Halting population growth.

[Hammer Head]

As the world population is spiraling out of control, should we stop giving aid to third world countries allowing more of them to die from war and natural causes.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6219922.st m

[vehelpfulguy]

Do you also think we should stop benefits to people in the UK and let them die out.

Also old people in old peoples homes in the UK, we could leave them outside all night, that would get rid of a few.

Also anyone in the UK unfortunate enough to get ill, dont treat them, let them die as well.

I cant see anyone putting it in their manifesto.

[vehelpfulguy]

Flippant answer above, now for a serioius answer.

The population is growing too fast, and we are getting very good at keeping people alive into old age, and keeping alive those babies born prematurely. We can also cure more illnesses.

But the problem is that we do not have one world government who can make the rules for the world.

Individual countries have their own agenda. Get richer, get more luxury goods, more holidays, so each country wants to increase its population to make more money.

It could be argued that the "west" are doing more damage to the world than the so called poorer countries.

I heard that the USA consume half the worlds resource.

Keeping alive groups of people in Africa or India who probably live a simple lifestyle is not the problem, it is the West that is the problem.

We produce the pollution, concrete over fields to make cities and roads, destroy the habitats for wildlife, dam rivers and flood huge areas, make GM crops.

I am not sure of the answer, but I do feel afraid for the future of the world.

I remember the science fiction film Soylent Green with its awful view of future. People living in cars, no fresh food, anarchy on the streets, voluntary euthenasia.

In the end people were eating tablets, and their favorite were green ones (Soylent Green). They were made out of the dead bodies of humans who had died.

Unless we do something we are heading that way.

[vehelpfulguy]

By the way, after ten years of labour government we do have one thing from Soylent Green.

Anarchy on the streets.

Rampant gun crime, chavs mugging and running riot, little or no deterrent for street crime.

Well done Tony.

[kwicky]

I must admit your question has been racking my brain recently. If we were to immunise all the children in Africa, as suggested by Gordon Brown, then because of the longer life span it will mean that many more will die of starvation in future.

[NH]

vehelpfulguy started to make a sensible answer- the West does indeed consume, pollute and own with a huge amount of resources- I think the oft quoted figure is that the world's richest 1% have 86% of the wealth- but then it all went wrong.

"Rampant gun crime"? "Chavs mugging and running riot"? ********. I've been in Sheffield for 3 months now and 1 person I know has had a phone nicked. 1. Hardly Durkheim's society of anomie.

You've been watching that film waaaay too much. To the question....

Thing is, Britain had a high birth rate before industrialisation, so it seems a little unreasonable to blame birth rate for being unable to develop an economy. By all means, you can blame government corruption, the climate, decades of civil war- but birth rate? Come on.

[Stu in USA]

There is minimal population growth in the West, most of it is due to immigration. I also read recently that the world's population will stabilise in the not to distant future.

[WaldoMcFroog]

I guess it depends on whether one takes a Malthusian or Boserupian view of the world.

One thing is certainly true, and works against the inclinations of the questioner's solution, which is that fecundity is inversely linked to poverty (for which you can read nutrition and health), i.e. the poorer you are, the more children you are likely to have.

[matt66]

So we now base all official statistics on how many people we know have suffered at the hands of a criminal. No on i know has been raped or mugged. So maybe it does not happen at all.

[ummmm]

Yes it does matt

[NH]

What I'm saying is, if crime was as rife as vehelpfulguy is saying, then surely as an urban-dwelling student (therefore very susceptable to either experiencing or hearing about such crime) I would be hearing non-stop stories about it.

But I haven't. vehelpfulguy is simply painting a picture of apocalypse that I'm not seeing, and almost certainly isn't happening.

matt66 is also blantantly ignoring the fact that official statistics are not actually the most valid method of measuring crime, nor do they necessarily reflect how much crime actually occurs. A rise in crime rates could even (whisper it) mean that the police are more competent, for example, or more authoritarian.

Maybe vehelpfulguy is just getting old. The quote from the prophet Bono sums it up- "you glorify the past when [your] future dries up."

[ummmm]

NH.....It's easy to think that crime is not as bad as made out in the news, until you are a victim of it!!!

[NH]

First of all, no-one's saying that crime is good.

Secondly, the BCS point out that despite their findings showing the opposite, 63% of people they surveyed felt that crime had risen across the country. This perception was twice as likely amongst tabloid readers.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/crimeew0506.h tml

Aside from women, perhaps the most beautiful thing in the world is a thick book that discredits the views of thick conservatives.

[Hammer Head]

Excuse me. How have we got on to crime?

[NH]

I have no idea...but this often happens.

I believe it originates from vehelpfulguy committing crimes against sociology by spouting unverified **** about it.

[pdq1]

No wonder we have raised our aid budget to 0.7%. If there are more starving mouths to feed than before they need every penny we can throw at them so they can produce even more children.