Third world keeps itself poor

Locked
burnitdown
Posts: 229
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 1:15 am
Contact:

Third world keeps itself poor

Post by burnitdown » Fri Dec 08, 2006 11:07 pm

The UN's goals for reducing poverty are "difficult or impossible to meet" because a high birth rate in poor nations creates poor health and education and environmental damage.

Over the course of the last century, the global population rose from under two billion to just over six billion.

The bulk of the growth came in developing countries.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/s ... 219922.stm

Four billion people, and another five billion on the way... sounds like they will forever be poor. How should this affect US foreign policy, or our view of our obligation to the third world?

jbuck919
Military Band Specialist
Posts: 26867
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 10:15 pm
Location: Stony Creek, New York

Post by jbuck919 » Fri Dec 08, 2006 11:26 pm

Modern population models show the population leveling off at nine to ten billion in, well, IcedNote, probably your lifetime but maybe not mine. Absent a cosmic catastrophe, the Earth can support that number easily. Eventually, depopulation will be the problem, as it already is in some localities.

The "population explosion" was one of those doomsday themes of my very young years, like global thermonuclear war, running out of petroleum, and Rachel Carson's silent spring. Nowadays we have the global warming scare, also a foolish doomsday scenario. All of these scenarios have turned out to be, or will likely turn out to be, specious.

There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself.
-- Johann Sebastian Bach

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Re: Third world keeps itself poor

Post by Corlyss_D » Sat Dec 09, 2006 12:41 am

burnitdown wrote:The bulk of the growth came in developing countries.
And they are all headed here, to the West. That is the problem: how to keep them in their own countries.
Four billion people, and another five billion on the way... sounds like they will forever be poor. How should this affect US foreign policy, or our view of our obligation to the third world?
What "obligation?"
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

rasputin
Posts: 106
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:10 pm

Post by rasputin » Sat Dec 09, 2006 10:11 am

Of course you have obligations. You have to reduce the overpopulation
danger, It's your duty as the guardian of the planet. So,begin right now. A billion less will be enough for a while.

pizza
Posts: 5094
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 4:03 am

Post by pizza » Sat Dec 09, 2006 12:03 pm

rasputin wrote:Of course you have obligations. You have to reduce the overpopulation
danger, It's your duty as the guardian of the planet. So,begin right now. A billion less will be enough for a while.
Agreed. We'll start distributing free condoms immediately! :D

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Post by Corlyss_D » Sat Dec 09, 2006 1:26 pm

rasputin wrote:Of course you have obligations. You have to reduce the overpopulation
danger, It's your duty as the guardian of the planet. So,begin right now. A billion less will be enough for a while.
I've done my part - I never had kids.

Reducing material suffering is largely the purview of charities. I defer to them. The US should too, but it don't. Once the state moved into the business of using relief as a tool of foreign policy, it had the deleterious effect of reducing the pressure on charities to step up to the plate. When the state satisfies all needs, physical and spiritual, what need have the common folk of religion or charity?

I must say too that the international community, by sitting idle in the face of genocide and by generating maliciously naive and ineffective rescue missions for famine-wracked lands, has certainly done its part to reduce population. But frankly, as a method, it's just too little and it takes too long.
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

burnitdown
Posts: 229
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 1:15 am
Contact:

Re: Third world keeps itself poor

Post by burnitdown » Mon Dec 11, 2006 2:56 pm

Corlyss_D wrote:And they are all headed here, to the West. That is the problem: how to keep them in their own countries.
I agree, especially since the cultural conflict is going to be too great for the West otherwise.

I would like to think that smart people would keep breeding.

jbuck, I think the question of overpopulation isn't "what can we survive without cataclysm?" but "what population can we undertake and still enjoy our natural world in its fullness?" I'm not sure global warming is "the" question as much as it is one of many regarding human impact.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests