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 |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Chirac warns of 'African flood'
Relieving poverty does not cause a reduction in birth rate. Education
does, however. Or providing people with condoms, birth control pills, etc. But the US won't provide aid to countries that use birth control, right? How stupid is that religion - it's evil to stop people from being born, but not evil to let babies suffer and die because there's no food to feed them (because African warlords take the aid rather than give it to the people, anyway..) |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Chirac warns of 'African flood'
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 00:19:58 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote: Jim Ley writes: [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 has been true since time immemorial, and it will remain true forever. How exactly is it true? you're saying the existence of war and murder is the only thing that has stopped nature killing everyone on the planet, because that's rubbish. So you do believe in controlling the individuals ability to have children for a "greater good" ? Yes. Interesting... Jim. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Chirac warns of 'African flood'
|
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Chirac warns of 'African flood'
Jim Ley writes:
How exactly is it true? Famine and pestilence. ... you're saying the existence of war and murder is the only thing that has stopped nature killing everyone on the planet, because that's rubbish. No. Controlling population and concentrating on improving the lot of those already born (while reproduction is reduced) can hold off the revenge of nature. Interesting... I agree. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Chirac warns of 'African flood'
Jim Ley writes:
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? I think parents should be licensed. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Chirac warns of 'African flood'
Jim Ley writes:
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. How fast does the population have to grow in order to qualify as a population explosion? -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Chirac warns of 'African flood'
Jim Ley wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 20:02:21 +0200, Mxsmanic 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. And families which are poor require more labouring hands to bring in crops or income, to help domestically, and to increase the probability that some offspring will still be around to care for you in your old age. Political factors are behind most famine. It's no coincidence that during the great drought of the 80s, it was countries in civil war (e.g. somalia/eritrea/ethiopia) which fared worst. -- Ken Tough |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Chirac warns of 'African flood'
Apparently Mxsmanic wrote:
writes: Or providing people with condoms, birth control pills, etc. But the US won't provide aid to countries that use birth control, right? I don't know. Won't it? Yes, US aid funds mandate a specific proportion be tied to abstinence- only and pro-life programs, and withhold funding related to abortion and limit condom-related programs. This is also the main reason why the US withheld its UN dues every other year for dozens of years. (It had to pay up every second year to ensure it didn't embarrassingly lose its vote in the General Assembly). It's a major bugbear in aid circles. The conservatives have a lot of clout and nobble a lot of good work. http://www.womensenews.org/article.c...ontext/archive http://www.kff.org/hivaids/7185.cfm http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0830-02.htm http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/3/gr060301.html -- Ken Tough |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Chirac warns of 'African flood'
Jim Ley wrote: On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 18:20:46 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote: 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? How much what? exactly what? I have no idea what a "and with what standard of living?" can apply to an exactly - do you mean population of the planet? I would say 12,453,123,109 and with a standard of living of 87.6 on the Theolophis scale. And they could all fit into the state of Texas... -- Best Greg |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Chirac warns of 'African flood'
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 00:39:51 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote: Jim Ley writes: How exactly is it true? Famine and pestilence. So it's not true at all, there's quite a few rich countries in the world who've not controlled their population through war, and haven't all died out through famine or pestilence. 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 |