0
   

40 billion? That’s it? Are you sh!tting me? Feed the world!

 
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Mar, 2007 05:41 am
http://dieoff.org/page75.htm

Quote:
"Science Summit" on World Population:
A Joint Statement by 58 of the World's Scientific Academies

In a follow-up to several recent initiatives by assemblies of scientists and scientific academies, most notably one taken by the Royal Society of London and the US National Academy of Sciences that resulted in a joint statement, "Population Growth, Resource Consumption, and a Sustainable World, '' issued in February 1992 (see Documents, PDR, June 1992), representatives of national academies of science from throughout the world met in New Delhi, 24-27 October 1993, at a ''Science Summit'' on World Population. The participants issued a statement, signed by representatives of 58 academies. The statement offers a wide-ranging if ex cathedra-style discussion of population issues related to development, notably on the determinants of fertility and concerning the effect of demographic growth on the environment and the quality of life. It also sets forth policy propositions, with emphasis on contributions that ''scientists, engineers, and health professionals'' can make to the solution of population problems. The statement finds that ''continuing population growth poses a great risk to humanity, '' and proposes a demographic goal, albeit with a rather elusive specification of a time frame: "In our judgement, humanity's ability to deal successfully with its social, economic, and environmental problems will require the achievement of zero population growth within the lifetime of our children. '' The text of the academies ' statement is reproduced below.

The New Delhi meeting was convened by a group of 15 academies "to explore in greater detail the complex and interrelated issues of population growth, resource consumption, socioeconomic development, and environmental protection.'' One of the convening organizations, the Nairobi-based African Academy of Sciences, declined to sign the joint statement, issuing, instead, one of its own. The text of this statement is reproduced below as the second Documents item appearing in this issue. Other academies that did not participate in the New Delhi meeting, or did not choose to sign the joint statement (whether for substantive or procedural reasons), included academies of Ireland, Italy, Japan, Singapore, and Spain, and the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. Notwithstanding the African Academy dissent, representatives of six African national academies, among them four from countries of sub-Saharan Africa (Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, and Uganda) were among the fifty-eight signatories.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The growing world population

The world is in the midst of an unprecedented expansion of human numbers. It took hundreds of thousands of years for our species to reach a population level of 10 million, only 10,000 years ago. This number grew to 100 million people about 2,000 years ago and to 2.5 billion by 1950. Within less than the span of a single lifetime, it has more than doubled to 5.5 billion in 1993.

This accelerated population growth resulted from rapidly lowered death rates (particularly infant and child mortality rates), combined with sustained high birth rates. Success in reducing death rates is attributable to several factors: increases in food production and distribution, improvements in public health (water and sanitation) and in medical technology (vaccines and antibiotics), along with gains in education and standards of living within many developing nations.

Over the last 30 years, many regions of the world have also dramatically reduced birth rates. Some have already achieved family sizes small enough, if maintained, to result eventually in a halt to population growth. These successes have led to a slowing of the world's rate of population increase. The shift from high to low death and birth rates has been called the "demographic transition."

The rate at which the demographic transition progresses worldwide will determine the ultimate level of the human population. The lag between downward shifts of death and birth rates may be many decades or even several generations, and during these periods population growth will continue inexorably. We face the prospect of a further doubling of the population within the next half century. Most of this growth will take place in developing countries.

Consider three hypothetical scenarios* for the levels of human population in the century ahead:

Fertility declines within sixty years from the current rate of 3.3 to a global replacement average of 2.1 children per woman. The current population momentum would lead to at least 11 billion people before leveling off at the end of the 21st century.
Fertility reduces to an average of 1.7 children per woman early in the next century. Human population growth would peak at 7.8 billion persons in the middle of the 21st century and decline slowly thereafter.
Fertility declines to no lower than 2.5 children per woman. Global population would grow to 19 billion by the year 2100, and to 28 billion by 2150.
The actual outcome will have enormous implications for the human condition and for the natural environment on which all life depends.

Key determinants of population growth

High fertility rates have historically been strongly correlated with poverty, high childhood mortality rates, low status and educational levels of women, deficiencies in reproductive health services, and inadequate availability and acceptance of contraceptives. Falling fertility rates and the demographic transition are generally associated with improved standards of living, such as increased per capita incomes, increased life expectancy, lowered infant mortality, increased adult literacy, and higher rates of female education and employment.

Even with improved economic conditions, nations, regions, and societies will experience different demographic patterns due to varying cultural influences. The value placed upon large families (especially among underprivileged rural populations in less developed countries who benefit least from the process of development), the assurance of security for the elderly, the ability of women to control reproduction, and the status and rights of women within families and within societies are significant cultural factors affecting family size and the demand for family planning services.

Even with a demand for family planning services, the adequate availability of and access to family planning and other reproductive health services are essential in facilitating slowing of the population growth rate. Also, access to education and the ability of women to determine their own economic security influence their reproductive decisions.

Population growth, resource consumption, and the environment

Throughout history and especially during the twentieth century, environmental degradation has primarily been a product of our efforts to secure improved standards of food, clothing, shelter, comfort, and recreation for growing numbers of people. The magnitude of the threat to the ecosystem is linked to human population size and resource use per person. Resource use, waste production and environmental degradation are accelerated by population growth. They are further exacerbated by consumption habits, certain technological developments, and particular patterns of social organization and resource management.

As human numbers further increase, the potential for irreversible changes of far reaching magnitude also increases. Indicators of severe environmental stress include the growing loss of biodiversity, increasing greenhouse gas emissions, increasing deforestation worldwide, stratospheric ozone depletion, acid rain, loss of topsoil, and shortages of water, food, and fuel-wood in many parts of the world.

While both developed and developing countries have contributed to global environmental problems, developed countries with 85 percent of the gross world product and 23 percent of its population account for the largest part of mineral and fossil-fuel consumption, resulting in significant environmental impacts. With current technologies, present levels of consumption by the developed world are likely to lead to serious negative consequences for all countries. This is especially apparent with the increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide and trace gases that have accompanied industrialization, which have the potential for changing global climate and raising sea level.

In both rich and poor countries, local environmental problems arise from direct pollution from energy use and other industrial activities, inappropriate agricultural practices, population concentration, inadequate environmental management, and inattention to environmental goals. When current economic production has been the overriding priority and inadequate attention has been given to environmental protection, local environmental damage has led to serious negative impacts on health and major impediments to future economic growth. Restoring the environment, even where still possible, is far more expensive and time consuming than managing it wisely in the first place; even rich countries have difficulty in affording extensive environmental remediation efforts.

The relationships between human population, economic development, and the natural environment are complex. Examination of local and regional case studies reveals the influence and interaction of many variables. For example, environmental and economic impacts vary with population composition and distribution, and with rural-urban and international migrations. Furthermore, poverty and lack of economic opportunities stimulate faster population growth and increase incentives for environmental degradation by encouraging exploitation of marginal resources.

Both developed and developing countries face a great dilemma in reorienting their productive activities in the direction of a more harmonious interaction with nature. This challenge is accentuated by the uneven stages of development. If all people of the world consumed fossil fuels and other natural resources at the rate now characteristic of developed countries (and with current technologies), this would greatly intensify our already unsustainable demands on the biosphere. Yet development is a legitimate expectation of less developed and transitional countries.

The earth is finite

The growth of population over the last half century was for a time matched by similar world-wide increases in utilizable resources. However, in the last decade food production from both land and sea has declined relative to population growth. The area of agricultural land has shrunk, both through soil erosion and reduced possibilities of irrigation. The availability of water is already a constraint in some countries. These are warnings that the earth is finite, and that natural systems are being pushed ever closer to their limits.

Quality of life and the environment

Our common goal is improving the quality of life for all people, those living today and succeeding generations, ensuring their social, economic, and personal well-being with guarantees of fundamental human rights; and allowing them to live harmoniously with a protected environment. We believe that this goal can be achieved, provided we are willing to undertake the requisite social change. Given time, political will, and intelligent use of science and technology, human ingenuity can remove many constraints on improving human welfare worldwide, finding substitutes for wasteful practices, and protecting the natural environment.

But time is short and appropriate policy decisions are urgently needed. The ability of humanity to reap the benefits of its ingenuity depends on its skill in governance and management, and on strategies for dealing with problems such as widespread poverty, increased numbers of aged persons, inadequate health care and limited educational opportunities for large groups of people, limited capital for investment, environmental degradation in every region of the world, and unmet needs for family planning services in both developing and developed countries. In our judgement, humanity's ability to deal successfully with its social, economic, and environmental problems will require the achievement of zero population growth within the lifetime of our children.

Human reproductive health

The timing and spacing of pregnancies are important for the health of the mother, her children, and her family. Most maternal deaths are due to unsafe practices in terminating pregnancies, a lack of readily available services for high-risk pregnancies, and women having too many children or having them too early and too late in life.

Millions of people still do not have adequate access to family planning services and suitable contraceptives. Only about one-half of married women of reproductive age are currently practicing contraception. Yet as the director-general of UNICEF put it, ''Family planning could bring more benefits to more people at less cost than any other single technology now available to the human race." Existing contraceptive methods could go far toward alleviating the unmet need if they were available and used in sufficient numbers, through a variety of channels and distribution, sensitively adapted to local needs.

But most contraceptives are for use by women, who consequently bear the risks to health. The development of contraceptives for male use continues to lag. Better contraceptives are needed for both men and women, but developing new contraceptive approaches is slow and financially unattractive to industry. Further work is needed on an ideal spectrum of contraceptive methods that are safe, efficacious, easy to use and deliver, reasonably priced, user-controlled and responsive, appropriate for special populations and age cohorts, reversible, and at least some of which protect against sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS.

Reducing fertility rates, however, cannot be achieved merely by providing more contraceptives. The demand for these services has to be addressed. Even when family planning and other reproductive health services are widely available, the social and economic status of women affects individual decisions to use them. The ability of women to make decisions about family size is greatly affected by gender roles within society and in sexual relationships. Ensuring equal opportunity for women in all aspects of society is crucial.

Thus all reproductive health services must be implemented as a part of broader strategies to raise the quality of human life. They must include the following:

Efforts to reduce and eliminate gender-based inequalities. Women and men should have equal opportunities and responsibilities in sexual, social, and economic life.
Provision of convenient family planning and other reproductive health services with a wide variety of safe contraceptive options. irrespective of an individual's ability to pay.
Encouragement of voluntary approaches to family planning and elimination of unsafe and coercive practices.
Development policies that address basic needs such as clean water, sanitation, broad primary health care measures and education; and that foster empowerment of the poor and women.
"The adoption of a smaller family norm, with consequent decline in total fertility, should not be viewed only in demographic terms. It means that people, and particularly women, are empowered and are taking control of their fertility and the planning of their lives; it means that children are born by choice, not by chance, and that births are better planned; and it means that families are able to invest relatively more in a smaller number of beloved children, trying to prepare them for a better future."*

Sustainability of the natural world as everyone's responsibility

In addressing environmental problems, all countries face hard choices. This is particularly so when it is perceived that there are short-term tradeoffs between economic growth and environmental protection, and where there are limited financial resources. But the downside risks to the earth?-our environmental life support system?-over the next generation and beyond are too great to ignore. Current trends in environmental degradation from human activities combined with the unavoidable increase in global population will take us into unknown territory.

Other factors, such as inappropriate governmental policies, also contribute in nearly every case. Many environmental problems in both rich and poor countries appear to be the result of policies that are misguided even when viewed on short-term economic grounds. If a longer-term view is taken, environmental goals assume an even higher priority.

The prosperity and technology of the industrialized countries give them greater opportunities and greater responsibility for addressing environmental problems worldwide. Their resources make it easier to forestall and to ameliorate local environmental problems. Developed countries need to become more efficient in both resource use and environmental protection, and to encourage an ethic that eschews wasteful consumption. If prices, taxes, and regulatory policies include environmental costs, consumption habits will be influenced. The industrialized countries need to assist developing countries and communities with funding and expertise in combating both global and local environmental problems. Mobilizing "technology for environment" should be an integral part of this new ethic of sustainable development.

For all governments it is essential to incorporate environmental goals at the outset in legislation, economic planning, and priority setting; and to provide appropriate incentives for public and private institutions, communities, and individuals to operate in environmentally benign ways. Tradeoffs between environmental and economic goals can be reduced through wise policies. For dealing with global environmental problems, all countries of the world need to work collectively through treaties and conventions, as has occurred with such issues as global climate change and biodiversity, and to develop innovative financing mechanisms that facilitate environmental protection.

What science and technology can contribute toward enhancing the human prospect

As scientists cognizant of the history of scientific progress and aware of the potential of science for contributing to human welfare, it is our collective judgement that continuing population growth poses a great risk to humanity. Furthermore, it is not prudent to rely on science and technology alone to solve problems created by rapid population growth, wasteful resource consumption, and poverty.

The natural and social sciences are nevertheless crucial for developing new understanding so that governments and other institutions can act more effectively, and for developing new options for limiting population growth, protecting the natural environment, and improving the quality of human life.

Scientists, engineers, and health professionals should study and provide advice on:

Cultural, social, economic, religious, educational, and political factors that affect reproductive behavior, family size, and successful family planning.
Conditions for human development, including the impediments that result from economic inefficiencies: social inequalities; and ethnic, class, or gender biases.
Global and local environmental change (affecting climate, biodiversity, soils, water, air), its causes (including the roles of poverty, population growth, economic growth, technology, national and international politics), and policies to mitigate its effects.
Strategies and tools for improving all aspects of education and human resource development, with special attention to women.
Improved family planning programs, contraceptive options for both sexes, and other reproductive health services, with special attention to needs of women; and improved general primary health care, especially maternal and child health care.
Transitions to economies that provide increased human welfare with less consumption of energy and materials.
Improved mechanisms for building indigenous capacity in the natural sciences, engineering, medicine, social sciences, and management in developing countries, including an increased capability of conducting integrated interdisciplinary assessments of societal issues.
Technologies and strategies for sustainable development (agriculture, energy, resource use, pollution control, materials recycling, environmental management and protection).
Networks, treaties, and conventions that protect the global commons.
Strengthened world-wide exchanges of scientists in education, training, and research.
Action is needed now

Humanity is approaching a crisis point with respect to the interlocking issues of population, environment, and development. Scientists today have the opportunity and responsibility to mount a concerted effort to confront our human predicament. But science and technology can only provide tools and blueprints for action and social change. It is the governments and international decision-makers, including those meeting in Cairo next September at the United Nations International Conference on Population and Development, who hold the key to our future. We urge them to take incisive action now and to adopt an integrated policy on population and sustainable development on a global scale. With each year's delay the problems become more acute. Let 1994 be remembered as the year when the people of the world decided to act together for the benefit of future generations.

Reprinted from Population and Development Review, Vol. 20, no. 1 (March 1994):233-238

See Also THE POPULATION EXPLOSION is from Paul and Anne Ehirlich.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE COMING ANARCHY
by Robert Kaplan
"The cities of West Africa at night are some of the unsafest places in the world. Streets are unlit; the police often lack gasoline for their vehicles; armed burglars, carjackers, and muggers proliferate. `The government in Sierra Leone has no writ after dark,' says a foreign resident, shrugging. When I was in the capital, Freetown, last September, eight men armed with AK-47s broke into the house of an American man. They tied him up and stole everything of value. Forget Miami: direct flights between the United States and the Murtala Muhammed Airport, in neighboring Nigeria's largest city, Lagos, have been suspended by order of the U.S. Secretary of Transportation because of ineffective security at the terminal and its environs. A State Department report cited the airport for 'extortion by law-enforcement and immigration officials.' This is one of the few times that the U.S. government has embargoed a foreign airport for reasons that are linked purely to crime. In Abidjan, effectively the capital of the Cote d'Ivoire, or Ivory Coast, restaurants have stick-and-gun-wielding guards who walk you the fifteen feet or so between your car and the entrance, giving you an eerie taste of what American cities might be like in the future. An Italian ambassador was killed by gunfire when robbers invaded an Abidjan restaurant. The family of the Nigerian ambassador was tied up and robbed at gunpoint in the ambassador's residence. After university students in the Ivory Coast caught bandits who had been plaguing their dorms, they executed them by hanging tires around their necks and setting the tires on fire. In one instance Ivorian policemen stood by and watched the 'necklacings,' afraid to intervene. Each time I went to the Abidjan bus terminal, groups of young men with restless, scanning eyes surrounded my taxi, putting their hands all over the windows, demanding 'tips' for carrying my luggage even though I had only a rucksack. In cities in six West African countries I saw similar young men everywhere?-hordes of them. They were like loose molecules in a very unstable social fluid, a fluid that was clearly on the verge of igniting."

A PREMONITION OF THE FUTURE

"West Africa is becoming THE symbol of worldwide demographic, environmental, and societal stress, in which criminal anarchy emerges as the real `strategic' danger. Disease, overpopulation, unprovoked crime, scarcity of resources, refugee migrations, the increasing erosion of nation-states and international borders, and the empowerment of private armies, security firms, and international drug cartels are now most tellingly demonstrated through a West African prism. West Africa provides an appropriate introduction to the issues, often extremely unpleasant to discuss, that will soon confront our civilization. ..."
0 Replies
 
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Mar, 2007 06:25 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:

I see. Your whole purpose here is to make an ass of yourself... got it.


Dream on hippie.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
I don't know what underprivelidged people are, but I've helped plenty of underprivileged people.


If you don't know who they are, how do you know who to help, William?

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Let's see. Donated $25-$50 gift certificates to at least 100 different charities, 50% percent of the proceeds from 2 restaurants, on 3 occasions, cut a check for $4,000 to the family of poor local kid (Cedarburg) who needed a multiple organ transplant, have been doing the Save the Children with the Christian Children's Fund forever and pretty much every other damn thing the kids approach me with. You?


I just collect for Lifeline every year.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Again, your question was answered by the opening post, genius. Can you read?


My reading skills are in the A plus category. I'm just now wondering about your comprehension skills, William.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
No wonder the world is in such sorry shape. I start a thread questioning how tough it might be to feed starving children, and half the respondents think we shouldn't. Rolling Eyes



I'm a realist Bill. Saving people so they can starve to death in front of us is not what I would call a humanitarian goalkick.

How will you feed them?
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Mar, 2007 06:31 am
Chumly wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
[Chumly, the evidence I asked for was for your outrageous theories.
You made the claim as per my so-called "outrageous theories" thus I challenge you to logically demonstrate they are so-called "outrageous theories". If you cannot your assertion is specious.
Laughing You made the claims, not I. I asked for evidence that some credible source agrees feeding the hungry and offering basic medicine to the poor would cause cause more harm than good within decades, admittedly with an ad hominem attached, but that's hardly justification for you to transfer your burden of proof to me). Now you think I should prove YOUR theories false before you try to prove them true? Laughing Not likely.

Chumly wrote:
I note my prior post has been dodged in terms of a fair and equal response, and as such if you are ill-prepared or otherwise disinclined to respond in kind I ask: why should I extend an as-a-rule shared and unpretentious courtesy that is not returned?
That response offered no substantiation whatsoever.

Chumly wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
You needn't reiterate that nonsense for a third time (once was more than enough).
More argumentum ad hominem, this does not in any way justly your positions, in fact quite the opposite.
Rolling Eyes Look up ad hominem here. Though the 'insane crack' qualified; what you just quoted was an attack on your argument (nonsense), not your person.

Chumly wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Show me one reputable study that thinks as you do.
Words to the effect of a third reiteration of nonsense with no proof
I see you are now spamming my thread with ?'population is a problem' pieces. Please start your own if you want to discuss that. I'm not even going to search your spam for evidence that someone agrees with your outrageous theory that feeding and/or immunizing the poor will put the human race in greater peril within decades. If you can find and quote a concise piece that does, from a reputable source fine… but please stop spamming the thread, though you've probably already succeeded in permanently derailing it with your nonsense. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Mar, 2007 06:33 am
I can't read all of that, Chumly, but I assume the argument is that if we feed all the people here now and they grow up and reproduce and we feed them... and because we have fed everyone there is less room on earth to grow the needed crops, not to mention the increased need for housing (wood/trees and other natural resources), clothing (cotton, silk, etc) and on and on .

I see the problem. But, I'd still gladly give $10 per week. Long term, the key would be in the distribution of birth control and education. Not the food.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Mar, 2007 06:35 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Thanks Thomas. I see that friendly old man from the Christian Children's Fund got to you too.

Almost. In the case of CARE, it was basically nostalgia. My mother, born during World War II, always spoke fondly of the CARE packages Americans sent to Germany after World War II to ameliorate the hunger there. She was especially fond of the chocolate bars that came with those packages. Chocolate was a decadent luxury in Germany back in those years. But thanks to CARE, my mother and her brothers could binge on it -- one piece of chocolate a day! So, when I left the Lutheran Church and had spare money as a result, I donated it to CARE international. It just seemed like the obvious, non-sectarian way of giving back.

In the case of Save the Children it wasn't a friendly old man from the Christian Children's fund. It was a nice senior-highschool girl. She walked up to me in Chicago last year with a well-rehearsed, but warm and idealistic sales pitch. She steamrolled me. On my next internet session, anxious that I've fallen for a scam, I checked www.charitynavigator.com to check out what kind of organization Save the Children was. It turned out that not only are they not a scam, they are in fact fairly efficient at converting donations into benefits for the poorest people in the world. So I kept my membership alive.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Mar, 2007 06:38 am
squinney wrote:


I see the problem. But, I'd still gladly give $10 per week. Long term, the key would be in the distribution of birth control and education. Not the food.


I've got nothing to add it just bears repeating because it was said so well.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Mar, 2007 06:40 am
Builder wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:

I see. Your whole purpose here is to make an ass of yourself... got it.


Dream on hippie.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
I don't know what underprivelidged people are, but I've helped plenty of underprivileged people.


If you don't know who they are, how do you know who to help, William?
I know of no such word ?'underprivelidged', hence, I know of no such people.

Builder wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Again, your question was answered by the opening post, genius. Can you read?


My reading skills are in the A plus category. I'm just now wondering about your comprehension skills, William.
All evidence to the contrary. The initial post is a question of what it would cost to feed the people and then a suggestion that we do it… including the costs per person, per household or a 5% tax increase. How did you miss that Mr. A plus?

Builder wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
No wonder the world is in such sorry shape. I start a thread questioning how tough it might be to feed starving children, and half the respondents think we shouldn't. Rolling Eyes



I'm a realist Bill. Saving people so they can starve to death in front of us is not what I would call a humanitarian goalkick.

How will you feed them?
Amazing. If you are an A plus reader; I shouldn't have to tell you to read the opening post repeatedly, genius.
0 Replies
 
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Mar, 2007 06:48 am
Do you have children, William?
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Mar, 2007 07:10 am
I see Bill's point and agree that it is beyond horrendous that "feeding the world" could be accomplished with a dramatically miniscule amount of money compared to what we spend on killing so many people in the world, and it is a noble and probably attainable goal to keep people fed, healthy and provided with the basics of a safe and livable existence.

I also see builders point that realisitically you can't save the world because we have only a finite amont of room and resources.

If everyone lived to be 150 it would soon become a pretty crowded and hungry place. As for reproduction... I agree with my wife about sex education and birth control but I also know for a fact that no matter what you do people are going to f**k indiscriminately. Period. Pregnancy and disease follows.... and instead of doing something we argue over whether birth control, abortion or death with dignity offends some religious group or another, and more and more babies are born to poor, uneducated families with little or no prospects to do much but provide them an environment that will continue the never ending cycle.

We also spend huge amounts of money on wars and military and efforts to be sure ALL people receive the best medical care possible are thwarted by the fact that the money isn't earmarked for it. The laws of nature and natural selection keep the animal kingdoms' herd thinned out and selects the stongest, quickest and cleverest to live and prosper.
Everytime nature sends something along to thin the human herd we declare war on it and prevent it from doing it's job if possible which keeps people that nature might select for elimination alive. We are the anti natural selection force on the planet.

On the other hand, it's our desire and efforts to save the world, feed the world, extend life and improve health that defines us as humans and seperates us from the other animals. We were given special abilities to achieve these types of goals or at least attempt to, and so we do.

Cold hard realism and noble intentions will always be at odds with one another and even Jesus (Son of God or just a smart guy) said on the one hand you can't save the world and on the other hand that you're supposed to do your best to take care of everyone particularly the weak.

Personally I just like a warm cave, regular sex and the ocasional seal. And by regular I mean on a regular basis. :wink:
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Mar, 2007 07:56 am
I don't buy the assertion that foreign aid can't help poor countries because it would explode the population. TI don't buy this because economic progress is having a similar effect on Third World population growth today as it had in industrial countries 150 years ago. In both cases, it expanded life expectancy (increasing population growth), and reduces the birth rate (decreasing population growth). In both cases, the increase in life expectancy kicked in sooner. As a result, population in Europe first exploded, then plateaued at a higher level. By contrast, the Third World's population hasn't plateaued yet, but is well on its way to it as we discuss this.

For an overview of birth rates, death rates, and population dynamics on this planet, see the World Bank's book Beyond Economic Growth, specifically chapter 3.
0 Replies
 
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Mar, 2007 08:10 am
Quote:
3. War is the likely outcome of having to share scarce water supplies across nations according to Mikhail Gorbachev, now president of Green Cross International. He points specifically to the Middle East where war within the next 10 to 15 years is likely if countries fail to reach an understanding regarding sharing water.

4. The Water Commissioner of Israel, Meir Ben Meir, envisages possible conflict over water issues between Israel, the Palestinians, Jordan and Syria. The water issue could well affect the Middle East peace talks. Israel must release land and water and alter its usage patterns to prevent war according to Palestinian leaders.


Thanks Chumley....
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Mar, 2007 08:16 am
Thomas wrote:
In the case of Save the Children it wasn't a friendly old man from the Christian Children's fund. It was a nice senior-highschool girl. She walked up to me in Chicago last year with a well-rehearsed, but warm and idealistic sales pitch. She steamrolled me. On my next internet session, anxious that I've fallen for a scam, I checked www.charitynavigator.com to check out what kind of organization Save the Children was. It turned out that not only are they not a scam, they are in fact fairly efficient at converting donations into benefits for the poorest people in the world. So I kept my membership alive.
Very Happy Yep, young girls can be pretty persuasive too. This isn't the commercial that got me, but I'm pretty sure this is the friendly old man I was talking about here
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Mar, 2007 08:19 am
Once there was one a push for a $1 tax for..... education, maybe? If every tax-payer gave an extra dollar we'd have tens of millions of dollars to fix our schools.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Mar, 2007 09:12 am
littlek wrote:
Once there was one a push for a $1 tax for..... education, maybe? If every tax-payer gave an extra dollar we'd have tens of millions of dollars to fix our schools.

I'll worry about this problem when every child in the world reaches school age -- because it hasn't died of chickenpox, measles, diarrhea, or some other ridiculously-easy-to-cure illness. But I agree with the spirit of your idea.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Mar, 2007 09:42 am
Raise the standard of living, and you'll reduce the birthrate.

Empirical evidence shows this to be true.
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Mar, 2007 09:58 am
Thomas wrote:
littlek wrote:
Once there was one a push for a $1 tax for..... education, maybe? If every tax-payer gave an extra dollar we'd have tens of millions of dollars to fix our schools.

I'll worry about this problem when every child in the world reaches school age -- because it hasn't died of chickenpox, measles, diarrhea, or some other ridiculously-easy-to-cure illness. But I agree with the spirit of your idea.


I wasn't suggesting it's a first step in fixing the world's problems. I was suggesting that with very little hardship we can fix a lot of the world's problems.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Mar, 2007 10:07 am
... and that would be the spirit I agree with.
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Mar, 2007 10:26 am
okiedokie
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Mar, 2007 11:04 am
In regard to Builder's comments about "survival of the fittest," that expression is not a product of the description of natural selection given by Darwin and Wallace, but was coined by Spencer. The term does not apply to individuals, it applies to species. Any individual who survives is by definition fit, and the contention that there are different species of humans, were it to be made, would be false and racist.

The human race has survived all over the planet because it has proven itself to be, to date, the most fit species in the ecological niches it fills. Whether or not individuals survive in the artificial economies which the human race has created is not a matter of evolutionary effect. In many, many nations of what was once known as the third world, the farmers grow cash crops for sale cheaply to the industrialized world rather than growing food crops because we in the industrial world like our bananas and coffee, and don't want to spend a lot on them. In many, many nations, there are sufficient economic resources to feed everyone, but they are diverted by totalitarian governments for the personal interest of members of the government, and the police and military forces which prop them up. The failure of nations to feed their populations does not result from evolutionary forces.

There is sufficient agricultural resource in the world to feed the world's population--the reason that babies starve and die each day is economic failure, whether from injustice or ineptitude. To suggest that the people who are starving are "trailer trash" who are being selected against by evolutionary forces verges on blatant racism.
0 Replies
 
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Mar, 2007 11:12 am
Hmmm, very interesting.

Nice work, Setanta. :wink:
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/04/2026 at 02:14:03