Wifely Duties

POSTED BY: piratenews
UPDATED: Saturday, January 9, 2010 04:47
VIEWED: 62964
PAGE 17 of 19

PREV PAGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 NEXT PAGE

PERFESSERGEE

Thursday, January 7, 2010 9:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
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.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
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.

Byte, I'm quoting from Rue, but this msg is for you. She is right. This is an area that I study and teach about quite a bit. I know that it's counterintuitive, but death by poverty is not a form of population control, and neither are warfare nor massive disease. Many, many studies have shown that the way people respond to the risk of child mortality (when most poverty-related deaths occur) is by having more kids. Warfare and disease produce temporary decreases, but they are almost always followed by massive increases. If you look at population growth in Europe, post WW2 you can see that a huge divot got taken out of the male population (female, too, but to a lesser extent), but pops started growing as soon as the soldiers got home (in a Europe that was destroyed both physically and economically). The Black Deat killed about a third of Europe - and was followed by rapid population growth leading into the Renaissance, the Enlightenment (and ultimately the Industrial Revolution).

I've told my classes many a time that the second best way to control population growth in the third world would be to send them GatorAde. (The leading cause of child mortality is diarrhea - keep 'em hydrated and they recover just fine). I should point out that the best way is to send girls to high school - education of women has a bigger effect on population growth rates than any other factor.

Mortality has been shown over and over not to be a brake on population growth. The opposite is true.

perfessergee

SIGNYM

Thursday, January 7, 2010 9:48 PM

Byte, you have simply not made a case that the wealthy have any compelling interest- one way or another- on population size or growth.

Thanks Prof. The idea that poverty, war and disease are some sort of conspiracy by the wealthy to control population growth is

Oh, and BTW- if is IS a conspiracy, then we're stupid enough to go along with it.

BYTEMITE

Thursday, January 7, 2010 10:32 PM

Wait, though, this still doesn't seem to disprove that the death rate in impoverished nations isn't being directly contributed to by the richer nations, or that this isn't intentional, motivated by a desire to exploit the population. This only shows that humans compensate for a high death rate, which causes them to bounce back when the death rate declines.

To disprove it you have to show me one of a few things. That the European/American (and capitalist) focus in the global economy has not directly contributed to the economic state of these populations, that our neglect of giving aid to certain poor populations is not intentional, or that we don't want to exploit them.

The first one would probably be the easiest. The other two require speculation for either side of the argument.

SIGNYM

Thursday, January 7, 2010 10:51 PM

Byte, the part that you keep missing is that you've been saying that the GOAL of high death rates is to control population growth. In your mind, the whole purpose of inducing poverty is to kill people. We've long since agreed that poverty is deliberate, and death results from extreme poverty. Where we disagree is that high death reates are a goal.

Let me analogize: If we eat beef and kill cattle, does that mean our purpose in killing cows is to control their population? Or is their death simply a side-effect of some other purpose?

RUE

Thursday, January 7, 2010 10:53 PM

Byte

Many have said that capitalists exploit people.

Many have said that in the quest for higher profit margins, the death of hundreds, thousands, even millions, is not a problem.

What we are taking issue with is your claim that the 'owners' are concerned enough about too many people that they are deliberately using poverty for the sole purpose of reducing numbers.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

BYTEMITE

Thursday, January 7, 2010 11:08 PM

Or keeping them in check. Originally, I started out thinking the sole goal was to reduce numbers, which probably still is the end goal, because this is the stated goal of people who want population control. Reduced numbers to decrease strain on the environment and resources.

But your facts have made me begin to consider that possibly for now they may only be controlling the RATE of population growth, keeping it not negative, but low. And by low, I mean lower than it normally would be. Relative to more developed nations, the poor nations still have a high population growth.

So right now I'm interested in whether or not we can prove or disprove that there is interference, and if it is or isn't intentional.

SIGNYM

Friday, January 8, 2010 12:07 AM

Proving that capitalists are conspiring to control population growth rates requires a lot of supposition about their motivations. Because you're starting out with the assumption that they give a sh*t, but I'm still not seeing how they have a vested interest in lowering the population and therefore raising the standard of living. In fact, quite the opposite.

RUE

Friday, January 8, 2010 12:16 AM

"... because this is the stated goal of people who want population control."

You are making many, many assumptions:

1) all people who want population reduction want it for the same reasons
2) all people who want population reduction are 'owners'
3) the 'owners' have the means to carry out a global scheme solely aimed at reducing the population to some optimum (unspecified) number
4) you know what their motivations are
5) you know what their means are
6) their means actually work

and several others I haven't thought of yet, I'm sure.

I hope you can undertsand why we're skeptical of your proposals.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

BNW

Friday, January 8, 2010 1:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Wait, though, this still doesn't seem to disprove that the death rate in impoverished nations isn't being directly contributed to by the richer nations,

Hi. Lurk a lot, don't post much.

Generally, doesn't a conspiracy need to be proved, rather than a lack of conspiracy?

BYTEMITE

Friday, January 8, 2010 1:56 AM

Quote:
a vested interest in lowering the population and therefore raising the standard of living.

For themselves and their peers, who they expect to make into the next round, so to speak.

Quote:
In fact, quite the opposite.

For everyone else.

PREV PAGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 NEXT PAGE