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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Chirac warns of 'African flood'
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 19:57:01 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote: 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. 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. If you don't control population, eventually everyone will be living in poverty, and then they will starve. 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. whilst of course you might be true in the extreme that infinite population growth is a problem (although everyone wouldn't die of starvation obviously) It's not a problem we're remotely approaching now, and certainly not something worth be concerned with now. Reducing poverty is a much more important aim. Jim. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Chirac warns of 'African flood'
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 19:59:29 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote: Jim Ley writes: ... the not having any more born was covered too ... Covered? Yes, the post dealt with it, you just chose to ignore it. ... 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. No it won't, that's simply not true 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. Except of course many communities in the world have done it without a problem, all the rich countries we have now had growing populations as they became rich... 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, So you do believe in controlling the individuals ability to have children for a "greater good" ? If you had to pick a political ideology that had similar beliefs, which would you choose? Jim. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Chirac warns of 'African flood'
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 20:00:22 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote: Jim Ley writes: How much what? How much do we have in the way of resources in the world, in practical terms, much more than we need. and how many people will it support, and with what standard of living? I answered those... Jim. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Chirac warns of 'African flood'
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 20:02:21 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote: 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. Jim. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Chirac warns of 'African flood'
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message ... 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? A lot, and with a quality of life at least the equal of yours. JohnT |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Chirac warns of 'African flood'
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message ... I think people should be restricted in the number of children they can have, but obviously reproduction cannot be completely prohibited. Why "obviously"? JohnT |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Chirac warns of 'African flood'
On 15 Jul 2006 00:59:51 -0700, "Hooverphonic"
wrote: B Vaughan wrote: On 14 Jul 2006 12:01:22 -0700, "Hooverphonic" wrote: but if I look at what is on the news about Africa its always doom and gloom from a people / wildlife / environment perspective. if the population is going up there will only be less to go round and they will remain in poverty, with wildlife and environment suffering the consequences. Africa is at present not very densely populated, though, so population increase doesn't necessarily mean that the environment will be trashed. Also each African represents a tiny percentage of the world's energy consumption compared to a European or an American. I remember how very dark the nights were in Zambia, even near cities, and how luminous the stars were as a consequence. It was really a beautiful country, red soil, dark green vegetation, very blue rivers and skies. However, rapid growth means an ever-increasing burden on schools, hospitals, and other resources. The last I heard, though, growth is slowing down, mainly due to decreases in fertility. -- Barbara Vaughan My email address is my first initial followed by my surname at libero dot it I answer travel questions only in the newsgroup |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Chirac warns of 'African flood'
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 12:03:01 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote: Hooverphonic writes: if the population is going up there will only be less to go round and they will remain in poverty, with wildlife and environment suffering the consequences. Correct. That's the problem with overpopulation anywhere (including on the planet as a whole). Except that Africa as a whole (aside from certain cities) is not very densely populated. -- Barbara Vaughan My email address is my first initial followed by my surname at libero dot it I answer travel questions only in the newsgroup |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Chirac warns of 'African flood'
Jim Ley wrote:
On 15 Jul 2006 00:59:51 -0700, "Hooverphonic" wrote: if the population is going up there will only be less to go round 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. Who's talking rubbish here? You claim to understand that nothing's infinite, yet you won't draw a consumption boundary. I think most growth-pushers do believe resources are infinite. They ignore the constant depletion of water, arable land, biomass and fossil fuels. Anything that can't be exactly measured is deemed infinite by lack of data. Nothing on Earth is getting more plentiful except crowds and "intellectual capital." The latter is too ethereal to address physical limits. Long term support for a bigger population than today's overstressed 6.5 billion is unlikely. How many more people will you allow to suffer? Several billion live in misery already (Africa being one portion of that). Read the news and get off the Catholic high chair. At the very least we'd have to secure renewable energy on a scale matching that of oil. Hydrogen is just an energy carrier, not a solution to scarcity. A clean (mobile) energy source to replace oil is a tricky proposition. Petroleum has enabled most of today's population bloat. Many biologists conclude that 2 billion may be the maximum sustainable level after oil peaks and crashes. See http://tinyurl.com/hbhf9 Then, there's the question of how much nature you want to keep razing to accommodate more people. Thousands of acres are urbanized each day, including farmland we'll need for food and biofuels. Champions of perpetual growth show little concern for that tragedy. They are driven by the old vices of greed, ego and misguided religion. R. Lander |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Chirac warns of 'African flood'
On 15 Jul 2006 14:16:52 -0700, "R. Lander"
wrote: Jim Ley wrote: On 15 Jul 2006 00:59:51 -0700, "Hooverphonic" wrote: if the population is going up there will only be less to go round 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. Who's talking rubbish here? You claim to understand that nothing's infinite, yet you won't draw a consumption boundary. Population control isn't a consumption boundary, given how all the heavy consumers of world resources are in countries with little or negative population growth without immigration. How many more people will you allow to suffer? 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? Several billion live in misery already. Yep, because of disgusting policies of rich *******s, including the Catholic church, but not because of their policies towards birth control, but because of their lack of focus on trade. Read the news and get off the Catholic high chair. Erm? I think you're somewhat confused, the catholic church is one of the most anachronistic religions in the world today, as an organisation is causes tremendous harm the world over, including by discouraging access to birth control. However, that's completely different to the problems of 3rd world poverty - it's probably more relevant to rich world compative poverty than 3rd world poverty. At the very least we'd have to secure renewable energy on a scale matching that of oil. Which there are lots of choices. A clean (mobile) energy source to replace oil is a tricky proposition. No it's not, it's a simple one - your problem was leaving out the word cheap, but even with the word cheap, there are plenty of solutions - the blue algae biomass fuel solutions would be great choices for the desert reasons of the world. 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. Champions of perpetual growth show little concern for that tragedy. WTF is a champion of perpetual growth? could you show me some? I've never heard of such a beast - I've heard how removing poverty reduces population growth down to 0 (most of the rich countries of the world grow today only because of immigration) Jim. |
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 |