My first reaction to the concept of this programme was that it is in distinctly bad taste. Thousands of people around the world live on, or depend on, rubbish heaps for their very existence. There is absolutely no acknowledgement of this in any of the publicity, and to put people into a sanitised rubbish dump seems to me to be an insult to those who have to live like this. I would have thought that the prize money, or a sum equivalent, should go to some charity working with the genuine "rubbish dump" dwellers of our world. Would we think of having a competition based on people living in refugee camps, or sleeping in doorways? On the other hand, with things the way they are in television, this is probably just around the corner!
It's not even like people living in rubbish dumps are going to have a tv to watch it on. It's got to be hard for them to be offended. So unless you have once lived on a rubbish dump yourself, i consider you and your petty little opinions void.
I can appreciate what OP is saying here but is it not a good idea to even produce the show as it is to at least highlight the fact that our environment could be a much cleaner and more sustainable one by paying attention to what we could be recycling. A lot of people even though they have recycling bins do not use them properly.
I am enjoying the programme and watching all the contestants. Some are doing a good job but others are just whinging and lazing about. I will continue to watch to see if they will make more of an effort as the time goes on.
I spent a few weeks living in India this year and it's true there are people who rely on others' rubbish to exist. There is a huge gap in wealth there, and people still living in shacks amongst nice houses. Those houses never have rubbish collections, they just put their bags out for for the poor. What the poor could not use the goat herd would allow his goats to forage. Everything was used up.
Well, virtually all TV is an insult to the poor. It is materialistic, trivial and escapist and the fact it has to be edited it is also contrived. Yet millions of people (including many of the poor) love it!
The odd programme does educate and provoke the thinking process. Whilst being contrived, Dumped was one that highlighted a real problem; waste.
Channel 4 what about a follow up series taking some of the contestants to a third world rubbish dump to see how the really poor really live. The proceeds from selling the film to other TV companies and advertising revenues could be invested in a project (a clinic,school or clean water) for the benefit of community filmed.
It is funny how "poor" people of third world countries have so many children. Surely, if they have no money, why make the problem worse by having more kids to feed. At the end of the day, they will have to stop relying on handouts and fend for themselves for a change. Also, the 3rd world leaders have a lot to be desired. Mind you, this is a totally off topic comment and therefore I apologise........
Originally posted by Fiskey: Channel 4 what about a follow up series taking some of the contestants to a third world rubbish dump to see how the really poor really live. The proceeds from selling the film to other TV companies and advertising revenues could be invested in a project (a clinic,school or clean water) for the benefit of community filmed.
Poverty in third world countries is not always about lack of money. I never saw a rubbish dump anywhere in south east India, there was a lot of rubbish around which was being eaten by cows, goats and other animals. They live very differently to western cultures, they have the education and the technology but their way of life is so different as anyone who has been there has witnessed.
The poor expect to use up what is not needed by the better off. They live amongst them. A bag of rubbish is often thrown out of the window into the road and it is all used up within a couple of hours. In the same road was a Bollywood mansion where top stars were working. There were small shacks on the edges of posh gardens where the poor lived.
Originally posted by NickHe@d: It is funny how "poor" people of third world countries have so many children. Surely, if they have no money, why make the problem worse by having more kids to feed. At the end of the day, they will have to stop relying on handouts and fend for themselves for a change. Also, the 3rd world leaders have a lot to be desired. Mind you, this is a totally off topic comment and therefore I apologise........
NOT
Nick, yes, you are off topic - but I'll reply anyway ;-)
Firstly you are assuming that the people involved are aware of the problem (if it is indeed a problem). There are numerous reasons why they may be having children - e.g religious/cultural (they might want to give birth to a son and keep having girls instead) or lack of available birth control . Most likely though is for a positive wealth generating reason, i.e. the children will grow up and will be an extra pair of hands to help around the house/go out to work.
Anyway, check out my comment on the other thread about "overpopulation". Number of people consuming isn't really the problem for the planet - it's the extent to which each of those people consume which is the problem
. Most likely though is for a positive wealth generating reason, i.e. the children will grow up and will be an extra pair of hands to help around the house/go out to work. 
