...?CommieChipmunk wrote:
...Mitch wrote:
The people who say "No more medical advances because we need to stop overpopulation" will quickly change what they preach when all of the sudden they are diagnosed with an untreatable disease.
QFTSpark wrote:
Advances in medicine and human development will probably be the BEST thing to slow population growth.
Last edited by Turquoise (2008-03-15 20:23:17)
Last edited by Marinejuana (2008-03-15 20:52:54)
CommieChipmunk wrote:
I don't really think that anyone said that.
Quote from the OP.Spark wrote:
a lot of people going off in their inane way about stopping medical progress and halting the advance in PQL because:
'Oh no! If we do that we'll overpopulate the world yada yada yada'
Last edited by Mitch (2008-03-15 20:48:21)
Personally, my definition of medical progress is advancing the accessibility of contraceptives in the Third World. Of course, the religious nutjobs of America (mostly Catholics in this case) have done everything possible to lessen our involvement in these efforts.Mitch wrote:
CommieChipmunk wrote:
I don't really think that anyone said that.Quote from the OP.Spark wrote:
a lot of people going off in their inane way about stopping medical progress and halting the advance in PQL because:
'Oh no! If we do that we'll overpopulate the world yada yada yada'
Am i misreading that sentence?
There is more than enough material in these developed countries to kickstart most of them. What they need is small injection of capital, investment and above all technology to get them out of the poverty cycle and into (what I call) the affluence cycle.Marinejuana wrote:
there are resources available for larger world populations. poverty is the result of poor distribution. thats what you get when the brunt of world industry is directed by profoundly small committees of self-interested stockholders. almost everybody in the world could be getting a lot more out of the hours of work they put in, but instead we have faith in our masters and settle for less.
and the avg. american opposes just wealth distribution because they mistakenly think that improving evenness of distribution will mean less for them. you could drastically improve the living conditions for everybody in the world while only negatively impacting the socioeconomic top 1%. the richest 225 people in the world have more money than the yearly salary for the lower 50% of the world population combined (~3.3 billion people). The wealth of the three most well-to-do individuals now exceeds the combined GDP of the 50 least developed countries. of course you are going to have death and poverty when so few people are allowed to demand so much of society, both within our country and worldwide. its actually ridiculous that the majority of the people in the world don't see this as the primary political issue. instead, we can be made to echo whatever other irrelevant shit storm the media decides to stir.
after all of the incredible technological advances of the last century and yet the average person's access to the new human wealth is little more than a contrivance. the corporate board members of today are richer than the monarchs and emperors of the past. at some point, you have a to call a spade a spade.
great, then you have 6 billion people demanding the same luxuries we've had for years. Sorry, that doesn't work. Everything goes waaaay up.Spark wrote:
There is more than enough material in these developed countries to kickstart most of them. What they need is small injection of capital, investment and above all technology to get them out of the poverty cycle and into (what I call) the affluence cycle.Marinejuana wrote:
there are resources available for larger world populations. poverty is the result of poor distribution. thats what you get when the brunt of world industry is directed by profoundly small committees of self-interested stockholders. almost everybody in the world could be getting a lot more out of the hours of work they put in, but instead we have faith in our masters and settle for less.
and the avg. american opposes just wealth distribution because they mistakenly think that improving evenness of distribution will mean less for them. you could drastically improve the living conditions for everybody in the world while only negatively impacting the socioeconomic top 1%. the richest 225 people in the world have more money than the yearly salary for the lower 50% of the world population combined (~3.3 billion people). The wealth of the three most well-to-do individuals now exceeds the combined GDP of the 50 least developed countries. of course you are going to have death and poverty when so few people are allowed to demand so much of society, both within our country and worldwide. its actually ridiculous that the majority of the people in the world don't see this as the primary political issue. instead, we can be made to echo whatever other irrelevant shit storm the media decides to stir.
after all of the incredible technological advances of the last century and yet the average person's access to the new human wealth is little more than a contrivance. the corporate board members of today are richer than the monarchs and emperors of the past. at some point, you have a to call a spade a spade.
Of coarse, wouldn't want to stop aids and save lives /sarcasmTurquoise wrote:
Personally, my definition of medical progress is advancing the accessibility of contraceptives in the Third World. Of course, the religious nutjobs of America (mostly Catholics in this case) have done everything possible to lessen our involvement in these efforts.Mitch wrote:
CommieChipmunk wrote:
I don't really think that anyone said that.Quote from the OP.Spark wrote:
a lot of people going off in their inane way about stopping medical progress and halting the advance in PQL because:
'Oh no! If we do that we'll overpopulate the world yada yada yada'
Am i misreading that sentence?
Eh... not exactly. Clean drinking water is still a luxury for many countries. The sad thing is... we don't have to give them much to greatly improve their lives, but some of us aren't even willing to give them a small amount of aid. Granted, I can't exactly say I've been very active in this either....CommieChipmunk wrote:
great, then you have 6 billion people demanding the same luxuries we've had for years. Sorry, that doesn't work. Everything goes waaaay up.Spark wrote:
There is more than enough material in these developed countries to kickstart most of them. What they need is small injection of capital, investment and above all technology to get them out of the poverty cycle and into (what I call) the affluence cycle.Marinejuana wrote:
there are resources available for larger world populations. poverty is the result of poor distribution. thats what you get when the brunt of world industry is directed by profoundly small committees of self-interested stockholders. almost everybody in the world could be getting a lot more out of the hours of work they put in, but instead we have faith in our masters and settle for less.
and the avg. american opposes just wealth distribution because they mistakenly think that improving evenness of distribution will mean less for them. you could drastically improve the living conditions for everybody in the world while only negatively impacting the socioeconomic top 1%. the richest 225 people in the world have more money than the yearly salary for the lower 50% of the world population combined (~3.3 billion people). The wealth of the three most well-to-do individuals now exceeds the combined GDP of the 50 least developed countries. of course you are going to have death and poverty when so few people are allowed to demand so much of society, both within our country and worldwide. its actually ridiculous that the majority of the people in the world don't see this as the primary political issue. instead, we can be made to echo whatever other irrelevant shit storm the media decides to stir.
after all of the incredible technological advances of the last century and yet the average person's access to the new human wealth is little more than a contrivance. the corporate board members of today are richer than the monarchs and emperors of the past. at some point, you have a to call a spade a spade.
CommieChipmunk wrote:
great, then you have 6 billion people demanding the same luxuries we've had for years. Sorry, that doesn't work. Everything goes waaaay up.Spark wrote:
There is more than enough material in these developed countries to kickstart most of them. What they need is small injection of capital, investment and above all technology to get them out of the poverty cycle and into (what I call) the affluence cycle.Marinejuana wrote:
there are resources available for larger world populations. poverty is the result of poor distribution. thats what you get when the brunt of world industry is directed by profoundly small committees of self-interested stockholders. almost everybody in the world could be getting a lot more out of the hours of work they put in, but instead we have faith in our masters and settle for less.
and the avg. american opposes just wealth distribution because they mistakenly think that improving evenness of distribution will mean less for them. you could drastically improve the living conditions for everybody in the world while only negatively impacting the socioeconomic top 1%. the richest 225 people in the world have more money than the yearly salary for the lower 50% of the world population combined (~3.3 billion people). The wealth of the three most well-to-do individuals now exceeds the combined GDP of the 50 least developed countries. of course you are going to have death and poverty when so few people are allowed to demand so much of society, both within our country and worldwide. its actually ridiculous that the majority of the people in the world don't see this as the primary political issue. instead, we can be made to echo whatever other irrelevant shit storm the media decides to stir.
after all of the incredible technological advances of the last century and yet the average person's access to the new human wealth is little more than a contrivance. the corporate board members of today are richer than the monarchs and emperors of the past. at some point, you have a to call a spade a spade.
...or they mistakenly think that industrial outputs would need to increase for distribution to adequately improve.me wrote:
and the avg. american opposes just wealth distribution because they mistakenly think that improving evenness of distribution will mean less for them.
the avg american owes nothing, the top 1% has quite a bit to divy up tho.Turquoise wrote:
Eh... not exactly. Clean drinking water is still a luxury for many countries. The sad thing is... we don't have to give them much to greatly improve their lives, but some of us aren't even willing to give them a small amount of aid. Granted, I can't exactly say I've been very active in this either....
Last edited by Marinejuana (2008-03-15 21:16:06)
Because it would be so terrible to reduce infant mortality, increase life expectancy and GDP so they at least have a decent life.CommieChipmunk wrote:
great, then you have 6 billion people demanding the same luxuries we've had for years. Sorry, that doesn't work. Everything goes waaaay up.Spark wrote:
There is more than enough material in these developed countries to kickstart most of them. What they need is small injection of capital, investment and above all technology to get them out of the poverty cycle and into (what I call) the affluence cycle.Marinejuana wrote:
there are resources available for larger world populations. poverty is the result of poor distribution. thats what you get when the brunt of world industry is directed by profoundly small committees of self-interested stockholders. almost everybody in the world could be getting a lot more out of the hours of work they put in, but instead we have faith in our masters and settle for less.
and the avg. american opposes just wealth distribution because they mistakenly think that improving evenness of distribution will mean less for them. you could drastically improve the living conditions for everybody in the world while only negatively impacting the socioeconomic top 1%. the richest 225 people in the world have more money than the yearly salary for the lower 50% of the world population combined (~3.3 billion people). The wealth of the three most well-to-do individuals now exceeds the combined GDP of the 50 least developed countries. of course you are going to have death and poverty when so few people are allowed to demand so much of society, both within our country and worldwide. its actually ridiculous that the majority of the people in the world don't see this as the primary political issue. instead, we can be made to echo whatever other irrelevant shit storm the media decides to stir.
after all of the incredible technological advances of the last century and yet the average person's access to the new human wealth is little more than a contrivance. the corporate board members of today are richer than the monarchs and emperors of the past. at some point, you have a to call a spade a spade.
QFTSpark wrote:
There is plenty of wealth, but capital is being misused. That's the problem.
Last edited by Marinejuana (2008-03-15 23:12:52)
That's not what I'm saying. I agree with you, it would be a step in the right direction if we stopped killing each other and spent more of that money helping developing nations. But what I'm saying, is that when China and India finally finish their industrial revolution, they'll be demanding the same luxuries (I'm not talking drinking water here) that we've had for years. And while they may then have the capacity to produce good for their country, there's not enough of many resources to go around. Basically, the world can't consume the earth as America does, and I fear that would happen with industrialized nations of +1 billion peopleSpark wrote:
Because it would be so terrible to reduce infant mortality, increase life expectancy and GDP so they at least have a decent life.
I dunno, I just find this attitude somewhat condescending. We can have it all, but not you because that would just fuck everything up...