Wifely Duties
POSTED BY: piratenews
UPDATED: Saturday, January 9, 2010 04:47
VIEWED: 62964
PAGE 13 of 19
Death by poverty and exploitation is intentional BECAUSE IT MAKES PEOPLE RICH. As I said before, this has been happening for millenia. Millenia. Long before anyone could ever think the world was running out of anything.
The poor, alas, are playing into the hands of the wealthy. They (the poor) are NOT going to gain power by "outbreeding" the rich... if that were the case, the 0.000001% of TPTB would ALREADY have been eliminated, seeing as they constitute a numerically vanishing minority.
No, the answer is NOT more kids.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So you're saying that poverty has no end result on the death rate, because people will still die (of the same causes even) if elevated out of poverty?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What??
I have no idea what that means.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
BYTE:
Quote:You made two statements here:
The question is whether death by poverty and exploitation is intentional or not, and I think it is, because it keeps the populations manageable.
Death by poverty and exploitation is intentional.
The intention is to reduce the population.
I don't think death by poverty is intentional. POVERTY is intentional. EXPLOITATION is intentional. Death is a side-effect. The reason WHY the wealthy make no attempt to save "the poor" from death is because the poor are so very, very good at replacing themselves anyway. It's not bc the rich fear "the masses". (If they did, they should be shitting their pants already because they're already a vanishingly small number. What difference does it make if you represent 0.000002% or 0.0000015% of the population? No, if the rich are afraid of anything, it's an AWARE population.) It's bc the rich simply don't give a good gorram about the vast majority of the world's population.
Thinking that the rich would be somehow afraid of 8 billion, as oppposed to 5 billion, is just... silly. WTF do they care???
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Which comes first? Demographic transition, or improved socio-economic status?"
Improved socio-economic status.
You have to remember that first-world countries didn't get to be first-world completely on their own efforts. What they had was a jump-start on certain things (Guns, Germs and Steel auth: Jared Diamond) which allowed them to exploit other populations. To improve their wealth at the expense of others. Once they became relatively wealthy populations dropped.
The same thing can happen through social change. For example, when China became communist, living conditions for the vast majority improved. (Such was the grinding poverty that communism was a significant step up.) It was that improvement which led to the large drop in birth rate even before the one urban-child policy. And despite improved lifespans, overall population growth is far lower than India while standard of living is far higher, though the two started out equivalent.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Death by poverty and exploitation is intentional BECAUSE IT MAKES PEOPLE RICH.
It also lets them control the population. You don't think so? Death, poverty, and exploitation are not controls on a population?
Quote:
No, the answer is NOT more kids.
I think TPTB think that this is a threat, though. Having more kids doesn't solve this problem, but TPTB think they're going to be overthrown be a numerically superior "peasant's revolt."
Maybe not outbreed them, but maybe it is important to maintain a numerical superiority?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Um. Rue? Living conditions in Rural China? I hadn't heard about that one, I'll admit.
What I have heard about is this little gem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chairman_Mao#Great_Leap_Forward
Historically, India has also had large family sizes. Is the demographic transition an urban phenomenon? I wonder how much of India is still rural.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
What??
I have no idea what that means.
Clarifying.
You compared humans to bacteria, and said that after a population explosion, the bacteria starve themselves as they run out of resources.
My assumption was that the initial population explosion you're describing is the poor, elevated out of poverty. They continue to have children at their usual rate, and die of starvation because they eventually use up their resources.
So my question was if you think poverty has an effect on the death rate, because from what I'm understanding you're saying that poverty versus no poverty has no effect on the end result (dying of starvation).
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:BYTE: Cross-posted, above.
Maybe not outbreed them, but maybe it is important to maintain a numerical superiority?
TPTB are ALREADY numerically vanishingly small. Approximately 500 people own roughly half of the world. How small is THAT?? Do you think it REALLY makes a difference to that 500 whether the population is 5 billion, or 10 billion? Do you think they're thinking "Oh no! My numerical advantage just went down from 0.00002% by a factor of two!"???
No, I think if there is ANY consideration about population growth, is simply that - due to lack of water, soil, etc.- the poor will no longer be able to sustain themselves, and THEN living conditions will get so miserable it may trigger a revolt. But AFA sheer numbers... nah. They don't give a sh*t.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Byte
I had a link in another thread which detailed this, I think in a 'standard of living' discussion. I don't have time to dig it out. But yes, the biggest decline in population growth came about as the standard of living improved, BEFORE the one urban-child policy.
***************************************************************
ETA: but as a follow-on: your thesis is that poverty is intended to control population growth. You claim this DESPITE the fact that the poorest nations have the higest population growth rates. You also claim this despite the well-known fact that populations drop when overall economic well-being goes up - a fact that has been demonstrated in populations as long ago as 1400's France (Mother Love), or modern Japan.
You seem to have no data, or indeed evidence, to support your claims, while I have provided much to support mine.
Do you, in fact, have anything you can point to to support your assertions ?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME