Search Results: extreme poverty

African WOMAN believe that a woman's greatest strength is for caring for the next person. African women women believe that they keep the family together.

Rrasons for that believe
Africans build their morals on family. And are very close to their Males unlike America and western Europe.
African mothers have a close relationship with their children. Especially Their Sons
Because of the poverty in Africa Africans have formed an interpendace culture. Where groups families friends all depend on ACH other to survive. Without this structure No Hunan will survive the extreme poverty environment.

the role of women in African culture
African women are the backbone of survival on the African continent. They play the role as plbread winners , care givers and child rearers.
African WOMAN VALUES.

Group A- roughly 30-50M people, 60% of whom are male, with an average age over 80, more than 90% of whom have pre-existing medical conditions and illnesses, and who'd otherwise be only expected to keep on living for an average of less than 5 years, regardless of whether you intervene to "save them" through the deliberate human sacrifice of everyone in Group B; but who also own more than 40% of the world's wealth, and include more than half of the world's millionaires, along with a large number of celebrities and politicians...

Group B- at least 1 billion, possibly 2Bn+ people, with an equal gender ratio, and an average age of 7, more than 90% of whom would otherwise have been perfectly fit and healthy, and been expected to keep on living for an average of 70+ years; but who are also overwhelmingly non-white, majority black, mostly living in 2nd and 3rd world countries, and consist of the poorest and most destitute people in the world, possessing less than 0.01% of the world's wealth between them, and with absolutely no celebrities, politicians or media figures included among their number.

If you could only "save" Group A by willfully taking the deliberate decision to kill off Group B- or rather, even with the most extreme measures you can possibly implement, wherein you kill off every single person in Group B, only manage to reduce Group A's already elevated risk of death per annum, over the next 1-2 years, by no more than 5%- what would you choose to do? Try to "Save liveS" by intervening to ever-so-slightly reduce the risk of death for Group A, thereby deliberately condemning everyone in Group B to die from poverty as "Necessary Sacrifices for the Greater Good, solving over-population, over-pollution and helping to Save The Planet"? Or do nothing to try and save Group A, and thereby allow everyone in Group B to survive, thrive, and benefit from the increased distribution of the world's wealth in the aftermath of Group A's slightly speedier demise?