Notices


Worldly Talk

Civil discussion and debate on real world events and issues.


Overpopulation

   
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ikul View Post
Your math doesn't add up.
You've got over 120% of your radioactive material accounted for.
It's physics... you wouldn't understand..

It's worse in physics. Your math has to add up and have physical meaning.
This is a case where neither of the two happens. It is, therefore, not physics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaeso View Post
Now imagine that, suddenly, the west starts sending massive food packs for free. Not only is all of this food completely free of charge, but due to the use of hormones, antibiotics etc. etc. this food will be vastly superior to anything our friend the farmer can produce on his own.
The West only sends food packs when the local crops have failed. What is more likely is that a big Western agribusiness undercuts the local farmer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ikul View Post
It's worse in physics. Your math has to add up and have physical meaning.
This is a case where neither of the two happens. It is, therefore, not physics.
Well, geometry then.

It was an error on my part- I was typing on automatic because the number I was trying to come up with was refering to teh remainder of the fallout, not the remainder of the orriginal fissionable material, and in teh end I let it drop with what i typed while distracted. The overall point however is that fallout is primarilly radioactive dust from teh orriginal fissionable material. Secondary contamination is extreemly low- unless you let it set arround for a couple of decades after the blast.

Mistakes happen. Half the time I notice them and half the time I don't, the other half of the time I don't even care...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silent Hunter UK View Post
The West only sends food packs when the local crops have failed. What is more likely is that a big Western agribusiness undercuts the local farmer.
How would that be? Non-charity western agribusiness still demands food for their money, which means that the Africans who buy that food have money and thus a proper source of income, right? Of course the local farmers would have competition, but they'd still have a reason to look for a different source of income rather than, to put it bluntly, being babied, right? Or am I overlooking something?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaeso View Post
How would that be? Non-charity western agribusiness still demands food for their money, which means that the Africans who buy that food have money and thus a proper source of income, right? Of course the local farmers would have competition, but they'd still have a reason to look for a different source of income rather than, to put it bluntly, being babied, right? Or am I overlooking something?
You are. Loans. Offer a loan as well as the food, then you get to collect interest as well!

Quote:
Also keep in mind that those amenities will also facilitate population increase
Why? We've heard talk from opponents to the concept that it's technology, culture, and modern life that influence this lesser growth. If our lives are modern, why should our population grow faster?

Quote:
The old adage is wrong; it should say "When they come, you will build it."
You assume that all human beings think the same, when most merely behave a certain way because they have no choice. :P

If we have more wealth, why not own more residences? When we take away the opportunity to expand because we're growing like a virus, then we have the opportunity to figure out actual creative things to do with our land (another factory for another product? more real estate makes the prices go down - usually when that real estate first appears in the form of motels or get aways). Currently, only the wealthiest areas can pursue this sort of thing. Meanwhile, places like vancouver cramp up and real estate prices go up and the public transport is sub-par, even though BC, Canada, is a frigging huge place.

Giving someone free time to be creative rather than feed an addiction is generally considered healthy behavior in most psychological circles.

My point here is that we can't just say 'over population isn't going to happen - it'll eventually peak before we devour earth, do the math, bleh.', because that's almost medieval in a sense. If we can control population growth, why not do it? Even as a safety measure? How many people are pressured into having kids in the modern world?

It can only yield benefits. It isn't like civilization will collapse when there is insufficient growth - even if the population is reduced somewhat. Worse case scenario - a few municipal ecnomies will experience hard times due to a reduced work force. And then it'll sort itself out through subsidizing - which happens all the time at the corporate level.

Technological progress will not lower, science will not be put on hold because there's the possibility of less scientists - in fact, more people can become scientists because now there's more land, real estate prices are reduced and people are wealthy enough to invest in education, charitably or otherwise.

Obviously the first step is pro-choice, but that's another issue (hahahaha!). xP

Quote:
Mistakes happen. Half the time I notice them and half the time I don't, the other half of the time I don't even care...
Why, that's 1/4 of the time then! Did you fail fourth grade fractions? What an idiot! /sarcasm :P

Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkWren View Post
You are. Loans. Offer a loan as well as the food, then you get to collect interest as well!
But that's not an exclusively African problem. A lot of countries, even the powerful USA, have massive debts as well.
Even then, that does not influence whether or not huge western agribusiness companies advertise their goods in Africa because they don't sell their food to the state but to the people (who are independent of state loans), right?





Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Myth-Weavers Status