Post by: mouse_clicker on March 22, 2004, 05:02:44 PM
Post by: Berny on March 22, 2004, 05:05:55 PM
Rather than resorting to population controls, I think maybe gaining some economic independence would be a good idea. Sadly, the best paying jobs in those countries are from U.S. factories. Whether or not this is enought to live is debatable, but U.S. business is helping a lot over there. But your point was joblessness over here, so I suppose you are right, but businesses are just trying to do their duty as a business by maximizing their profits.
So yeah, those countries' economies have essentially become dependent on the U.S. and businesses have become dependent on them. It's a self perpetuating problem unfortunately. I think an ethical route should be found before they resort to executing children after number 2.
Post by: Ocarina Blue on March 22, 2004, 10:20:18 PM
The problem of reliance on the U.S.A. will fix itself eventually: poorer countries will gain wealth from company's willingness to employ them, and their wealth will increase. When the scales are more balanced, it will no longer be efficient to outsource, as the transportation of goods etc. adds to the cost. Therefore, companies will employ people from their own country. The scales will tip, and some other country will become a massive super-power. The only problem here is government intervention: Bush has clearly set his goal as being to prevent any other country from approaching the U.S.A.'s military and economic might (it's somewhere in his foreign policy thingiewhatsit.)
Although the idea of making everyone as rich as everyone else (and therefore providing everyone with a job) is a pretty neato concept, it tends to not work so well, and probably won't catch on in the U.S.A. anytime soon
Post by: KDR_11k on March 23, 2004, 05:11:10 AM
Post by: mouse_clicker on March 23, 2004, 05:18:41 AM
Ocarina Blue: I never said it was perfect.
Still, though, I'm sure these countries' overpopulation has something to do with American unemployment, even if it's not a big factor.
Post by: Ian Sane on March 23, 2004, 06:59:45 AM
Plus population control in China has done nothing but cause a really big problem: shortage of women. Since people are restricted in the amount of children they can have many people prefer to have a son instead of daughter so now there's way more men than women. This of course creates a whole new problem in terms of population. What would really help China is if they were more slack about people leaving the country. If people had the freedom to come and go as they pleased then they wouldn't have any overpopulation problems.
The whole problem with the concept of population control is that you're treating human beings as no more than a statistic like you're counting ants in an ant colony.
Post by: Bill Aurion on March 23, 2004, 07:10:26 AM
Agreed...Plus, in a capitalistic society such as ours, it's not possible to avoid unemployment...It's a nice dream, but to completely drop unemployment we'd have to switch over to socialism, which isn't going to happen anytime soon...
Post by: mouse_clicker on March 23, 2004, 07:23:42 AM
Quote
What exactly do you mean by "population control"? Do you mean limiting the amount of children a person is allowed to have? That's a HUGE violation of human rights. Any human being is allowed to have as many kids as they want. Nobody has the right to trample all over that freedom. I'd rather the US economy turn to complete crap than for people in other countries be treated like livestock.
So you'd rather have these people continue living in their own filth? Have you ever BEEN to a country that was overpopulated, Ian? I used to live in Japan and visited South Korea and Singapore frequently- I've experienced what overpopulation feels like. How is population control, which insures the longterm well being and health of a people, more inhumane than letting them have 6 or 7 kids each when they can't even feed the first 2, much less house them? Overpopulation is the bane of humanity and is FAR more important than any morals you may think apply to the situation. Morals are a human creation, while the threats of overpopulation are universal. I think you're vastly undermining the problem. Maybe you'll have a clean conscious NOW, knowing you didn't restrict anyone's human rights, but can you live with the knowledge that it will cause living conditions so horrible you can't even imagine them? I fail to see how these people are living in overpopulated countries is less of a human rights issue than any perceived problem you may have with population control. Wake up, Ian- if humans continue to overpopulate, it WILL be the beginning of our end.
Quote
Plus, in a capitalistic society such as ours, it's not possible to avoid unemployment...It's a nice dream, but to completely drop unemployment we'd have to switch over to socialism, which isn't going to happen anytime soon...
Grrr....... read my whole post, people! I never said my idea was going to completely eliminate unemployment! I never even said it was practical at all- in fact, I said it was very impractical. But you can't just write off unemployment as an unavoidable side effect of our kind of economy- yes that's true, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't make it as small a problem as possible. Ignoring it will only make it grow bigger.
Post by: Bill Aurion on March 23, 2004, 07:27:54 AM
Post by: slacker on March 23, 2004, 08:20:39 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on March 23, 2004, 08:38:44 AM
It's inhumane because YOU are deciding who gets to be born, who doesn't, who gets to have kids, and who doesn't. YOU and no other human being have the right to have control over any other human being because we're all equal. That's the ultimate problem with the whole concept. Someone else is making a huge decision on the behalf of other people. Who appoints them and what gives them the right to make such a decision? What makes them above the rest of us?
"Morals are a human creation, while the threats of overpopulation are universal."
If morality is a human creation then why do you care about anyone else? If you're concerned for the welfare of other people, which you are, then you have some morals. You may not call it the same thing but they're there or else you wouldn't think it's wrong for people to live in an overpopulated country. Overpopulation may be a problem but the ends don't justify the means. Controlling the population is wrong and therefore you cannot do it even if you feel your intentions are good. If you think about it killing everyone who is sick or elderly would be a productive way of trimming the population but few would consider that an acceptable thing to do. Or so I hope anyway.
Controlling the population growth to "solve" the problem of overpopulation is no better than restricting freedom of thought because difference in opinion can lead to conflict. Freedom can cause sadness and pain but it can also cause joy and love. But I would rather take the good with the bad in exchange for the ability to decide my own fate and choose my own life. Population control restricts freedom and that's why I'm against it.
Post by: mouse_clicker on March 23, 2004, 08:47:27 AM
Let me put it as simply as I can- if overpopulation is allowed to continue, the human race will go extinct. It's not that I'm ignoring human created morals, I just recognize their incredible insignificance next to the laws of nature. I really don't think you understand just what kind of conditions these people live in! Most are incredibly poor, very hungry, living almost elbow to elbow while disease and famine run rampant! How can you possibly preach the inhumanity of population control when the very lack of it creates conditions so horrible you would be left speechless were you to fully grasp the concept of them.
Post by: Ian Sane on March 23, 2004, 09:08:00 AM
You can't prove that and I don't believe it. Humanity didn't have birth control for thousands of years and somehow they survived. Now we have that option and we may go extinct? It won't happen.
"It's not that I'm ignoring human created morals, I just recognize their incredible insignificance next to the laws of nature."
How ironic that you talk of the laws of nature yet at the same time support something that greatly interferes with nature. Population control is an attempt to control nature and thus conflicts with the laws of nature. In nature if a species faces overpopulation a large percentage of the population dies out and the population slowly rebuilds itself.
"So you'd rather people choose their own fate and live in inevitable poverty, disease, famine, and filth as opposed to having a loose population control that will insure the good health and well being of the entire nation?"
I would rather have freedom then live in a manner that someone else decides as "good". Most people feel the same way. In fact you probably do too. I believe that a religious life is "better" than a non-religious one yet you would not want me to force you to live that life because I think it's better for you. You would consider that a huge violation of your rights and freedoms. And population control is the same thing because someone else is deciding for me.
Here's another example. Let's say that a couple has five children but is not realistically able to afford to take care of them and as a result the whole family lives in poverty. If this same family had only two kids they would be able to live confortably. If you gave them the option to "dispose" of three of their children so that the parents and the two remaining children could have a better life do you think they would take it? Not likely. Most people would rather live in poverty than give up their own children. The ability to have children is regarded by most to be just as valuable and precious as children themselves. If you asked everyone on Earth if they would be willing to restrict the amount of kids they can have how many people do you really think would go for it? I wouldn't and I imagine a lot of other people wouldn't either. Therefore you can't force people to be restricted in that way if they don't wish it. If you want to only have one kid to reduce the population than go ahead but you can't force me to do the same.
Imagine if the roles were reversed and the population was too low and there was a law that everyone HAD to get married and HAD to have at least three kids. Would you approve of that?
Post by: mouse_clicker on March 23, 2004, 09:25:36 AM
Quote
You can't prove that and I don't believe it. Humanity didn't have birth control for thousands of years and somehow they survived. Now we have that option and we may go extinct? It won't happen.
I don't need to prove it, it's common sense. Besides, homo sapiens have only existed for about 30,000 years and are just now starting to overpopulate- of course we never had a worldwide problem before, although isolated places like Europe during the 1300's were vastly overpopulated and overcrowded until the Plague hit the region and killed off a third of the people.
Quote
How ironic that you talk of the laws of nature yet at the same time support something that greatly interferes with nature. Population control is an attempt to control nature and thus conflicts with the laws of nature. In nature if a species faces overpopulation a large percentage of the population dies out and the population slowly rebuilds itself.
You raise a good point, but our incredible overpopulation is due almost soley to the fact that we have all but dominated our natural population control- disease. Without disease at the very least an artifical form of population control must be implemented to take its place. I agree with you that population control does restrict personal freedom, but it's only in the interest of the greater good of the nation. Americans have a hard time grasping this- we've been engrained with the idea that we should be free to live however we like, and anything less than that complete freedom is heinous and deplorable. What you don't understand is that this particular freedom will inevitably come at the cost of many lives, many people's health, and many people's well being. In essence, you want people to live in hell on Earth simply to retain one freedom. You need to look beyond the personal level, Ian, and on to the bigger picture. Don't try to deny the effects of overpopulation, either- if you attempt to refute me in that respect you will only run into a brick wall. The problems that will come of overpopulation trump ANY civil liberty you can possible conceive of.
Quote
Imagine if the roles were reversed and the population was too low and there was a law that everyone HAD to get married and HAD to have at least three kids. Would you approve of that?
I wouldn't necessarily like the idea, no, but I would certainly comply if it were for the good of the race.
Post by: ThePerm on March 23, 2004, 09:32:27 AM
before the baby boom my granparents owuld have like 5 or 6 kids..bfore them commonly there were families of 12......our parents prolyl only had 1-3 kids.... thanks to the nuclear family propaganda.
Post by: Bill Aurion on March 23, 2004, 09:41:42 AM
The only thing that could cause our species to become extinct is a mass natural disaster or...ourselves...
Post by: Ian Sane on March 23, 2004, 09:51:25 AM
"You need to look beyond the personal level, Ian, and on to the bigger picture."
Well that's were we obviously see things differently. I'm seeing people as individuals while you're seeing them as a group.
"Americans have a hard time grasping this- we've been engrained with the idea that we should be free to live however we like, and anything less than that complete freedom is heinous and deplorable."
Actually my strong importance in freedom is due to my religious beliefs not democracy.
Here's what would worry me the most if population control was widely enforced: I'm worried that the violation of our rights wouldn't stop there. When people have power they often go too far and I'm afraid that if someone had the power to decide how many children we could have they would have the power to go further and decide what people based on race, ideals, beliefs, genetics, etc would be allowed to breed and who wouldn't. I am seeing the big picture in the sense that I don't see a bright future if the good intentions of population control spin out of control like the good intentions of most ideas.
Anyway I've made my point so I'll leave it at that.
Post by: manunited4eva22 on March 23, 2004, 09:52:36 AM
Post by: mouse_clicker on March 23, 2004, 09:56:43 AM
Quote
Well that's were we obviously see things differently. I'm seeing people as individuals while you're seeing them as a group.
Seeing humans as individuals is not advantageous to the well being of the race as a whole, though- that's really my whole point.
Quote
Actually my strong importance in freedom is due to my religious beliefs not democracy.
Religious ethics don't generally deviate from democracy, though, at least not modern religious ethics. In any case, my reason for pointing out that Americans can't quite grasp the whole concept is that we live in a country where the overall well being of the nation isn't in jeopardy, which gives us the ability to focus on individual liberties. In other words, we don't live in it so we can't quite understand the magnitude of the problem.
Post by: Hostile Creation on March 23, 2004, 01:23:28 PM
And if a plague does kill off half of China? Problem solved, and it'll be just the same as your plan, MC, except people will die instead of not being born (meaning they get work done during the interval). I think people should just wise up and do it for themselves, and if they don't, they've damned themselves. Just as well.
But whatever floats yer boat.
Post by: manunited4eva22 on March 23, 2004, 01:54:07 PM
Post by: Bill Aurion on March 23, 2004, 02:05:44 PM
Post by: ThePerm on March 23, 2004, 03:01:29 PM
if you look back at the average intelligence of people in europe it actually went down significantly
after the fall of the roman empire.....it didn't rise again till the renaisance....so basically the clergy and royalty purposely created misinformation and squandered education in orde to remain in power....the romans had steam technology and performed brain surgery....after the romans.....nothing for a long time.
Post by: Hostile Creation on March 23, 2004, 03:10:25 PM
Quote
Other things that have nothing to do with reality: A plague killing 500 million people in a modern country.
Modern by American or Western European standards, yes. By Chinese standards, not so unrealistic. I doubt it'd kill that many people, though. It was what we literary folks like to call a hyperbole.
Post by: Berny on March 23, 2004, 03:41:06 PM
Some one else (I think it was Ocarina blue) mentioned that over time, these nations will accumulate enough wealth and resources from American factories to be economically independent. This will also help to solve our nation's joblessness as unions will form and the workers will demand higher wages for a higher standard of living. Nike and the rest of them may pull out, and return to deomestic manufacturing. They'd probably get around a lot of tariffs and import taxes that way, too.
Something obviously must be done, and like you said, this is probably not the most pressing factor in America's joblessness. But the poverty of those mostly South East Asian countries is a serious problem and should be dealt with.
Post by: mouse_clicker on March 23, 2004, 06:52:44 PM
Quote
Mouse, it's like you said in another thread. Nature tends to take care of things. When things get to crowded, disease flourishes and people will inevitably die. Governments don't need to kill people or limit the number of births, because that will happen on its own.
That's thew way it SHOULD happen. If we leave it up to nature now, the human race will vastly overpopulate, deplete our food resources, then starve to death. If we don't go completely extinct human civilization will probably start anew. The problem is we've already interfered with nature- every day we make huge advancements in the medical field, even going as far as erradicating some diseases, such as smallpox and polio. Bill does have a point that no matter the time period there will always be diseases beyond our ability to combat ("influenza", AIDS), but we do have control over a vast array of other diseases that should be keeping our population in check. If nature were left alone in the first place, nature would be able to sort itself out, yes, but if we don't employ artificial means of population control now I believe nature will just start over with a clean slate.
Post by: slacker on March 23, 2004, 08:08:58 PM
Post by: Ocarina Blue on March 23, 2004, 09:56:06 PM
There is little to be alarmed at. Countries that experience vast overpopulation will sort it out as individual cells, be it through disaster or political reasoning.
On the other hand, with lax access to global travel, and dense populations, a massive plauge will hit soon, I reckon.
Oh, and with regards to older diseases being able to keep our population in check: Humans will actually naturally adapt to a lot of diseases. In some isolated areas situated high in the Himalayas, the flu is still deadly. It killed millions in South America when it was first introduced. In the long run, many more deaths have been prevented through natural immunity than through Human intervention.
Post by: mouse_clicker on March 23, 2004, 10:16:12 PM
Quote
Humans will actually naturally adapt to a lot of diseases.
Or perhaps the disease adapts to humans- disease are essentially parasites and only a bad parasite kills its host soon after infesting it. In any case, yes, eventually certain diseases no longer affect humans, but this takes time for either our immune system to build up a proper defense or for the disease to evolve to the point where it's not killing its host immediately, or more likely a mixture of both. However, new diseases are always appearing, and I think the vast influx in completely unknown diseases recently has been in response to our suppression of other diseases and the beginnings of our overpopulation. Diseases are being destroyed before they've had a chance to run their course, and the lives being saved are only contributing to overpopulation. At the moment humanity as a whole is not overpopulated- while countries like China are extremely crowded, other countries like Mongolia (with a population density of 1 person per square kilometer) form the polar opposite. World hunger can't quite be used as support for current overpopulation, either, since the real reason for world hunger is poor distribution, not lack of resources. Developed nations like America, Canada, France, Great Britain, Australia, etc, have a huge excess of food while dozens of other countries have a huge shortage. We have enough food to feed everyone on the planet, we just don't have a means of getting it to everyone. That doesn't mean we won't run out of food to feed everyone soon, though- the larger the population the faster it increases. I believe our planet will reach its threshold in the not too distant future.
Post by: nolimit19 on March 24, 2004, 11:14:00 AM
edit: and i doubt a population control is needed anyways....populations of industrialized nations tend to level out. the us hasnt as much as others, but we also have millions of illegals and other immegrants here.
Post by: nolimit19 on March 24, 2004, 11:24:23 AM
he even talks about india specifically
http://abcnews.go.com/onair/DailyNews/chat_stossel0901.html
Post by: yellowfellow on March 24, 2004, 11:49:56 AM
Quote
Bush has clearly set his goal as being to prevent any other country from approaching the U.S.A.'s military and economic might
Military yes, fabricating this new enemy has allowed an influx of over 500 million dollars into the military with little opposition.
Economically no, by outsourcing contracts to foreign countries products available for consumption will increase within the country, however, because this greatly outnumbers the number of products generated within the country, a deficit is generated. in the 70s it was with Japan... presently a trillion dollar trade deficit exists with China.
Post by: mouse_clicker on March 24, 2004, 12:19:21 PM
Quote
well i read the first sentence of the first post....and overpopulation has almost nothing to do with a countries wealth from my understanding.
Nolimit, if you don't read the rest of my post I can't and won't take anything you say seriously. You can't read the first sentence of one of my posts and expect to know exactly what I'm talking about. My writing contains many subtle yet essential elements that are easily skipped over but shouldn't be.
Post by: nolimit19 on March 24, 2004, 12:32:31 PM
Post by: mouse_clicker on March 24, 2004, 12:35:33 PM
In any case, I'm not talking about why countries are poor, why they're overpopulated, or anything like that. I'm talking about American jobs, even just a few, being taken away because companies are going overseas for cheaper labor, and that this labor is cheaper BECAUSE of overpopulation.
Post by: nolimit19 on March 24, 2004, 12:45:44 PM
Post by: RABicle on March 24, 2004, 05:10:45 PM
Post by: slacker on March 24, 2004, 08:52:10 PM
Anyways, my main concern is finding a more reliable source of energy. We can't rely on coal or oil forever and hydrogen isn't going to cut it (There's no efficient way to convert Hydrogen from water and we will still be relying on oil to mass produce it any ways). Once the other economies get going, energy will be scarce and the world will be in a lot of hurting. We should be more worried about finding an alternative to fossil fuels or start changing our life style to be more efficient and more free of fossil fuels. The market is too slow to react to worst case scenarios (in my opinion), so the government must take the initiative for preparing for a future without fossil fuel. I think our real problem is energy. I believe the rise and fall of man rest solely on a better source of renewable energy to heat our homes, to light our homes, and fuel our cars. I don't want to think about the consequences if we didn't/
Post by: RABicle on March 24, 2004, 11:23:35 PM
It's this simple, India need to put children per couple limits now. India's population grows by something like 20 million people a year, though child birth alone. So when these kids hit schooling age suddenly schools built by humans out of finite resources have to be built and the next year there will be another 20 million to provide for. Houses to accomodate these people need to be built, clothes need to be worn and despite India having an abundance of fertile farmlands food needs to be provided. And some of you guys are saying that education is the answer. Yeah it's nice to say that but when a country can't physically provide that education then your going to have to address the problem from a different angle.
Now slacker you do seem to have a fair bit of insight into how economies run and unemployment works, that's good, cos I don't but you don't know much about social demographics. Believe it or not, overpopulation and rapid population growth is not limited to just India, Southeast Asia, and the Latin Americas (as you said.) Instead the only places in the world that aren't currently experiencing overpopulation and a massive increase in population through birth are Australia, Canada, Europe, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, United States of America and various small, rich countries (eg. United Arab Emirates.) What this means is that is is a global problem, most pronounced in countries such as Kenya for it's huge growth rate and India for it's already huge population.
Nolimit seems to have little grasp of the situation. As if getting rich is suddenly going to stop all of a country's problems.
Quoteanother good way for countries to get rich is if companies that arn't regulated would stop exploiting developing nations and is the world bank would just erase the debts of these nations. Did you know that Nicaragua is supposed to make yearly debt repayments that are 4 times the countries GNP? This happens in countries all thoughout Africa too, the governments have to sell the food that would stop their people from starving just so they can pay back debts. If they dared try to not repay their debts then they would most probably face invasion from some western power in the name of stopping socalism or something stupid like that. Dammit, I've gone off topic, that just struck a cord with me.
its the amout of interfence the government imposes on buisness. the best way for countries to get rich and to allow more jobs is for the government to stop regulating everything.
Anyway, overpopulation is leading to the destruction of the enviroment, through deforestation, pollution and the ever increasing need for living space. Rich countries maintaining their wealth, through western companies esserting their dominance of a poor population, with the backwards population growth rate of rich contries less people will share the same wealth while population explosions elsewhere means more people have to fight for the last remaining dollar. (actually I'll rephrase that last sentance, it's slowing the economic development of developing countries.) And in some small insignifigant way, it's probably having a bad effect on America's unemployment (which is what this thread is about after all.)
Post by: nolimit19 on March 25, 2004, 03:07:32 AM
edit: and as for the jobless rate, the same report that says its 5.5% also says A LOT of the people that have stop looking for jobs have started their own business. sure the jobless rate is still higher than 5.5%, but its not like its the same 5.5% that are always unemployed. people get fired, let go, layed off....thats what capitalism is.
Post by: Ian Sane on March 25, 2004, 06:18:04 AM
I think it's worth noting that the countries you mentioned that don't have this problem are all first world countries with democratic governments that are for the most part not corrupt. If overpopulation is only a problem in countries with massively corrupt governments then perhaps overpopulation isn't the real problem but rather a symptom of poor government leadership. Obviously in a dictatorship there isn't going to be enough food for everyone. Poverty and misery go hand-in-hand with corrupt dictatorships.
Post by: ThePerm on March 25, 2004, 06:55:00 AM
I'm not against population control laws for countries that need it, im jsut saying there are other alternatives. There is always other alternatives. Like ofr instance when your playing a strategy game against other people i have seen strategies that are incredibly off the wall but work. For instance if you group all your resources in one place in star craft your going to prolly get destroyed..however if you place your scvs all over the place it could take an hour for them to hunt down your men on a huge map. The other problem with starcraft is OVERPOPULATION...you have a limit to how man units you can build and its not a good idea to produce too many units.....theres more to this...but man do i feel like playing starcraft.....hopefully if they make another starcraft they will decide to not take the 3d route..warcraft 3 ses up so much ram..and you can only have so many units before it takes up too much memory...if they were to continue on the 2d route then they could make much huger battles on gigantic maps with thousands of sprtes duking it out.....erm anyways.
Unless you live in India then you really have no control of what india does. If India has a problem with starvation due to its overopulation then maybe they need to switch religions...because theres tons of cows in india and no ones going to eat them.
America is the fattest country in the world..we definitely dont have a problem with getting food. We have an excess of food no one else would eat. Truthfully, im not saying people really should change their religion..that was just a cause for starvation. The world is survival of the fittest...some will die. Everyone dies...its impossible to controll the world. That is an imperialist notion. You cannot tell other nations what to do. They will do what they do, and if millions die then its thier fault. If others survive then it is because they had a better strategy for survival.The other theory is that if there is severe overpopulation then we will all die out....nope its just the people who werent managing themselves correctly. You cannot control the world. The world does what it does. That is how nature works.
Post by: mouse_clicker on March 25, 2004, 11:13:19 AM
Quote
And in some small insignifigant way, it's probably having a bad effect on America's unemployment (which is what this thread is about after all.)
It was really just a thought that popped in my head a while back, and I really only posted it so Berny wouldn't say I was spamming the Custom Title thread. I didn't quite expect it to get into such a big discussion, but everything seems to be going quite well, so I can't complain.
Post by: ThePerm on March 25, 2004, 01:58:11 PM
whos going to hire damn lazy people
also employers are very unwilling to hire most people
Post by: Berny on March 25, 2004, 03:11:00 PM
Post by: nolimit19 on March 25, 2004, 03:55:35 PM
Post by: slacker on March 25, 2004, 04:30:13 PM
Post by: Berny on March 25, 2004, 04:57:00 PM
Post by: ThePerm on March 25, 2004, 05:05:32 PM
Post by: RABicle on March 25, 2004, 05:50:18 PM
And MC, I thought you were just trying to relate it to jobs to get the right-wingers to listen up.
Post by: ThePerm on March 25, 2004, 07:09:34 PM
thanks
Post by: mouse_clicker on March 25, 2004, 09:17:08 PM
Quote
its definitely reflected in how freaking fat everyone is.
Propaganda- that's almost entirely propaganda. In reality most Americans are not hulking blobs the media portrays us to be, and any American will tell you that. Obesity gets so much press for a number of reasons. First off, scaring people sells newspapers. Secondly, anti-American news is very popular not only abroad but in our own country, as well. Third, making everyone think they're fat gets us to pump millions, perhaps billions, of dollars into the health and nutrition industry. Yes, a large portion of Americans are overweight, perhaps even the slight majority, but it's what happens when a country becomes so advanced and has not had the idea of complete and utter nutrition engrained into their psyche over thousands of generations. Basically, everyone's looking for cheap shots to America and this is one such instance.
Post by: PaLaDiN on March 25, 2004, 09:40:00 PM
But it pretty much fell on its face in the first post as far as I'm concerned.
Quote
This will greatly reduce the amount of unemployed people, making it less practical to manufacture items in foreign countries given that labor isn't nearly as cheap as before since the unemployed aren't nearly as desperate.
You gotta be kidding. Parents are gonna be MORE desperate because they'll have less income to rely on coming from their kids. You do realize people have more kids to get more money in these countries.
Post by: mouse_clicker on March 25, 2004, 09:47:07 PM
Post by: PaLaDiN on March 25, 2004, 11:18:36 PM
a) They have kids to make more money, not so the kids work for them.
b) Good idea, except the population is going to keep growing regardless. If it's not a manageable number now, it's never going to suddenly be a manageable number later with your "solution". Population control isn't the way to solve this, making more and better jobs is. How to make more jobs? Government intervention is one way.
c) Like somebody else said, encroaching upon people's rights = bad.
Post by: mouse_clicker on March 25, 2004, 11:28:08 PM
Quote
a) They have kids to make more money, not so the kids work for them.
Eh, check your resources. Poor families have so many kids so their kids can work for them- this is very common. Just about every informational reference will tell you this.
Quote
b) Good idea, except the population is going to keep growing regardless. If it's not a manageable number now, it's never going to suddenly be a manageable number later with your "solution". Population control isn't the way to solve this, making more and better jobs is. How to make more jobs? Government intervention is one way.
Not true at all- China's population control has actually been very effective, and fairly soon its population will start dropping as its death rate exceed its birth rate. As for creating more jobs, it's not that easy. And in any case it's completely beside the point. I don't think you really understand what I'm saying at all.
Quote
c) Like somebody else said, encroaching upon people's rights = bad.
First off, it was IanSane- the fact that you don't even remember who was arguing that case shows you weren't paying much attention. We've already discussed this throroughly- you can't just write off what I said with such an arbitrary comment, especially when it's quite obvious you either didn't read or don't get what my case was on the issue. Honestly, if you're going to debate like this, Paladin, we can stop now because you're not really doing anything at all. :\
Post by: PaLaDiN on March 26, 2004, 12:18:16 AM
Quote
Not true at all- China's population control has actually been very effective, and fairly soon its population will start dropping as its death rate exceed its birth rate. As for creating more jobs, it's not that easy. And in any case it's completely beside the point. I don't think you really understand what I'm saying at all.
China's population...
Keep in mind, China's one-child policy was implemented in 1979. I don't see a difference in the rate of growth. At most, it's linear now instead of being exponential. But your solution will not work with linear growth. Unless you're talking about total population control harsher than China's or you're looking at the long term where it won't matter anyway since you won't be working long enough to see its effect.
Quote
Eh, check your resources. Poor families have so many kids so their kids can work for them- this is very common. Just about every informational reference will tell you this.
Wait, hang on. What do you mean by "working for them"? If it's making their kids work and taking the money, that's what I meant. And my point with this was that with less kids, they'd have less money, making them more desperate, not less.
This isn't a new thing... immigrant communities in mill towns in the States went through much of the same thing, albeit on a smaller scale. How they got out of it was mostly by voting. There was a whole progressive movement thing that I won't get into here because it's too lengthy, but the gist of it was the government making better laws for people on the bottom, not limiting their freedom. And it worked, pretty much.
Another thing:
Quote
Let me put it as simply as I can- if overpopulation is allowed to continue, the human race will go extinct.
No, it won't go extinct. You still haven't properly answered the counter-arguments to that. Have you heard of population cycles? I'm not going to detail them because they've already been detailed in this thread.
Lastly, overpopulation is not as bad as you're making it out to be. It seems bad for us because we've seen a completely different kind of world and we can't imagine what it's like to live outside of it... but there are actually people who have lived there their whole lives, and the fact that they don't all suicide should tell you that they'd rather live in "squalid" conditions than die. That you have the nerve to judge that no more people should live there when the ones who already do have demonstrated a will to live is pretty arrogant of you.
Post by: Hostile Creation on March 26, 2004, 01:53:30 AM
Quote
Americans are not lazy! They are the most productive workers on the face of this planet.
Has anyone pointed out yet the fact that the person who said this has the name "slacker"? Cuz if not, I am.
Post by: Ocarina Blue on March 26, 2004, 02:42:50 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: RABicle
Yeha I relise you meant propaganda Perm, I think it was Ocarina Blue who suggested education was the answer.
I hope not. There is actually clear evidencce here that beside from high ranking office jobs, stock-brokers and so forth that the crafts and skilled manual labour jobs are the best payed. There is a huge shortage of builders, plumbers and electrictions here, some areas have building back-logs of three months. Apprenticeships are comming back into fashion. Unless this is an extreme case, I'm pretty sure this doesn't have anything to do with mere acedemic zeitgeism, but that it's caused by an actual miscalculation and gross inbalance within the educational system. Structural unemployment ahoy!
I honestly agree that overpopulation will have disaterous effects at some point, just that I'm more skecptical of how the West will employ poorer nation's governments to enforce these measures. When left as roughly individual cells, the countries should be able to decide when to prevent population themselves. This will also allow for equity to emerge from area to area.
As for 'Americans' being lazy; it's true that in richer countries, a weaker work-ethic is generally desplayed. In a poor country, it is required of people to do more work to survive. In India, for example, typical work-hours for kids in factories can be 16 or so hours a day. And you don't get convienient supermarkets or anything, you have to hun around at a market for food. If you don't work, you starve. It's simply an expectatoin to have to work.
Post by: mouse_clicker on March 26, 2004, 07:14:00 AM
Quote
At most, it's linear now instead of being exponential.
That's a drastic change, if you're right- a linear population growth will take MUCH longer to reach the same number as an exponential population growth. Don't act like that's some insignificant detail
Quote
Wait, hang on. What do you mean by "working for them"? If it's making their kids work and taking the money, that's what I meant. And my point with this was that with less kids, they'd have less money, making them more desperate, not less.
Initially, yes, but once the population was at a manageable number, people wouldn't be having as many children because they wouldn't be as poor. Americans often only have 1 child, or sometimes none at all, yet we're not deserpate for jobs- that's not a universal statement.
Quote
No, it won't go extinct. You still haven't properly answered the counter-arguments to that. Have you heard of population cycles? I'm not going to detail them because they've already been detailed in this thread.
What counter-arguments? Overpopulation is a very real threat- don't undermine it. We've all but destroyed our only natural predator- if the human race overpopulates past the ability for our planet to support us, we either will go extinct or die off by the billions.
Quote
Lastly, overpopulation is not as bad as you're making it out to be. It seems bad for us because we've seen a completely different kind of world and we can't imagine what it's like to live outside of it...
Overpopulation is not a problem now, no- I've said this already. Eventually it will be, though- the human race continues to grow more and more every day, and there will be no "balancing out" if we leave it to nature.
Quote
That you have the nerve to judge that no more people should live there when the ones who already do have demonstrated a will to live is pretty arrogant of you.
I hope you realize you're doing the exact same thing I'm doing- unfairly judging these people's lives. If I can't morally or accurately form an idea about their living conditions you can't morally or accurately tell me I'm wrong. In any case, do some research- you're not going to find any pleasent accounts of living conditions in overpopulated areas, Paladin.
Post by: PaLaDiN on March 26, 2004, 09:12:05 AM
QuoteNotice how I said at most. I was being very generous because I can't really see that in that graph and you know you can't either. You're still missing the point... EVEN with linear growth, jobs will never catch up with population unless jobs increase as well, and at a faster rate than population growth. I thought this was a pretty simple idea but you're still acting like linear growth is negative growth, like the population is going to go down until it matches the jobs. You can make them match if you increase jobs at a fast enough rate... You cannot make them match with population control alone.
That's a drastic change, if you're right- a linear population growth will take MUCH longer to reach the same number as an exponential population growth. Don't act like that's some insignificant detail
QuoteI'm glad you agree. Having less children did not lead to Americans being less poor, they had less children AFTER they became rich. It is an effect, not a cause... presenting it as a cause will require a lot more backing up on your part since I don't know any countries where that has worked before. Again, even linear growth is growth. The population will still be increasing. This is not a good thing. It will never reach a manageable number until it starts decreasing and continues decreasing for a long time. It's up to you to show me a country where the population actually decreased as a result of population control.
Initially, yes, but once the population was at a manageable number, people wouldn't be having as many children because they wouldn't be as poor. Americans often only have 1 child, or sometimes none at all, yet we're not deserpate for jobs- that's not a universal statement.
Given that the population will never decrease and that for some reason you are against making more domestic jobs over there as a better solution, forcing families to have less kids will only make them more desperate, not less. They will be living in WORSE conditions because they will have less money. Notice how the growth still hasn't changed in almost 30 years... are you actually advocating WORSE living conditions for these people for at least 30 YEARS on the off chance that at the end their population will start going down and American economy will be better?
Quote
What counter-arguments? Overpopulation is a very real threat- don't undermine it. We've all but destroyed our only natural predator- if the human race overpopulates past the ability for our planet to support us, we either will go extinct or die off by the billions.
Predators are not the only reason for the population cycle. There's also resources. If resources decrease enough, the population will decrease until the resources are enough for the new population. Once again, extinction is not possible for humans barring some Earth-destroying catastrophe. The only reason animals go extinct is that either they or their resources are suddenly and completely wiped out. Our resources are not going to suddenly and completely vanish, and it's pretty much pointless to worry about something coming along and wiping us all out, you don't need that kind of paranoia.
QuoteI can morally and accurately say that you're wrong, because the people LIVING THERE have chosen to keep on living and keep on having children. Neither of us is qualified to decide these people's lives for them. You are doing it anyway. I am just pointing out their decision, which should be the only one that counts.
I hope you realize you're doing the exact same thing I'm doing- unfairly judging these people's lives. If I can't morally or accurately form an idea about their living conditions you can't morally or accurately tell me I'm wrong. In any case, do some research- you're not going to find any pleasent accounts of living conditions in overpopulated areas, Paladin.
Post by: nolimit19 on March 26, 2004, 11:40:35 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: mouse_clickerPropaganda- that's almost entirely propaganda. In reality most Americans are not hulking blobs the media portrays us to be, and any American will tell you that. Obesity gets so much press for a number of reasons. First off, scaring people sells newspapers. Secondly, anti-American news is very popular not only abroad but in our own country, as well. Third, making everyone think they're fat gets us to pump millions, perhaps billions, of dollars into the health and nutrition industry. Yes, a large portion of Americans are overweight, perhaps even the slight majority, but it's what happens when a country becomes so advanced and has not had the idea of complete and utter nutrition engrained into their psyche over thousands of generations. Basically, everyone's looking for cheap shots to America and this is one such instance.
well i used to think that too, but america is definitely overweight. i dont know how many foreign countries you have been to, but i went to ireland this summer and you definitely see a difference in the size of the people in both countries.
Post by: manunited4eva22 on March 26, 2004, 11:51:47 AM
Bill: The idea of the time for medicine was to ward off evil spirits, don't use the THEY WERE ADVANCED FOR THEIR TIME crap. At this point in time if a disease that could spread fast enough and could not be controlled to a reasonable extent got out, we would be able to atleast identify what the host was and kill it off. As it is though, the Flu is more of a "superplague" than any disease in modern history, though in reality it is easily destroyed.
No limit: You mean they are thin, red haired and waisted? The only differences are the first two
Also people: For the love of god, find a Human Geography professor and bring up your arguements with them, after having that class some of these arguements are easily dispelled, and many others are just completely baseless. I'm not saying that I know the answer to overpopulation, but I am saying that I have quite a nice amount of material on the subject, so I am just sugesting some of you do a bit more research.
Post by: mouse_clicker on March 26, 2004, 12:41:43 PM
Quote
i dont know how many foreign countries you have been to, but i went to ireland this summer and you definitely see a difference in the size of the people in both countries.
I lived in Okinawa, Japan for three years. Aside from that, I've been to South Korea, Singapore, Mexico, Spain, France, Italy, and Monaco. Going to Ireland doesn't exactly quality you to make the best judgement on whether or not America is fat, especially since you only have one comparison.
Paladin: I'm a bit tired right now- I'll write up a response in a bit.
Post by: nolimit19 on March 26, 2004, 02:00:41 PM
"No limit: You mean they are thin, red haired and waisted? The only differences are the first two"
hahahaha well i didnt see and many red heads as i thought i would...lots of blondes though
....and i think they are a little more wasted than americas are...hahahhaha...
Post by: ThePerm on March 26, 2004, 03:06:05 PM
Post by: mouse_clicker on March 26, 2004, 04:10:22 PM
Post by: PaLaDiN on March 26, 2004, 04:10:35 PM
Post by: mouse_clicker on March 26, 2004, 04:21:11 PM
Post by: PaLaDiN on March 26, 2004, 04:40:55 PM
Post by: nolimit19 on March 26, 2004, 05:07:31 PM
Post by: ThePerm on March 27, 2004, 10:45:42 AM
Post by: manunited4eva22 on March 27, 2004, 03:10:07 PM
Anyway, onto limiting food per person, won't ever happen, not as long as any of us are alive, anyway.
Post by: PaLaDiN on March 27, 2004, 03:43:59 PM
QuoteDid I miss the memo? I wasn't part of this mass measurement of waist size that apparently spanned all of America... Hopefully this "average American" doesn't represent anybody who wasn't measured for what I'm sure was a thoroughly scientific process.
there are fat people and skinny people..and medium people..if you average them out then you have the average american...
Post by: The Omen on March 28, 2004, 08:18:09 AM
Quote
Has anyone pointed out yet the fact that the person who said this has the name "slacker"? Cuz if not, I am.
The term slacker was invented because older people didn't like the way generation X went about things. What people fail to realize is these so called slackers are just as successful as everyone else. Albeit in fields they created. Many of these 'slackers' are the computer geeks, the xtreme sports crowd, and in the arts/entertainment business. Whenever you do something deemed different, you're automatically labeled an outsider, slacker, bum and drifter. Boooums!
By the way, Mouse clicker, your initial post is right-on. I didn't read up on every response, so i'll just assume everyone made great points.
Post by: Berny on March 28, 2004, 06:06:39 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: The Omen
i'll just assume everyone made great points.
I wouldn't be so bold as to assume so much if I hadn't read over peoples' comments, but go right ahead.Post by: mouse_clicker on March 28, 2004, 06:18:36 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: BernyQuote
Originally posted by: The Omen
i'll just assume everyone made great points.
On the whole this thread has had some very good discussion, with just about everybody, if not everybody, giving great points. But like Berny said, never assume that.
