Problem is, you start elevating the level of living of the other 90%, they are gonna want cars, computers, air conditioning, microwave ovens, washing machines, Playstations, Lombards, etc etc, and then global climate change is going to accelerate because they sure ain't gonna be using PV arrays on the roofs of their Priuses or buying carbon offsets from Algore. (cf. China and India). So, best to keep them down where they are, burning cow dung (no net CO2 inputs!) for fuel. It's best for their future, you know.
--R billr wrote: > We have been over this territory about a year ago, but I'll jump in here this > time. In general you make some good points. For population discussions you > need to remember that in areas with no social safety net children are the > only answer to watching yourself starve to death when you can't grow your own > food due to age, illness or weather. In terms of the latter, you might also > lose a few of the children. Given such choices, and knowing all the girls > would be moving to another home and at least some of the boys would die as > infants or children would you chose to have only one or two children? 10 > kids = 5 of each, and the girls will leave = 5 boys, with perhaps two dying > prior to being able to farm. 3 is a 'safe' number as long as there is no > warfare and they are willing to stay on the farm instead of moving to the > city [doesn't happen much anymore]. Prior to suggesting controls on those > who have so many children make sure you would be willing to starve and watch > your spouse starve in order to keep the population low. I'll forgo comments > on the state of medical care in the 2/3rds of the world that is poor, or the > economic history of such regions, but you are certainly correct that it is > the relative inequity of access to resources and lifestyle that feed the > problem. > BillR > Jacksonville FL > > -----Original Message----- > >> From: archer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Sent: Sep 2, 2007 9:55 AM >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Mercedes Discussion List <mercedes@okiebenz.com> >> Subject: Re: [MBZ] Don Wills has invited you to join Kiva >> >> >> From: "Tom Hargrave" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >>> Ok, it's the "earn a living" argument. In the sub-Sahara, earning a living >>> is probably the equivalent of $300.00 / year or so and most would never >>> come >>> here. >>> >>> The steady flood of immigrants from South of the border has nothing to do >>> with earning a living. It has everything to do with a huge standard of >>> living difference, separated by something as trivial as a border. And the >>> same differences have driven population migrations from the beginning of >>> time. History is full of examples of people moving for a better life, the >>> more recent in this country being the massive immigration from Europe into >>> this country over the past 300 or so years, the gold & silver rushes out >>> west and the move westward. >>> >>> If we want to stop immigration from South of the border then we need to >>> figure out a way to improve their economy. >>> >> --------------------------------------- >> Whether it's Mexico, India, Africa, China, Malaysia, Turkey, Morroco, or >> nearly any other third world country; a big problem that no one seems to be >> able to do anything about is the birth of more people than the countries can >> support. This drives down the quality of life and their citizens move to >> richer countries when they can. >> Should Western industrial nations such as the U.S. permit this migration? >> First generation immigrants work hard without complaint for low wages, >> businessmen love them, and they help make prosperous countries even more >> prosperous. However, the second and third generation become industrialized >> citizens with the same expectations as the general citizenry. The result is >> an increase of citizens, usually poor, in the industrial nations, who do not >> work hard for low wages without complaint. Often unemployed and poorly >> educated, they become a liability instead of an asset to the country. >> >> Usually, as in Mexico, the population exceeds the ability of the arable land >> to support them, so even if Mexico should suddenly become a well organized >> democratic country instead of an oligarchy of wealthy families (Carlos Slim >> of Mexico has recently become the richest man in the world); the constant >> increase in population would still lead Mexicans to immigrate to the U.S. >> >> Population increase seems to be a major worldwide problem which no one knows >> the answer to. Historically the answer was the Four Horsemen of the >> Apocalypse: War, Famine, Pestilence, and Death. Science has eliminated >> famine, pestilence, and early death in much of the worlds population. >> Unless someone comes up with a better solution, it looks like the remaining >> Horseman, War, might be the eventual result. Not a good solution IMO. >> Gerry >> >> >> _______________________________________ >> http://www.okiebenz.com >> For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ >> For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: >> http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com >> > > > _______________________________________ > http://www.okiebenz.com > For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ > For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: > http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com > > > _______________________________________ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
