Subject:
|
Re: From Richard: "It's all bad news - Chaos is my fault"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 28 May 2004 19:23:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1714 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Don Heyse wrote:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Parsons wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > > Richard
> > > > Still baldly going...
> > >
> > > Now this is why I hang out here..
> > >
> > > Very nicely stated, Richard.
> >
> > Hmmm, I thought it was a bit long winded and sort of lost track at
> > the per capita part. In my politically incorrect world it seems a
> > large part of the problem is those darned capitas. The third world
> > produces so many of them it messes up the whole per thing. In first
> > world public school we were beaten senseless with the "no more than 2.1
> > per" mantra. But following that rule in the first world, and not in
> > the 3rd leads to an even greater imbalance between the per capitas.
> > I think that's the real reason for all the really nasty problems, but
> > I don't know how to fix it.
>
> Well, part of the reason that people in third-world nations have 10 kids is
> because 80% of those kids will likely die before puberty. Obviously that's not
> an inviolable statistic, and just as obviously it's not the only cause of skewed
> population growth, but it's a big factor. As a remedy, we first world nations
> should probably consider other forms of aid than abstinence-based education.
>
> Further, if first world nations faced a similar youth-based mortality rate, then
> we'd see a revision of the 2.1 rule.
>
> Dave!
Hi.
80% mortality? Not likely. In fact, the opposite is true;
that's what's helping the problem of overpopulation along.
The real pushing force is the *labor value* of children; in
agricultural societies--or, better put, societies that still
maintain agricultural values systems, which would include
most of the "third world"--children equal a support system
for the family. At least, that's how it's supposed to be in
a subsistence or near-subsistence economy; beyond the goal
of accounting for pre-reproductive-capacity death, you also
have the positive goal of producing kin that equal social and
economic capital. It's not a cold calculation (children = $$)
but rather one that's made without concern for money itself.
This is part of the reason that wealth has almost always
been the chief correlation to low reproductive rates--the
wealth itself provides those benefits, and children are a
net drain for the first 14-18 years of their lives on the
family economy. Sure, some do defy that trend, but even in
the poorest countries infant/pre-18 youth mortality is not
even close to eighty per cent.
As for what Don pointed out--that the have-nots reproduce
faster--that has always been true; but the conclusion he draws,
that it will swamp the "haves," is only so if the labor of the
added population does not add value to the total system. Given
that it does so, and at least at present faster than the rate of
both inflation and rich-poor imbalance, some of those "have nots"
will continue to become "haves"--it is more a ratio than a hard
and fast number. If you want examples, just look at those
immigrant communities of the 1960s and 1970s in Britain and
the USA, or better yet, look at the last 10 years in South Africa,
and the total wealth creation.
What is the statistic that appeared in the Independent today?
If your surname is "Patel" in the UK, you are something like
four times more likely to be a millionaire than if your surname
were "Smith," despite there being ten times as many Smiths.
So yeah, it's both worse and better than you think. The real
solution is for the "have have haves"--those in the West who
make the millionaires look dirt-poor--to stop collecting such
obscene wealth, and use some of it for job creation in the areas
with those "capitas." The problem is not that they don't want
to work and succeed, but overwhelmingly that unemployment is
kept high so that wages may be kept unfeasably low and, thus,
profit margins obscene, which in turn gives the "obscene-haves"
their obscene, er, havings.
The answer to the problem isn't communism or capitalism; rather,
it's a healthy sense of moral responsibility to those who make
the wealth of the insanely rich possible. If for nothing else,
I have respect for Bill Gates for a certain acceptance of that
(though only to a point).
all best
LFB
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
163 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
