17-06-2002 05:44									#61
	Put an end to popups!

quote: The west has stabilized population growth through personal choice.

Through economics. When the median population rises, people have less kids. The population usually stabilize by itself through the mere fact that peoples' time is worth more as incomes rise. And when the value of time is more, there are less children because the oppertunity cost of having chilren is much greater when the potential income is so much higher.

	17-06-2002 05:48									#62
	Got spare money?

"China was having population growth problems and it was government intervention which stabilized their population growth"

I could just as easily say that China was having development problems only tangentially related to population growth.

	17-06-2002 05:58									#63
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by el freako If you think that's a ludicrous gamble then I assume you would think it a safe one to bet against the sun rising tomorrow - just because it's happened so many times before is no guarantee for the future eh?

My statement was nothing of the sort. The odds of the sun rising tomorrow are pretty high when all of our knowlege on the subject is taken into account. Also the timing of the sun rising is quite precise.

I am saying it's foolish to increase a known value (population) if it is at a point where a required value (food) is not known to be sufficient to support the increase.

	17-06-2002 06:34									#64
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

As immoral as it is......the pain we face now will be nothing compared to the pain we face in the future if we dont controll our population size.

	17-06-2002 06:40									#65
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

"the pain we face now"

What kind of pain do we face now? How do you figure it compares to the pain of previous generations?

	17-06-2002 06:54									#66
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: I am saying it's foolish to increase a known value (population) if it is at a point where a required value (food) is not known to be sufficient to support the increase.

But it is sufficient, it just isn't getting there right.

Come on now... Malthus was WRONG . Technology will always be ahead of the 'famine that will doom mankind' .

	17-06-2002 07:44									#67
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

I think the Chinese made the right choice with their one child policy. Its the only realistic option. Its a good thing they dont have american style political correctness in China.

	17-06-2002 08:00									#68
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Hm, when did having as many children as one wants become an "individual right?"


el freako,

We are very close to the carrying capacity of the earth right now. In fact, much of the argicultural improvements made during the last 50 years or so are of the non-sustaintable variety. Why do you think much of the firsrt world countries are turning towards organic farming?

	17-06-2002 08:13									#69
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger Hm, when did having as many children as one wants become an "individual right?"

When it requires forced abortions to say that you can not have as many children as you want.

	17-06-2002 08:18									#70
	Support Apolyton

When was it ever not an individual right?

	17-06-2002 08:19									#71
	Suffering from ads?

So you are putting the cart in front of the horse.

	17-06-2002 08:25									#72
	Suffering from ads?

--"Here's something from a certain movie that I found rather prophetic:"

That's exactly the kind of enivornmentalist extremism I despise. If you think that humanity is such a despicable virus, why aren't you trying to "medicate the planet" by wiping us all out?

--"Just because humans have the ability to avoid overpopulation doesn't mean overpopulation is not a potential problem."

And just because we don't have any proof of giant invisible Learnian space hamsters doesn't mean that their attacking the earth is not a potential problem.
There's just a matter of degree of probability. We've got some other things that are more important to worry about.

--"Mormon's could achieve overpopulation eventually"

You spout all that stuff above about exponential and then bring this in? Please. You know what averages and medians are.

--"if it is at a point where a required value (food) is not known to be sufficient to support the increase"

That's the point. We've got plenty of food, and we're nowhere near our production limits. We could end famine on the planet right now if growing the food was the only issue (the shipping, political, and logistics problems are another thing).

--"Why do you think much of the firsrt world countries are turning towards organic farming?"

They aren't. It's all advertising. Only the crackpots are turning towards organic farming. Well, them and the people who are making big money off of it. It's all in the advertising and the ignorance.
Organic farming is actualy a lot more resource intensive than the current high-yeild mentions, and even more so than genetically engineered products.

Wraith
Stand Back! I Have a Brain and I'm Not Afraid To Use It

	17-06-2002 08:28									#73
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger So you are putting the cart in front of the horse.

I'm afraid you've lost me. The fact is that China's method of enforcing its one child policy violates individual rights. I also question wheather government should even have the authority to police individual citizens bedrooms.

	17-06-2002 08:36									#74
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Silly me... forgot that . Yet, in those states, you will see a lack of a capitalist economic order.

Yes, instead they have capitalist economic disorder. Africa's not the only place with starvation and malnurishment, it's just the only place with regular famines. Famines still occur in Asia from time to time, and millions of people die of starvation outside Africa, all in the capitalist world.

Capitalism hasn't done away with famines, it's merely changed the causes. Before it was because there wasn't enough food produced. Now it's because the starving don't have the money to buy food.

	17-06-2002 09:02									#75
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Hm, when did having as many children as one wants become an "individual right?"

That's ludicrous. Sexual freedom and reproduction is by definition an individual right.

	17-06-2002 09:34									#76
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Firstly, as mindseye has pointed out, forced abortions is not the norm. Most of the one-child policy is carried out through tax incentives.

Secondly, individual rights go so far as they don't violate the equal rights of others. This is why there is no "right to murder", because other people have the right to live. In the same way, people have the right not to starve. This is why there is a one-child policy.
(Seriously, are you going to let a country self-destruct through overpopulation because you want to safeguard the rights of the people to reproduce?! Get your priorities straight.)

Thirdly, there is sexual freedom in China.

( You'd think that I would know what I'm talking about, considering that I'm an only child. And yep, you got it, because of the infamous Policy.)

	17-06-2002 09:38									#77
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Come on now... Malthus was WRONG . Technology will always be ahead of the 'famine that will doom mankind' .

It would never doom all of mankind, just the portion that were in excess of our capability to feed (the food going to those with the power to take/keep it).

Technology may very well keep up, my argument is against a rate of population growth that would exceed our ability to feed that population. That ability changes with time, and so can our rate of growth.

	17-06-2002 09:40									#78
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by ranskaldan Firstly, as mindseye has pointed out, forced abortions is not the norm.

I don't particularly care if they are the norm or not. The very fact that they happen at all and with State sanction is abominable.

	17-06-2002 09:52									#79
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Wraith --"Just because humans have the ability to avoid overpopulation doesn't mean overpopulation is not a potential problem." And just because we don't have any proof of giant invisible Learnian space hamsters doesn't mean that their attacking the earth is not a potential problem. There's just a matter of degree of probability. We've got some other things that are more important to worry about.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. If we say overpopulation could never be a problem there is a risk that it would become a problem. If we understand the risk, we can guard against it.

quote: --"Mormon's could achieve overpopulation eventually" You spout all that stuff above about exponential and then bring this in? Please. You know what averages and medians are.

You excluded the qualifier to my statement (part of the sentence you quoted even): "(many generations) with what probably is around 4 children per family average." I'm sure you can see how a population of ~6million could increase rapidly doubling every generation.

quote: --"if it is at a point where a required value (food) is not known to be sufficient to support the increase" That's the point. We've got plenty of food, and we're nowhere near our production limits. We could end famine on the planet right now if growing the food was the only issue (the shipping, political, and logistics problems are another thing).

If you had read my previous posts I have already stated that exact same argument. The statement you quoted was about any hypothetical situation where the ability of our food production to feed our population had been reached.

It was in response to a claim that we don't have to worry about overpopulation because future advances will provide more food.

	17-06-2002 09:54									#80
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc I don't particularly care if they are the norm or not. The very fact that they happen at all and with State sanction is abominable.

Any Chinese site would say there it doesn't happen with State sanction, and any English site would say that it does.

At this particular point, it's hard to decide who to trust.

-----

The point remains, that even state sponsored abortion is better than state sponsored starvation. The last time that happened in China, 30 million people died. I'm sure none of us want that the repeat itself.

In an ideal world, we wouldn't have to make this choice between two evils. But we don't live in an ideal world.

	17-06-2002 10:05									#81
	STRAWMAN ALERT! STRAWMAN ALERT! Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

"(Seriously, are you going to let a country self-destruct through overpopulation because you want to safeguard the rights of the people to reproduce?! Get your priorities straight.)"

Why would the country self-destruct? As painstakingly shown above, China has had little risk of self destructing and now could cover any food shortfall on the international market with ready money.

If anything, China is just screwing with its demographics. It won't be long before it will be said that fewer and fewer workers are supporting an aging population.

	17-06-2002 10:07									#82
	Suffering from ads?

Of course it's morally wrong!

	17-06-2002 10:12									#83
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

So the country is going to depend on the international market for food?

Firstly, of course, there is the logistics of distributing food to 1.2 billion people (or, if you have your way, 6 billion people instead).

Secondly, severe overcrowding in China would have severe consequences on the environment, in terms of agriculture, power usage, waste disposal, etc.

Thirdly, a whopping 4 or 5 billon Chinese are not merely going to sit and wait to eat. There will be countless other problems - employment, social services, and housing. A lack of any of these can result in severe civil strife.

Fourthly, most of the money China takes in through trade goes not to the government, but to private corporations. The private sector generally does not spontaneously decide to feed the country for free.

Lastly, the food supply of an immense number of people in China would then depend entirely on the Chinese economy and the global market. Any part of this goes kaput, and you will have several billion, starving, desperate, angry people. In addition to being morally repugnant, this won't be a pretty sight in terms of global stability.

	17-06-2002 10:15									#84
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: The west has stabilized population growth through personal choice. Through economics. When the median population rises, people have less kids. The population usually stabilize by itself through the mere fact that peoples' time is worth more as incomes rise. And when the value of time is more, there are less children because the oppertunity cost of having chilren is much greater when the potential income is so much higher.

A choice based on economic factors is still a choice right? My example of Mormon's show that economic factors will not always limit population growth. The simple fact is that the LDS religion promotes large families, it is part of their doctrine. They take the 'go forth and multiply' portion of the Bible very seriously.

There are personal, social, economic, moral, and religious (call them cultural) factors involved in procreation. I don't think it's proper to assume that because one group (in this case western civilization in general) chooses to limit their population growth, that all groups regardless of their cultural ideas will do the same.

There is a very real political power to be gained through procreation. Children brought up in a system are more likely to follow in that system. It isn't out of the realm of possibility that a group would use this to outbreed their rivals. I even wonder if this isn't one of the driving forces behind the LDS promotion of large families.

My point is, as long as there is any group of people willing to continue without population growth constraints, humanity could eventually face the problems associated with global overpopulation.

	17-06-2002 10:20									#85
	Inflate your Upload Space

"(or, if you have your way, 6 billion people instead)"

How on earth do you know that there would be 6 billion people in China without the one child policy? Sounds awful far-fetched to me.

The rest is a hypothetical based on a really weird number. Don't know what I could say about it.

	17-06-2002 10:22									#86
	Re: STRAWMAN ALERT! STRAWMAN ALERT! Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by DanS Why would the country self-destruct? As painstakingly shown above, China has had little risk of self destructing and now could cover any food shortfall on the international market with ready money. If anything, China is just screwing with its demographics. It won't be long before it will be said that fewer and fewer workers are supporting an aging population.

You are saying that now, 30 years after the implementation of a regressive population control, that their population could be supported. Are you sure that if they hadn't installed such controls that they would be able to support their population that might be close to double* what it is now?

*not sure on the figures, but overall population has grown to about 1.6 times what it was in 1970, and China's population was growing at above normal levels. Factor any any negative population growth promoted by 1 child, and it could well be more than double.

	17-06-2002 10:24									#87
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

"*not sure on the figures, "

Of course you aren't sure on the figures. It would just be an exercise of picking a number out of a hat.

	17-06-2002 10:25									#88
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

6 billion is a bit high. 2.5 billion maybe the upper limit. It still would cause a lot of problems.

	17-06-2002 10:26									#89
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

"2.5 billion maybe the upper limit."

Yer pullin' it outa yer azz.

	17-06-2002 10:27									#90
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

DanS:

quote: How on earth do you know that there would be 6 billion people in China without the one child policy? Sounds awful far-fetched to me. The rest is a hypothetical based on a really weird number. Don't know what I could say about it.

straw man alert.

the number 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 billion people is not the point.
whether the population of China becomes 2 billion or 2 trillion, those problems that I mentioned remain. They certainly aren't based on the number "6 billion".

(besides, you seem to be horrified by the number "6 billion" or the prospects of arguing for that 6 billion situation. Why then are you against the One Child Policy?)

To reiterate those problems of overpopulation and depending entirely on imports for food:

1. Logistics of Food Distribution.
2. Environmental Consequences that a huge population could have.
3. Providing Social Services & Employment to a huge population (and the dire consequences of not doing this)
4. Dependence on World Market for food - leaving the food supply of China extremely vulnerable
5. Money goes into the Private Sector not Government - the private sector doesn't spontaneously feed people for free.