11 Jul 06
2 edits
Originally posted by techsouthTS: "We can just order that food be distributed evenly"
Well, if income were distributed more equally, I agree that food distribution would follow. But what is the solution?
It doesn't seem that we really need to distribute income evenly. We can just order that food be distributed evenly.
That's not how things work.
The problem of underdevelopment is being adressed in for instance the GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) negotiations.
World Trade Organisation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Organisation
11 Jul 06
Originally posted by ivanhoeThe earth can produce enough food to feed everyone. There is no overpopulation.
The earth can produce enough food to feed everyone. There is no overpopulation. The real problem is that the available food is not distributed in a fair and just way. The real problem is not the number of people but the lack of income in the developing world. They cannot buy the available food. The developed world however is able to buy the food because they ...[text shortened]... ping world a real chance to earn a decent income so they will be able to buy the food they need.
Is it fair, then, to say that your definition of 'overpopulation' is a state in which the earth cannot produce enough food to feed everyone? When did 'overpopulation' get pigeonholed into that narrow consideration?
The definition given by dictionary.com is
o·ver·pop·u·la·tion
n.
Excessive population of an area to the point of overcrowding, depletion of natural resources, or environmental deterioration.
As Pawnokeyhole correctly pointed out, it's really a matter of consumption. So, if consumption continues to climb, or at least stay at these high levels, how exactly is your redistribution of income going to stop/prevent "depletion of natural resources, or environmental deterioration"? Apart from the damage already done, it would seem to me that the only long-term solution is consistently and considerably lower consumption levels: from a practical standpoint, that means fewer consumers.
12 Jul 06
Originally posted by LemonJelloExcessive population of an area to the point of overcrowding, depletion of natural resources, or environmental deterioration.
[b]The earth can produce enough food to feed everyone. There is no overpopulation.
Is it fair, then, to say that your definition of 'overpopulation' is a state in which the earth cannot produce enough food to feed everyone? When did 'overpopulation' get pigeonholed into that narrow consideration?
The definition given by dictionary.com is
[ ...[text shortened]... erably lower consumption levels: from a practical standpoint, that means fewer consumers.[/b]
In this sense every city would be an "area of overpopulation"
How about a lower consumption level per head of the population in Western countries ?
LJ: "As Pawnokeyhole correctly pointed out, it's really a matter of consumption."
In the Western countries the consumption is too high and in the developing countries the consumption is obviously too low.
LJ: "So, if consumption continues to climb, or at least stay at these high levels, how exactly is your redistribution of income going to stop/prevent "depletion of natural resources, or environmental deterioration"?
Investment in environment-saving technological progress. It is already being done but not enough.
.... and as I stated earlier, if in a country the standard of living increases the birth rate will drop. Look at Germany for instance. The population will shrink in the near future.
12 Jul 06
1 edit
The EU's baby blues .
Birth rates in the European Union are falling fast.
In the first of a series about motherhood and the role of the state in encouraging couples to have more children, the BBC News website's Clare Murphy asks why governments are so concerned about the size of their populations.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4768644.stm
12 Jul 06
The ever increasing size of China's (and to a lesser extent India's) economy is one of the most serious problems, waiting to put an unsustainable amount of stress on the environment. A book produced by the Earth Policy Institute (NPO), called Plan B 2.0, details how current predictions show that by 2031, if China's economy continues to grow as it has done, they will need 99 million barrels of oil a day (current world production is 84 million a day), two thirds of the world's production of corn, and twice the current world production of paper.
Another issue raised by the book is the conflict between fuel and food. Ethanol can be made from corn fields and used to produce fuel. With dwindling oil resources and an increasing number of cars, the value of using farm land to produce fuel will be much more than using it to produce food. Global starvation, beginning of course with the poor, will inevitably ensue.
12 Jul 06
Originally posted by ivanhoeMaybe we Europeans need a lower standard of living so we will have more babies. It's either that, or become as religious as the Yanks.
The EU's baby blues .
Birth rates in the European Union are falling fast.
In the first of a series about motherhood and the role of the state in encouraging couples to have more children, the BBC News website's Clare Murphy asks why governments are so concerned about the size of their populations.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4768644.stm
12 Jul 06
Originally posted by ElleEffSeeeHow come many among us in the "developed" world look upon China's, India's and in general the third world countries's economic growth as "one of the most serious problems" in the debate on globalisation, while at the same time our own economic growth is not being looked upon as such ?
The ever increasing size of China's (and to a lesser extent India's) economy is one of the most serious problems, waiting to put an unsustainable amount of stress on the environment. A book produced by the Earth Policy Institute (NPO), called Plan B 2.0, details how current predictions show that by 2031, if China's economy continues to grow as it has don ...[text shortened]... o produce food. Global starvation, beginning of course with the poor, will inevitably ensue.
12 Jul 06
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeThat's because our economies aren't growing as fast as China, and we don't have nearly so many people. It's the potential of China that could be the problem - imagine an extra 500 million SUVs on the planet. You are of course right that all other countries developed and developing contribute. But China cannot feasibly increase its economy to be 'equal' in terms of per capita to the countries of the west because of the sheer number of people, without leading to global collapse of the supporting environment.
How come many among us in the "developed" world look upon China's, India's and in general the third world countries's economic growth as "one of the most serious problems" in the debate on globalisation, while at the same time our own economic growth is not being looked upon as such ?
Obviously the Chinese don't want to hear this - it's akin to the west saying 'we've got our lovely life styles but you can't have yours as it will lead to the destruction of the planet, sorry'. So yes the west too needs to reform if they hope to get China to tag along.
12 Jul 06
Originally posted by ivanhoeYes they do.
Religion has not much to do with it. People do not get children because they are "religious".
Religion is statistical correlated with conservative family values. And since those values express themselves in intentions to reproduce in a typical family unit, and such intentions result in behvaior, the correlation is likely to signify a causal pathway.
12 Jul 06
Originally posted by ElleEffSeeeSo Chinese men in 2050 won't be able to have either an SUV or a readily romantic partner?
That's because our economies aren't growing as fast as China, and we don't have nearly so many people. It's the potential of China that could be the problem - imagine an extra 500 million SUVs on the planet. You are of course right that all other countries developed and developing contribute. But China cannot feasibly increase its economy to be 'equal' i ...[text shortened]... sorry'. So yes the west too needs to reform if they hope to get China to tag along.
Sounds like a recipe for social bliss.
12 Jul 06
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeI always wondered why gay people wanted the right to marry and have children, thus embracing traditional family values ...... Now I know .....
Yes they do.
Religion is statistical correlated with conservative family values. And since those values express themselves in intentions to reproduce in a typical family unit, and such intentions result in behvaior, the correlation is likely to signify a causal pathway.