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

squinney wrote:

(You do realize OB that you are sounding like one of them Liberals here, right?)

I know. It's embarrassing. I hope you'll be discreet about it and not mention this to nimh, parados, blatham, cycloptichorn, and bipolar bear.

Assuming OB's numbers are realistic, and the net results of OB's assumptions have the his intended efficacy, it would appear Man's very short-term suffering would decrease consequentially; however the longer risk-perspective would not change, and in fact could well be accelerated as per eco-global annihilation, which I argue can only be achieved within the present technological environ by a dramatic and immediate reduction in population;

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Chumly; I didn't dodge your questions; I ignored them because they are off topic. Some of your points have merit, to some extent, and are certainly worthy of discussion, but this is not the appropriate thread to do so. Please start another thread if you want to discuss population problems, and link it to here and I'll be happy to respond. I would appreciate it if you didn't further derail this thread.

OB again it's not population I specially refer to, it's the pragmatic impact of population as a function of eco-global-decimation as compared to your moral idealization as per feeding the world. I note many of other posters are applying similar tenets in their posts, however I will honor your request.

I guess after spending a couple hours learning how easy it would be to save a Billion children, the last thing I was expecting was 2 out of 3 of the initial responses to be "F*ck um... there's too many people anyway." (I'll save you some trouble; YES... That is a Strawman). Anyway, feel free to take the thread wherever it goes, as always.

The stereotype of the homeless as vagrants or mentally ill is increasingly out of date. Families with children constitute one-third of the homeless population in 26 major cities, according to a study released last week by the U.S. Conference of Mayors. Moreover, 22% of the homeless hold full- or part- time jobs, but the lack of affordable housing means some low-wage workers cannot find shelter. Meanwhile, the average wait for subsidized housing has reached 22 months.

The task force blames the homeless crisis on the Reagan Administration's cuts in federal housing aid, food stamps, and programs to care for the mentally ill. Said Boston Mayor Ray Flynn, the task-force chairman: "If the record number of people in America's streets and soup kitchens had been driven there by a natural catastrophe, many parts of our country would be declared disaster areas."

I say that charity starts at home. And Bill, you never got around to answering my question, What are you doing about problems in your own backyard?

I say that charity starts at home. And Bill, you never got around to answering my question, What are you doing about problems in your own backyard?

Builder wrote:

O'Bill wrote:

The opening post is about feeding the people, genius.

Nope. It's about O'Bill wanting to make his mark on the forum. What have you personally done in the last year to help underprivelidged people? Like in your backyard, Bill? Let's hear about it, please.

I see. Your whole purpose here is to make an ass of yourself... got it. I don't know what underprivelidged people are, but I've helped plenty of underprivileged people. 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?

But thats a very shallow take. Because any cursory glance at the development of population growth will show you that, by and large, the more prosperous a country becomes, the lower its population growth becomes.

Why? The availability and affordability of birth control; education; and the disappearance of the fear that one will starve in old age when left to oneself, which in poor countries still encourages people to have many children (so they will be able to take care of you later). To name just three of many more reasons.

Banishing hunger from the world and providing everyone with basic education will not, in the long term, "explode" population growth by doing away with the survival of the fittest principle. History easily tells us the opposite. Once people are lifted out of acute misery, they start reproducing less. Living longer, yes, but also getting considerably fewer children.

In many European countries, populations would now actually be shrinking, if it were not for immigration. That would be the foreland of other continents too, if they were lifted from poverty. You already see reduced family sizes in developing countries that have started being better off.

Malthusian scares have been around for centuries, and the poverty of their predictive record has been unmatched this side of the nuttier doomsday cults. Adam Smith mentions them as an old hat in his Wealth of Nations, published 1776.

...For instance; the way I'm feeling right now, I wouldn't oppose tying a massive head start, say $10 Billion dollars to the war appropriations bill for Operation Reputation Recovery...the bottom line is: We have the resources to painlessly help a Billion+ people and it is in our own best interest to do so. In the uncertain Duchy of Grand Fenwick of high tech killing machines; good will could prove invaluable. It's high time we started earning some.