Wifely Duties
POSTED BY: piratenews
UPDATED: Saturday, January 9, 2010 04:47
VIEWED: 62964
PAGE 12 of 19
So feed the poor to the rich is what you are saying then? Right Rue?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Or, you make a good point Rue...
The dumbest, most basest of humans... breed like roaches in a failed attempt to gain a leg up on the evolutionary chain.
Good to know.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Fine. And what would the populations be if they weren't dying from poverty?"
Paradoxically, after a brief surge, they would be going down.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What you seem to be saying is that the wealthy's lack of support for individuals who wish to create large families is deliberate eugenics, but IMHO it's just "social Darwinism". Starving people to death is nothing new for the rich. They've been doing it for millenia, long before overpopulation was even thought of. It's just a by-product of thinking of poor people as exploitable resource. That the poor may be dying in droves is unrelated to "population control".
The only time when the poor were actually valued was when there was a large shortage of labor immediately following the fall of the Roman Empire (with its attendant population collapse). In THAT case, the "answer" was to tie the laborers to the latifundia, forbidding them to move away, and thus the beginnings of serfdom and the feudal system. It would be interesting to compare this the effects of Black Death... worthy of a graduate paper I'm sure, but beyond my available time.
Now, with automation and in a milieu of rapidly rising populations, raw human power is not worth much. It is a sad fact that slaves today are bought for far less money (in inflation-adjusted amounts) than they were in the time of slavery in the USA.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
grrrrr..... gorram double
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Huh. So, Wulf, in your estimation, which of the areas with the highest population growth rate are the "dumbest and basest" humans? Chinese? Indo-Ayrans? Africans? All?
I think you should clarify just which races and nationalities you think are evolutionarily inferior. For our reference.
This is the result of POVERTY, Wulf, not genes. Poor white people have lots of kids too.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think Byte might think I am making a case that the better off care for the poor. Not at all. The poor are there to be exploited for immediate profit. They are a resource to be used or used up, as seen fit.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Paradoxically, after a brief surge, they would be going down.
Because...?
Chicken or egg argument. Which comes first? Demographic transition, or improved socio-economic status? And is it necessarily implied that demographic transition is the same thing as improved socio-economic status, or that improved socio-economic status necessarily causes a demographic transition?
I don't think so. The rich in the countries in question (China, African nations and or tribes) have historically had large families. You have to factor in culture, the Victorian gentlewoman might have had a decent socio-economic status, and been bored out of her mind, but she and her peers would not have been able to pursue a demographic transition if their husbands wanted large families.
In order for the populations in question to go down if they were suddenly elevated above poverty, they would have to experience a demographic transition. I don't think that's likely to happen.
Which to me means that their population is being kept from sky rocketing by their death rate.
So, look. We agree on the facts, we just disagree on the interpretation. I don't want to be on Newton's ball of flesh world, but I also don't want to encourage any government or international policies that impose restrictions or limitations on choice in reproductive potential. And I don't want to meddle in people's cultures either. This is an impasse.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No Byte, because THEY WOULD BE STARVING.
Bacteria in a petri dish exhibit the same growth curve... a long time noodling around at relatively low numbers, a period of rapidly exponential growth once the population base takes off, and a die-off as the bacteria die in their own shit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sig, that's part of the motivation to keep them down, I think. The question is whether death by poverty and exploitation is intentional or not, and I think it is, because it keeps the populations manageable.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME