Tighten your belts, scientists tell the world's rich

One thing puzzles me about inoculating children in the 'poor' areas, only to see them die a year later of tsravation, why not spend that money on antibirth pills and such like? I mentioned that to my local politition, (a woman) who got hysterical about it, why is it 'do-gooders' just cannot think outside the box?

Originally posted by pikestaff
One thing puzzles me about inoculating children in the 'poor' areas, only to see them die a year later of tsravation, why not spend that money on antibirth pills and such like? I mentioned that to my local politition, (a woman) who got hysterical about it, why is it 'do-gooders' just cannot think outside the box?

It's not even outside the box, it's common sense.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Yes we can! You know how? It's a quote by Nike "just do it". Will power, man. We just do. Just stop sending out bad food. Stop the money, and people just start doing for the better, hop on the next flight to Sudan to help rebuild the little Iranian family's house ith them, and get to know them, the leave tonlondon, and help fix up a subway system. It's all soooo simple. Anarchy! The system of people for people! We lead each other to the next parts of our lives, instead being ruled to do so. Leaders lead, rulers rule.

reply to post by pikestaff

Originally posted by pikestaff
One thing puzzles me about inoculating children in the 'poor' areas, only to see them die a year later of tsravation, why not spend that money on antibirth pills and such like? I mentioned that to my local politition, (a woman) who got hysterical about it, why is it 'do-gooders' just cannot think outside the box?

It's widely known that the US and other countries who aid the third world say they are giving immunization s but they are filled with toxins that lead to infertility. I don't agree with this since these people are unknowingly given the meds that do this, but while I agree that population needs to decrease, this doesn't seem to be the answer.

So.. a bunch of spoiled brats who made their names on that funding/consumption by people who saved up are now telling those same people to tighten their belts?

Time to pull their funding and return them to irrelevancy, gentlemen. We're not dealing with scientists here, we're dealing with politicians under the guise of scientific authority.

reply to post by fictitious


The most efficient means of depopulating the earth would be to abolish the orgasm.

If there is no pleasure in sex, nobody will bother to have sex. They will adopt, and that will take care of the homeless children issue as well. A lot fewer children will be brought into the world...and hopefully, a lot more children who are already in the world, will find a home.

Originally posted by imherejusttoread
So.. a bunch of spoiled brats who made their names on that funding/consumption by people who saved up are now telling those same people to tighten their belts?

It is a bit ridiculous to expect people in developed countries to cut their standard of living to pay for someone else's children on the other side of the world.

Those scientists are socialists. Note that they are not talking about they themselves cutting down on consumption. Like good socialists everywhere, they are trying to give the poor someone else's money.

reply to post by Starchild23

Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by fictitious

 

The most efficient means of depopulating the earth would be to abolish the orgasm.

If there is no pleasure in sex, nobody will bother to have sex. They will adopt, and that will take care of the homeless children issue as well. A lot fewer children will be brought into the world...and hopefully, a lot more children who are already in the world, will find a home.

While this sounds like a pretty good idea to me, I have to disagree. Through numerous studies, we know sex isn't even mostly about the pleasure caused through orgasm. It is more about instinct and emotional bonds. Many women have never orgasmed during sex with a partner yet they still do it and conceive children. Maybe after hundreds of thousands of years it could work after our emotions evolved/changed.

Originally posted by Mythfury
hop on the next flight to Sudan to help rebuild the little Iranian family's house ith them, and get to know them, the leave tonlondon, and help fix up a subway system. It's all soooo simple. Anarchy!

It's not "so simple" and it's more "immature silliness" rather than "anarchy". I am a father of two little kids, and before I leave for Sudan or any place at all I need to make sure the roof is not leaking over their heads and they have good and healthy food to eat. And frankly outside of war zones like Sudan (where I'm not going to not orphan my kids), it's the business of the locals to build houses. I know that because I built one, and so did my father and his father before that. I respect volunteers and I guess if I had no interest in having a family I would do volunteering as well, but realistically it's just not a solution to anything.

Besides, I thought there was frequent unemployment in the less developed areas, why the hell do we need to send MORE PEOPLE there to do manual labor????

Originally posted by stanguilles7
People in the west are well-fed, and yet they have, on average, a very low birth rate.

Providing people with options and opportunities lowers birth rates. Poverty raises them. It's more than just feeding people. It's allowing them to thrive.

In developing countries, children tend to be an economic asset to both earn their keep as they grow up and to look after parents when they are old.

Is the solution providing the poor with more resources?

I suspect that the develping world would just have even more children.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by stanguilles7
People in the west are well-fed, and yet they have, on average, a very low birth rate.

Providing people with options and opportunities lowers birth rates. Poverty raises them. It's more than just feeding people. It's allowing them to thrive.

In developing countries, children tend to be an economic asset to both earn their keep as they grow up and to look after parents when they are old.

Is the solution providing the poor with more resources?

I suspect that the develping world would just have even more children.

You see the flaw in your logic, yes? By providing more stability and opportunities to the 'developing world', they can become part of the 'developed world', which, historically, dramatically lowers birth-rates.

Unless your argument is they are 'poor' by nature?

Originally posted by imherejusttoread
So.. a bunch of spoiled brats who made their names on that funding/consumption by people who saved up are now telling those same people to tighten their belts?
.

Interesting logic. So anyone you disagree with is a 'spoiled brat'? And who are these people who 'saved up', specifically? You mean industries who have enriched themselves off of resource extraction and war profiteering in a market they have created for the own protection?

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by stanguilles7
Providing people with options and opportunities lowers birth rates. Poverty raises them. It's more than just feeding people. It's allowing them to thrive.

You are skipping various religious, tribal and entrenched culture aspects here, plus you can't magically "upgrade" 6 billion people to Western living standards overnight. And without that, this suggestion is really worthless, because the clock is ticking and people are.... Well, procreating.

No one is suggesting it happen 'overnight'.

That is your own absurd false dilemma.

reply to post by buddhasystem


I for one would find taking a trip to another culture, another way of thinking is fascinating. Okay, you would roof yourself and your kids first, since there's no money, you just do it. Done. Kids wanna go see the dolphins? They'd be able to, at any time. And I bet you're the pinnacle of maturity only looking after yourself, and not for your fellow man, who is connected to you. It's like favoring a finger to another.

Originally posted by fictitious
reply to post by ollncasino

 

Besides the obvious communist tones, feeding poor people makes them more fit to have even more children. Then those children have more children. Not that I'm all for letting starving people starve, but from a biological perspective, feeding them doesn't make any sense at all. It just exacerbates the problem.

wow ...how about maybe trying some type of massive birth control measures before you start starving people to death. a little outside-the-box- thinking is demanded

reply to post by ollncasino


It's not ridiculous at all. It's like telling your children to ease up on the milk, it's gonna be tight until the next paycheck.

If they don't listen, that's their problem. They'll be asking third world countries for help...god forbid we actually come down off our high horse and ask politely instead of throwing grenades and rushing the gates...

Originally posted by stanguilles7
No one is suggesting it happen 'overnight'.
That is your own absurd false dilemma.

No, it's rather you having not provided any sort of time scale for your proposition, in the face of exponential population growth, which in itself impedes progress towards a prosperous and open society. So it all sounds very well, but is just a pipe dream.

Originally posted by Mythfury
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

I for one would find taking a trip to another culture, another way of thinking is fascinating.

I've done some of that, but you seem to be talking about tourism here, which is off-topic.

Okay, you would roof yourself and your kids first, since there's no money, you just do it. Done. Kids wanna go see the dolphins?

Sorry you just lost me here. First you implored me to go build a house in Sudan, now you are talking dolphins.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by stanguilles7
No one is suggesting it happen 'overnight'.
That is your own absurd false dilemma.

No, it's rather you having not provided any sort of time scale for your proposition, in the face of exponential population growth, which in itself impedes progress towards a prosperous and open society. So it all sounds very well, but is just a pipe dream.

LOL. Again with your false dilemma. What sort of 'time scale' do you need?

I merely pointed out that giving poor people opportunities lowers the birth rate, as opposed to just starving them out, which was the example i was initially responding to. This is proven time and again. The West's declining birth rate is a great example. Do you deny that?

Originally posted by benrl
Increased demand will only drive prices up...

...And more people will go hungry as a result.

Won't you at least feel guilty if you're rich, and you spend your wealth as such and people suffer as a result than devoting your resources to helping the poor.