Population regulation by limiting food resources is an apparently neutral way of presenting things.
The reality is far from this beautiful neutrality: those who have (will) have access to food are (will) be the holders of power (both at the level of nations and within a country) .
The conclusion is that those who are "regulated" (horrible word) will be those who are the least harmful since the least predatory.
So in addition to being immoral, this regulation is perfectly ineffective.
Stop having children to preserve the Planet
Population regulation by limiting food resources is an apparently neutral way of presenting things.
It is an idea which seems to me not to correspond to reality.
The harder the living conditions, the more people have
children, on the other hand the more they are opulent and
well be less they have.
See the demographer in the rich countries and that in the countries
where people live in misery.
I have the impression that it responds more to an instinctive need
that has a deep reasoning. Intuitively I feel that from this
side there must be a research topic that could be
very constructive.
Last edited by Rabbit the 05 / 02 / 09, 07: 28, 1 edited once.
0 x
-
Christophe
- Moderator
- posts: 79332
- Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
- Location: Greenhouse planet
- x 11046
Regulating through food does not necessarily mean starving ... it can be preventive ...
In our developed countries, it is "difficult" to die of hunger given the various aids ... but we can be hungry that's clear!
On the contrary, economic policy supports and promotes the birth rate!
But for the planet and future generations it is not demography that counts, it is the consumption of non-renewable resources: compare the ecological impact of a human life in a rich country and the "same" life in a PVD ...
How many Indians for an American? How many Chinese for a Frenchman?
A life is a life ...
In our developed countries, it is "difficult" to die of hunger given the various aids ... but we can be hungry that's clear!
On the contrary, economic policy supports and promotes the birth rate!
But for the planet and future generations it is not demography that counts, it is the consumption of non-renewable resources: compare the ecological impact of a human life in a rich country and the "same" life in a PVD ...
How many Indians for an American? How many Chinese for a Frenchman?
A life is a life ...
0 x
Do a image search or an text search - Netiquette of forum
I did not understand the expression "regulate by hunger"in this way. The ambiguity arises from the fact that it is too restrictive, it would have been better to speak of regulation by the standard of living.
It is certain that the withdrawal of food and mineral resources from the countries of the south, the dumping of subsidized Euro-American agricultural products, the inequality of the terms of trade and the weight of the debt are the causes of poverty, therefore from hunger, from these southern countries.
And, as rightly said Rabbit, there is a correlation between a certain material ease and what demographers call the demographic transition.
Therefore, as long as the structural causes of the impoverishment of these countries remain, there is little hope of seeing any significant development in this area.
The problem is therefore not purely demographic, but rather the distribution of resources at the global level.
This system which had worked "well" up to now by taking advantage of each other, now finds its limits in several ways:
- the number of countries applying for predator status is increasing (symptomatic example: China, which is the inventor of traffic jams on bicycles, wants to migrate to traffic jams!).
At the same time, the physical resources of the planet are only declining according to these growing appetites.
- like a fractal, what is observed in north-south relations is observed inside the rich countries: the wealth gap is increasing within the population, which is increasingly weakening social cohesion.
There is a major contradiction for the system: because of the increase in productivity which is not accompanied by a proportional redistribution, less and less people are useful as producers, but less and less available as consumers. Historically it is a rupture which will have incalculable consequences and the opposite of the rupture initiated formerly by Fordism *.
It is time to realize that a single evolution towards other techniques, other energies is a utopia as long as it is not accompanied by a drastic reduction in consumption and a resource sharing. This sharing of resources, if it is not done in the name of simple equity (let's not dream!) Should be done in the name of intelligent selfishness: everyone's survival depends on everyone's survival.
If this were heard, a big step would be taken.
* Ford understood that it was necessary, for businesses to develop, that workers could buy the products they manufactured. Wages therefore had to be increased, in return it was necessary for productivity to increase in proportion, which he obtained by the Taylorist method. It paved the way for the consumer society which is about to end.
It is certain that the withdrawal of food and mineral resources from the countries of the south, the dumping of subsidized Euro-American agricultural products, the inequality of the terms of trade and the weight of the debt are the causes of poverty, therefore from hunger, from these southern countries.
And, as rightly said Rabbit, there is a correlation between a certain material ease and what demographers call the demographic transition.
Therefore, as long as the structural causes of the impoverishment of these countries remain, there is little hope of seeing any significant development in this area.
The problem is therefore not purely demographic, but rather the distribution of resources at the global level.
This system which had worked "well" up to now by taking advantage of each other, now finds its limits in several ways:
- the number of countries applying for predator status is increasing (symptomatic example: China, which is the inventor of traffic jams on bicycles, wants to migrate to traffic jams!).
At the same time, the physical resources of the planet are only declining according to these growing appetites.
- like a fractal, what is observed in north-south relations is observed inside the rich countries: the wealth gap is increasing within the population, which is increasingly weakening social cohesion.
There is a major contradiction for the system: because of the increase in productivity which is not accompanied by a proportional redistribution, less and less people are useful as producers, but less and less available as consumers. Historically it is a rupture which will have incalculable consequences and the opposite of the rupture initiated formerly by Fordism *.
It is time to realize that a single evolution towards other techniques, other energies is a utopia as long as it is not accompanied by a drastic reduction in consumption and a resource sharing. This sharing of resources, if it is not done in the name of simple equity (let's not dream!) Should be done in the name of intelligent selfishness: everyone's survival depends on everyone's survival.
If this were heard, a big step would be taken.
* Ford understood that it was necessary, for businesses to develop, that workers could buy the products they manufactured. Wages therefore had to be increased, in return it was necessary for productivity to increase in proportion, which he obtained by the Taylorist method. It paved the way for the consumer society which is about to end.
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
-
Christophe
- Moderator
- posts: 79332
- Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
- Location: Greenhouse planet
- x 11046
Re: Stop having children to preserve the planet
French demography in 3D vs Italy (there are surely other European countries by searching via the sources):
- 81C8CCA4-24D6-484F-A57A-E0A5754C67B7.jpeg (220.49 Kio) Consulté 1783 fois
0 x
Do a image search or an text search - Netiquette of forum
-
Exnihiloest
- Econologue expert
- posts: 5365
- Registration: 21/04/15, 17:57
- x 660
Re:
Ahmed wrote:...
- the number of countries applying for predator status is increasing (symptomatic example: China, which is the inventor of traffic jams on bicycles, wants to migrate to traffic jams!).
...
Have you wondered why where there are no "predators", as you call them, is where life is worst?
0 x
Back to "Media & News: TV shows, reports, books, news ..."
Who is online ?
Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 160 guests