Question for the socialists among us.

[Renton 17805]

Of course the downside can be the unintended consequences, like reducing child death........

 

[Guest alex]

I'm surprised no one has suggested this is a conspiracy to take our minds off the global financial OMG meltdown.

[NJS 3981]

Of course the downside can be the unintended consequences, like reducing child death........

 

 

 

He's right in a way - in South America the poor keep having too many kids (with the blessing of the church of course) because of high child mortality and the need for providers. If you could do something about the basic poverty then you'd affect the over-population as well.

[Guest alex]

Of course the downside can be the unintended consequences, like reducing child death........

 

 

 

He's right in a way - in South America the poor keep having too many kids (with the blessing of the church of course) because of high child mortality and the need for providers. If you could do something about the basic poverty then you'd affect the over-population as well.

Similar in most 'Third World' countries. It's self-perpetuating.

[Renton 17805]

Of course the downside can be the unintended consequences, like reducing child death........

 

 

 

He's right in a way - in South America the poor keep having too many kids (with the blessing of the church of course) because of high child mortality and the need for providers. If you could do something about the basic poverty then you'd affect the over-population as well.

 

Given your socialist background I'd always assumed you were joking with your overpopulation comments, or at least tongue in cheek. I would have thought overpopulation was a different debate and would focus on the need for contraception, not the death of children already born through pandemic. It seems odd to list reducing child mortality as an unfortunate side effect of giving aid, to say the least.

 

Improving the health welfare of a country should go hand in hand with population control in any case, I'm sure there is plenty of evidence for this, although I concede that there are also exceptions (e.g. Ethiopia).

Edited April 29, 2009 by Renton

[Park Life 70]

If I'm socialist?

 

I give the vaccine to everyone I can, shoot everyone I can't, then tell the state-owned media that we've vaccinated 100% of the populace.

 

This game is easy. Next question?

 

 

 

Placebo Shirley?

[Fop 1]

Of course the downside can be the unintended consequences, like reducing child death........

 

 

 

He's right in a way - in South America the poor keep having too many kids (with the blessing of the church of course) because of high child mortality and the need for providers. If you could do something about the basic poverty then you'd affect the over-population as well.

Similar in most 'Third World' countries. It's self-perpetuating.

 

Aye if you could reduce population growth in most poor countries their standards of living would rocket within a generation, it's like trying to climb up an escalator that is moving down, stop the escalator and suddenly you're progressing.

 

To a large degree poverty is a symptom of run away population, and it does tend to feed back into itself.

 

 

(Never mind though Rention. )

[Park Life 70]

Of course the downside can be the unintended consequences, like reducing child death........

 

 

 

He's right in a way - in South America the poor keep having too many kids (with the blessing of the church of course) because of high child mortality and the need for providers. If you could do something about the basic poverty then you'd affect the over-population as well.

Similar in most 'Third World' countries. It's self-perpetuating.

 

Aye if you could reduce population growth in most poor countries their standards of living would rocket within a generation, it's like trying to climb up an escalator that is moving down, stop the escalator and suddenly you're progressing.

 

To a large degree poverty is a symptom of run away population, and it does tend to feed back into itself.

 

 

(Never mind though Rention. )

 

 

I'd say distribution of wealth rather than overpopulation is the main killer.

[Renton 17805]

To a large degree poverty is a symptom of run away population, and it does tend to feed back into itself.

 

I'd suggest it was the over way round, but it's chicken and egg stuff. But if you really regard reducing child mortality as an unfortunate side effect of aid programs (this is what you said, right?), why don't you simply advocate the benefits of genocide instead?

[Fop 1]

Of course the downside can be the unintended consequences, like reducing child death........

 

 

 

He's right in a way - in South America the poor keep having too many kids (with the blessing of the church of course) because of high child mortality and the need for providers. If you could do something about the basic poverty then you'd affect the over-population as well.

 

Given your socialist background I'd always assumed you were joking with your overpopulation comments, or at least tongue in cheek. I would have thought overpopulation was a different debate and would focus on the need for contraception, not the death of children already born through pandemic. It seems odd to list reducing child mortality as an unfortunate side effect of giving aid, to say the least.

 

Improving the health welfare of a country should go hand in hand with population control in any case, I'm sure there is plenty of evidence for this, although I concede that there are also exceptions (e.g. Ethiopia).

 

Where did anyone say that?

 

It's simply a fact that reducing child death rate equals increasing population expansion. Hardly an "unfortunate side effect or giving aid", but a real problem never the less.

 

And a cycle that simply cannot be broken by repeating the cycle endlessly (or until population reaches the point of some massive implosion).

[Park Life 70]

Solutions to all the worlds problems may be found in repeated viewings of 'The Lion King.'

[Renton 17805]

Of course the downside can be the unintended consequences, like reducing child death........

 

 

 

He's right in a way - in South America the poor keep having too many kids (with the blessing of the church of course) because of high child mortality and the need for providers. If you could do something about the basic poverty then you'd affect the over-population as well.

 

Given your socialist background I'd always assumed you were joking with your overpopulation comments, or at least tongue in cheek. I would have thought overpopulation was a different debate and would focus on the need for contraception, not the death of children already born through pandemic. It seems odd to list reducing child mortality as an unfortunate side effect of giving aid, to say the least.

 

Improving the health welfare of a country should go hand in hand with population control in any case, I'm sure there is plenty of evidence for this, although I concede that there are also exceptions (e.g. Ethiopia).

 

Where did anyone say that?

 

It's simply a fact that reducing child death rate equals increasing population expansion. Hardly an "unfortunate side effect or giving aid", but a real problem never the less.

 

And a cycle that simply cannot be broken by repeating the cycle endlessly (or until population reaches the point of some massive implosion).

 

Post 26 Fop. Actually looking back you said unintended consequences, which is even more non-sensical, as the main purpose of overseas aid is to save life, especially in children, so it very much is intended. I don't agree that overpopulation is an inevitable consequence of saving children's lives either, fwiw. I don't recall the most populated country on the planet, China, ever having substantial aid programs. Or India for that matter. Or Brazil. Or the USA.

[Fop 1]

To a large degree poverty is a symptom of run away population, and it does tend to feed back into itself.

 

I'd suggest it was the over way round, but it's chicken and egg stuff. But if you really regard reducing child mortality as an unfortunate side effect of aid programs (this is what you said, right?), why don't you simply advocate the benefits of genocide instead?

 

Except it's not, if you give a decent stand or living to the poor they don't instantly stop breeding (again look at immigrant birth rates in the UK, even 2nd and 3rd generation).

 

Yet you can reduce poverty quite quickly by reducing birth rate (look at the places in Africa where it is being done, or even China for that matter).

[Fop 1]

Of course the downside can be the unintended consequences, like reducing child death........

 

 

 

He's right in a way - in South America the poor keep having too many kids (with the blessing of the church of course) because of high child mortality and the need for providers. If you could do something about the basic poverty then you'd affect the over-population as well.

 

Given your socialist background I'd always assumed you were joking with your overpopulation comments, or at least tongue in cheek. I would have thought overpopulation was a different debate and would focus on the need for contraception, not the death of children already born through pandemic. It seems odd to list reducing child mortality as an unfortunate side effect of giving aid, to say the least.

 

Improving the health welfare of a country should go hand in hand with population control in any case, I'm sure there is plenty of evidence for this, although I concede that there are also exceptions (e.g. Ethiopia).

 

Where did anyone say that?

 

It's simply a fact that reducing child death rate equals increasing population expansion. Hardly an "unfortunate side effect or giving aid", but a real problem never the less.

 

And a cycle that simply cannot be broken by repeating the cycle endlessly (or until population reaches the point of some massive implosion).

 

Post 26 Fop. Actually looking back you said unintended consequences, which is even more non-sensical, as the main purpose of overseas aid is to save life, especially in children, so it very much is intended. I don't agree that overpopulation is an inevitable consequence of saving children's lives either, fwiw. I don't recall the most populated country on the planet, China, ever having substantial aid programs. Or India for that matter. Or Brazil. Or the USA.

 

Yes Fop knows fine well that Fop did indeed say unintended consequences, because Fop was talking about something completely different to what you wanted to imply Fop was saying (which is par for the course admittedly )

[Fop 1]

Solutions to all the worlds problems may be found in repeated viewings of 'The Lion King.'

 

Eat the weak?

[Renton 17805]

To a large degree poverty is a symptom of run away population, and it does tend to feed back into itself.

 

I'd suggest it was the over way round, but it's chicken and egg stuff. But if you really regard reducing child mortality as an unfortunate side effect of aid programs (this is what you said, right?), why don't you simply advocate the benefits of genocide instead?

 

Except it's not, if you give a decent stand or living to the poor they don't instantly stop breeding (again look at immigrant birth rates in the UK, even 2nd and 3rd generation).

 

Yet you can reduce poverty quite quickly by reducing birth rate (look at the places in Africa where it is being done, or even China for that matter).

 

These are cultural problems though. Not to labour the point, I find the concept of not helping developing countries to reduce child mortality (especially during times of a crisis) on the basis they will become overpopulated distasteful. I'd assumed there was no real argument about that tbh.

[Park Life 70]

To a large degree poverty is a symptom of run away population, and it does tend to feed back into itself.

 

I'd suggest it was the over way round, but it's chicken and egg stuff. But if you really regard reducing child mortality as an unfortunate side effect of aid programs (this is what you said, right?), why don't you simply advocate the benefits of genocide instead?

 

Except it's not, if you give a decent stand or living to the poor they don't instantly stop breeding (again look at immigrant birth rates in the UK, even 2nd and 3rd generation).

 

Yet you can reduce poverty quite quickly by reducing birth rate (look at the places in Africa where it is being done, or even China for that matter).

 

All the people living in the whole of Africa can fit into Texas. FACT.

[Park Life 70]

Solutions to all the worlds problems may be found in repeated viewings of 'The Lion King.'

 

Eat the weak?

 

Eat the beautiful.

[Guest alex]

Parky, the Lie-In King. Gold star for anyone who gets that reference without looking it up btw.

[Renton 17805]

Of course the downside can be the unintended consequences, like reducing child death........

 

 

 

He's right in a way - in South America the poor keep having too many kids (with the blessing of the church of course) because of high child mortality and the need for providers. If you could do something about the basic poverty then you'd affect the over-population as well.

 

Given your socialist background I'd always assumed you were joking with your overpopulation comments, or at least tongue in cheek. I would have thought overpopulation was a different debate and would focus on the need for contraception, not the death of children already born through pandemic. It seems odd to list reducing child mortality as an unfortunate side effect of giving aid, to say the least.

 

Improving the health welfare of a country should go hand in hand with population control in any case, I'm sure there is plenty of evidence for this, although I concede that there are also exceptions (e.g. Ethiopia).

 

Where did anyone say that?

 

It's simply a fact that reducing child death rate equals increasing population expansion. Hardly an "unfortunate side effect or giving aid", but a real problem never the less.

 

And a cycle that simply cannot be broken by repeating the cycle endlessly (or until population reaches the point of some massive implosion).

 

Post 26 Fop. Actually looking back you said unintended consequences, which is even more non-sensical, as the main purpose of overseas aid is to save life, especially in children, so it very much is intended. I don't agree that overpopulation is an inevitable consequence of saving children's lives either, fwiw. I don't recall the most populated country on the planet, China, ever having substantial aid programs. Or India for that matter. Or Brazil. Or the USA.

 

Yes Fop knows fine well that Fop did indeed say unintended consequences, because Fop was talking about something completely different to what you wanted to imply Fop was saying (which is par for the course admittedly )

 

Care to answer the point about China, India, Brazil and the USA Fop? As far as the world's resources go, overpopulation in Africa and Latin America isn't even really a problem in any case.

[Guest alex]

Of course the downside can be the unintended consequences, like reducing child death........

 

 

 

He's right in a way - in South America the poor keep having too many kids (with the blessing of the church of course) because of high child mortality and the need for providers. If you could do something about the basic poverty then you'd affect the over-population as well.

 

Given your socialist background I'd always assumed you were joking with your overpopulation comments, or at least tongue in cheek. I would have thought overpopulation was a different debate and would focus on the need for contraception, not the death of children already born through pandemic. It seems odd to list reducing child mortality as an unfortunate side effect of giving aid, to say the least.

 

Improving the health welfare of a country should go hand in hand with population control in any case, I'm sure there is plenty of evidence for this, although I concede that there are also exceptions (e.g. Ethiopia).

 

Where did anyone say that?

 

It's simply a fact that reducing child death rate equals increasing population expansion. Hardly an "unfortunate side effect or giving aid", but a real problem never the less.

 

And a cycle that simply cannot be broken by repeating the cycle endlessly (or until population reaches the point of some massive implosion).

 

Post 26 Fop. Actually looking back you said unintended consequences, which is even more non-sensical, as the main purpose of overseas aid is to save life, especially in children, so it very much is intended. I don't agree that overpopulation is an inevitable consequence of saving children's lives either, fwiw. I don't recall the most populated country on the planet, China, ever having substantial aid programs. Or India for that matter. Or Brazil. Or the USA.

 

Yes Fop knows fine well that Fop did indeed say unintended consequences, because Fop was talking about something completely different to what you wanted to imply Fop was saying (which is par for the course admittedly )

 

Care to answer the point about China, India, Brazil and the USA Fop? As far as the world's resources go, overpopulation in Africa and Latin America isn't even really a problem in any case.

It's a potential (and likely) future problem though. Although it seems a bit cheeky to tell them to stop having bairns when you consider the amount of resources countries in the 'west' use.

[Fop 1]

All the people living in the whole of Africa can fit into Texas. FACT.

 

Everyone on the planet can stand on the Isle of Wight, but that doesn't mean the Isle of Wight (or the whole of the UK or the whole of the EU) can feed and provide a high standard of living to those people (never mind the environment and every other living thing).

 

And we're going to get 3 Billion more people in the next 25-50 years, so even the Isle of Wight isn't big enough any more.

[NJS 3981]

Renton :

 

What I meant is that poverty, over-population and Catholic/Muslim encouragement of breeding without consequence are all linked. Of course I'd loce to see a panacea that allows 10bn or more humans to inhabit the earth in peace at a reasonable standard of living but it isn't easy due to capitalism, politics and religion.

 

My comments on the pandemic were meant as a suggestion that it could be one possible "hand forcing" action to address over-population - its a natural/simplistic event which would over-ride "impossible" obstructions.

 

My Mam was very much of the view that all life was "sacred" and as long as people were loved then the suffering was a bearable consequence - I think that the suffering caused by poverty etc is too high a price and I would rather have fewer people who are "happier".

 

I fully accept that "promoting" a pandemic beyond anything else in history could be a coward's way out of suggesting genocide which I could never sanction but I still feel that without a miracle food or poverty relieving invention the human race is doomed if it comtinues at present groeth rates.

 

This also ignores cliamte change of course.

[Guest alex]

There's enough water in Loch Ness to make a cup of tea for everyone in the world.

[Park Life 70]

All the people living in the whole of Africa can fit into Texas. FACT.

 

Everyone on the planet can stand on the Isle of Wight, but that doesn't mean the Isle of Wight (or the whole of the UK or the whole of the EU) can feed and provide a high standard of living to those people (never mind the environment and every other living thing).

 

And we're going to get 3 Billion more people in the next 25-50 years, so even the Isle of Wight isn't big enough any more.

 

When Rob W starts worrying about these things I'll take notice.