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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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..)

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.