Chirac warns of 'African flood'

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 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.

Jim Ley wrote:
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.

on the stock market it is

I didn't want to be part oif this fray, but I felt that I had to make
this point:

Every major famine that we have experienced over the past 200-odd
years has been completely avoidable. In every case there were
political reasons for the disaster.

Biafra, Ethiopia (1970's and 1980's), Sudan (1980's and present),
Ireland (1840's), North Korea (2004), Afghanistan (often), Zimbabwe
(present), China (late 1950's), Vietnam (1945), India (often), Europe
(WWII), etc. etc. etc. In every case, food was available nearby, but
was witheld for political reasons.

It's not a question of there being too many PEOPLE to feed, it's a
question of having too many political opponents and pawns to feed.

Marc - Johannesburg

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 00:16:41 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:


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.

Marc Lurie wrote:
I didn't want to be part oif this fray, but I felt that I had to make
this point:

Every major famine that we have experienced over the past 200-odd
years has been completely avoidable. In every case there were
political reasons for the disaster.

Biafra, Ethiopia (1970's and 1980's), Sudan (1980's and present),
Ireland (1840's), North Korea (2004), Afghanistan (often), Zimbabwe
(present), China (late 1950's), Vietnam (1945), India (often), Europe
(WWII), etc. etc. etc. In every case, food was available nearby, but
was witheld for political reasons.

It's not a question of there being too many PEOPLE to feed, it's a
question of having too many political opponents and pawns to feed.

Marc - Johannesburg

With less people there would be less conflict and more wildlife. (flora
and fauna)
More resources would be available and last longer.

When conflict used to arise a tribe would move on to greener pastures.
These days that is impossible without causing conflict, because
somebody else is already living there.

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 01:01:45 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Dave Frightens Me writes:

And the benefit of this would be?

A better and happier world for all of us.

Wouldn't giving us all a million dollars do that?
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

Dave Frightens Me wrote:

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 01:01:45 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Dave Frightens Me writes:

And the benefit of this would be?

A better and happier world for all of us.

Wouldn't giving us all a million dollars do that?

For Mixi? I take it you didn't follow the thread where he suggested that
was a paltry sum.

--
David Horne- http://www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk
http://homepage.mac.com/davidhornecomposer http://soundjunction.org

On 17 Jul 2006 03:46:35 -0700, "Hooverphonic"
wrote:

With less people there would be less conflict and more wildlife. (flora
and fauna)
More resources would be available and last longer.

When conflict used to arise a tribe would move on to greener pastures.
These days that is impossible without causing conflict, because
somebody else is already living there.

This is an extremely simplistic view. And while it may have held some
merit at some stage, the fact of the matter is that people aren't
nomadic any more.

There have been no significant numbers of nomads anywhere on earth for
the past two hundred years, so your point is completely moot.

Marc Lurie wrote:
On 17 Jul 2006 03:46:35 -0700, "Hooverphonic"
wrote:

With less people there would be less conflict and more wildlife. (flora
and fauna)
More resources would be available and last longer.

When conflict used to arise a tribe would move on to greener pastures.
These days that is impossible without causing conflict, because
somebody else is already living there.

This is an extremely simplistic view. And while it may have held some
merit at some stage, the fact of the matter is that people aren't
nomadic any more.

There have been no significant numbers of nomads anywhere on earth for
the past two hundred years, so your point is completely moot.

hence use of *past* tense !

the future is that is growing populations in the same place,
i.e.more competition for a dwindling amount of resources.

the message is reduce the population.