If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Chirac warns of 'African flood'
Jim Ley wrote:
On 15 Jul 2006 00:59:51 -0700, "Hooverphonic" wrote: if the population is going up there will only be less to go round Rubbish, whilst there is not an infinite amount of resources, there is certainly more than enough for much larger population than the earth has now. Who's talking rubbish here? You claim to understand that nothing's infinite, yet you won't draw a consumption boundary. I think most growth-pushers do believe resources are infinite. They ignore the constant depletion of water, arable land, biomass and fossil fuels. Anything that can't be exactly measured is deemed infinite by lack of data. Nothing on Earth is getting more plentiful except crowds and "intellectual capital." The latter is too ethereal to address physical limits. Long term support for a bigger population than today's overstressed 6.5 billion is unlikely. How many more people will you allow to suffer? Several billion live in misery already (Africa being one portion of that). Read the news and get off the Catholic high chair. At the very least we'd have to secure renewable energy on a scale matching that of oil. Hydrogen is just an energy carrier, not a solution to scarcity. A clean (mobile) energy source to replace oil is a tricky proposition. Petroleum has enabled most of today's population bloat. Many biologists conclude that 2 billion may be the maximum sustainable level after oil peaks and crashes. See http://tinyurl.com/hbhf9 Then, there's the question of how much nature you want to keep razing to accommodate more people. Thousands of acres are urbanized each day, including farmland we'll need for food and biofuels. Champions of perpetual growth show little concern for that tragedy. They are driven by the old vices of greed, ego and misguided religion. R. Lander |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Chirac warns of 'African flood'
On 15 Jul 2006 14:16:52 -0700, "R. Lander"
wrote: Jim Ley wrote: On 15 Jul 2006 00:59:51 -0700, "Hooverphonic" wrote: if the population is going up there will only be less to go round Rubbish, whilst there is not an infinite amount of resources, there is certainly more than enough for much larger population than the earth has now. Who's talking rubbish here? You claim to understand that nothing's infinite, yet you won't draw a consumption boundary. Population control isn't a consumption boundary, given how all the heavy consumers of world resources are in countries with little or negative population growth without immigration. How many more people will you allow to suffer? forced sterilisation, or forced abortions, or what??? is not a way to eliminate suffering If you're not suggesting such things to "limit population growth", exactly what are you suggesting? Several billion live in misery already. Yep, because of disgusting policies of rich *******s, including the Catholic church, but not because of their policies towards birth control, but because of their lack of focus on trade. Read the news and get off the Catholic high chair. Erm? I think you're somewhat confused, the catholic church is one of the most anachronistic religions in the world today, as an organisation is causes tremendous harm the world over, including by discouraging access to birth control. However, that's completely different to the problems of 3rd world poverty - it's probably more relevant to rich world compative poverty than 3rd world poverty. At the very least we'd have to secure renewable energy on a scale matching that of oil. Which there are lots of choices. A clean (mobile) energy source to replace oil is a tricky proposition. No it's not, it's a simple one - your problem was leaving out the word cheap, but even with the word cheap, there are plenty of solutions - the blue algae biomass fuel solutions would be great choices for the desert reasons of the world. Many biologists conclude that 2 billion may be the maximum sustainable level after oil peaks and crashes. And in the 60's many believed 4 billion based on food, turned out to be complete bunkum just like wherever that url might've taken me. Champions of perpetual growth show little concern for that tragedy. WTF is a champion of perpetual growth? could you show me some? I've never heard of such a beast - I've heard how removing poverty reduces population growth down to 0 (most of the rich countries of the world grow today only because of immigration) Jim. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Chirac warns of 'African flood'
B Vaughan writes:
Except that Africa as a whole (aside from certain cities) is not very densely populated. Large parts of Africa cannot support dense populations. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Chirac warns of 'African flood'
Jim Ley writes:
Because it it's not the cause of poverty, it's a by product of the poverty which leads to high mortality rates. You need to fight the causes. I don't understand. High mortality rates were not under discussion. The discussion concerned controlling birth rates. And population explosions very definitely lead to poverty. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Chirac warns of 'African flood'
Jim Ley writes:
No it's not, you're confusing things, releiving poverty causes a reduction in birth rates - the population ages, that's simply a result of improved life expectancy, it's not the other way around, no country ever got rich by killing all its children. Nobody has suggested killing anyone. Relieving poverty does not cause a reduction in birth rate. Education does, however. That's an interesting conclusion, and one that seems likely, especially as it was forecast in the 60's and 70's to be true by now, but it far from happened, indeed we are still having to limit food production. Be patient; it's inevitable. Right now many populations live on a very jagged edge: a little bit too much drought, and they start dying. That's because there are too many of them. Reducing poverty is a much more important aim. How do you propose going about reducing poverty? Are you opposed to abortion, by the way? -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Chirac warns of 'African flood'
Jim Ley writes:
No it won't, that's simply not true It has been true since time immemorial, and it will remain true forever. So you do believe in controlling the individuals ability to have children for a "greater good" ? Yes. If you had to pick a political ideology that had similar beliefs, which would you choose? I'm not aware of any ideology that believes what I believe. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Chirac warns of 'African flood'
JohnT writes:
Why "obviously"? Because you must continue to reproduce to some extent, so that you don't have "holes" in the demographics. Obviously you can still prohibit specific individuals from reproducing. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Chirac warns of 'African flood'
Jim Ley writes:
in practical terms, much more than we need. Give me the numbers. I answered those... I'm still waiting for numbers. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Chirac warns of 'African flood'
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 00:14:25 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote: Jim Ley writes: Because it it's not the cause of poverty, it's a by product of the poverty which leads to high mortality rates. You need to fight the causes. I don't understand. High mortality rates were not under discussion. The discussion concerned controlling birth rates. They're inextricably linked. And population explosions very definitely lead to poverty. I wouldn't even agree to that - there have certainly been population explosions which didn't lead to poverty (UK in the 19th century, the USA throughout it's history pretty much) but of course the continent of africa is not going through a population explosion. Jim. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Chirac warns of 'African flood'
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 00:16:41 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote: Relieving poverty does not cause a reduction in birth rate. Education does, however. All evidence suggests that they're linked. Be patient; it's inevitable. Right now many populations live on a very jagged edge: a little bit too much drought, and they start dying. That's because there are too many of them. No, that's because they're kept too poor to be able to manage their resources sensibly. Reducing poverty is a much more important aim. How do you propose going about reducing poverty? I've talked about that, removing tarifs, increasing freedom of movement of both people but particularly trade, stop subsidising rich farmers - which would help reduce your cost of living in france too, improving your wealth too. Are you opposed to abortion, by the way? Absolutely not! Jim. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Chirac warns of 'African flood' | Hooverphonic | Europe | 171 | July 29th, 2006 04:10 PM |
France gets its first black TV presenter after Chirac pressure | eetinBelgië | Europe | 10 | March 11th, 2006 11:44 AM |
Bombs in LOndon | The Reids | Europe | 799 | July 25th, 2005 09:03 AM |
Chirac refuses to give up his necktie! | Earl | Europe | 84 | June 19th, 2004 12:54 PM |