riddle@ut-sally.UUCP (01/25/84)
>> To repeat a tired argument to those who won't learn, if >> there is enough food for every human being on this planet, soon >> there will be many, many, MANY, more humans. >> >> Thomas Ruschak >> ecn-ee!kechkayl There is a hidden and probably false assumption buried in the above statement, namely that more food inevitably means more population growth and that starvation is the only means of limiting it. A growing number of economists, anthropologists and others who study the Third World are coming to the conclusion, however, that poverty plays a large, and perhaps a determining, role in INCREASING the birth rate. Think about it: if you are a poor father or mother struggling along on the very edge of existence in a country with no security net outside of your family, it is in your own self-interest to have as many children as you can. Children are your only hope for your old age, when you will no longer be able to work; furthermore, children don't eat much and can start bringing in more than they consume at an amazingly early age. This has long been recognized to be true in a rural economy (why else were such large families common in North America a century or so ago?), but what may surprise you is that it is also true in the urban economy of the Third World. As unskilled labor, a child can often do almost as much work as an adult, and for far less pay. Look in the markets, workshops, and even in the factories of the Third World and you will see a tremendous utilization of child labor. The masses of people in Asia, Africa and Latin America who have such frighteningly high birth rates aren't as backward as you think -- they often know that many mouths to feed will be bad for their country or for the world as a whole; but for these people as individuals, many children are often the only hope for survival. Health workers already agree that reducing the infant mortality rate is one of the best ways to produce a drop in births, since families don't have to produce many babies in order to be sure of at least a few healthy children. Similarly, a stable source of income -- preferably, of course, a self-sufficient source of income, but outside protection against catastrophe is better than none -- is part of the security that poor people need in order to be willing to limit family size. --- Prentiss Riddle --- ("Aprendiz de todo, maestro de nada.") --- {ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!riddle
jj@rabbit.UUCP (01/25/84)
You are right, Prentiss. The problem is that the high birth rate continues for several generations after the poverty subsides. Therein lies the problem. That's why there is a need for immediate social and religious counceling when the food is provided. In short, we must give more than food, and in fact food is nearly secondary in many places. <Unfortunately> The world is not as simple as either of us would like. -- TEDDY BEARS ARE PEOPLE, TOO! (allegra,harpo,ulysses)!rabbit!jj
tpkq@charm.UUCP (Timothy Kerwin) (01/26/84)
Yes, children can quickly produce more wealth than it takes to keep them alive. This is also true of adults, despite the low level of technology in the "Third World." The problem is that the bulk of this surplus wealth ends up in the pockets of capitalists in the "First World." Indeed, the fact that a person can produce more than is necessary to keep him alive is what makes the "Third World" so interesting to capitalists, why they are so concerned with rescuing these countries from the "communist menace."
jj@rabbit.UUCP (01/26/84)
Referring to the wealth made by babies: (charm!tpkq) "...the problem is that this wealth winds up in the pockets of capitalists..." <Wonderful. An unproven assertion that all the wealth made by a two year old baby (yes, that's the relevant age in this discussion, damnit!) is stolen by us big, bad westerners. Oh Joy! How do we DO that? With a TIME machine??? Would you care to elaborate? No?? Didn't think so.> OK. Prove it, Timothy. You've been telling us all how bad we are for the last year. You've never *once* made a constructive suggestion. You don't like anything, and you make it clear that you expect everyone else to have the same nihilistic philosophy. Spill it. What DO you like. Can you even explain it. Do you know what you like? ENOUGH! You complain about hate, even as you spread it. -- TEDDY BEARS ARE PEOPLE, TOO! (allegra,harpo,ulysses)!rabbit!jj
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (01/28/84)
If having more food means population growing at a faster rate,
how come the countries with the lowest population growth are
those with the most food?
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmtgraham@parsec.UUCP (01/29/84)
#R:charm:-23300:parsec:40500013:000:303
parsec!graham Jan 28 18:22:00 1984
The problem is that the bulk of
this surplus wealth ends up in the pockets of capitalists in the "First World."
Please explain the process by which this transfer of wealth takes place.
Marv Graham; ConVex Computer Corp.
{allegra,ihnp4,uiucdcs,ctvax}!parsec!graham O: (214)669-3700 H: (214)931-7924jj@rabbit.UUCP (01/30/84)
> >If having more food means population growing at a faster rate, >how come the countries with the lowest population growth are >those with the most food? >-- > >Martin Taylor >{allegra,linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt Gee, Martin. If you read any of the articles, you'd know the answer. Hate to tell you, but the countries with the most food are DEVELOPED, and those without (with the possible exception of the USSR) are UNDEVELOPED. If you'd read the articles, you'd see the correlation between LEVEL OF DEVELOPEMENT and POPULATION GROWN discussed. It must be nice to be able to flame away without reading the articles you flame about, but I don't really have the gall to do that. <Unlike you, Martin, I guess. Perhaps you missed it in your haste to come up with a simplistic, emotional, rhetorical answer???> -- TEDDY BEARS ARE PEOPLE, TOO! (allegra,harpo,ulysses)!rabbit!jj
renner@uiucdcs.UUCP (renner ) (02/03/84)
#R:dciem:-65700:uiucdcs:29200072:000:507 uiucdcs!renner Feb 2 18:33:00 1984 /***** uiucdcs:net.politics / dciem!mmt / 2:02 am Feb 1, 1984 */ > If having more food means population growing at a faster rate, > how come the countries with the lowest population growth are > those with the most food? Because those are the countries with the most wealth. In this context (and in most others), wealth == technology. The way to truly end starvation is to help the backwards countries get the technology they need to feed themselves. Scott Renner {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!renner
kechkayl@ecn-ee.UUCP (02/03/84)
#R:dciem:-65700:ecn-ee:13400001:000:243 ecn-ee!kechkayl Feb 3 03:39:00 1984 Wrong, those countries with lots of food and a negative, (or small) growth rate are those that have industry. Countries without industrial development and lots of food have a much higher growth rate. Thomas Ruschak ecn-ee!kechkayl