I agree. This is what I was trying to tell you in the China thread. Global population and investment are both rapidly rising. These circumstances will ultimately defeat any progress towards cosmopolitanism, because barbarism and ruthless competition for resources will become the state of affairs.

Presently, the Western world has the power to preserve or destroy itself. We can either invest in a long-term win-lose strategy in exchange for security, or we can insist on short-term economic gains while sacrificing our future. Without a technological miracle, which is foolish to rely on, our choice is simple.

"barbarism and ruthless competition for resources will become the state of affairs."

Competition for resources is already in plan, its called a market. I doubt that it will really reduce down to barbarism, but more of a conservative global environment. (How can anyone resort to warfare when resources are limited?). In the other thread you suggested that we already resort to barbarism in order to maintain a secure future, whereas I am trying to suggest cooperation in a much more transparent way.

"until we maintain a sustainable lifestyle supply/demand will easily keep our population in check"

This is why I suggest population control, in order to introduce a more sustainable lifestyle, and I know I didn't touch on it very much but I do understand that there is a balance that will ultimately be maintained "(and when it comes down to it, would you rather a world where people struggle to eat and die a painful death, or spare them from being born?)" , but is it more humane to give life with the knowledge that he/she will die a very young and painful death, or to deny the mother the right to give birth?

I feel like your thread really answers its own question.

You note that, although population is growing perpetually, it's not growing in the developed world.  You even answer reasons why the developed world has multiple conditions which inherently increase the cost of children.  I'd like to note, in addition, that in the developing world, children produce a return on investment at a much earlier age, as they're much more likely to work on a family farm or something similar, producing a family income.  In contrast, a child in a developed world will be a burden to the family up to (and today, beyond) age 18.  If we assume people respond to incentives, this is a major factor in the equation considering whether to have children.  That being said, the result is the same: Efforts focused on directly attempting to control population growth, as you've expressed yourself, are efforts to fight against human incentives, which means you're fighting an uphill battle of enforcement.

In contrast, your own evidence indicates that efforts focused on development (expanding free trade, foreign direct investment) would increase the standard of living in developing nations.  As your demographic evidence indicates, an increase in the net standard of living for these people would, by extension, result in a reduction of population growth due to the changing incentives for people to have more children.  In addition, considering many developed countries are actually experiencing net population declines, relaxed immigration policy would be a net benefit to population growth levels by reestablishing growth in the developed world (to maintain sustainable workforces... there's a good reason why every social safety net in the world is feeling pressure from the retiring baby boomer generation).  Many of these countries, despite such problems from lack of population growth, have nearly impossible immigration policies (like Japan).

"Sadly, these are exactly the countries where it will be difficult to intensify agriculture, because of their numbers of small farmers who do not have the money to afford the necessary equipment to intensify their production. "

One of the provinces in India does do intense wheat farming (in that doco I can't remember the name of), but as you mentioned it did lead to nutrients being drawn from the soil, and is now not as productive. Water is now also needed to be pumped into the fields from over-farming.

The problem isn't really to do with farming, other solutions can be made NOW that would offer better effects than over-farming. I read a book once that spoke about food wastage (would you believe that there is more to wasting food than the starving kids in Africa?). Wasting food has nothing to do with eating what is on your plate, but purchasing habits. Wastage is massive in the world today!!! If we curbed our eating habits, we would see a real change in food availability, but that gets a little bit off topic.

Space for living is actually not much of a problem in my opinion. Take Japan as an example of sustainable development, or somewhere like Singapore (although they may face problems with reclaimed land). The problem will be space for farming. When you look at a satellite image of the world, is it the cities and roads that you notice first? No, it is usually the farms and large areas cleared (and look all block shaped). Farming already is invasive on the earth, and even though you seem rather cynical about animal rights, they are essential for life on Earth.

/// On a side-note, and I borrow this from the Matrix, but the human race is better describe as a pest/plague on the Earth, consuming and defacing everything around them. When numbers start getting into plague proportions, humans have the tendenancy to exterminate, so why not exterminate the human race while we are at it? If we truly have sentience, which is what we claim makes us different from the apes, we should be able to make rational decisions when faced with a problem. ///

The one-child policy does allow for a 2nd child . In rural areas (and to stop parents only having males) they allowed parents to have a 2nd child if their first was a female. Also anyone from an ethnic minority is also able to have 2 children in order to maintain cultural lineage. The Chinese government is also considering extending the 2nd child policy (if the first is female) to urban areas (http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90776/90882/7310975.html). (I have also been meaning to find out what happens when someone has twins. I swear I have met one set of Chinese twins at the airport in Beijing, so I believe they exist).

I guess my question is, can human beings consider the whole picture, and make decisions based on not only their own personal feelings but on societies needs? Or are we more like Justinian, our own desires are above all else in this world? I don't accept that the world should have to sort out these problems, it is not fair on the people that have to die (especially since it will always be the poorer people in this world), and if we want that option, why do we still poor support into poverty striken areas in Africa? It will just continue the problem until matters get worse elsewhere. I for one don't like this option, and feel more needs to be done now to prevent such a future. Some human rights need to be sacrificed to preserve humanity.

@Zarf:

So we should do nothing and hope for a change? I cannot honestly see the situation in Africa changing anytime soon, their resources are consumed by foreign companies, and very little money is put back into these countries. Their major form of capital is through agriculture (which I think it was you saying in a different forum, might have been someone else) is kept cheaper by developed nations. But where does China and India fit into all of this? China does try and curb its population growth, and India tried unsuccessfully in the 1970's, but how do you lift all of those people out of poverty (in an effort to reduce their dependence on children?)

> RisingDown wrote:

> Zarf, do not forget however that a lot of problems poor, rural Africans face are caused by the high amounts of children they have as well. When working on a family property system where every child inherits a part of the space of their parents, space per child is inversibly proportional to the amount of offspring. Less space per farmer results in less production per farmer resulting in a weak market position resulting in poor farmers. Controlling population growth in such areas may be key to improving their and (especially) the future generation's financial position.

No, I'm not saying it's good that the populations grow so much.  I'm agreeing with you all.  However, I'm just stating that, from the perspective of a couple trying to determine how many children to have, when children can be used as labor at an early age, it's an incentive for the parents to have more children, which developed nations don't have.  What you're trying to describe is an extremely long term problem.  It doesn't actually manifest until after the parents making the consideration are dead.  Thus, it's much less likely to actually be factored into the question of whether or not to have children.

> ~Wornstrum~ wrote:

> @Zarf:

So we should do nothing and hope for a change? I cannot honestly see the situation in Africa changing anytime soon, their resources are consumed by foreign companies, and very little money is put back into these countries. Their major form of capital is through agriculture (which I think it was you saying in a different forum, might have been someone else) is kept cheaper by developed nations. But where does China and India fit into all of this? China does try and curb its population growth, and India tried unsuccessfully in the 1970's, but how do you lift all of those people out of poverty (in an effort to reduce their dependence on children?)

What is it with this trap?  You assume a problem exists, and thus the solution must be "crush the problem," and anything short of going King Herod on the African population is considered "doing nothing."

I actually proposed a solution.  It's not a "do nothing" policy.  It's an economic policy, acknowledging why people do what they do, and changing incentives without the need for massive restrictions.  My solution was to expand opportunities of development (specifically, reducing trade barriers and restrictions on foreign domestic investment would be helpful), and to increase immigration.  It's not as sexy as forcing everyone to have only one child, granted.  However, your own evidence indicates that, demographically, development policies do work in stifling population growth, and immigration would distribute the locations of the population growth to where the affluence of the developed world could reach people that were born in the developing world.

EDIT: Actually, considering that China is experiencing the exact same population decline problem we're seeing in the developed world (although not to as much of an extent because they don't have nearly the extensive social policies that exist in Europe or the US), that may not be a good example.  Also, remember that even in China, the population growth (births) are occurring primarily in the rural regions (agriculture).  As for India, India has only recently become a big player in the global economy, so they're a little behind China in terms of development.  You have to give them some time for the development to become widespread.  There's still plenty of room for growth in their economy.

> RisingDown wrote:

> "btw before you respond, can you actually log into your mw account and aid in? why are you so active in politics but not in the places it matters? "

^can't believe that actually worked.
gonna do this more often now!

Consider that my economics lesson for the day, and a demonstration of my point in this thread: Find people's incentives, and work with them, not against them. 

"What is it with this trap?  You assume a problem exists, and thus the solution must be "crush the problem," and anything short of going King Herod on the African population is considered "doing nothing."

I actually proposed a solution.  It's not a "do nothing" policy.  It's an economic policy"

Re-read your post Zarf, and I take back my comment
I am still scepticle as to how to develop African nations, Somalia has only just established a government and is still not very effective at all. But you are right, it needs to take heart in places like Africa, Asia, South America? (haven't actually looked up figures on South America, probably should)

Haha.  Okay.

But you're definitely right, part of the problem in some nations is that they're not very good markets for businesses to invest.  So what's the solution?  I'd say work by example... unless you're willing to go Iraq War on Somalia and every other developing nation to reestablish a government.  However, even your solution (some sort of birth control in those countries) would require an infraction of sovereignty on those nations... inevitably meaning going Iraq War on them, with the exception that a development war would be articulated as "we want to establish a legitimate government and develop your economy," whereas a birth control-motivated war would be easily interpreted as "we want to take over your country so we can kill off your kids."  Which one looks nicer? 

So what's the alternative?  Back to economics.

East Asia is really the envy of the developing world, in that they're the center of foreign investment just by merit of stable governments and cheap labor.  However, cheap labor can't exist forever, as we're seeing with the increasing standards of living for the region.  As a result, just like how East Asia managed to get factory production formerly reserved for Mexico, the rising standard of living in East Asia will mean they're not as good a cheap labor source, so with the maturation of manufacturing in East Asia, simple manufacturing producers will need new labor sources.  That's where Africa comes in.  From there, it's really a question of US political pressure toward stability... perhaps some light interventionism, such as helping out one dictator or another with equipment or something.  Remember, most African countries can provide cheap labor.  It's really a question of who is first to stabilize politically.

Remember, businesses aren't necessarily looking for democracies to invest in, although that would be nice.  More than anything, they're looking for stability... governments that won't randomly seize property at a whim, countries with stable property rights laws... a democracy has its own advantages, and may be better at providing some services, but examples like China clearly indicate it's not a prerequisite.

Time for a Flint post from heck. Be prepared for a long answer that says 'your wrong' all over it.

Zarf try not to steal my thunder, I found out just now I have walking pneumonia so I am going to be a lil

> Einstein wrote:

> Zarf try not to steal my thunder, I found out just now I have walking pneumonia so I am going to be a lil

*sigh* fine...

I am a Conservative, yes indeed. I also transport food for a living.

Herein lies the faults with your entire premise

1) Assumption of lack of arable land
In the United States vast tracts of land go untouched, held by the Federal Government, and much of it is arable. This is true throughout major portions of the world, where farm land is available if the labor required to make it farmland forms.

A mountain can be terraced even if desired, to form more land.

But we do not need to terraform... we just need to remove all non-agriculture based plants to sustain upward of 50 billion people. Douglas Fir? Chop it down, put in an apple tree.

2) Assumption of lack of water
This one always gives me a good laugh. We waste water by the tons in industry, and we can make water by the tons with desalinization and recycling efforts. Lack of water is lack of desire to obtain water.

3) Assumption of no evil in this world
You specifically mentioned Somalia... a place where warlords steal food aid for their soldiers in excess of their needs. Something that has gone on elsewhere. Aid workers get killed frequently or held hostage. Some places are artificially starved due to this and the next issue.

4) Assumption of no bad governments
a Governments first goal is to look after its people. N. Korea failed this and millions starved. If you are correct about Kenya then they to have failed this. How hard is it to say x% of food must stay in nation so no one starves?

5) Assumption of no room for improvement in current system
every day millions of dollars in food rots, goes past expirary dates, or is damaged and destroyed.

Heck just last week a warehouse refused two boxes of resers burritos I was carrying and the standing orders is destroy them. The week before it was 8 cases of food.

Then do not get me started on the horrid amounts of food that rots on the railroad every year.

Better care, stronger usage of donations, and more can increase the amount of food without increasing crop yields or animal mass used per a year.

Your entire thesis is based upon faulty assumptions and should be discarded.