Which diseases does our aid need to be focused on?

The WHO

Which diseases does our aid need to be focused on? Many immediately say "AIDS - Kenya" or "Malaria - Africa". But is this really what we should be focusing our aid on?

The WHO (world health organisation) has three types of classification for disease;

Group 1 - Infectious/Communicable diseases grouped with maternal, perinatal and nutritional conditions

Group 2 - Non-communicable diseases (NCD's) such as cardiovascular diseases and cancers or diabetes

Group 3 - Injury related disease, which can be intentional or not intentional (note: the definition of disease is anything that harms the normal functioning of the body thus injuries are counted as a disease).

During 1990-2002 there was a great change in the types of diseases affecting most people;

 - Group 1 (before 1992) was responsible for 32% of all global deaths, with the major diseases of AIDS, TB and Malaria accounting for 10% of that. However during '92-'02, deaths from HIV/AIDS accelerated from 2% to 14% but most other infectious diseases declined (bar TB and Malaria). This left the group 1 figure unchanged at 32% for 2002.

- Group 2 saw its figure rise by 10% and therefore accounted for 59% of global deaths in 2002. Over 80% of deaths from diseases in group 2 came from low and middle income countries.

- Group 3 remained unchanged like group 1, accounting for 9 % of global deaths.

The interesting fact is that in 2005, non-communicable diseases killed more people than AIDS, TB and malaria combined, but yet we see much of our aid donated to the diseases such as AIDS, TB and malaria. But why is this?

The answer is probably because these communicable diseases are treatable and/or preventable more easily and more cheaply than the NCD's but with NCD's accounting for more and more deaths each year, the government should constantly be reviewing their recipients of the aid to ensure that it is beneficial for the development of the global community in the future.

Wilderness

Wilderness, a term that is commonly used, a term that most people feel they know and understand, but how would you define it?

You could possibly define it as 'an area of open space'? Or maybe as 'an area of woodland and forest'? Perhaps even a combination of the two, 'a mixture of open space and forestry combining to form a landscape known as wilderness'? But these are all less-correct, but not wrong, than the definition that is most frequently used by geographers and conservationists around the world which is 'a natural environment on Earth that has not been significantly modified by human activity'.

Areas of wilderness status are often areas of outstanding natural beauty, or of great interests to scientists, locals, conservationists, natural biologists etc. Such areas can often contain flora or fauna that is hard to replicate in zoos or is endemic to the area. However wilderness doesn’t mean that the area has never been discovered or disturbed by humans, which is almost impossible now. Wilderness can be said to be wilderness if natural processes occur without human interference. This is the only type of wilderness thought to be left on our planet.



Wilderness at Monument Valley, Utah, USA



Preserving wilderness has become such a problem that governments have had to start passing laws on certain areas to stop the growth of human activity, a negative effect of our currently booming world population. But should the wilderness be conserved or preserved? The difference is that conservationists would allow the land to be used but heavily regulated, whereas preservationists would insist that the land is 100% preserved with no human interference. Which is better? Many say that preserving the few natural wonders left in the world is vital, however, with the growing population the space is going to need to be conserved and a balance will need to be struck.





Wilderness at Biogradska Gora National Park, Montenegro