A Travel and vacations forum. TravelBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » TravelBanter forum » Other Travel Groups » Travel - anything else not covered
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Chirac warns of 'African flood'



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old July 15th, 2006, 07:06 PM posted to rec.travel.europe,rec.travel.africa,rec.travel.misc
Jim Ley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 862
Default Chirac warns of 'African flood'

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 19:57:01 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Jim Ley writes:

Which was covered, it does nothing to provide for the rest of the
population as they age.


You cannot provide for the aged through a spiral of ever-increasing
population, either. Handling the aged is a matter of raising the
standard of living, and increasing the population is in direct
conflict with this goal.


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.

If you don't control population, eventually everyone will be living in
poverty, and then they will starve.


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. whilst of course you might be true in the extreme that
infinite population growth is a problem (although everyone wouldn't
die of starvation obviously) It's not a problem we're remotely
approaching now, and certainly not something worth be concerned with
now. Reducing poverty is a much more important aim.

Jim.
  #22  
Old July 15th, 2006, 07:09 PM posted to rec.travel.europe,rec.travel.africa,rec.travel.misc
Jim Ley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 862
Default Chirac warns of 'African flood'

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 19:59:29 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Jim Ley writes:
... the not having any more born was covered too ...


Covered?


Yes, the post dealt with it, you just chose to ignore it.

... it's just as a naiive solution as you normally come up
with.


If you don't control births and you don't kill anyone, nature will
kill everyone.


No it won't, that's simply not true

It's hard to decrease poverty when the population is doubling every
few years and more than half the people alive are still dependents
themselves.


Except of course many communities in the world have done it without a
problem, all the rich countries we have now had growing populations as
they became rich...

Not let people have any children for the "greater good" ?


No. I think people should be restricted in the number of children
they can have,


So you do believe in controlling the individuals ability to have
children for a "greater good" ? If you had to pick a political
ideology that had similar beliefs, which would you choose?

Jim.
  #23  
Old July 15th, 2006, 07:10 PM posted to rec.travel.europe,rec.travel.africa,rec.travel.misc
Jim Ley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 862
Default Chirac warns of 'African flood'

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 20:00:22 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Jim Ley writes:

How much what?


How much do we have in the way of resources in the world,


in practical terms, much more than we need.

and how many people will it support, and with what standard of living?


I answered those...

Jim.
  #24  
Old July 15th, 2006, 07:17 PM posted to rec.travel.europe,rec.travel.africa,rec.travel.misc
Jim Ley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 862
Default Chirac warns of 'African flood'

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 20:02:21 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Jim Ley writes:

Let's
be clear controlling family size is not a sensible solution for
African poverty.


Why not?


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.

Jim.
  #25  
Old July 15th, 2006, 08:21 PM posted to rec.travel.europe,rec.travel.africa,rec.travel.misc
JohnT[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 414
Default Chirac warns of 'African flood'


"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Jim Ley writes:

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.


How much, exactly, and with what standard of living?


A lot, and with a quality of life at least the equal of yours.

JohnT


  #26  
Old July 15th, 2006, 08:29 PM posted to rec.travel.europe,rec.travel.africa,rec.travel.misc
JohnT[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 414
Default Chirac warns of 'African flood'


"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...

I think people should be restricted in the number of children
they can have, but obviously reproduction cannot be completely
prohibited.


Why "obviously"?

JohnT


  #27  
Old July 15th, 2006, 08:52 PM posted to rec.travel.europe,rec.travel.africa,rec.travel.misc
B Vaughan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,871
Default Chirac warns of 'African flood'

On 15 Jul 2006 00:59:51 -0700, "Hooverphonic"
wrote:


B Vaughan wrote:
On 14 Jul 2006 12:01:22 -0700, "Hooverphonic"
wrote:

but if I look at what is on the news about Africa its always doom and
gloom from a people / wildlife / environment perspective.

if the population is going up there will only be less to go round and
they will remain in poverty, with wildlife and environment suffering
the consequences.


Africa is at present not very densely populated, though, so population
increase doesn't necessarily mean that the environment will be
trashed. Also each African represents a tiny percentage of the world's
energy consumption compared to a European or an American. I remember
how very dark the nights were in Zambia, even near cities, and how
luminous the stars were as a consequence. It was really a beautiful
country, red soil, dark green vegetation, very blue rivers and skies.

However, rapid growth means an ever-increasing burden on schools,
hospitals, and other resources. The last I heard, though, growth is
slowing down, mainly due to decreases in fertility.
--
Barbara Vaughan
My email address is my first initial followed by my surname at libero dot it
I answer travel questions only in the newsgroup
  #28  
Old July 15th, 2006, 08:52 PM posted to rec.travel.europe,rec.travel.africa,rec.travel.misc
B Vaughan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,871
Default Chirac warns of 'African flood'

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 12:03:01 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Hooverphonic writes:

if the population is going up there will only be less to go round and
they will remain in poverty, with wildlife and environment suffering
the consequences.


Correct. That's the problem with overpopulation anywhere (including
on the planet as a whole).


Except that Africa as a whole (aside from certain cities) is not very
densely populated.

--
Barbara Vaughan
My email address is my first initial followed by my surname at libero dot it
I answer travel questions only in the newsgroup
  #29  
Old July 15th, 2006, 10:16 PM posted to rec.travel.europe,rec.travel.africa,rec.travel.misc
R. Lander
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13
Default 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

  #30  
Old July 15th, 2006, 10:54 PM posted to rec.travel.europe,rec.travel.africa,rec.travel.misc
Jim Ley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 862
Default 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.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Chirac warns of 'African flood' Hooverphonic Africa 114 August 2nd, 2006 08:54 PM
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 12:44 PM
Chirac refuses to give up his necktie! Earl Europe 84 June 19th, 2004 12:54 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 TravelBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.