pvp@ihuxl.UUCP (Philip Polli) (02/01/84)
Well, now that everybody's adrenalin is pumping,
let's review where the discussion about starvation is.
For the benefit of those who missed the opening rounds,
it was started by an assertion by Scott Renner that:
"It is not possible to end starvation by sending food to the hungry -- one
simply ends up with many more hungry people. This is no kindness."
Feeling particularly fiendish the day I read that,
( May God forgive me, Mr. Shlapak )
I decided to wave the red cape in front of the herd of bulls.
My response included:
"Yes, Mr. Renner, we know that simply sending food
to the hungry does not make them self-sufficient.
All it does is keep them alive, so that perhaps they
may learn to be self-sufficient someday. But apparently
you would prefer them to be self-sufficiently dead."
and
"I hope you don't profess to be a Christian, Mr. Renner.
You are a disgrace to the human race."
(Just for the record, I also don't think that starving people is a very
{Moslem|Buddhist|Jewish|B'hai|Ethical Humanist|Communist|Athieist} thing
to do either, for those of you that object to the Christian assumption.)
The next chapter in the story came from rabbit!jj,
cleverly disguised as Mr. Renner. (Do Teddy Bears have names too?)
He asks me to consider the end result of feeding the hungry:
"So. Now we are out of surplus. We stop sending food (surprise!)
and all the people we saved now die. In fact, many MORE die because
there are now MORE people. Not only that, a greater number of
people who WOULD have survived will die, because the carrying capacity
of the land will have been reduced by the overpopulation.
<and yes, it will be reduced, not held even>
Not only will everyone who would have died die, people who
would NOT have died will die, and some who would not have
come into existance will die."
I never imagined feeding starving people could cause so much trouble!
The bulls were clearly enraged. Mr. Renner seconded the above
argument. So to keep things moving along, I responded:
" To allow people to
starve while you have the ability to feed them is evil.
Withholding food from the starving today because you might
not be able to feed them tomorrow is abominable."
Along about this point in the exchange, there were some remarkably
calm, cogent, and pertinent articles put forward by various
onlookers, notably Prentiss Riddle, Timothy Kerwin, Martin Taylor,
and Sharon Badian.
Following long-established net.politics tradition, these articles
were either completely ignored, or a full bibliography citing
only reliable sources was demanded before they could be considered.
And, of course, we heard from the "Nuke 'em till they glow" crowd,
and were graced by a cameo appearance
of the "That's another reason to go into space" group.
So, thru innumerable cheap shots and degrading insults,
I seem to have attracted everyone's attention to the issue.
( Such distasteful sacrifices one is forced to make! )
At this point, things appear to have deteriorated happily into
a general free-for-all, with as much verbiage being directed at
the words I used to describe Messrs. Renner and (Teddy Bear?)
as at the fate of the starving people of the world.
It appears to be the consensus of the other side that
the "Oh-Shit-Everyone-Will-Starve-If-We-Do-That" counter argument
advanced by Renner and (JJ?) is carrying the day, since
I haven't yet explicitly responded to it. Since it now appears that
all the relevant arguments in favor of it have been put
forward, it's time to move on to the next phase of the discussion,
wherein we examine this argument in depth.
So enough of this calm summary of the situation!
Onward to Battle! In the next posting,
I will review the "Oh-Shit-Everyone-Will-Starve-If-We-Do-That" argument,
and respond directly to it.
(How's that for a display of iron self-control? Only two minor sarcasms
and no cheap shots at all. How boring. Can Polli get through another
posting without lapsing into his sinful ways? Would people bother
reading news items this long if they thought I would?)
Phil Polli
{ihnp4!}ihuxl!pvp