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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Chirac warns of 'African flood'
Hooverphonic writes:
I was thinking, tackle the problem at source, i.e. have less kids. Exactly. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Chirac warns of 'African flood'
On 15 Jul 2006 07:44:35 -0700, "Hooverphonic"
wrote: Jim Ley wrote: killing all the children (or stopping more children being born) would do nothing to provide for those middle group of people when they grew old. I suppose you could selectively kill people, based on some sort of testing, or maybe ethnic origin to reduce the impact, but I can hardly see that as a way to resolve problems. I was thinking, tackle the problem at source, i.e. have less kids. Which was covered, it does nothing to provide for the rest of the population as they age. Jim. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Chirac warns of 'African flood'
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 18:21:48 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote: Jim Ley writes: No it wouldn't, killing all pensioners would lead to a knowledge deficit, and lack of cheap support for workers. Killing a large proportion of the middle aged, would lead to no-one to do the work to keep everyone else alive, and killing all the children (or stopping more children being born) would do nothing to provide for those middle group of people when they grew old. Nobody said anything about killing anyone, except you. nope, I looked at ways to reduce population, there's either killing poeple, or not having any more born, the not having any more born was covered too, it's just as a naiive solution as you normally come up with. not having new children born does nothing but make matters worse for those who are still alive. Of course, every human society we've seen has smaller birthrates as they get richer, and that is natural, because you can invest more in the individual child, so decreasing poverty is likely going to do a lot more than your simplistic advice which does nothing but harms individuals. Are you a communist perhaps? Not let people have any children for the "greater good" ? Jim. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Chirac warns of 'African flood'
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. Jim. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Chirac warns of 'African flood'
Jim Ley wrote: On 15 Jul 2006 07:44:35 -0700, "Hooverphonic" wrote: Jim Ley wrote: killing all the children (or stopping more children being born) would do nothing to provide for those middle group of people when they grew old. I suppose you could selectively kill people, based on some sort of testing, or maybe ethnic origin to reduce the impact, but I can hardly see that as a way to resolve problems. I was thinking, tackle the problem at source, i.e. have less kids. Which was covered, it does nothing to provide for the rest of the population as they age. Jim. how many kids do you suggest per family ? |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Chirac warns of 'African flood'
On 15 Jul 2006 10:34:34 -0700, "Hooverphonic"
wrote: I was thinking, tackle the problem at source, i.e. have less kids. Which was covered, it does nothing to provide for the rest of the population as they age. Jim. how many kids do you suggest per family ? For what? In general it will depend on things like mortality rates etc. Let's be clear controlling family size is not a sensible solution for African poverty. Jim. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Chirac warns of 'African flood'
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. If you don't control population, eventually everyone will be living in poverty, and then they will starve. There is no way around this, so any policy that constantly increases population is doomed. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Chirac warns of 'African flood'
Jim Ley writes:
nope, I looked at ways to reduce population, there's either killing poeple, or not having any more born ... The latter is the usual method. ... the not having any more born was covered too ... Covered? ... 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. You're saying that the only possible scenario is widespread poverty, disease, famine, and death? ... not having new children born does nothing but make matters worse for those who are still alive. How so? Of course, every human society we've seen has smaller birthrates as they get richer, and that is natural, because you can invest more in the individual child, so decreasing poverty is likely going to do a lot more than your simplistic advice which does nothing but harms individuals. 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. Are you a communist perhaps? No. 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, but obviously reproduction cannot be completely prohibited. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Chirac warns of 'African flood'
Jim Ley writes:
How much what? How much do we have in the way of resources in the world, and how many people will it support, and with what standard of living? I have no idea what a "and with what standard of living?" can apply to an exactly ... I agree. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Chirac warns of 'African flood'
Jim Ley writes:
Let's be clear controlling family size is not a sensible solution for African poverty. Why not? -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 11:44 AM |
Chirac refuses to give up his necktie! | Earl | Europe | 84 | June 19th, 2004 12:54 PM |