that were there prior to the advent of the industrial era.

There was an article some time ago (I no longer have the link handy) that said that the world needed to reduce the human population by 90%. That is no doubt a debatable figure, but serious reduction is required, and barring a catastrophic event or war will have to be through reducing the birth rate to way below replacement for a period of time, then having a birth control policy to maintain the population at a sustainable level.

Both domestic and foreign policy should include features that mandate population control.


From: Gold River, BC | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 16 June 2006 06:16 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes, and the poorest nations in the world tend to have the highest birth rates as well as highest infant mortality. In order for those countries to bring pyramidal population growth under control, they need to do just about everything the IMF is telling them not to do, and that means investing in education, health care, birthing clinics and domestic agricultural policies that protect them from direct competition with the west where agriculture is heavily subsidized. The Asian Tiger economies and China did this after WWII, and poor families were able to devote more resources to the few children they were having in order to feed and educate them for a future outside of the rice paddies. The third world needs socialism.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 16 June 2006 06:22 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I do not dispute that the world is overpopulated. But today, we have enough resources to provide food, water, and the neccessities of life to every single living person.

On the this site, we hear "Darfur, Darfur, Darfur" when the crisis in Darfur is directly related to global warming, a disease of the earth brought about by the minority living in the richest nations, and meanwhile, the most horrible, and unimaginable crimes against humanity and war crimes are bing committed in the Congo in a war that has seen 4 million people die with rape used as a weapon of torture for chocolate, diamonds, and cell phones.

Think about that. For Western candy, throw away phones, and the conspicuous display of wealth, a conflict on the scale of WWII, with all the horror, is being waged.

And almost all of us are completely oblivious to it.


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 16 June 2006 06:27 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Africa is still suffering from colonialism. Patrice Lumumba was their best chance for a united Africa.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jerry West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1545

posted 16 June 2006 07:44 PM      Profile for Jerry West   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:

FM:
I do not dispute that the world is overpopulated. But today, we have enough resources to provide food, water, and the neccessities of life to every single living person.

It is not sustainable. The cost of providing those items is depleting the resource base at a rate faster than it can be replenished. Just count the fish in the ocean today as opposed to 50 years ago. Salmon returns alone are a shadow of what they used to be, and where are the Atlantic cod? And this is only the tip of the iceberg.

I read an article last month (sorry, no link handy at the moment) which claimed that the demand for grain was exceeding the supply, and one reason that there was an increasing demand was the because of the loss of food resources in the oceans forcing maritime cultures to depend more on grain.

The fact that we can grow more to meet increasing needs does not address the problem of what it costs the ecosystem to grow more, nor does it address the fact that increasing the food supply may further increase the population which leads to and endless cycle, etc.

The resources on the planet are finite and a healthy planet requires biodiversity and an ecological balance that delivers sustainability for all elements. We don't have that now and are consuming our environmental capital along with the declining interest.

The fact that we might be able to feed everybody now for a short time is irrelevant if not counter productive to our long term health unless that feeding is combined with comprehensive and effective birth rate reduction.

Sorry if I sound a bit adamant here, I've been dealing with this for over 30 years and each year has gotten worse rather than better partly because of the "we can feed everybody" line of thinking that refused to entertain the reality that there are too many people.


From: Gold River, BC | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 16 June 2006 10:37 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
It is not sustainable. The cost of providing those items is depleting the resource base at a rate faster than it can be replenished. Just count the fish in the ocean today as opposed to 50 years ago. Salmon returns alone are a shadow of what they used to be, and where are the Atlantic cod? And this is only the tip of the iceberg.

I disagree. First, to be certain, I agree it is not sustainable. However, we can feed everyone right now.

The oceans are not empty because of population. The oceans are empty because of over harvesting for economies of scale and maximizing profit. In other words, the capitalist consumer system, manages the profit and not the resource. It is not because people have forgotten how to farm that they are leaving the land but because they no longer own their land as food is moved from sustenance production to profit production by global corporations.

Salmon is being lost due to a combination of, again, managing the profit and not the resource and habitat destruction. Not because of people.

The same is true of water, air, and other resources. We can feed the world but it would get in the way of maximizing the bottom line.

And what is the alternative? Starving people? That is no alternative! It is the status quo.


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Jerry West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1545

posted 17 June 2006 12:12 PM      Profile for Jerry West   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:

FM:
I disagree. First, to be certain, I agree it is not sustainable. However, we can feed everyone right now.

The oceans are not empty because of population. The oceans are empty because of over harvesting for economies of scale and maximizing profit.


It is not sustainable but it is?

The fact that we can feed everyone right now is not as important as the fact that if we do not focus on population control as the most important factor that in the future we will not be able to feed everyone even if we had the will to do it. There are a number of keys to solving this problem, the first one is reduce demand.

And, the oceans are empty because of both population and the method of exploitation. If populations were far less there would not be as much demand for the products and over harvesting would be pointless since it would cost more than it returned.

We need to tackle both the population problem and the problem of our social and economic structures. The command to be fruitful and multiply is a death warrant.


From: Gold River, BC | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 17 June 2006 12:36 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
And, the oceans are empty because of both population and the method of exploitation. If populations were far less there would not be as much demand for the products and over harvesting would be pointless since it would cost more than it returned.

I'm sorry but you are incorrect. While western stores are stocked with cheap tuna, millions suffer from malnutrition. While westerners cart skids of bottled water out to their cars as I type this, 5,000 children will die today, and every day, from a lack of clean water.

The problem isn't the hungry, it is the capitalist consumer system that deprives most of the world's population for the benefit of the few. I know you heard this before, but let me repeat it: 20 per cent of the world's population consumes 80 per cent of the world's resources. Where does that excess 60 per cent come from? Who is being deprived of it?

quote:
It is not sustainable but it is?

I didn't say that. What I said is that today we could feed the world and I agreed that population must fall. I disagree that the method of controlling global population growth is to let people starve.

Today, we are directing productive land to produce corn to produce ethanol so that we, not the rest of the world but we, can maintain our wasteful and resource intensive suburban and commuter lifestyles. The forests of Malaysia are being destroyed to provide bio-diesel for the British, and the latest threat to the Brazilian rainforests (and the indigenous populations who have been self-sufficient but who will soon be filling in slums) is clearing to grow soy meal also a source of bio-desiel.

It is not the world's poor denied condoms by the high preists of the vatican and Washington who are responsible for consuming the planets resources to the extent that the oceans are empty, the soils are depeleted and toxic, water has become a commodity, and the air kills.

We did that and we continue to do that and we are a sustainable minority of under 2 billion. And we are doing it because we have built a system based upon the infinite and voracious comsumption of the world's finite resources. And now we can't even turn it off.


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Jerry West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1545

posted 17 June 2006 01:11 PM      Profile for Jerry West   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:

FM:
The problem isn't the hungry, it is the capitalist consumer system that deprives most of the world's population for the benefit of the few. I know you heard this before, but let me repeat it: 20 per cent of the world's population consumes 80 per cent of the world's resources. Where does that excess 60 per cent come from? Who is being deprived of it?

You are assuming that the the excess 60 percent is enough to raise the levels of the 80 percent adequately. What if equal distribution is not enough to support all of the 100%?

You can't make this case on this kind of a numbers game. You have to make it by showing the number of calories and other necessities available and the number required per person to meet basic needs and the long term effect of extracting those resources at the level required to meet the needs.

Having said that I will agree that the problem isn't just the hungry (of course I have indicated that before) it is both numbers and the system as well as the social structure that believes reproduction is an unlimited right if not a mandate.

quote:

What I said is that today we could feed the world and I agreed that population must fall. I disagree that the method of controlling global population growth is to let people starve.

Yes, and we agree on that. My point has been that we can not let the fact that we may be able to momentarily feed everyone distract us from the fact that the long term solution is a reduced population. Feeding everyone now must go hand in hand with limiting reproduction as part of the package.

War and catastrophic plagues work too, and that may be how it goes if we don't seriously deal with it first. Last night on the news there was an item that said that bubonic plague carrying fleas had migrated to cats and that we might expect a new epidemic spread by house pets.

quote:

Today, we are directing productive land to....

Of course, couldn't have said it better myself.


From: Gold River, BC | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
obscurantist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8238

posted 20 June 2006 11:43 AM      Profile for obscurantist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
World Urban Forum: back-slapping, head-scratching, chin-wagging ... but even the most affluent countries are neglecting the problem of urban poverty
quote:
We were all late for the opening ceremony of the World Urban Forum this morning. Thousands of us, in pinstripes, chadors, tie-dies and bureaucrat-grade Dockers, all lined up on the promenade at Canada Place while event security checked our bags for machetes. Stephen Harper was in the building.

We gawked at Vancouver's signature views like Inside Passage cruisers and we talked, of course, about the host city. A Swiss urban planner named Ewa turned to me and asked me why half the streets in Vancouver had no names. "All your big streets have names," she said, " but the ones in between have none."

"Those are alleys," I told her.

"OK. Alley streets," she said. "Well why do they not have names? And why are they so filthy? It's so strange that you would leave garbage on half your streets."

She was gone before I had a chance to explain that alleys were for service, for dumpsters and trucks and graffiti. Not for living. Then it struck me: we in Vancouver have become so accustomed to congratulating ourselves on what a fabulous town we've built that we've forgotten to imagine that there are other ways to see things; other ways to see our own city, and perhaps other ways to imagine making it better.

Indeed, why should alleys not be considered streets? ...

Much pre-forum buzz has focused on what Vancouver, with its dense, livable downtown, can teach the world's cities. I learned on the forum's first day that we may learn a heck of a lot more from these fresh eyes.

Of course, to do that requires one first to wade through a slurry of self-congratulation. ...

Vancouver has never experienced the scale of wrenching poverty, homelessness and violence faced by the members of Slum Dwellers International who bring their stories this week. We are awash with cash to deal with our problems. And yet we still have problems housing people. ...

In one networking meeting (of the more than 160 to be held this week), delegates from Africa discussed their frustrations that, despite the ongoing tide of urbanization, and the painful knowledge that slums are growing faster than cities, federal governments around the world are doing next to nothing to deal specifically with urban poverty.

It was hard not to immediately think locally. Despite a brief photo-op and chinwag at the opening ceremony of the forum, Canada's own prime minister has yet to announce a significant investment to deal with urban poverty here at home. Then again, his predecessor was the guy who cut federal funding for such projects in the first place. The city of Vancouver has acquired dozens of parcels of land for social housing. Some of that land has been waiting more than a decade for provincial and federal dollars to make such housing happen.

With Vancouver now boasting the least affordable housing in Canada, I'll be looking for inspiration from the debate set for Thursday, where some Members of Slum Dwellers International will argue that the poor can no longer afford to wait for action from higher levels of government. ...



From: an unweeded garden | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684

posted 20 June 2006 11:59 AM      Profile for 500_Apples   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Re: overpopulation,

I don't think that's a realistic proposition with respect to human nature; the drive to reproduction is probably our most fundamental, I think food rationing would be a lot easier than restricting births. China is doing so and they are dealing with issues like skewed gender ratios which will probably lead them to skyrocketing crime and militarism; and 1-2-4 households are not economically sustainable. And of course personally, I'd like to have 3-4 kids one day.

I think a lot of these issues can be taken care of over the long-term with better farming, specifically greenhouse farming, cleaner energy sources and a move towards the vegetarian side of the spectrum in terms of dietary consumption. There would be no decline in grain stocks if there were fewer cows, pigs and chicken to feed and if more of their land was available.


From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Jerry West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1545

posted 20 June 2006 03:29 PM      Profile for Jerry West   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:

500_Apples:
I don't think that's a realistic proposition with respect to human nature;....

There will be population control and reduction, the only question is do we take charge and plan it humanely or do we let nature take its course.

The amount of resources on the planet are finite, sooner or later we expand beyond its ability to sustain us. We have already expanded to the point that the environment is far less hospitable than it was 50 years ago. Granted our system of expoliting resources and greed are a part of this, but population numbers contribute too. Population increases contribute to expanding exploitation and abuse.

We should have a population density of a size that no matter what damage we do the environment it can absorb it quickly and repair it.


From: Gold River, BC | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
obscurantist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8238

posted 20 June 2006 03:45 PM      Profile for obscurantist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
At least at the level of cities, the consensus among scholars and administrators is that greater population density within a particular area is conducive to more efficient use of resources. Certainly it's not the only factor (and like anything, densification can be counterproductive if it happens in a poorly planned or unplanned fashion), but it's a significant factor.

The more people you have living closer to their places of employment, to their food supply, and to other amenities, the less the pressure on arable land to be developed for housing or other amenities, and the less the cost and environmental effects of travel between destinations. That's one reason that reducing or stabilizing population density doesn't make sense to me as a means of reducing pollution or preserving scarce resources.

In the decades after the Second World War, North American planners and futurists visualized nice, tidy, beautiful cities that would be spread out over large green belts, less susceptible to nuclear attack, and less vulnerable to the horrible blight of all the terrible things associated with inner-city living, like poverty and crime and economic stagnation. Well, we got the beautiful spread-out cities -- that's what we call "sprawl" now -- and they exacerbated the decline of those cities' urban cores.

The main point for me is that the rest of the world can learn from North America primarily in terms of what NOT to do, while we have a lot to learn (both positive and negative) from how more populous parts of the world have managed much higher population density.

[ 20 June 2006: Message edited by: Yossarian ]


From: an unweeded garden | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Jerry West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1545

posted 20 June 2006 08:11 PM      Profile for Jerry West   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:

Yossarian:
At least at the level of cities, the consensus among scholars and administrators is that greater population density within a particular area is conducive to more efficient use of resources.

This is true, but more efficient use of not enough resources to sustain the system is still too much demand on the system.

quote:

....densification can be counterproductive if it happens in a poorly planned or unplanned fashion....

Waste management and pollution can be a big problem, along with disease transmission.

quote:

That's one reason that reducing or stabilizing population density doesn't make sense to me as a means of reducing pollution or preserving scarce resources.

It is simple math, fewer people, less demand, more resources per capita and less overall pollution, all other things being equal.

Improving practices and technologies that lead to more efficient use of resources and reduce pollution are good things in themselves, but a trap if used to justify increasing the population. Sooner or later increasing the population hits a critical point and something gives.

Ecosystems can only carry so much before they break down.

quote:

The main point for me is that the rest of the world can learn from North America primarily in terms of what NOT to do, while we have a lot to learn (both positive and negative) from how more populous parts of the world have managed much higher population density.

I agree, and from first hand experience since I have lived in both types of environment. However, improving our ability to manage higher densities does not mean that we should continue to increase them.


From: Gold River, BC | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jerry West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1545

posted 20 June 2006 08:58 PM      Profile for Jerry West   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This may be of interest to some here:

quote:

BC leads Northwest in longevity, low car-crash fatalities, curbing sprawl

Scorecard spotlights BC’s healthy community design; lower marks for economic security

British Columbians live an average of two years longer than residents of the Pacific Northwest states of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, and one key factor may be its record of containing sprawl. That’s according to Cascadia Scorecard 2006: Focus on Sprawl and Health, an annual progress report on the Pacific Northwest released today by Sightline Institute (formerly Northwest Environment Watch).

The Scorecard reports that residents of low-density, residential-only sprawling communities are more likely to die in car collisions and are more likely to be obese, which increases the risk of many chronic diseases. British Columbia—which has the region’s most-compact, walkable cities—has about half the obesity rate of the Northwest states and a one-third lower fatality rate from car crashes. ....


More details can be found here:

Scorecard 2006


From: Gold River, BC | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
obscurantist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8238

posted 21 June 2006 12:51 PM      Profile for obscurantist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Vancouver Sun
quote:
...Jockin Arputham challenged delegates to join the slum-dwellers movement that is saving its own members.

"We will no more be taking it lying down. You are trying to design our lives. We are not going to quietly sit and say, 'Look at us and try to decide the way we should be living,' " said Arputham, a tiny man who has received awards for 30 years of work in his own slum neighbourhood and others to improve services, education and housing.

"That is why we decided we will no more take the help of these kind of lip-service people."

Arputham and slum- and shack-dweller groups around the world have opted to come up with their own collective solutions to poverty. Their projects have ranged from group savings accounts to house construction to public-toilet maintenance.

With the help of some supportive international-aid organizations, they have also made efforts to form networks and even do exchange visits to learn from each other -- something poverty groups do only rarely.

So far, groups in different countries have built 520,000 houses.

Arputham urged governments and non-profit groups to get behind what slum dwellers are doing instead of just having conferences, which he said appear to be designed mainly to keep the poverty-conference industry going.

"What are all these words? Two hundred conferences, 600 documents, 700 seminars," he mocked, provoking laughter among the 2,000-some people in the ballroom at the Vancouver Convention & Exhibition Centre. "While you are doing this, our people are poorer and multiplying a hundredfold."

Arputham praised South Africa and its housing minister, Lindiwe Sisulu, for being one of the rare countries to put its money to work for people, instead of just having more conferences to talk.

Sisulu, who was also a speaker at the plenary session, pledged the equivalent of $30 million Cdn to South African slum dweller and housing organizations last month in order to produce housing built by slum dwellers themselves.

Others should do the same, Arputham said.

"We request our friends throughout the world, especially the First World, to stop crying. You have to join us. You will be left out high and dry unless you join us. We are going to change the world."

In an interview after the plenary, Arputham was critical of the governments and international organizations that promote private land and home ownership as the way to solve slum-housing problems. He said people need collective solutions to survive.



From: an unweeded garden | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca