jj@rabbit.UUCP (01/23/84)
OK, Mr. Polli (if I spelled it right), since you insist on bringing up the word Christianity, etc, consider this: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" (Yes, I know it's a far-fetched paraphrase, but... I also don't dispute your good intentions.) Certainly it feels good for you to attack someone who argues that we shouldn't feed all the world's starving. Certainly it must be comforting to accuse someone of not being a Christian, since you know that manuver will bring you the sympathy of most of middle America. Certainly you feel good trying to drag someone down. Now, consider for a minute: Who ARE you to judge? <sorry, your deliberate reference to religion has me seeing red, blue, black, and green, all at once> Have YOU considered ALL the problems inherent in your own "solution"? What was said was EXACTLY true. If a population with no way of reducing it's birth rate is fed more, it will expand. Let's say we DO send all the food we have to spare, OK? So, what happens? For one year, or two, a lot of people survive (that's good, no doubt about it). The number of people also grows. In several years, we are OUT of surplus. <and don't say grow more, unless you've studied seriously the effects that mechanized farming has already had on the great plains, and you know how to save the last 1/5 of the topsoil. Yes, damnit, the last 1/5 is all that's left. We should be growing LESS food, not more, and doing it differently, if we were acting in our (and everyone else's) long term interests. > 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. Is that what you wish to do? Kill even MORE people? Grow people just so that they can die? (I do understand the pain involved in seeing someone starve. Unfortunately, the world is not a painless place.) I must say that IF there were a chance at bringing about self-sufficiency before we ran out of surplus then the idea would have merit, and in fact would be compelling. However, the problems involved in bringing about self- sufficiency are NOT solvable in 2-5 years, or even in 20. <That's another story, and influenced greatly by religious and political beliefs.> I must also say that I find the method and tone of argument that you use to be completely offensive. The vituperitive (sp?) attitude that you display and the gratuitous references to Christianity that you make seem deliberately calculated to cause emotional knee-jerking rather than calm thought. Such behavior in a time of crisis is more than thoughtless. Good day! (Now that you've ruined mine, sir!) -- TEDDY BEARS ARE PEOPLE, TOO! (allegra,harpo,ulysses)!rabbit!jj
jbf@ccieng5.UUCP (01/25/84)
In all substantive details I agree with jj. However, if I hear the word 'knee-jerk' one more time, I will vomit! Azhrarn -- Reachable as ....allegra![rayssd,rlgvax]!ccieng5!jbf