Rampant Optimism alert: *riotHERO (and I'm sure he's not the only one who believes this, he's just the one I've spotted airing his views) believes that the G8 summit should cancel Third World Debt.

Now, I was handed a petition about this last year. I think it was called Jubilee 2000 or something like that. I laughed at them and handed it back. I steadfastly refused to sign. Why? Because it is a ludicrous idea. That is my belief. It is ludicrous to suggest that cancelling Third World Debt will solve the problem. It is ludicrous to suggest that it will not have an adverse effect on the world economy. Hence it is ludicrous to suggest that countries will actually do it, no matter how much pressure is put on them by the little people.

The alternate point of view: I'm not saying I agree with this, but this is a commonly held belief amongst the economists and politicians that matter. The most commonly used metaphor is one of a liferaft after a shipwreck (most usually the Wreck of the Medusa). The boat can only hold so many people, and if you try to help everyone, the boat will sink and you will all drown.

This doesn't apply to world economics, the Rampant Optimists declare passionately. It's just justification for the selfish ways of the West. Well maybe, or maybe not. The theory goes to to suggest that all the help the West could give the Third World would still not be enough. And with this I sometimes do agree. It would take huge amounts of money, time and other aid to bring the entire Third World to a reasonable level of living. And it would suck so much out of the First World that before the raising of the Third World was accomplished, the First World would sink.

Even before that happened, there's a larger problem. The drain of so many Western resources for the aid of another country would lead to a huge rise in xenophobia and fascism. It would gain more and more popular support. The West would flood with right-wing pressure groups and eventually governments, and the aid would stop, brutally I imagine, as political and economic survivalism took over. There goes the political enlightenment and liberal democracy so treasured by the average American. The world sinks, like an overburdened liferaft.

But honestly, what are you supposed to do about the foreign Third World when you can't do anything about the Third World inside your own country? And anyone who says it doesn't exist in America, or even Australia, is more blind than the average Rampant Optimist.

The world is full of problems. That is its nature. And taking any course of action will just bring about more problems. Taking no course of action is still a course of action. No matter which was you turn, someone will jump on you, demand change, call you communist/fascist/irresponsible. Not even Rampant Optimism can save you from that. Not even the intention to do good means that you will. These issues are not simple and the sooner people stop believing that they are, the sooner something meaningful can be done.