NationStates Jolt Archive

It has fairly recently come to my attention that I am B. However, as B, I don't think I have fulfilled my responsibilities of informing others. Unfortunately, I don't have quite the speaking abilities that B should have. Anyway, hear I go...
There are obviously a great deal of people starving in Africa, and other places around the world, and even in developed countries, right? This has been the case for as long as our history will remind us. However, there are more starving people this year than last year. And more that year than the year before. And MANY more than in the 50s. But, since then, haven't we produced a greater amount of food each year? Haven't we been providing more aid to third world countries ever? Why then, are there more people starving than ever?
Now pretend for a second, that this next topic is an unrelated note...
Imagine you have an amorphous cage for lab mice- you can fit up to like 1500 mice in it. But you don't want 1500 mice. You have 15 mice, and you feed them more than enough...what will happen? Well, you'll get more than 15 mice, huh? Let's say you only want 50 mice, so you figure how much food 50 mice would need, and you give them exactly that amount of food everyday. Guess how man ymice you'll have over time. Exactly correct! 50 mice. If you keep with the exact same amount of food for them for another year and a half, guess how many mice you'd have. No, not 75, not 100, not 30, but (approximately) still 50 mice!! If food growth stops, so does population growth, surely not right away, but pretty quickly the mice even out to be perfectly suited for the amount of food they have. If you decide you instead want 100 mice, double the amount of food, and in a matter of time, you'll have 100 mice. Half the amount again, and the population will go back down to 50.
So now, before you ask "Well what's that got to do with starving people? We can control our population on our own- we're HUMAN." please consider...The amount of food reaching the "starving people" increases every year, and every year, the number or starving people increases. So every year, we send aid, and it isn't enough. Every year, people sit around and think to themselves "Darn it's not enough, let's send more." and then the next year when it's even worse they say "It's still not enough. We have to send more!" and the next year when it's even worse, they again propose we send more. It's like they don't even see the correlation between sending more aid and seeing more hungry people. So the mice population increased when their food supply increased. Doesn't it make sense that this is what's happening in the 3rd world countries with such booming populations? They have more food and an increasing population- doesn't it seem that those two things could possibly be related?
I feel as though I'm starting to fade...so I'll wrap this up...
Next time someone asks you to donate to hungry families in third world countries...Just think...that food will encourage a further increase in poulation- which inevitably leads to an increase in starvation. I know, it's terrible to think about on an individual level...But do you really want to be responsible for massive further suffering just to stop an individual you don't even know from suffering? If anyone who is reading this has done one of those charities that lets you adopt a child and send then 43 cents a day (and I doubt anyone here has), then I'll agree that you know the person, and I would encourage you to continue sending aid to that person- but I would implore you to discuss celibacy to them- whether you think they would understand or not. There is no reason there should be more suffering! And I'm sure you wouldn't want your "adopted" child to be mother to 6 children she can't feed, half of whom inherited AIDS from her. Please, I beg of you, just think.

I also ask you to think before responding to this post. If it makes you angry- just give yourself a minute to think about it and to think out your reply. Don't get me wrong, I want criticism! It will only help me out. I don't, however, want anyone who might have a good point to instead respond stupidly out of anger, because that won't help me. I promise I'll try to do the same when responding to any criticism. Also, since it's so late, I'll go ahead and admit now that I'm gonna bump this tomorrow if it's not on the first page...So please respond!

http://www.oilcrash.com/population.htm
http://blogs.salon.com/0002007/2004/02/06.html
---[more than] Inspired by Daniel Quinn---

I only read the last two paragraphs and I understood the whole topic, me thinks.

man, im hungry as f--- right now. havent eaten anything today. :?

I only read the last two paragraphs and I understood the whole topic, me thinks.
yeah probably, the rest was only to use scientific evidence to explain.
man, im hungry as f--- right now. havent eaten anything today. :?
Well don't eat! It'll increase your population1!!!

Maybe I make too much fun of myself... 8)

Thank you Thomas Malthus. Limitted resources are a bitch, we can all agree on that, but instead of cutting back populations now through starvation and strife (though those are natural and unavoidable population controls) how about we work towards finding a way to feed more people?

Thank you Thomas Malthus. Limitted resources are a bitch, we can all agree on that, but instead of cutting back populations now through starvation and strife (though those are natural and unavoidable population controls) how about we work towards finding a way to feed more people?
I was watching Fairly Oddparents the other day, Timmy figured that if he shrunk everyone to the size of a ping-pong ball, there'd be enough food for everyone. Then he surrendered himself to pleasurably foods and forgot.

Thank you Thomas Malthus. Limitted resources are a bitch, we can all agree on that, but instead of cutting back populations now through starvation and strife (though those are natural and unavoidable population controls) how about we work towards finding a way to feed more people?
I was watching Fairly Oddparents the other day, Timmy figured that if he shrunk everyone to the size of a ping-pong ball, there'd be enough food for everyone. Then he surrendered himself to pleasurably foods and forgot.

There's already enough food to feed everyone, it's just a matter of distribution.

Thank you Thomas Malthus. Limitted resources are a bitch, we can all agree on that, but instead of cutting back populations now through starvation and strife (though those are natural and unavoidable population controls) how about we work towards finding a way to feed more people?
I was watching Fairly Oddparents the other day, Timmy figured that if he shrunk everyone to the size of a ping-pong ball, there'd be enough food for everyone. Then he surrendered himself to pleasurably foods and forgot.

There's already enough food to feed everyone, it's just a matter of distribution.
but imagine. Shriking everyone in Africa to a ping-pong ball and delivering as much food to a city as you would to a plane.

Hey, look its someone who's read some Daniel Quinn!

The arguments sliders is making are echoed in Ishmael and probably the Story of B.

Thank you Thomas Malthus. Limitted resources are a bitch, we can all agree on that, but instead of cutting back populations now through starvation and strife (though those are natural and unavoidable population controls) how about we work towards finding a way to feed more people?
I was watching Fairly Oddparents the other day, Timmy figured that if he shrunk everyone to the size of a ping-pong ball, there'd be enough food for everyone. Then he surrendered himself to pleasurably foods and forgot.

There's already enough food to feed everyone, it's just a matter of distribution.
I'd love for no one to starve. The problem is that if you feed them all, then the population will increase, and eventually there won't be enough food- we can't farm the whole planet- and even if we do- where do we go then? Too much food = too much population = too much starvation

Hey, look its someone who's read some Daniel Quinn!

The arguments sliders is making are echoed in Ishmael and probably the Story of B.
Yeah, I took it almost exactly from Story of B :oops:
I'm sure DQ won't mind
At least it came from memory

Hey, look its someone who's read some Daniel Quinn!

The arguments sliders is making are echoed in Ishmael and probably the Story of B.
Yeah, I took it almost exactly from Story of B :oops:
I'm sure DQ won't mind
At least it came from memory

Yeah I suggest everyone read those stories...they're quite thought provoking.

Thank you Thomas Malthus. Limitted resources are a bitch, we can all agree on that, but instead of cutting back populations now through starvation and strife (though those are natural and unavoidable population controls) how about we work towards finding a way to feed more people?
I was watching Fairly Oddparents the other day, Timmy figured that if he shrunk everyone to the size of a ping-pong ball, there'd be enough food for everyone. Then he surrendered himself to pleasurably foods and forgot.

There's already enough food to feed everyone, it's just a matter of distribution.
I'd love for no one to starve. The problem is that if you feed them all, then the population will increase, and eventually there won't be enough food- we can't farm the whole planet- and even if we do- where do we go then? Too much food = too much population = too much starvation

Yes, you're right, but you're merely stating a simple economic principle first explained by Thomas Malthus, which basically states that wants will expand beyond the capacity of the limited resources of a given area. This principle explains many wars, and explains why we need to continue expanding the area on which we produce food, increasing the effeciency of the land we use to produce food, or limitting the population that is dependent on the food produced. Personally I beleive that the second option is the best in the short run, the first in the long run, and the third never. Malthus took a very negative view of the situation and basically said the humans' unlimited wants would outstrip the production of the Earth and destroy humanity, but he did not take into account the possibility for expansion beyond the Earth, and he did not take into account the potential through extraterrestrial expansion, to provide for a meaningfully unlimitted number of humans. Given the right technology starvation will never be a long term problem.

Everyone but Uze is under informed and ignorant if I had time I'd explain it but I have to write like 5 more essays. I hope you figure it out on your own.

Malthus = Wrong

POSSIBLISM IS TEH ROX0R!

Yeah...I need sleep

Also you people aren't thinking about alternative methods for agriculture such as hydroponics. Also nearly unlimited wants can be taken care of in a virtual manner.

Also you people aren't thinking about alternative methods for agriculture such as hydroponics. Also nearly unlimited wants can be taken care of in a virtual manner.

but you realize that the number of people starving will increase along with the number of people fed.

No not really, you're assumming constant population growth which is a flawed concept. Population growth actually goes through different periods of transition most MDC's are in the final period of "demographic transition" and have nearly zero population growth. If you can develope the world you can prevent increased population growth.

Also you people aren't thinking about alternative methods for agriculture such as hydroponics. Also nearly unlimited wants can be taken care of in a virtual manner.

but you realize that the number of people starving will increase along with the number of people fed.

So long as food production is growing faster than the population this isn't a problem. In many places, particularly the highly developed parts of Europe have negative population growth. Like TWS was saying, the Demographic Transition model shows how a nation can actually stabilize despite the somewhat primal urge to procreate.

The problem with your mouse analogy is in viewing "feeding people" as a concious decision we have some ability (and right) to make. While this might be true of state agriculture in the Soviet Union it doesn't pertain to the free(est) parts of the world.

If you donate lots of food to Africans (say) then yes this problem will happen. Their population will increase *beyond their ability to sustain under their own efforts*. They have more people than food and have become dependent on charity. But Africa isn't all deserts and jungles, there is enough arable land to feed them all so the question is *why can't Africans feed themselves*?

The answer lies in the activities of governments. The EU and US subsidise farmers so that African farmers can't compete with western subsidised food prices leaving them dependent on us for food. Further, with the high debt of African countries they have to grow coffee, sugar and other cash crops to pay the bills. This means all the best land is devoted to growing luxuries for the west. The corrupt policies of African govts hardly help such as Mugabe's disasterous programs.

So what is the solution? The solution is (as in most things) to quit socialist medalling in the economy. Forgive African debt, end farming subsidies. Farm subsidies are why recent trade negotiations broke down. Africa doesn't need any special treatment, all the need is the oportunity to compete in a fair and free market situation. Globalisation is popular in the 3rd world. If we free the markets and allow African's the chance to stand on their own feet then we won't be in the situation where we have to feed them like "mice in a cage".

That sounds like a rather lame excuse to stop giving aid if ever i heard one.

Giving money isnt the only option y'know. We sould send engineers to build hospitals, bridges etc to help their infastructure or teach them how to feed themselves.

The problem is raising their level of development to the stage where birth rate declines and there aren't too many people to feed like The World Sphere talked about. This has happened in every developed country in the world.

The problem with your mouse analogy is in viewing "feeding people" as a concious decision we have some ability (and right) to make. While this might be true of state agriculture in the Soviet Union it doesn't pertain to the free(est) parts of the world.

If you donate lots of food to Africans (say) then yes this problem will happen. Their population will increase *beyond their ability to sustain under their own efforts*. They have more people than food and have become dependent on charity. But Africa isn't all deserts and jungles, there is enough arable land to feed them all so the question is *why can't Africans feed themselves*?

The answer lies in the activities of governments. The EU and US subsidise farmers so that African farmers can't compete with western subsidised food prices leaving them dependent on us for food. Further, with the high debt of African countries they have to grow coffee, sugar and other cash crops to pay the bills. This means all the best land is devoted to growing luxuries for the west. The corrupt policies of African govts hardly help such as Mugabe's disasterous programs.

So what is the solution? The solution is (as in most things) to quit socialist medalling in the economy. Forgive African debt, end farming subsidies. Farm subsidies are why recent trade negotiations broke down. Africa doesn't need any special treatment, all the need is the oportunity to compete in a fair and free market situation. Globalisation is popular in the 3rd world. If we free the markets and allow African's the chance to stand on their own feet then we won't be in the situation where we have to feed them like "mice in a cage".
Well I certainly agree with that- I'm not suggesting that we blow up any farms that they plant in Africa, I'm just saying that we should stop supporting the massive growth in population and thus starvation and disease. (Epidemics spread much faster in places of high population density than places of low pop. density) The strange fact is that the places with plenty of food are the places with lowest (or negative) population growth. As it is, nothing we have done is helping them. And instead of continuing to send aid that doesn't help them, and holding them back, I suggest we leave them alone so they can develop their own countries.

And to San haiti: The other developed countries weren't developed by other countries...They did it themselves.

to echo san haiti a bit
your thesis is wrong
if it were true, then europe and north america would be in the midst of the biggest baby boom the world has ever seen.

the key to population control isnt starving the 3rd world to death but in increasing their standard of living until they no longer need children to be their major family resource.

unfortunately africa especially has huge problems to overcome in horribly bad governments, revolutions, ethnic hostilities and aids. starving them would only make these problems worse.

The problem with your mouse analogy is in viewing "feeding people" as a concious decision we have some ability (and right) to make. While this might be true of state agriculture in the Soviet Union it doesn't pertain to the free(est) parts of the world.

If you donate lots of food to Africans (say) then yes this problem will happen. Their population will increase *beyond their ability to sustain under their own efforts*. They have more people than food and have become dependent on charity. But Africa isn't all deserts and jungles, there is enough arable land to feed them all so the question is *why can't Africans feed themselves*?

The answer lies in the activities of governments. The EU and US subsidise farmers so that African farmers can't compete with western subsidised food prices leaving them dependent on us for food. Further, with the high debt of African countries they have to grow coffee, sugar and other cash crops to pay the bills. This means all the best land is devoted to growing luxuries for the west. The corrupt policies of African govts hardly help such as Mugabe's disasterous programs.

So what is the solution? The solution is (as in most things) to quit socialist medalling in the economy. Forgive African debt, end farming subsidies. Farm subsidies are why recent trade negotiations broke down. Africa doesn't need any special treatment, all the need is the oportunity to compete in a fair and free market situation. Globalisation is popular in the 3rd world. If we free the markets and allow African's the chance to stand on their own feet then we won't be in the situation where we have to feed them like "mice in a cage".

As an international socialist, I find myself in complete agreement with you on the essentials here. :) The only quibble I have is with the sentence, "Globalisation is popular in the 3rd world". It all depends on what you mean by "globalisation". I assume that you mean what they mean, i.e. an end to the massive protectionism of the west, letting the developing nations compete on an equal footing. But we need to be careful: many in the west, both pro- and anti-globalisation, see the term as meaning, "allowing western corporations to buy what they want and run the 3rd world as a corporate fiefdom". The west's meddling in Africa's economies doesn't end with loan-sharking, commodity price manipulation, and protectionism; it extends to the forced privatisation of national assets, when the only available buyers are foreign corporations. That's neither fair nor free -- and, when you consider the sort of incompetent crooks who run a surprising number of international corporations, it can be downright suicidal.

If a western corporation wants to compete with an African state asset, say in water supply, let it lay its own pipes, build its own filtration plants and offer a better service, not just cherry-pick what's already been built, pay a price well under the market value to an often corrupt government, and as often as not end up asset-stripping the whole thing when the locals take exception to having their water cut off when they can't pay the 300% increases on their bills.

Yes, you're right, but you're merely stating a simple economic principle first explained by Thomas Malthus, which basically states that wants will expand beyond the capacity of the limited resources of a given area. This principle explains many wars, and explains why we need to continue expanding the area on which we produce food, increasing the effeciency of the land we use to produce food, or limitting the population that is dependent on the food produced. Personally I beleive that the second option is the best in the short run, the first in the long run, and the third never. Malthus took a very negative view of the situation and basically said the humans' unlimited wants would outstrip the production of the Earth and destroy humanity, but he did not take into account the possibility for expansion beyond the Earth, and he did not take into account the potential through extraterrestrial expansion, to provide for a meaningfully unlimitted number of humans. Given the right technology starvation will never be a long term problem.
Well I certainly never tried to pass this idea off as my own original concept...Pardon me, if I don't see how using all of Mars for farming is a solution to this problem...It's bad enough how we're destroying the planet we call home, it's a terrible idea to attempt tp destroy the rest of the galaxy too. Besides, we're far from that being possible...not to mention efficient. So far, the only solution I can even imagine is Spiritual Machines...