# World population control?



## theletch1 (Dec 26, 2008)

So, I was reading the thread in the Locker Room about the Arkansas couple that has 18 kids and noticed a post by a member stating something along the lines of increasing population and dwindling resources on the planet.  That got me to thinking...

The population of the world is growing at an exponetial rate and many resources aren't renewable.  Many of the ones that are renewable aren't being renewed.  How do we find a balance?  Should the world as a whole attempt to curb it's usage? Sure.  Will it?  Probably not.  So, the next question is population.  Should the world enact a one child policy like China's?  What do ya'll think of the Voluntary Human Extinction movement?  What's a good world population number?


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 26, 2008)

This is gonna sound weird...

But I think the answer is a Cyberpunk-esque cybersex implant.  I think if people could feel like they were having sex without having sex, people would have less sex, and therefore we would have less people.

Does that make any kind of sense?


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 26, 2008)

Cryozombie said:


> This is gonna sound weird...
> 
> But I think the answer is a Cyberpunk-esque cybersex implant. I think if people could feel like they were having sex without having sex, people would have less sex, and therefore we would have less people.
> 
> Does that make any kind of sense?


 

They already have that.  it's called Masturbation, and it unfortunately doesn't seem to stop people from having more babies.


----------



## BrandonLucas (Dec 26, 2008)

Regulating the number of people we bring into the world isn't the answer, IMO.  It would be just as easy to regulate the amount of consumption of resources.

The problem isn't the number of people in the world, the problem is the amount of lack of control the people who live here exhibit.

If we were to only allow a couple to have one child, then what about those of us with mulitples on the way or already here?  There's too many problems with going that route, I think.  

Why can't we just regulate how much gas a person can use in their vehicle per week...making it reasonable, of course....how much energy people are permitted to use in their home per week...things like that?


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 26, 2008)

In some countries the birth rate is going down while in others it''s increasing. The problem is the worlds population isn't spread equally among countries. In countries where the infant mortality is high and families need as many children as possible to help support the family you won't persuade them to have less children.  
In America, UK and Europe people didn't stop having large families until child heathcare improved to ensure the survival of children to adulthood. 
In Victorian times large families were the norm, a family would have 18 children quite commonly but the difference was then that not all of them lived to become adults.


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 26, 2008)

Flying Crane said:


> They already have that.  it's called Masturbation, and it unfortunately doesn't seem to stop people from having more babies.



Nah man, its not the same.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 26, 2008)

Cryozombie said:


> Nah man, its not the same.


 
that actually seems to be the whole point.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Dec 26, 2008)

theletch1 said:


> What do ya'll think of the Voluntary Human Extinction movement?


 
I am, for all practical intents and purposes, pretty much unofficially part of it already.



theletch1 said:


> Should the world enact a one child policy like China's?


 

It, or something very like it is coming, like it or not. get ready.


----------



## tellner (Dec 26, 2008)

There's a simple, reliable, pretty much pain-free way of reducing population growth. It's worked every single time it's been permitted. Here's the procedure:


Give women civil rights
Educate girls
Make small loans for home businesses available to women
Universal vaccination and clean water so more of their children survive
Give women the choice to delay marriage and child-bearing and to limit the number of children they have
Incentives for delaying marriage until the mid-twenties
If women have no alternatives except bearing large numbers of children, that is what they will do. If they have economic opportunities, even fairly modest ones, they will have fewer children and start their families later. Education is key. Access to capital _which they control_ is non-negotiable.

Meditate on The Demographic Transition


----------



## Twin Fist (Dec 26, 2008)

this does make sense


----------



## Big Don (Dec 26, 2008)

tellner said:


> Give women the choice to delay marriage and child-bearing and to limit the number of children they have



 As the woman's age increases the odds of birth defects increase, past 40 it is something like 50-50... Choice is fine, but, there are consequences to every choice.





> [*]Incentives for delaying marriage until the mid-twenties



I was actually offered one and was too dumb at 19 to take it...
damn damn damn!


----------



## MBuzzy (Dec 26, 2008)

Basically, my entire opinion on the matter is dictated by one of the greatest and most influential articles ever written: "The Tragedy of the Commons."  (this is the Cliff's Notes version....or I guess Spark Notes now)


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 26, 2008)

MBuzzy said:


> Basically, my entire opinion on the matter is dictated by one of the greatest and most influential articles ever written: "The Tragedy of the Commons." (this is the Cliff's Notes version....or I guess Spark Notes now)


 

I believe it is Rhodium that is a by product of Platinum mining, and is very rare that was under similar constraints. The Auto industry and others that used this element for catalytic reasons, got together and formed a consortium to make sure that no one group or person would try to control the market and possible destroy product at the same time.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 26, 2008)

theletch1 said:


> So, I was reading the thread in the Locker Room about the Arkansas couple that has 18 kids and noticed a post by a member stating something along the lines of increasing population and dwindling resources on the planet. That got me to thinking...
> 
> The population of the world is growing at an exponetial rate and many resources aren't renewable. Many of the ones that are renewable aren't being renewed. How do we find a balance? Should the world as a whole attempt to curb it's usage? Sure. Will it? Probably not. So, the next question is population. Should the world enact a one child policy like China's? What do ya'll think of the Voluntary Human Extinction movement? What's a good world population number?


 

I have no kids. 

1,2,3,4,5, ... 5 of my immediate friends who are 40 or older have no kids. Some chose to raise other people's kids with a woman, while others are either single or have no kids in their marriage by choice, not for a medical reason. 

I guess I would 6. I can add more when I think of those I know through Martial Arts adn see only a couple of times a year. 


There are issues with China's implementation. There are a lot of babies, in orphanages, that have some medical concern or are female. A male is required to carry on the family name in their culture. 


I agree that education is the best way to get people aware of the issue. With education comes Women's rights, and with those rights come opportunities for them in the career fields other than primary care giver. (* No matter how noble that being a primary care giver that might be, I support people having a choice in their life and the education to make the choice. *) Helath care and quality of life goes up, as well when the population growth goes down. (* not always in the cases of small communiteis dying out *)


----------



## chrispillertkd (Dec 26, 2008)

People may want to read Jacqueline Kasun's _The War on Population_ before investing a lot of time on trying to solve the "problem" of population growth. 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## tellner (Dec 26, 2008)

_*Don*_, we're not talking about delaying childbirth from 25 to 45 years. It's more on the order of delaying from 18 to 25 or in some countries from 12 to 20. 

The chance of birth defects certainly does go up with age although not as high as you have been told. 

_*Tez*_, the distribution is interesting. A lot of Asia went through the D.T. in our lifetime. The countries that are still in the high-birth, low-death section are largely in Africa and Latin America. The real anomalies are almost all resource-rich Muslim countries. They lowered the death rate, but female emancipation and economic power has been suppressed. And they haven't really developed modern economies, so female participation in the paid workforce still lags.

_*MBuzzy*_, the Tragedy of the Commons is not nearly as true as its authors and supporters would like you to believe. Their research - and I use the word very loosely - was quite tendentious. They were tying to prove that common-property resources just wouldn't work and that radical privatization was the only solution. 

Fortunately, it doesn't really work that way.

Consider the original commons in England before the Enclosure Acts. The contention was that everyone would have an incentive to put extra sheep on the common land giving himself more sheep at the cost of degrading the pasture. Of course, a single owner - the local Lord - would behave efficiently. So it was only right for him to take over the commons. 

In fact, it turned out that stockmen had a very good idea of how many sheep could be raised on a plot. And later research shows that the people who used the land implemented very effective methods to make sure people were well-behaved. The local Lord was actually less efficient about raising sheep and generally turned farmers into tenants, threw them off the land to starve or engaged in rent-seeking behavior (economic-speak for "I have a monopoly and will put the screws to you) with no regard to actual productivity. His job was land owner, not sheep raiser.

The same theory has been applied to everything water to clean air to plant varieties to the genes in your own personal cells. The record for radical privatization has been pretty dismal. Oh, it's made a lot of money for a few people. But a very good case could be - and has - been made that the value thus added has been more than outstripped by the increase in transaction costs, the effect of rent-seeking and increased barriers to entry reducing competition.


----------



## theletch1 (Dec 27, 2008)

It seems to me that no matter how well implemented conservation techniques are that eventually the world population (if it continues to grow at the rate it is going now) will out strip the resources on hand.  More people means more living space is needed which means less room to grow food.  If not checked will we not eventually find ourselves in a position to not be able to feed anyone?  Of course, that sets up a scenario for collapse of the species which will leave a small percentage to start all over again.   Even if the world implemented a one child policy that didn't have the pitfalls of the Chinese model would we not eventually wind up in the same position?

Here's an odd thought.  Perhaps war has always been something of a population control and as we move away from global conflict we are creating a scenario which will ensure the eventual demise of the species more surely than any fear in the cold war could have come up with.

Edit: BTW, thanks to everyone joining in the thread and actually having a calm and respectful conversation.


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 27, 2008)

Andy Moynihan said:


> I am, for all practical intents and purposes, pretty much unofficially part of it already.


 
What you really mean is you aren't getting any.  Heh Heh.


----------



## MA-Caver (Dec 27, 2008)

My take on it is that people will breed and breed either like rabbits or whales, meaning having a lot of having only one or two every few years. Wars will ensure the reduction of any surplus population to be sure. Famine, and disease or any of the 4 fabled horsemen will ensure population reduction. And it'll surge again. 
It's nature, it's keeping balance. 
We're headed for a third world war, no doubt about it... it'll probably be over oil or something of that nature, millions will die everywhere and when the dust settles there's room and food for those who are left. 
Same with a pandemic flu, similar to the one that killed hundreds of thousands in the 1800's ... it'll occur in our day and reduce the population. It'll be messy, it'll probably be horrible... it'll hopefully help mankind in general to be more compassionate and see the suffering we wrought upon each other... and how much of it is unnecessary. 

Hopefully in about 100 years from now we will have learned enough to start colonizing the moon and perhaps Mars. True, probably have to grow our own food there but... it's doable. That'll take care of population excess now won't it? heh.



			
				Cryozombie said:
			
		

> > Originally Posted by *Andy Moynihan*
> >
> >
> > _I am, for all practical intents and purposes, pretty much unofficially part of it already._
> ...


Neither am I... got a problem with that? Doesn't make us any less than who/what we are.


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 27, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> Neither am I... got a problem with that? Doesn't make us any less than who/what we are.


 
No Caver.  I have no issue with it.  Me and Andy had a discussion on this subject not so long ago, and I was making reference back to that.  I expect him to get it, probably not anyone else.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 27, 2008)

Logan's Run had an idea, frag you at 21.  Would make it harder to pay off those student loans though.....


----------



## MA-Caver (Dec 27, 2008)

Cryozombie said:


> No Caver.  I have no issue with it.  Me and Andy had a discussion on this subject not so long ago, and I was making reference back to that.  I expect him to get it, probably not anyone else.


It wasn't meant as a challenge fella. :lol:



Bob Hubbard said:


> Logan's Run had an idea, frag you at 21. Would make it harder to pay off those student loans though.....


I think it was at 30 you got fragged and as entertainment for all those who haven't reached that magical number. So you still got time to pay off the student loans.


----------



## MBuzzy (Dec 27, 2008)

tellner said:


> _*MBuzzy*_, the Tragedy of the Commons is not nearly as true as its authors and supporters would like you to believe. Their research - and I use the word very loosely - was quite tendentious. They were tying to prove that common-property resources just wouldn't work and that radical privatization was the only solution.
> 
> Fortunately, it doesn't really work that way.
> 
> ...



While his research may have not been exactly right, the theory still stands.  The basic tenet that a shared resource will eventually be exhausted stands.  If there is a limited amount of any resource and everyone needs, it stands to reason that eventually that resource will run out.  The key that people have learned and must continue learning is that we have to regulate the use of resources in order to KEEP them from dying out.  He was demonstrating that point.  It is the regulation that keeps the resources from being exhausted.  

Another one of his points is that technology can improve the situation (technology in a way, including regulation..it can be argued that technology is any time that there is some extra human interaction to try to change the normal reactions of the system), but it can only delay it for a limited amount of time, eventually you will run into the same problem.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 27, 2008)

chrispillertkd said:


> People may want to read Jacqueline Kasun's _The War on Population_ before investing a lot of time on trying to solve the "problem" of population growth.
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris


 
Go on, I give up, tell us why?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 27, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> It wasn't meant as a challenge fella. :lol:
> 
> 
> I think it was at 30 you got fragged and as entertainment for all those who haven't reached that magical number. So you still got time to pay off the student loans.


21 in the book, 30 in the movie.


----------



## MA-Caver (Dec 27, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> 21 in the book, 30 in the movie.


 Ah... ok... I hadn't read the book. :asian:


----------



## Ray (Dec 27, 2008)

I'm surprised the official Chinese Family Planning Policy hasn't been mentioned.


----------



## theletch1 (Dec 27, 2008)

Ray said:


> I'm surprised the official Chinese Family Planning Policy hasn't been mentioned.


It has, in the OP and in a couple of other places in the thread.  There are some huge problems with the way the Chinese have theirs set up but the concept could be one angle of it.  Does anyone remember the Sci-fi movie where it was illegal to have more than one kid and to travel you had to go through a "scanner" to see if you were pregnant?  I can't remember the title of the movie... those who'd had/attempted to have more than one child were called "breeders" and were sentenced to prison.


----------



## tellner (Dec 27, 2008)

Oh, we'll hover around carrying capacity. The question is how far we've overshot and how traumatic the correction will be. I would be happy to personally spay and neuter every one of the "Quiverfull Christians" and "morally correct number of children" Catholic, "as many as Our Heavenly Father gives us" Mormon, rabbit-like Haredi and "Allah's victory comes from our women's wombs" Muslim equivalents. Bare handed if necessary.

The Chinese method sorta kinda worked. But when it was relaxed the population didn't suddenly shoot up. That's because - and the demographers all agree - Chinese women went to work. They got educated. And a hell of a lot of them decided that marrying Chinese men was less attractive than having their own money and autonomy.

We have a choice. We can try to do things rationally, plan for the future, ignore superstition and make our best stab at solving the problems under conditions of uncertainty.

Or we can do what we've been doing for the last twenty eight years. We can ram our fingers into our ears, scream "LA! LA! LA! LA! LA! I CAN'T HEEEAAARRRR YOU!" and just have faith that Jeebus and the Holy Sacred Infallible Market will magically make everything come out right. We've seen how well that worked. America's stature in the world, its thriving economy, the honesty of its financial markets, the rising standard of living, the unchallenged Rule of Law, and the state of our civil liberties all attest to it.


----------



## Ray (Dec 27, 2008)

tellner said:


> I would be happy to personally spay and neuter every one of the "Quiverfull Christians" and "morally correct number of children" Catholic, "as many as Our Heavenly Father gives us" Mormon, rabbit-like Haredi and "Allah's victory comes from our women's wombs" Muslim equivalents. Bare handed if necessary.


Please bring your bigoted bare hands to the abode of this Mormon. Whether we have zero or a hundred children is our own business, not the business of the Church. Catholics that I know practice a similar philosophy, whether it be their doctrine or not I don't know.


----------



## tellner (Dec 27, 2008)

Settle down their, friend. I'm no religious bigot. In an age where we've overshot the carrying capacity of our planet everyone who believes in a duty to breed to capacity is criminally irresponsible. It doesn't matter what religion they use as a justification.

I have exactly the same beef with anyone's religion as I do with my own. You'll note that I included my own people, Jews in the list. Hell, I included most of the members of my own synagogue and even my own beloved rabbi. You can't get any more evenhanded than that.


----------



## Ray (Dec 27, 2008)

tellner said:


> Settle down their, friend. I'm no religious bigot. In an age where we've overshot the carrying capacity of our planet everyone who believes in a duty to breed to capacity is criminally irresponsible. It doesn't matter what religion they use as a justification.
> 
> I have exactly the same beef with anyone's religion as I do with my own. You'll note that I included my own people, Jews in the list. Hell, I included most of the members of my own synagogue and even my own beloved rabbi. You can't get any more evenhanded than that.


Oy vay, I'm such a schmuck! 

I feel very tempted to issue a warm-hearted apology for mis-understanding the point of your previous post, but it would be so out of character me.


----------



## MA-Caver (Dec 27, 2008)

Ray said:


> Oy vay, I'm such a schmuck!
> 
> I feel very tempted to issue a warm-hearted apology for mis-understanding the point of your previous post, but it would be so out of character me.


G'wan and do it anyway... the Lord will love ya for it. :asian: 
Besides he requires it of you.


----------



## <_> (Dec 27, 2008)

theletch1 said:


> So, I was reading the thread in the Locker Room about the Arkansas couple that has 18 kids and noticed a post by a member stating something along the lines of increasing population and dwindling resources on the planet.  That got me to thinking...
> 
> The population of the world is growing at an exponetial rate and many resources aren't renewable.  Many of the ones that are renewable aren't being renewed.  How do we find a balance?  Should the world as a whole attempt to curb it's usage? Sure.  Will it?  Probably not.  So, the next question is population.  Should the world enact a one child policy like China's?  What do ya'll think of the Voluntary Human Extinction movement?  What's a good world population number?



war = population control


----------



## theletch1 (Dec 27, 2008)

<_> said:


> war = population control


I put forth that very postulation a few posts ago.  My question there is this.  War, as we've known it in centuries past has ended the lives of tens of thousands of human beings in a relatively short period of time.  The world has moved on to an extent.  Wars now are, or are attempted to be, as surgical as possible.  The carpet bombings of Berlin and Dresdin and Tokyo simply aren't going to happen.  The MAD of the Cold War is, for the most part, a bygone thing.  While many countries have nuclear capabilities the idea of world destruction with them isn't at the forefront of too many minds.  So, while war MAY control population in a limited way I just don't see it limiting population in the way it has in centuries past.

The other side of that would be biological warfare that gets out of control.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 27, 2008)

I read somewhere that an old military toast was "to bloody wars and Sickly seasons" because those were the two sure ways to promotions.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Dec 27, 2008)

Big Don said:


> I read somewhere that an old military toast was "to bloody wars and Sickly seasons" because those were the two sure ways to promotions.


 
"Here's to a sudden plague and bloody war!" British I believe.


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder (Dec 27, 2008)

tellner said:


> Settle down their, friend. I'm no religious bigot. In an age where we've overshot the carrying capacity of our planet everyone who believes in a duty to breed to capacity is criminally irresponsible. It doesn't matter what religion they use as a justification.
> 
> I have exactly the same beef with anyone's religion as I do with my own. You'll note that I included my own people, Jews in the list. Hell, I included most of the members of my own synagogue and even my own beloved rabbi. You can't get any more evenhanded than that.


 


tellner said:


> Oh, we'll hover around carrying capacity. The question is how far we've overshot and how traumatic the correction will be. I would be happy to personally spay and neuter every one of the "Quiverfull Christians" and "morally correct number of children" Catholic, "as many as Our Heavenly Father gives us" Mormon, rabbit-like Haredi and "Allah's victory comes from our women's wombs" Muslim equivalents. Bare handed if necessary.
> 
> The Chinese method sorta kinda worked. But when it was relaxed the population didn't suddenly shoot up. That's because - and the demographers all agree - Chinese women went to work. They got educated. And a hell of a lot of them decided that marrying Chinese men was less attractive than having their own money and autonomy.
> 
> ...


 
You've missed quite a few with your broad stroking pen I think. Perhaps you should include some Morish Dancers? Fancy a couple of 7th Day Adventers might need a blow too while your at it. Who'll pay for it all I want to know. Probably need a tax on fornication, sixpence a stroke or something daft I expect. Really though, if your intent is to offer a solution I think you've issed your mark, however, if it's to piss off as many people as you can, well, I think you've bloody well succeeded. One might suggest you choose your words better in the future, lest Ploppy the Jailer serve you some last meal sausages.

Wibble.

As to world population, I would expect it will work itself out. Give enough kids Ipods and Iphones and Ithis and Ithat and they'll weed themselves out of the gene pool, fat little lumps living on fast food and energy drinks, who needs Logan? Just make their fat little selves run, they'll be popping like a balloon in an iron maiden, heart attacks and strokes for everyone.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Dec 28, 2008)

*ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.

-Brian R. VanCise
-MarTialTalk Super Moderator-*


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 28, 2008)

theletch1 said:


> Does anyone remember the Sci-fi movie where it was illegal to have more than one kid and to travel you had to go through a "scanner" to see if you were pregnant? I can't remember the title of the movie... those who'd had/attempted to have more than one child were called "breeders" and were sentenced to prison.


 
I believe that was "Fortress" with Christopher Lambert


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 28, 2008)

Ray said:


> Oy vay, I'm such a schmuck!
> 
> I feel very tempted to issue a warm-hearted apology for mis-understanding the point of your previous post, but it would be so out of character me.


 

It's Oi Vay and you wouldn't use the word schmuck if you knew what it meant ROFL!

I looked up Wikipedia about the forced sterilisation programme that India put into place and found it much more interesting reading than I bargained for.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization


----------



## Ray (Dec 28, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> It's Oi Vay and you wouldn't use the word schmuck if you knew what it meant ROFL!


I've always seen it represented in English as Oy Vay.  I also know what schmuck literally means, thanks to Lenny Bruce.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 28, 2008)

I learned my terms from Buddy Hackett.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 28, 2008)

Ray said:


> I've always seen it represented in English as Oy Vay. I also know what schmuck literally means, thanks to Lenny Bruce.


 
Well it's a Yiddish phrase so should be in Yiddish, you don't put French into English lol!


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 28, 2008)

Ok, there's the solution to population control.
Nuke France.




Seriously, I think the answers been hit on.  Equality, Opportunity, Education and improved living.  There is enough food produced now to support the population, it's just not distributed.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 28, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Ok, there's the solution to population control.
> Nuke France.
> 
> 
> ...


 
Well if you can miss out Brittany and Provence ( they aren't French, ask them!)


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 28, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> Well if you can miss out Brittany and Provence ( they aren't French, ask them!)


Ok.  I'll test them.   Carpet bombing with soap to begin on New Years.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 28, 2008)

All I can say is be careful what you wish for.  The bureaucratic machinery required to pull of world population control would be a monstrosity beyond the capability normal people to control.  In order to truly accomplish global population control, you'd need a global government so invasive and powerful that they could insinuate themselves between every sovereign individual who decided to copulate.

Thus, I will pass on that one.  

Besides, the human animal will naturally correct its population when it overshoots.  As more choice and freedom becomes available people will decide how and when to breed.  The fear mongering that accompanies this debate is old recycled eugenics screed pumped out by tired old Fabians with dreams of utopia.  They oppose freedom because they think assume that the mass of humanity are genetic derelicts incapable of trust when it comes to living their lives.

The Georgia Guidestones


----------



## tahuti (Dec 28, 2008)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_catastrophe


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder (Dec 28, 2008)

I'm all for removing France. Why, if you did, I'd be as happy as a Frenchman who had invented a pair of self removing trousers. Rather Ironic I think.


----------



## Ray (Dec 28, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> Well it's a Yiddish phrase so should be in Yiddish, you don't put French into English lol!


Well, we represent all kinds of foreign words in English. Especially interesting are some from languages that have non-roman alphabets (or types of writing). The Koran, Quran, Qur'an, Qora_an. And so if I Oi as Oy (like oy in toy, roy, boy) it all sounds the same.  One thing that cracks me up every time I see it is the Cyrillic letter that sounds the same an "L" used in some logos as an English A...Like in NASA logos.


----------



## MA-Caver (Dec 28, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Seriously, I think the answers been hit on.  Equality, Opportunity, Education and improved living.  There is enough food produced now to support the population, it's just not distributed.


One wonders if the food that is being sent to places like Somalia, Ethiopia,  and other starving nations if that food were rightfully distributed and those folks gotten the food that was sent would the world's population be even more? If those food stores be rightfully protected from the warlords who steal them for sales to buy arms would they last longer? 
I'm all for Sam Kinneson's idea to send those folks where the food is. Move them out of the places where nothing will grow until the Warlords end up killing each other off and then put them back and build proper irrigation fields so that at least whatever is planted has a chance to survive and they can feed their own. 
There are starving folks in this country and elsewhere that are NOT 3rd World classification... help is needed there as well. 
But then famine/starvation is one way to reduce population surplus isn't it?


----------



## MBuzzy (Dec 28, 2008)

Or why can't we leave them alone, not run to everyone's rescue and let natural selection solve the problem?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 28, 2008)

I'm for that.  Lets stop all foreign aid. It rarely helps anyone but petty dictators.


----------



## tellner (Dec 29, 2008)

Bob, you're a good journeyman photographer. You run a great bulletin board. But you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to the foreign aid policy issues. It's been a long time since I did serious work in the field, but I can dust off some examples if you want.

The vaccination programs eradicated out smallpox, will soon make polio extinct in the wild (if we can just kill enough Talibani to make them stop interfering), are about to wipe out Guinea Worm and cold soon do for rotovirus. That's foreign aid with almost literally incalculable benefits.

A lot of the boring, mudane ag-extension work has improved nutrition and agricultural techniques no end in the Developing World. Even stuff like teaching shepherds to milk sheep from the side is very cost effective. 

The railway the Chinese built in Tanzania was inexpensive but pushed economic development in the hinterlands forward by decades. Of course, that was under the great Joseph Nyrere.

I could go on for several hundred pages just listing examples of highly effective foreign aid. And that's without explanations.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 29, 2008)

Todd,
  I appreciate the compliments, and you're right, I'm not too up on this topic, so I'm not really going to go into alot of detail here. I'm tossing a few notes up, citing my source and passing out for the evening.

- Over the past decade the % of poor in Egypt has remained the same, despite receiving billions of $$$ in US aid.
- Between 1964 when Zambia became independent, and 2000, it's annual per-capita income dropped from $540 to $300, despite over $6 billion in foreign aid.
- The World Bank has concluded that foreign aid likely slows the progress of economic reform, and that "reform is more likely to be preceded by a decline in aid than an increase in aid"
- Humanitarian aid disrupts and in some cases destroys local economies as who can compete with free?
- A study of UN World Food Programs showed that in 84 emergencies, it took 196 days to respond, and what was sent was too late to help relieve hunger, but in time to depress local prices for local farmers.
- Governments receiving the aid tend to hoard it, or distribute it to their supporters, shoring up regimes, and rarely making it to the people most in need.

I could go on, but I need some sleep.

Also, I've seen many references that the $100 Million that USA for Africa raised in the 80's pretty much was a waste, mostly going into dictators coffers and really fed little more than warehouse rats.

*shrug*, either way, it makes no sence to me to keep sending Trillions of dollars out of the country when we have our own poor, hungry and sick here in need.

Reference:
Pg 222-232 - 33 Questions about American History You're Not Supposed to Ask
--Thomas E. Woods Jr.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 29, 2008)

Ray said:


> Well, we represent all kinds of foreign words in English. Especially interesting are some from languages that have non-roman alphabets (or types of writing). The Koran, Quran, Qur'an, Qora_an. And so if I Oi as Oy (like oy in toy, roy, boy) it all sounds the same. One thing that cracks me up every time I see it is the Cyrillic letter that sounds the same an "L" used in some logos as an English A...Like in NASA logos.


 

Well, here politeness dictates that when a Yiddish speaking Jew tells you it's OI it's generally taken that that's how Yiddish speaking Jews prefer to have it written, nu? But hey what would I as a Yiddish speaking Jew know about anything?


----------



## theletch1 (Dec 29, 2008)

Ray said:


> Well, we represent all kinds of foreign words in English. Especially interesting are some from languages that have non-roman alphabets (or types of writing). The Koran, Quran, Qur'an, Qora_an. And so if I Oi as Oy (like oy in toy, roy, boy) it all sounds the same.  One thing that cracks me up every time I see it is the Cyrillic letter that sounds the same an "L" used in some logos as an English A...Like in NASA logos.





Tez3 said:


> Well, here politeness dictates that when a Yiddish speaking Jew tells you it's OI it's generally taken that that's how Yiddish speaking Jews prefer to have it written, nu? But hey what would I as a Yiddish speaking Jew know about anything?


Interesting exchange... but one better suited for another thread.  This ones about how to find a balance between population growth and planetary supplies to support that growth.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 29, 2008)

tahuti said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_catastrophe



Here's Webster Tarpley on Malthus.  He's got some different ideas, some of them are very dangerous to the status quo.  And he's well informed on many topics.  Basically, he looks at the history of Malthusianism and talks about how the Elite use this idea to support their own agenda.

In essence, he states that malthusian steeped bureaucrats will pursue genocidal policies.  A lot of this will challenge popular dogma.  Beware.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 3, 2009)

theletch1 said:


> So, I was reading the thread in the Locker Room about the Arkansas couple that has 18 kids and noticed a post by a member stating something along the lines of increasing population and dwindling resources on the planet.  That got me to thinking...
> 
> The population of the world is growing at an exponetial rate and many resources aren't renewable.  Many of the ones that are renewable aren't being renewed.  How do we find a balance?  Should the world as a whole attempt to curb it's usage? Sure.  Will it?  Probably not.  So, the next question is population.  Should the world enact a one child policy like China's?  What do ya'll think of the Voluntary Human Extinction movement?  What's a good world population number?


 Idiocracy......the intelligent will limit their reproduction and the stupid will inherit the earth by shear force of numbers! 
:iws:

The only other two alternatives are....

1) A totalitarian world government capable of ENFORCING population control standards....:dalek:

2) Expansion to Mars........:xwing:


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 3, 2009)

MBuzzy said:


> Or why can't we leave them alone, not run to everyone's rescue and let natural selection solve the problem?


 If we don't, we may learn why no good deed ever goes unpunished!


----------

