Chirac warns of 'African flood'

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 20:50:19 +0200, "NightRaven"
wrote:

Dave Frightens Me wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 18:16:10 +0200, "NightRaven"
wrote:

Jim Ley wrote:
On 15 Jul 2006 14:16:52 -0700, "R. Lander"

wrote:

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.

The only reason we are able to uphold our standard of living,
(and not starve), is because the third world is starving
today.

That is complete bull****. We have our standard of living due
to
having a history of being organised - end of story. No one
needs to
starve for our prosperity.

That's a fairy-tale, wealth and prosperity Always comes at the
expense of someone else, otherwhise where would the wealth come
from in the first place ?

Hard work resulting in something that someone else wants. Do you
understand the notion?

Or are you denying slave-traders, wars,
pilfering, skewed trade treaties, out-sourcing, explotations of
labour, etc. ? We (the west) have a history of violence and
dis-organisation, that's why we used to have kingdoms and
tyrranies, it was the best way to control us. Give us liberty,
freedom and technology and we run to web to squabble amongst
ourselves our petty things.
Japan, though, does have a history of being organsied, which
probably explains why they've managed to rise to be an economical
superpower.

It's that simple, we just pushed the problems of a too large
population over on third world countries, the results can be
seen
today in the massive hunger catastrophies in other countries.
Eventually it will catch up to us though, it's like a tree
lighting setting it's roots on fire to stop from freezing to
death.
We *are* too many people today, but the answer is not in
reducing
the population in Africa, but rather in Europe, US, Mexico and
Japan for instance.

You have a serious guilt complex, eh?

Me ? Over what ? I didn't partake in the exploitation of the
third world when it started. I'm not saying I'm spotless, no
human are, but in this case I can't really feel I have anything
to be guilty of.

Then why do you seem to care so much about it? It's just another
travesty of history.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 19:51:43 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

NightRaven writes:

The only reason we are able to uphold our standard of living,
(and not starve), is because the third world is starving today.

Hardly. Much of the Third World would be starving either way.

Most of the Third World's problems are of its own making, contrary to
popular opinion.

That opinion is not that popular.

We *are* too many people today, but the answer is not in reducing
the population in Africa, but rather in Europe, US, Mexico and
Japan for instance.

The poorest populations are the ones that must be reduced most
urgently, otherwise they will never have the same standard of living
as the richest populations.

That isn't nice.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

Dave Frightens Me writes:

In this type of world, you mightn't have been given the chance to be
who you are.

Why not?

For pilots, the criteria is to get a plane to its destination without
any problems.

For a human?

To raise children without abusing them or harming them or neglecting
them or otherwise destroying their lives.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and
prestwich tesco 24h offy wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:

Dave Frightens Me writes:

I'd love to see what type of exam that would entail, and just how they
would stop the failers from breeding.

An extremely severe prison term would work pretty well. And of course
unlicensed parents would forfeit any children they had before going to
prison.

The exam shouldn't be too much trouble. We have exams for pilots,
doctors, and lawyers; we can certain devise exams for prospective
parents.

Do you think it's possible Mixi has actually started drinking?

I doubt it, but his infantile attention-seeking behaviour has dragged
him to new depths. I can't be bothered with him any more.

B;

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
news
Dave Frightens Me writes:

In this type of world, you mightn't have been given the chance to be
who you are.

Why not?

For pilots, the criteria is to get a plane to its destination without
any problems.

For a human?

To raise children without abusing them or harming them or neglecting
them or otherwise destroying their lives.


You are quoting only negatives. Don't love and affection come into this too,
or are those emotions which you consider superfluous and/or un-necessary?

JohnT

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 23:05:03 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Dave Frightens Me writes:

In this type of world, you mightn't have been given the chance to be
who you are.

Why not?

Because you contribute little.

For pilots, the criteria is to get a plane to its destination without
any problems.

For a human?

To raise children without abusing them or harming them or neglecting
them or otherwise destroying their lives.

And the benefit of this would be?
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

JohnT writes:

You are quoting only negatives. Don't love and affection come into this too,
or are those emotions which you consider superfluous and/or un-necessary?

Love and affection are important, but they cannot compensate for
incompetence.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Dave Frightens Me writes:

And the benefit of this would be?

A better and happier world for all of us.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 18:31:29 +0100, Whitedog
wrote:

Neither Hong Kong nor Singapore nor many other nice and wealthy
places can produce enough food for its inhabitants.

Both Hong Kong and Singapore are very small regions and can import
food from nearby. It's quite another thing for a whole continent not
to be self-succient in food production.
--
Barbara Vaughan

My email address is my first initial followed by my last name at libero dot it.

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 20:50:19 +0200, "NightRaven"
wrote:

That's a fairy-tale, wealth and prosperity Always comes at the
expense of someone else, otherwhise where would the wealth come
from in the first place ?

Through increased specialisation, if the bloke who's brilliant and
making shoes can spend more time making shoes and less time breeding
pigs, then there are more shoes than if everyone made their own.
Wealth is not a zero-sum game.

Jim.