Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2024 22:01:04 GMT
If you think I am neoliberal you havent been paying attention. The post is directed at me  You are right in that it was directed at you. My mistake. But I dont actually think you are a neoliberal either. Correct me id I am wrong on that. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2024 22:03:51 GMT
Just a thought, but you being typically neo-liberal, with your we can save the world attitude, we just need people to have and need less, who have grown used to needing and having more, which will provoke a reaction of you want us all living in caves. I wonder to myself how much of the credit-based society that has caused the growth and just about every crisis since you have participated in. Short answer loads over the years, But I'm not a fan of "If you can't solve it all on your own then don't comment" I think we can all do something together if we really think cutting population growth is important. Population control matters......after all if we all halved our carbon footprints it would make no difference at all if the population doubled. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Apr 4, 2024 7:02:30 GMT
One way to mitigate population growth would be for the west to stop supporting unfettered population growth in the third world. How are they doing that? By supporting higher populations with aid |
|
|
|
Post by walterpaisley on Apr 4, 2024 7:14:53 GMT
Giving aid supports neither "higher" nor "lower" populations - it just supports populations.
Unless you're including emergency famine relief in that, and would rather just sit back and let people die.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Apr 4, 2024 8:02:28 GMT
Giving aid supports neither "higher" nor "lower" populations - it just supports populations. Unless you're including emergency famine relief in that, and would rather just sit back and let people die. More food supports a higher population. It seems to me you are engaging in mushy thinking - X can't be true because it creates a dilemmaI think it is common practice on the left to maintain steadfastly that the patently true is untrue to avoid these conflicts. It's a semantic fix i guess |
|
|
|
Post by walterpaisley on Apr 4, 2024 8:37:39 GMT
And less food - ie during famine - decreases a population. It's not an issue of "left" or "right", just simple fact.
And if the west really did have some agenda to "support unfettered population growth in the third world", how come an ongoing project, down the decades, has been a heavy emphasis on the promotion of contraception and birth control?
If the argument really is about how a higher global population using available resources requires such a harsh remedy as to ultimately see people as dispensible, then surely the logical solution would be to start with those who consume the most resources. I'm willing to bet that my average consumption (which I try to keep low, and mitigate where I can) is ridiculously high compared to anyone in a developing country.
If the argument were moved towards "higher consumption = more dispensible", I suspect it may go a little differently.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Apr 4, 2024 9:01:04 GMT
And less food - ie during famine - decreases a population. It's not an issue of "left" or "right", just simple fact. And if the west really did have some agenda to "support unfettered population growth in the third world", how come an ongoing project, down the decades, has been a heavy emphasis on the promotion of contraception and birth control? If the argument really is about how a higher global population using available resources requires such a harsh remedy as to ultimately see people as dispensible, then surely the logical solution would be to start with those who consume the most resources. I'm willing to bet that my average consumption (which I try to keep low, and mitigate where I can) is ridiculously high compared to anyone in a developing country. If the argument were moved towards "higher consumption = more dispensible", I suspect it may go a little differently. So when you said, "Giving aid supports neither "higher" nor "lower" populations", you were just engaging in an equivocation - that is, appearing to disagree without actually disagreeing? I'm not advocating anything, I'm just pointing out a conflict. If the problem really is population, then taking active measures to support populations that reliably can't support themselves has a questionable moral value Predictably, you prefer a Marxist style approach - ie you identify the populations who can support themselves and take action to stamp out those instead. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Apr 4, 2024 15:12:11 GMT
By supporting higher populations with aid So let them starve? |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Apr 4, 2024 15:13:58 GMT
Giving aid supports neither "higher" nor "lower" populations - it just supports populations. Unless you're including emergency famine relief in that, and would rather just sit back and let people die. More food supports a higher population. It seems to me you are engaging in mushy thinking - X can't be true because it creates a dilemmaI think it is common practice on the left to maintain steadfastly that the patently true is untrue to avoid these conflicts. It's a semantic fix i guess And yet the fattest nations have the lowest population growth. I think its you who has not thought it through. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Apr 4, 2024 15:17:33 GMT
And less food - ie during famine - decreases a population. It's not an issue of "left" or "right", just simple fact. And if the west really did have some agenda to "support unfettered population growth in the third world", how come an ongoing project, down the decades, has been a heavy emphasis on the promotion of contraception and birth control? If the argument really is about how a higher global population using available resources requires such a harsh remedy as to ultimately see people as dispensible, then surely the logical solution would be to start with those who consume the most resources. I'm willing to bet that my average consumption (which I try to keep low, and mitigate where I can) is ridiculously high compared to anyone in a developing country. If the argument were moved towards "higher consumption = more dispensible", I suspect it may go a little differently. So when you said, "Giving aid supports neither "higher" nor "lower" populations", you were just engaging in an equivocation - that is, appearing to disagree without actually disagreeing? I'm not advocating anything, I'm just pointing out a conflict. If the problem really is population, then taking active measures to support populations that reliably can't support themselves has a questionable moral value Predictably, you prefer a Marxist style approach - ie you identify the populations who can support themselves and take action to stamp out those instead. But if you take time to read my opening post, you see that it is not about offering more aid. It is about food stability, education, reducing child mortality and relative wealth. All the things that make Western societies reduce population growth. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Apr 4, 2024 15:55:49 GMT
More food supports a higher population. It seems to me you are engaging in mushy thinking - X can't be true because it creates a dilemmaI think it is common practice on the left to maintain steadfastly that the patently true is untrue to avoid these conflicts. It's a semantic fix i guess And yet the fattest nations have the lowest population growth. . Indeed. Or to put it another way, "the nations who have enough food tend to be the ones who control (or moderate) their populations". No matter how much food you have it is always possible to have too little by adding more people. I find the struggle over this quite illuminating. Leftism really is like a mental blind-spot |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Apr 4, 2024 16:03:49 GMT
By supporting higher populations with aid So let them starve? I'm not advocating anything. I'm just pointing out that by giving people food you are supporting a higher population. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Apr 4, 2024 16:07:31 GMT
And yet the fattest nations have the lowest population growth. . Indeed. Or to put it another way, "the nations who have enough food tend to be the ones who control (or moderate) their populations". No matter how much food you have it is always possible to have too little by adding more people. I find the struggle over this quite illuminating. Leftism really is like a mental blind-spot Nope. We could easily buy enough food to stuff double our population up to gross. What stops population growth is health and wealth. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Apr 4, 2024 16:08:27 GMT
I'm not advocating anything. I'm just pointing out that by giving people food you are supporting a higher population. While both being wrong and dodging the inevitable result to your suggestion. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Apr 4, 2024 16:11:40 GMT
Indeed. Or to put it another way, "the nations who have enough food tend to be the ones who control (or moderate) their populations". No matter how much food you have it is always possible to have too little by adding more people. I find the struggle over this quite illuminating. Leftism really is like a mental blind-spot Nope. We could easily buy enough food to stuff double our population up to gross. What stops population growth is health and wealth. I very much doubt it. What stops population growth is enforced cultural status symbols that encourage responsible reproduction and raise costs in over-crowding |
|
