Wifely Duties
POSTED BY: piratenews
UPDATED: Saturday, January 9, 2010 04:47
VIEWED: 62964
PAGE 11 of 19
But a group of URBAN POOR especially in Europe has the same demographics as a group of URBAN WELL OFF - this is the FOURTH TIME I'm pointing this out. 
They have the SAME access to health care and especially birth control. They have the SAME risks in pregnancy and birth. They have access to the SAME education systems. They have a guaranteed minimum standard if living.
What they DON'T have is access to more attractive options.
And that is why the URBAN POOR in Bolivia have the same high birth rate as the RURAL POOR - and similar statistics in Africa, Asia, etc. It's not a difference between urban and rural, or one culture v another, or capitalism hitting the well off harder harder than the poor (BY DEFINITION the poor are harder hit than the better off and STILL have more children) - it's a difference between no options and many.
HENCE - differences in birth rate - and BTW the driving force for the demographic transition, wherever and whenever it happens.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Am I not bat shit crazy? o_0 @_@ Wheee!
Quote:
And, isn't sanity really just a one-trick pony anyway? I mean all you get is one trick, rational thinking... but when you're good and crazy, oooh, oooh, oooh, the sky's the limit!
-The Tick.
Always loved that one.
Me, I think free condoms for everyone, cause that puts the decision right there in the hands of the folk doin the humping - not to mention controlling STD as a beneficial side effect.
Sure, it's no effect one way or the other on economics and options, but it does have a positive affect without making peoples choices for em.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
So the difference isn't the social economic incentives so much as it is the child's economic role in society?
I don't understand the question.
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
But a group of URBAN POOR especially in Europe has the same demographics as a group of URBAN WELL OFF - this is the FOURTH TIME I'm pointing this out.
They have the SAME access to health care and especially birth control. They have the SAME risks in pregnancy and birth. They have access to the SAME education systems. They have a guaranteed minimum standard if living.
What they DON'T have is access to more attractive options.
And that is why the URBAN POOR in Bolivia have the same high birth rate as the RURAL POOR - and similar statistics in Africa, Asia, etc. It's not a difference between urban and rural, or one culture v another, or capitalism hitting the well off harder harder than the poor (BY DEFINITION the poor are harder hit than the better off and STILL have more children) - it's a difference between no options and many.
HENCE - differences in birth rate - and BTW the driving force for the demographic transition, wherever and whenever it happens.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
Differences in means and options, yes. The rural poor are similar in birthrate numbers to the urban poor, and the same reason applies to them, but both of them differ drastically from the urban middle class and rich. I think we agree here, because I've actually been trying to say something similar. I wasn't arguing that the poor aren't hit harder by capitalism, I have no idea where you got that from. What we disagree on seems to be just what this all means and the ultimate cause of the differences. What causes the differences in the means and options? In my opinion, it's money, and a systematic bias against the poor to keep them poor. That's the point I'm trying to make.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Now I'm really confused. It's well known that the poor are kept poor, but what does this have to do with population control? Because by all accounts, the poor are the ones with the most children so clearly, the eugenics conspiracy -if there is one- isn't working all that well.
In my opinion, it's money, and a systematic bias against the poor to keep them poor.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Because if they're kept poor, they can't afford children. They HAVE the children, because they don't have means to prevent the pregnancy, but they can't afford or support them. Cue starvation, disease, and injury from crappy low paying jobs, and NEEDING large amounts of children as almost kind of a replacement survival strategy. Every family wants it's next generation to survive to adulthood, evolutionarily there is a drive to preserve genetics in the next generation (and multiple generations afterward). But this also damages the family by making them worse off economically, and potentially by making the parents work more jobs (if available), which also decreases the survival rate of the children (caregivers are not around).
If kids are indirectly dying, and quality of life becomes increasingly unlivable, then I would consider this a form of population control. You might consider it inadvertent, me, I'm not so sure.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
If death through poverty is a means to population control, it doesn't seem to be working.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Still pissed off about being talked about without a response...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think we'll have to agree to disagree then, because I'm pretty sure that people dying (from poverty or not) is in general a form of population control. What was it Newton said? "A growing ball of flesh, expanding outward at the speed of light?"
If people weren't dying from poverty, those nations would have far higher populations than they do now, unless they experienced one of your demographic transitions... By which they would then fall under other forms of population control we've already covered.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I don't accept disagreement over facts.
It is a FACT that the poorest nations on earth have the fastest growing populations - not an opinion.
POPULATION GROWTH - which the map shows - takes into account both birth AND death rates - and birth rates ARE far outripping death rates in the poorest countries. Poverty can't be population CONTROL if it makes the poulation grow faster.
That is a FACT. Get used to it.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME