Competiton #4
06 February 2026Competition | Activity for everyone
One decision, many consequences
Welcome to this week’s competition. Every Monday at 10am UTC, a new competition opens and the winners are announced on Friday at 2pm UTC. If you win, you’ll earn three stars and your entry will be pinned to the top of the discussion.
This week, you’ve been learning how decisions about international aid can solve problems and have unexpected consequences.
To enter the competition
- Choose one decision about international aid.
- Explain possible unintended consequences of that decision.
- Try to include a positive and a negative consequence.
Your decisions come from: the lesson, a voices video, a real news story or a discussion on the Hub.
Here are some example decisions:
- Sending emergency food aid after a flood
- Closing USAID
- Reducing foreign aid to spend more on defence
You may want to start like this:
I think the decision to [chosen decision] could have many unintended consequences. A positive consequence might be [explain the effects]. A negative consequence might be [explain the effects].
Comments (72)
Hi Topical Talkers!!!
I think the decision to build schools funded by wealthy countries in developing countries can have several unintended consequences. In my opinion, this decision has positive aspects, but also some problems.
One positive consequence is that more children can attend school and learn. Education can help them obtain better jobs in the future and improve their families' quality of life. Also, education can help reduce poverty over time.
However, a negative consequence is that these schools are sometimes not adapted to the local culture or needs. For example, they may use teaching methods that don't work well there or rely too heavily on foreign teachers, making it difficult to maintain the schools once the funding ends.
Personally, I think this decision can be helpful, but only if it's planned carefully and adapted to the needs of the local population.
We should always remember that real change comes when education is sustainable and truly benefits the people who need it most.
I agree because umm like lots of people around the world can have difference consequences but in my opinion,i think that some people can learn and actually listen during school even online learning can impact on your learning at school.however,lots of people can miss behave and it can also impact on there parents life an work even yourself.
I agree because umm like lots of people around the world can have difference consequences but in my opinion,i think that some people can learn and actually listen during school even online learning can impact on your learning at school.however,lots of people can miss behave and it can also impact on there parents life an work even yourself.
I live in Vancouver. Canada is sending more money to help Pacific islands with rising sea levels. Okay, good, people need it. But at the same time I look around here and see stuff falling apart. Housing is insane, streets have people struggling. Feels weird helping people so far away when stuff here is a mess. Aid is important. But sometimes I wonder if anyone notices what’s happening right here.
I agree because some times you need to help your self before you help others as much as that sounds selfish you just put your self in worse position then the pacific islands.
I believe that cutting foreign aid in order to spend more money on national defence could have several unintended effects. One possible positive consequence is that the government may become more focused on protecting its own borders and citizens, which could improve national security. Increased defence spending could also create more jobs in the defence sector and encourage new technological developments. Some of these innovations might later be useful in other areas, such as communication systems or disaster-response equipment.
However, there could also be serious negative consequences. Many countries depend on foreign aid to provide basic needs such as food, healthcare, and education. If this support is suddenly reduced, vulnerable communities may suffer from shortages of medicine, limited access to schooling, or even hunger. Over time, these problems could lead to greater instability in those regions.
This instability might then cause wider issues, such as increased migration or conflicts within and between countries. In some cases, extreme groups could take advantage of these difficult conditions, which may end up threatening global security. As a result, a decision that seems to improve one country’s safety in the short term could create new risks that affect the wider world, including the country that made the decision in the first place.
People living in Gaza should be allowed to travel in and out of the country to seek medical help,food and other essential needs. Sadly,the Israel army are preventing other countries from bringing support into Gaza. Traggicly, the people that want to help;aid workers or people from charities are putting their lives at risk. Unfortunatly, Ships that try to help Gaza have been sent back with the aid they tried to bring, as the army are forcing them to head back to where they came from.
Looking at a more positive view,people in Egypt and Turkey have been trying to help by doing their hardest to send support like food ,tents and medical things. People who live in Gaza have been trying to make some things to help out thier familes like tents from scratch but they still live in a terrifying war zone.Gaza is lacking a lot of things and children have lives have been cut short.But there is still the happiness of people trying to help;which spreads hope for the people of Gaza.
By Imagonative_effort :)
I think the decision to invest in a large-scale vaccination programs in developing countries could have many unintended consequences. A positive consequence might be the local workforce and economy improving because when children and adults are healthy because they do not get sick from diseases, children can stay in school and have more energy to focus and learn on their studies while adults can work harder and more consistently. This makes the economy grow because the workforce increases and in the future children can contribute more to society due to their improved education and gain access to high-paying jobs because of their studies.
However, a negative consequence might be that resources are burned more quickly. If the large-scale vaccination programs succeed that means the population will grow faster due to fewer people dying young. This sudden spike of growth causes a high demand for everything. If the country isn't ready for this growth, then it will use up their water, food, wood, and other resources much faster before the enviroment can replace them.
Decreasing foreign aid to spend more on national defence may seem like a smart way to protect the nation, but sometimes it produces very unintended effects.
On the plus side, stronger funding for defence has often enhanced security, improved disaster response and technological innovation. Military research has often led to advances, such as satellite communication and emergency rescue systems, which later benefit civilians.
But cutting foreign aid is one of those things that can quietly undermine global stability. Many countries rely on the aid for things like vaccination programs, clean water and education. When that aid disappears, communities can experience increasing poverty and health crises that may compel people into desperate situations just to survive.
Such struggles are rarely contained within themselves. Unrest can lead to migration, economic pressure, and conflict. These may ultimately contribute to new security challenges appearing globally someday.
In the long term, cutting aid would help strengthen defences but would probably permit even bigger threats to develop outside those borders.
True security isn't just a product of strength. In fact, helping other nations achieve stability may be one of the strongest things you can do for your own future.
I think that the decision to send emergency food aid in the wake of a flood may have many unintended consequences. One consequence could be saving lives immediately and averting hunger and diseases in the process. When people receive food immediately, they can recover from the disaster within a short time, and children can continue growing and developing well. With the food, people will not feel ignored by the rest of the world, and they will feel supported by the international community.
However, a negative consequence of this might be an increase in long-term reliance on aid. In addition, if there is too much reliance on food aid, farmers and businesses in the affected area might suffer. This is because, with the free food, people may stop buying foodstuffs, and this will negatively affect the economy of the area. In some cases, there might also be a negative consequence of aid abuse, which means some people might take more aid than they actually need.
Therefore, it is important, even if only emergency food aid is available, to optimize the management of such food.
This move will have many ripple effects, both good and bad, that we can't see now. On the good side, this move might encourage our government to pay more attention to protecting our own land, which might lead to a better national security system. This could lead to more jobs and innovative ideas in the field of surveillance, communication, and emergency technology, which could later benefit us, civilians as well.
On the negative side, not donating to other countries might seriously affect the countries that depend on our donations for their basic needs. This could lead to a worse poverty problem and affect their systems, hindering the growth and development of a country in the long run.
What happens in one country doesn't stay in one country. People might have to move to find safety and a stable life. In a worst-case scenario, this could lead to an opportunity for criminals and terrorists to take over, increasing the chances of conflicts around the world. Ironically, this could lead to a problem in global security and might come back to bite the country that made these decisions.
Hi!
I the decision to lower the voting age could have many unintended consequences . A positive consequence might be more voter to help your party . A negative consequence might be taking them out of their education and putting it towards politics .
Here are some more positive consequences :They could already understand politics , 18 year olds haven't learnt about politics yet and neither have 16 year olds. So sorry but i need to go , I mostly disagree . Thank you!
I do believe that such a decision of providing food relief could have quite a number of unintended effects. On the positive side, it could ensure survival for the victims in the midst of bad weather, especially for families who have lost their houses, agricultural products, and jobs due to the floods. The provision of food relief could ensure that the victims do not starve, and may even prevent the spread of diseases that may occur, hence keeping them calm and organized in the middle of the disaster.
One of the disadvantages which may result from this is that when food is donated for a longer time, then some people get dependent on it. Farmers and businesses dealing with food in the area may also be negatively affected as they may not sell their food because some people will prefer eating the free food.
In my personal view, it may be necessary to provide emergency food aid in the short term, but it should be gradually reduced and supplemented with local business and farming aid in order for the local community to take responsibility for itself again.
I believe that the decision to send emergency food aid after drought could have many unintended consequences.One possible positive consequences is that it will help the country suffering from famine with relief food which will then organize the supply of food to the affected areas within the country.
However a negative effect is that there will be corruption in the country because corrupt country officials will politicize the food and ending it up using in their political endeavours, making it difficult to reach the affected areas.
International countries should be very kin and sure that the food aid should reach the affected areas.
I think the decision the US made to withdraw financial aid for South Africa's fight against HIV and Aids could have many unintended consequences, such as loss of life.
The US has been providing funding for support against HIV and aids since 2003. South Africa is constantly warring against this disease, and now, since the US thinks the issue is not priority in comparison to their own, only has 11,5% of the original funding, which is not enough to help the millions of people afflicted by it. Many people in South Africa cannot afford to buy the medicine themselves, so rely on public healthcare.
The consequences are, quite clearly loss of life, due to not being able to provide these people with medicine, therefore leading to them falling sick and passing away. To combat this, the South African government must scramble to make up funding, adding pressure to the already collapsing economy.
A positive consequence, though it might seem hard to spot, is that South Africa is now forced to improve the economy. Peoples lives rely on it, more than before. Another positive consequence could be that South Africa could form new partnerships in hope of gaining funding.
While in our current globalized world, foreign aid is important, but I think it isn't sensible to be so reliant on another country, as they can quite easily pull the rug out from underneath you. Do you think countries should become more self reliant?
I think the decision to reduce foreign aid in order to spend more on defence reveals how fear often drives global priorities. I understand why governments make the choice. When wars, terrorism and instability dominate the news, protecting borders can feel urgent, overly confusing when it should be simple but necessary. Defence spending offers something simple and reassuring, the promise of safety.
But when I think more deeply about this, it feels dangerously narrow. A negative consequence is that cutting aid does not remove global problems, it pushes them further away, out of sight, until they return in more damaging and dangerous ways. Foreign aid supports healthcare, education, food security and climate adaptability in countries already under pressure. When that support disappears, poverty worsens, governments weaken and instability grows.
What makes this decision troubling is that the very issues aid tries to prevent, conflict, displacement, extremism. Are the same issues defence spending later tries to contain. By reducing aid, richer countries may unintentionally help create the means for future crises, forced migration and even war.
This matters to me because it shows a deeper moral choice, whether global safety is built through cooperation OR isolation. Defence can protect a nation for a moment, but aid has the power to protect the future. When aid is cut, it sends a message that some lives are worth preventing harm then others are only noticed once they become a threat. That is not true security, it is delayed responsibility.
I think the decision to send emergency food aid after a flood could have many unintended consequences.One positive consequence could be that it can support the local people by providing food until the local farms and local food shops or markets are back up again and food production is back to normal locally because flooding can affect agriculture.
One unintended consequence could be that with the food aid being international, it might not match the local eating habits maybe because of cultural or religious beliefs. For example, there could be a problem where meat is being sent as emergency food aid to a country where eating meat is forbidden because of religious beliefs.
Hello I'm from Indonesia and recently my country had just experienced a massive flood in the province of Aceh,North Sumatera, and West Sumatera which is all in the island of Sumatera. This flood had caused hundreds of thousands of civilians to lost their homes and now they are forced to stay in refugee camp. Altough it had been 2 months since the start of the disaster, there were very little progress by the government in handling this natural disasters. Most vilages are still covered by mud and soil brought by the water and electricity were sometimes still hard to get. Altough aid has been given in the form of food,water,etc, the victims of this disaster are still having a hard time. Our government said that this is caused by the high and unpredictable rainfall. But, prove has been found that there were many illegal logging with logs everywhere being brought by the flood. But, my main focus isn't actually here.
So, other country like UAE,China,Malaysia,and other countries had actually give us aid in form of mediccal help and other aspects of assistance. However, our government rejected some of the help like the aid from UAE which is 30 tons of rice and 300 hundreds basic food packages. Many have gave critics to this decision.But, this is not fully wrong. Accepting the aid could show that th Indonesian government can't handle this alone and this could damage Indonesia's reputation of a self-sufficiency country. This reputation is very important in current day politics.
We don't usually award stars until the end of the competition, but this is a brilliant comment where you have written about a relevant personal experience very clearly. I think your insights will really help other Topical Talkers. Well done!
I think every decision in international aid acts like a pebble dropped in water; the ripples reach much further than the initial splash.
When we decide to send emergency food aid after a flood, the goal is simple: saving lives. However, this creates a ripple of unintended consequences. On the positive side, the urgent need to. deliver food often leads to the rapid repair of local roads and bridges. this improved infrastructure remains long after the crisis, helping the community access markets and healthcare more easily On the negative said, a flood of free food can accidentally crash the local economy. local farmers, unable to compete with free supplies, my lose their livelihoods, leading to a cycle of long-term dependency on aid rather then self-sufficiency.
I think the decisions to reduce foreign aid to spend more on defence could have many unintended consequences.
A positive consequence might be greater national economic efficiency, because shifting money from aid to defence can stimulate industries that already exist in the country. Defence spending often goes to US companies that build aircraft, ships, advanced software and better technology. This funding of the sector increases employment, raises wages and strengthens supply chains. In fiat-currency systems, like the U.S dollar, economic strength and productive capacity help maintain confidence in the currency. When the domestic economy looks strong and stable, global demand for the dollar tends to remain high.
A major negative consequence would be reduce global stability, which can indirectly weaken the same system that the US government is attempting to protect. Foreign aid often supports fragile nations by funding food programs, healthcare and the development of infrastructure. Cutting that support can lead to deeper poverty, conflict or even political collapse. Instability in regions can distort trade, increase humanitarian crises, and forced the US to spend even more on military operations, which can also have a negative effect on the outlook of the United States in the views of other nations. Because the value of fiat currency not only depends on the trust of the people but also global trust, widespread instability can make the dollar system more vulnerable rather than more secure.
Hi i am understanding_effort,
I think the decision to reduce foreign aid in order to spend more on defence could have. many unintended consequences.
A positive consequence might be that the country becomes more secure and its military better prepared to protect citizens from potential threats. This could also strengthen the nation’s position in international relations and increase confidence among its allies.
And a negative consequence might be poorer countries, which rely on foreign aid for essential services like healthcare, education, and natural disaster, would receive less support. This could lead to increased poverty, social instability, and long-term economic problems in those countries.
In the long run, reducing foreign aid might also damage the country’s reputation and relationships with other nations, making future cooperation more difficult.
Overall, while prioritizing defence can bring safety at home, it can unintentionally create challenges abroad.
I think that people should build houses, make payments and sell first aid. It could help the community as well as the people but, it is important that every agrees. It could help a lot of people and it would be great. People should always care for there city town or village but everyone should agree so it is fair and so everyone can be part of helping.
I think the desision to provide international aid to developing countries is often as purely humanitarian, but in reality, it's also linked to politics and power. This decision can have many unintended consequences.
For me, personally, the decision is very complex and can't be seen as completely good or bad. On the positive side, aid can support long term development by funding schools, hospitals and roads, which help improve people's daily life. Humanitarian is also extremely important during wars or natural disasters. In recent years, we have seen countries depend on international aid for basic needs like food and medicine during sudden crises, this has helped save lives when governments couldn't respond fast enough.
However, there also negative effects. Aid can create sometimes long term dependency, where countries rely too much on donors instead of building there own systems. They can reduce political and economic independence. In addition, alot of aid comes as loans, which increases debt rather than reducing poverty. And to be honest, I think that sometimes aid is used for political reasons, serving the interests of donor countries more than the real needs of people.
For me, this raises questions about whether international aid is always about helping others or sometimes about gaining influence. I believe that aid can do more good if it was managed fairly and transparently. Others may disagree, but we need to think about both the short term benefits and the long term consequences when discussing international aid.
Thanks for reading.
I think the decision to send emergency aid after natural disasters could have unintended consequences. A positive consequence is that emergency food assistance can save many lives in the short term. According to the world food program, rapid food aid can reduce disaster related hunger by up to 30% in the first six months after a crisis, helping families survive periods when crops, income and supply chains are disrupted. In countries affected by floods or droughts, food aid has been shown to stabilize nutrition levels for children, who are often the most vulnerable.
However, there can also be negative consequences if food aid continues for too long without planning. The Food and Agriculture Organization reports that in some regions, prolonged food aid can reduce local farmer's incomes by 10%-20%, as free or subsided food lowers market prices. This can discourage local food production and long-term dependance on aid rather than supporting recovery, in addition, the world bank notes that countries which heavily rely on repeated emergency aid tend to recover slowly from disasters compared to those that receive investment in agriculture.
These effects can create wider challenges. When local economies fail to recover, communities remain as victims to future crisis, increasing the likelihood of repeated humanitarian emergencies.
signing off: Fair minded elephant
Hi!
I think we should have some type of fundraisers in different countries to help them improve their flood defences and send food aid of medical aid just to help them get through a flood.Like in Devon there was a flood from a violent storm causing their defences to collapse and it tore a road and car park apart.So if we add a fundraiser for better aid or defence against the tide.In addition fixing the road could be very complex and could take a lot of time if they can’t fix the road within a certain amount of time it could cause serious damage:people might not be able to get to places like their jobs or their family.Something good that fundraisers for defences could be if the defences are strong enough to block the water it could save lives and peoples cars and it would just be easier to get around.Another thing we could do is to build schools but get wealthy countries to cooperate to help them build it.There are some positive consequences and negative ones.A positive consequence could be more children who aren’t as wealthy could get the right education too so we can all be treated equally.A negative consequence could be the countries that are helping to fund the school stop they might not be able to keep track of their school and loose a lot of money because they don’t have enough money to keep the school open.I think we should try our best to help others who need it most and always be grateful for what we have. Thank you topical talk I love hearing everyone’s ideas and improving my knowledge
I agree with International aid supporting developing countries. For example world health organization giving TB vaccine to help in reducing child mortality.
But when it fails to be supplied such coutries cannot afford to get the supplies on their own.
Instead of supplying they should enable the counties to be independent.
The decision on international aid I'll be focusing on is the cuts in international aid that the UK made in July 2025. In this decision covered by the BBC, the government announced that they would slash the foreign aid spending from 0.5% to 0.3% in order to increase their spending on defence to 2.5%. This decision has made many unintended consequences.
A positive consequences that erupted from this decision was that the government has managed to invest more in to military and defence after "pressure from the US". However, negative consequences to this decision carry much more severity and impact those who are most vulnerable.
The BBC news story named "Africa to be hit hard as UK foreign aid cuts revealed" tells the audience that the cuts will impact Africa greatly with much less being spent on women's health. It also discloses that UNICEF, an agency under the UN that brings aid to children, says that the cuts will have "a devastating and unequal impact on children and women", calling the decision to be narrow-minded.
My views on this decision is that it is shocking that the government would spend even less on bringing aid to vulnerable people, especially children in times of trouble, to spend on defences and military strength. It makes me rethink about the government's concern for those people who are suffering around them.
I think the decision to send emergency food aid after flooding could have many unintended consequences. A positive consequence could be to prevent 'fire sales'. This is when sell their assets like tools, livestock or land for pennies just to buy bread because they are starving. Aid prevents this, allowing families bounce back much faster.
But it can be disastrous for local farmers who can no longer sell their farm produce for gain due to excess free food, collapsing their local prices and potentially driving them out of the market.
I think aid is very important for people to understand that the government has a responsibility for their lives to make it easier and to make decisions upon themselves, to be accountable to them in the end of a good life for themselves, in life it is the most precious gift to humanity so I can offer aid to others, and this will have a very positive impact on others so they will be generous back and give us some aid.
I think to close USAID could have many unintended consequences. A positive consequence is that sometimes, free food from USAID makes it hard for local farmers to sell their own crops. If the aid is stopped, farmers might be able to grow and sell more crops.
However, the negative consequence is that it would take displaced families as a result of flood or war, a very long time to get a meal.
I think the decision to send emergency food aid after a flood could also help rebuild collapsed infrastructure. HOW? NGOs would repair bridges and clear roads to get food to remote areas. This infrastructure remains in place and would be of benefits to the locals and would benefit trade in years to come.
But as we know, every good thing has its bad side too. We know food is a powerful resource. In unsupervised areas, these food aids can be seized by armed groups to feed soldiers or used as a tool for political control and might not reach the locals who are the sole targets.
I believe that reducing foreign aid to increase spending on national defence could have mixed effects, and not all of them would be positive. On one hand, putting more money into defence could help a country feel more secure. Stronger borders, better equipment, and improved technology might protect citizens more effectively. It could also create jobs and lead to new inventions that might later help in areas like emergency response or public safety.
However, I think cutting foreign aid could cause serious problems for other countries. Many people depend on this support for basic needs such as food, healthcare, clean water, and education. If aid is reduced, everyday life could become much harder for vulnerable communities. Hospitals may not have enough medicine, children may miss out on school, and families could struggle just to survive.
These struggles do not stay contained within one country. When living conditions worsen, people may be forced to leave their homes in search of safety and opportunity. This can increase migration and put pressure on neighbouring countries. In some cases, instability and poverty can allow violent groups to gain influence, creating even bigger security risks.
I also feel that foreign aid is not just about money, but about responsibility and cooperation. Helping other nations can build trust and long-term stability. While defence spending may offer short-term protection, ignoring global needs could eventually lead to problems that affect everyone, including the country that made the cuts.
I think the decision to send emergency aid after a flood could have many unintended consequences. A positive consequence might be the rapid restoration of social order;when families aren't forced to migrate in search of their next meal, communities stay together, which prevents the secondary crisis of mass displacement and allows schools and clinics to reopen sooner. However, a negative consequences might be the accidental 'crowding out ' of local traders .If free foreign grain saturates the market for too long, a local farmer who worked tirelessly to protect their harvest finds their crops are suddenly worthless . This creates a cycle of poverty where the very people who should be leading the recovery are instead driven out of business by the charity meant to help them
I think the decision to send military aid and healthcare to countries in conflict could have some unintended consequences. A positive consequence would mean that nation recovering quickly and forming bonds with the nation that sent that aid, leading to mutual benefits for both countries in forms of healthcare or trade, even as far as employing some of the people in that nation in military and health, helping ease the blow of their ongoing conflict and allowing them to feed their families. However, you reduce your own security and even make yourself vulnerable to attacks from the enemy of the country you gave aid, and the supplies needed to defend yourself are already depleted.
I personally believe that the decision to close USAID has so many untold consequences and has a very unfortunate impact on many people. My reasoning behind this is because according to the website nrp.org, "The Trump administration has systematically dismantled the US Agency for International Development (USAID), canceling thousands of contracts and firing or placing on leave thousands of employees within the U.S. and overseas." This means that many people have lost their jobs due to the closing of USAID which hurts the economy.
However, in contrast to it having a negative impact on people, it can actually have a positive impact on people as well. According to the website oxfamamerica.org, "U.S. foreign aid has long played a critical role in tackling poverty, hunger, and inequality worldwide." This shows that closing USAID might also lead to a good thing because all of these negative things will be significantly reduced.
I think to aid the people after the flood is a great idea since we could gain allies/support but it's also to note that depending on how much people was Affected that's how much our supplies would be depleted. It's also worth mentioning that we have to factor in our own situation and what state we are in, or if we can't even have a stable economy we cant provide support until we have something to make us have a stable economy.
I think the decision to send emergency food aid after a flood could have many unintended consequences. A positive consequence would be immediate life-saving nutritional support. The primary benefit of emergency food aid is the rapid alleviation of hunger and prevention of malnutrition when local food systems are destroyed. Floodwaters are often contaminated with sewage, heavy metals, and chemicals, rendering local food supplies, crops, and home pantries unsafe to consume. Ship means of safe, potable water and non-perishable food prevent the consumption of contaminated items and provide essential nutrients to displaced populations. A negative effect would be disruption of local markets and agriculture. If not managed properly, a large influx of free, external food can destroy the local economy, making it harder for the community to recover int he long run, If food is distributed during or shortly after the harvest season, the sudden availability of free food can depress market prices, making it impossible for local farmers to sell their crops. In some cases, in some cases, high-bulk, low-nutrition food may not meet the specific cultural or dietary needs of the community, wasting resources. In conclusion, floods can both negative and positive impacts. While flooding can bring welcome relief for people and ecosystems suffering from prolonged drought, they can also damage homes, communities, businesses, schools, roads and infrastructure, and even lead to loss of life.
I think that reducing foreign aid and spending more on defence can have a good and bad side to it. The good side is that the defence of the country will enlarge and grow making many new job opportunities in defence military also giving new technological advancement helping that country stay wealthy and under control. Some of these amazing new advancements in tech can predict the pay back you will receive if you give aid to countries
The downside is that in the suffering regions due to lack of food clean water and healthcare will struggle and will be vulnerable to new diseases and bacteria. Over time this can cause many problems with droughts and shortages of food and basic needs which could lead to you being criticised of not helping the dying region, over time causing conflict and war.
Over a few decades this might mean civilians migrating to other countries causing over population and the countries who have been inflicted might team up and start war against the countries who didn't give enough or anything at all so on the short term it might feel like a benefit but on the long term it might cause conflict endangering the country who never gave a penny
In conclusion it is better to give and you might receive something but like people with morals said you give because we should love one another as God loves us.
I am from Indonesia, and recently a massive flood and landslides have hit several Indonesian provinces including Aceh, North Sumatra, and West Sumatra. While I am aware that this issue has already been mentioned by others, this is not just a topic for me because it has affected people that I care about. And because of that, I feel it is necessary for me to speak up about it from my perspective.
Now let's get back to the topic, after getting hit by the natural disaster, the situation became a serious humanitarian crisis. Thousands of people needing food, water and also shelter. However, the Indonesian government publicly stated that it did not need foreign aid, believing that it could handle the problem using its own resources and management systems, even though parliament members and critics have argued that international help can speed up the recovery process. But the truth is, The reason the government did not want to receive foreign aid is because he wanted to maintain national pride, self reliance and domestic capacity. Prioritizing these values during an emergency raises concerns that may have worsened the suffering of those who are affected. Because accepting help does not mean weakness, especially when lives are at risk. Like I said earlier this issue is personal to me and here is why: I used to had a friend who later moved to Aceh because her father was transferred to work there. But after hearing about the disaster, I don't even know if she is still safe. This is why this topic matters, not as a theory but as a reality that actually affects real people.
I think the decision to send emergency food aid after a hurricane could have multiple unintended consequences. A positive consequence in the situation is a lot of people would get the help they need.A negative consequence is that farmers or business owners who owns businesses regarding food will loose sales because since free foods is being handed out people wont have to buy anymore from those people who normally sells.This situation can make poor people who rely on selling income go down badly.
I think the decision to stop supporting educational aid has many consequences that people are unaware of. One positive and negative consequence may be that some countries earn and/or keep more money (positive) but the countries in need of aid may collapse and no longer have any more funds to keep their country running.
The effects of stopping educational aid that are positive are: The bigger and richer countries will save money and then once the bigger country has more money then the larger country may come back to the small country and aid it even more then before. This is positive because what if a small country is supporting a smaller country and the bigger small country is losing money rapidly. Then they would have to stop educational funds to the smaller country because if they don't keep consistent money then their country will collapse.
A few negative things of stopping educational aid are: Children will not have any education which could cause many problems since these kids may grow up with no education, no degree, and no money to support their life and others lives. Another thing that would be negative to ending educational aid would be that the countries that stopped aiding would lose money due to bad reputation internationally since other countries know that this one small country needs educational aid and the bigger country stopped aiding so now that small country is collapsing.
This is it for me today so goodbye Topical Talkers!
I believe that not allowing all countries to receive aid will have many different consequences. Something positive would be how it would put global agencies at less risk, like the ICRC. But these decisions will cost way more than you would think, and not in the way of money. If you are having the government choose where aid goes, it will impact relationships between countries and government leaders. Everyone deserves aid, no matter the relationship that the government has with them. Especially since that aid is not going to the government, it will be going to the scared people inside that country just needing hope in hard times.
I think the decision to send emergency food aid after a flood could have many unintended consequences.Though,i believe its a very good option,but sometimes food might not be what many families need the most.
I have seen in a video before that when a flood comes many families houses and young peoples appartments are destroyed.So there is no doubt that it'll be essential to them to have places to stay for a while and for some of them it might be difficult whether its because english its not their mother tongue or its because of other problems.In my opinion i believe we should also bring people that speak many languages to places that have been destroyed by flood.
Secondly,ive also seen in the video that many people lost their family,friends and important person because of the big wave from the sea.So i also believe it would be very important for these people to have someone who has experience on psychology ,like psychologists to support them and help them to recover from their sadness.
To sum up,i just want to say that this might happen to anyone so i really hope that we can try our best to makt these peoples life better and let them make progress in their life and carrier.
I agree because lots of people around the world can have consequences vut my opinion ,i think that some people can learn abd actually listen in school even online wotking xan have an impact on your learing ,bur however lots of people but some people dont dehave in school vut some people can behave in school but some people get distracted say like a funny choke and you laugh at it and in sted you get told of but the other person does not get told of but you get all the blame for laughing at it i hope you liked my writting ok by for now
I believe that the decision to decrease international aid to spend on the national defence of a country can go one of two ways.
Firstly, a countries government may decide to up the national defence as means to protect their citizens from looming war or unrest. In this case, I believe it is the right thing to do as it ensures a safer country and populous. If that country had continued to aid foreign countries, it could face an attack that it was totally unprepared for and consequently is left in a state where itself needs aid too. Once the threat has passed, however, I believe it is the right thing to do to resume international aid when the country is in a safe enough position to do so.
On the other hand, there are countries where the only interest of the leader is to turn the country into a global superpower that is unchallenged completely. This can be displayed as a complete disregard for aiding foreign countries due to the sole obsession not of protecting their own country; but becoming a military threat to all others. In my opinion, this is not a morally correct action and giving aid internationally should be a continuous act in these circumstances - rather than ignoring the issue completely in favour of building an unstoppable empire.
Hi! As I’ve said before I live in Greece. Greece is a country that always contributes to help other countries while floods wars or natural disasters. We send food supplies, economical help, medical assistance and all kind of support as well as we support financially and in any kind of way the immigrants of our country. We always feel happy to help others
Hello topical talkers
I think we should share all our money if you are running low on aid (like war food and medication ) other country will see your country is helpful will become loyal
Hi im original_goji and im going to talk about food aid.
Sometimes giving a country food aid can help them rebuild faster. In some regions "food-for-work" programmes are created where people recieve the donated food in exchange for helping to repair broken roads or bridges. This means the aid doesnt just fill stomachs-it unintentionally provides the labour needed to fix the countrys transport links, helping the economy recover sooner than later
A common but sad effect is that free foreign can accidentally destroy local buisnesses. If a local farmer managed to save some of their crops from the flood, they would usally sell it to make a living. However if the town is suddenly flooded with free donated grain noone will buy the farmers food this drives prices down so low that the farmer losses their income and they will not be able to buy seeds again for next year and may even go out of buisness making the country even more dependent on aid in the long run.
I think the decision to lend food aid to distressed countries could have many positive and negative consequences. A positive consequence might be that the countries are given a broader food supply, ensuring their people have all the nutrients and vitamins their government cannot supply in hardships. It can save lives and keep their health up, resulting in less loss and hurt during already agonising times. If major cities or towns in the countries have been turned to wrecks, it could disrupt their way of life and having good food will give them energy to start rebuilding and speed up the process, allowing everyone to move back in their homes faster than predicted at the start of this national devastation.
However, a negative consequence might be that once they have rebuilt some of the area and people have just started to move back into their homes, local farmers could potentially be put out of business as lots of food aid is still coming in, meaning that they are earning less money for their family and them and putting them out of a job. Since no-one can predict when events like these end, it could be years before they build back up their businesses and very well end up in poverty before there is even a sliver of hope of rebuilding. This will make it harder for them to restart and provide for their family, especially in a land where a majority of citizens are farmers. This could also mean people who are already in poverty working small farm jobs to help their families are put out of their jobs too, landing the majority of citizens in poverty, debt or even both.
I think the decision to send emergency food aid after a flood could have many unintended consequences.
A positive consequence might be that the food aid helps people survive in the short term. After a flood, crops may be destroyed and shops may be closed, so giving out food quickly can prevent hunger and disease. It can also help communities recover faster because people are healthier and able to rebuild their lives.
However, a negative consequence might be that local farmers and food sellers lose income. If large amounts of free food arrive from abroad, people might rely on that instead of buying locally. This can hurt the local economy and make communities more dependent on foreign aid in the future. It might also create unfair competition for small businesses who are already struggling after the disaster.
I think the decision to cancel a long‑term development project, such as building new schools in a low‑income country, could have many unintended consequences.
A positive consequence might be that the government or organisation saves money in the short term. Those funds could then be redirected to urgent needs at home, such as healthcare or housing, which might benefit citizens immediately.
A negative consequence might be that the communities expecting the schools are left without essential education services. This can slow down literacy rates, limit job opportunities for young people, and weaken trust between the local population and international partners. In the long run, it may even make the region more dependent on future aid.
I think the decision to send medical teams to another country during a disease outbreak could have several unintended consequences.
A positive unintended consequence might be that the medical teams don’t just treat patients—they also train local healthcare workers while they’re there. This means that even after the international doctors return home, the community is left stronger, with better medical skills and more confidence to handle future health emergencies.
A negative unintended consequence might be that sending lots of foreign medical staff could unintentionally reduce trust in the local healthcare system. Some people might start to believe that only foreign doctors can help them, which can weaken confidence in local hospitals. It might also make the local community more dependent on outside help instead of building their own long-term systems.
The decision to reduce foreign aid to spend more on defence can lead to a stronger national security, as a country can invest in its military and intelligence. however it can also damage international relationships by alienating allies who rely on aid for stability and cooperation potentially creating new global security threats
I think the decision to provide large amounts of emergency food aid to a country in famine can have unintended consequences. On the positive side, it can reduce tension and conflict by easing pressure on scarce resources, which helps stabilise communities beyond the immediate goal of preventing hunger. However, a negative consequence is that the sudden influx of free food can damage local markets and undermine farmers, as they may be unable to compete with donated goods. This can reduce their income and discourage future production, increasing long‑term dependence on aid even though the original intention was to offer short‑term relief.
An international aid service is the "Nam Theun 2 Hydropower Dam in Laos". they built with funding from the world bank and other international donors. The project was intended to provide reliable electricity and generate revenue for the government, which could be used to improve schools, hospitals, and infrastructure, helping communities develop and reducing poverty.
However, the Dam also caused serious unintended consequences, over 6,000 people were displaced from their homes, losing farmland and traditional ways of life, while local rivers and forests were disrupted, affecting fish populations and wildlife.
Overall, this case shows that even well-intentioned aid can bring both significant benefits and serious social and environmental challenges.
I think the decision to send emergency food and aid after a flood could have many unintended consequences.
A positive consequence might be that food aid prevents hunger and malnutrition in the short term, helping families as crops, shops and supply chains recover. It can also build trust between countries and show solidarity during a crisis.
A negative consequence might be large amounts of free food can unintentionally harm local farmers and markets. If donated food is cheaper than local produce, farmers may struggle to sell crops, which can weaken the local economy and make communities more dependent on future aid.
I think the decision to reduce foreign aid in order to spend more on defence could have many unintended consequences. A positive consequence might be that the country becomes stronger in terms of security and feels more protected from threats. This could make citizens feel safer and allow the government to focus more on national defence during uncertain times.
However, a negative consequence might be that poorer countries lose important support for things like healthcare, education, and disaster relief. Without that aid, communities that depend on it could struggle even more, which might increase poverty and instability. In the long term, this could actually create more global problems, such as conflict or migration crises, which could also affect the country that reduced its aid.
This shows that decisions about international aid are complicated. Even if a government is trying to protect its own people, reducing support for other countries can have effects that go beyond what was originally intended.
I think the decision to send aid could have many good and bad consequences.A positive consequence could be by sending aid to the country the country could be your ally. Not only that but the country might also want to help you pay to back the favor. But for the negative consequence sending aid isn't cheap so you might use up to 200 million just to send aid. The money could be used for things for your own country like roads,buildings and more.
Hi topical talkers!!!!
I think the decision to give aid such as food and water may have consequences although you may get things in return which yes is positive ,you may also have negative affects like if you give lots of food away and your a big country you will be putting yourself at risk as well.
I think we should send our money on things like hospitals ,military upgrades to protect ourselves and our country. Also I think we should stop giving aid altogether because when people pay taxes that is going to help other countries were we could just gather 2-4% of our taxes in case of a natural disaster such as, earthquakes, tsunami's, tornadoes,blizzards and others this way all of the money we have saved we can use to help ourselves and not need to ask for help from other countries.
I feel as if it would be ok if we got something in return or started a trade like, we give you some a plant that only grows in our country and then you give us a crystal or precious stone that can only be formed in your countries conditions.
If you have any questions please let me know in the comments.
Bye topical talkers 👋
Hi Talkers!!
I think that the decision to send emergency food aid after a flood could have many unintended consequences. While the main goal is to feed people, a good consequence is that this aid can help the local economy. When international groups arrive, they often hire local workers to help move supplies and buy items from nearby shops. This creates new jobs giving people a source of profit. The extra money flowing into the area could help the community recover and build back up faster than they would on their own.
A negative consequence might be that it would hurt the local farmers. If a huge amount of free food is given out for a long time, the local farmers wouldn't be able to sell crops they grew because everyone is getting free food. This can cause farmers to lose their income and might even make them stop farming altogether, which in the future might make the country more dependent on outside help in the future.
In conclusion, sending emergency food aid is a hard decision because even though the success is short termed it can lead to long term challenges. While it is important for saving lives immediately after a disaster, the way it is delivered determines if it truly helps. I got my information and evidence from NSF ( national science foundation ), FAO ( Food and Agriculture Organization ), Feeding America, World Food programme, and google.
Bye!!!!
Hi topical talkers do you think that building school so some more people can get elieve that cutting foreign aid in order to spend more money on national defence could have several unintended effects. One possible positive consequence is that the government may become more focused on protecting its own borders and citizens, which could improve national security. Increased defence spending could also create more jobs in the defence sector and encourage new technological developments. Some of these innovations might later be useful in other areas, such as communication systems or disaster-response equipment.
However, there could also be serious negative consequences. Many countries depend on foreign aid to provide basic needs such as food, healthcare, and education. If this support is suddenly reduced, vulnerable communities may suffer from shortages of medicine, limited access to schooling, or even hunger. Over time, these problems could lead to greater instability in those regions.
This instability might then cause wider issues, such as increased migration or conflicts within and between countries. In some cases, extreme groups could take advantage of these difficult conditions, which may end up threatening global security. As a result, a decision that seems to improve one country’s safety in the short term could create new risks that affect the wider world, including the country that made the decision in the first place.
I think my decision to sending emergency food aid right after the flood could have many challenges that could happen.A positive consequence might just be that a few survivors left and they could need food when there is nothing of the town or city so food will be the best option.A negative consequence might be if I do bring the food what if another flood happens when I'm giving food.
I think the decision about international aid is whether to send emergency food aid to a country that has experienced a majority flood. This action is taken to save lives right away. Nevertheless, it can lead to several unintended outcomes: Negative consequence: market disturbance flooding the local market with food will drive down the cost of food and it will be impossible to make money by selling local food. It will destroy the local food economy and result in long term reliance on assistance. The positive consequence; economic ripple effects in some situations the logistical demands of transporting aid such as employing drivers warehouse personnel or security personnel can produce a ripple impact by providing new, temporary livelihoods and injecting money into the local economy during a disaster.
This is what I think about the economy, and giving aid to a country.
I think the decision to Sendung emergency food aid after a flood could have many unintended consequences. A positive consequence might be if the aid helps we will have better defence and more prepared for a fight creating long-term dependency, We will have people who are smarter because education, meaning we can find a weak spot.
But A negative consequence might be that the aid will cost too much, We can go though corruption, creating long-term dependency, and hindering economic growth.
Hi Topical talkers!
I think with aid it should go to things that we actually need not things for other countries. I think this is because if your giving other countrys things you are putting yourself at risk.
I think we should give aid to hospitals ,air ambulences ,police ,coastguard and other emergency helpers. If our money is being put into a massive pot of money for other countries we might as well just keep it. Some people need that money and the Goverment are taking that extra bit of help of people. If we are giving other countries things we are basically making them be the country with the most power and we are going to have no power for ourselves !
I think the decision to Sendung emergency food aid after a flood could have many unintended consequences. A positive consequence might be if the aid helps we will have better defence and more prepared for a fight creating long-term dependency, We will have people who are smarter because education, meaning we can find a weak spot.
But A negative consequence might be that the aid will cost too much, We can go though corruption, creating long-term dependency, and hindering economic growth.
I think the decision to send emergency food aid after a flood could have MANY unintended consequences. A positive consequence might be where you have helped them they will help you when you desperately need it. However a negative consequence might be if you send money to them they might not need it and are wasting your money however if you actually send something that they need then they can't scam you out of money and your not wasting it because there might come a time where you NEED the money and you won't have it because you gave it away. If you then ask them then what if they say no what will you do then?
Hi I am hopeful crab and I think that international aid means helping people across the world, for example: war, you can help people in countries across the world that are in war.
I think the decision to reduce foreign aid to spend more on defence could have many unintended consequences. A positive consequence might be that it is often driven by a strategy to prioritize national security and domestic interests, particularly in times of heightened global tension or economic constraint. Proponents argue that this shift allows for greater military strength and direct protection of national interests, though it is a heavily debated topic with significant potential risks to international stability and include Enhanced National Defense Readiness and Modernization, strengthened Direct Security Partnerships, Promotion of National Interests (America First Approach), Reduced Dependence on Foreign Entities, Economic Benefits from Defense Spending, Increased Focus on Local Solutions (Localization). A negative consequence might lead to severe humanitarian crises, including increased, preventable deaths from hunger and disease, while eroding international influence and stability. Such shifts often result in broken partnerships, weakened global health security, and increased forced displacement, ultimately harming long term security by creating vacuums for competitors to fill and include Reduced Global Influence, Geopolitical Vacuum, Destabilization and Insecurity, Economic Inefficiency, Reversal of Development Gains.
Hi i an bold_melon and i think that international aid means medical help like all around the world like hospital and people in need and helping other people sending food to homeless and other in need .
Hi i am calm panda bear I agree because aid is all about helping others and helping other countries and helping across
the world. Helping someone that don't have, cloths and fresh water to drink and help someone that don't have medical help and from war.
I believe that the decision to reduce foreign aid to spend more on defense has many expected consequences. This is the situation that the United Kingdom is experiencing. This was announced shortly after the US cut off all international aid. Their prime minister, Sir Keir Starmer, has said that they are unsure of what the actual effect will be once they have lowered the amount of money they usually allocate for international aid. Unfortunately, this means many charities who help those in danger and in need will no longer be supported. The budget cut will include third-world countries without any access to medication - which will ultimately lead to avoidable deaths, schools that have been sponsored by the United Kingdom that will no longer be funded and many conflict-affected countries will begin to suffer without support. This is not to say that those countries are unable to finance themselves, this is to say that the money the UK gave to them, gave them a stable foundation to try and build themselves back up. We can already see this happening with countries like Kenya and Nigeria, but if the United Kingdom were to cut off all aid, what would happen to their relationships with those countries and their growing economy?
That's why I think that the decision to reduce foreign aid to spend more on defense has expected consequences that we can bank on. We can already see the start of the domino effect; first the US, then the UK, who's next? The risk is simply too great, slowly but surely the significant human risk will be shown through the suffering of those in need.
i feel like aid can help a lot,of people It helps people who need help like the flood when they sent the water in food over it helped a lot with keeping the people of the country safe in let them know that they mean something that will boost the country government
\
I believe that the decision to send emergency food aid after an flood may have many unprepared results. One result could be saving lives immediately and turn away hunger and diseases in the process. When people receive food fast, they can recover from the disaster within a short amount of time, and children can continue growing and processing well. With the food, people will not feel ignored by the rest of the world, and they will feel supported by the community.
I think that the decision to reduce foreign aid and to spend more on defence could have many unintended consequences. A positive consequence might be that spending more on defence can strengthen the country's army as well as trading with other countries.
A negative consequence might be that reducing foreign aid can cause people businesses to go bankrupt, another negative consequence is that by reducing foreign aid can also get your country backlash because they might think that you don't want to help and you only care about your country because of you spending more on defence.