Wifely Duties by piratenews

Quote:
So the difference isn't the social economic incentives so much as it is the child's economic role in society?

I don't understand the question.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
But a group of URBAN POOR especially in Europe has the same demographics as a group of URBAN WELL OFF - this is the FOURTH TIME I'm pointing this out.

They have the SAME access to health care and especially birth control. They have the SAME risks in pregnancy and birth. They have access to the SAME education systems. They have a guaranteed minimum standard if living.

What they DON'T have is access to more attractive options.

And that is why the URBAN POOR in Bolivia have the same high birth rate as the RURAL POOR - and similar statistics in Africa, Asia, etc. It's not a difference between urban and rural, or one culture v another, or capitalism hitting the well off harder harder than the poor (BY DEFINITION the poor are harder hit than the better off and STILL have more children) - it's a difference between no options and many.

HENCE - differences in birth rate - and BTW the driving force for the demographic transition, wherever and whenever it happens.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

Differences in means and options, yes. The rural poor are similar in birthrate numbers to the urban poor, and the same reason applies to them, but both of them differ drastically from the urban middle class and rich. I think we agree here, because I've actually been trying to say something similar. I wasn't arguing that the poor aren't hit harder by capitalism, I have no idea where you got that from. What we disagree on seems to be just what this all means and the ultimate cause of the differences. What causes the differences in the means and options? In my opinion, it's money, and a systematic bias against the poor to keep them poor. That's the point I'm trying to make.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 8:20 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
In my opinion, it's money, and a systematic bias against the poor to keep them poor.

Now I'm really confused. It's well known that the poor are kept poor, but what does this have to do with population control? Because by all accounts, the poor are the ones with the most children so clearly, the eugenics conspiracy -if there is one- isn't working all that well.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 8:59 AM

Because if they're kept poor, they can't afford children. They HAVE the children, because they don't have means to prevent the pregnancy, but they can't afford or support them. Cue starvation, disease, and injury from crappy low paying jobs, and NEEDING large amounts of children as almost kind of a replacement survival strategy. Every family wants it's next generation to survive to adulthood, evolutionarily there is a drive to preserve genetics in the next generation (and multiple generations afterward). But this also damages the family by making them worse off economically, and potentially by making the parents work more jobs (if available), which also decreases the survival rate of the children (caregivers are not around).

If kids are indirectly dying, and quality of life becomes increasingly unlivable, then I would consider this a form of population control. You might consider it inadvertent, me, I'm not so sure.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 9:23 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

If death through poverty is a means to population control, it doesn't seem to be working.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 9:31 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Still pissed off about being talked about without a response...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 9:32 AM

I think we'll have to agree to disagree then, because I'm pretty sure that people dying (from poverty or not) is in general a form of population control. What was it Newton said? "A growing ball of flesh, expanding outward at the speed of light?"

If people weren't dying from poverty, those nations would have far higher populations than they do now, unless they experienced one of your demographic transitions... By which they would then fall under other forms of population control we've already covered.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 9:39 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I don't accept disagreement over facts.

It is a FACT that the poorest nations on earth have the fastest growing populations - not an opinion.

POPULATION GROWTH - which the map shows - takes into account both birth AND death rates - and birth rates ARE far outripping death rates in the poorest countries. Poverty can't be population CONTROL if it makes the poulation grow faster.

That is a FACT. Get used to it.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 9:41 AM

Fine. And what would the populations be if they weren't dying from poverty?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 9:44 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

So feed the poor to the rich is what you are saying then? Right Rue?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 9:46 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Or, you make a good point Rue...

The dumbest, most basest of humans... breed like roaches in a failed attempt to gain a leg up on the evolutionary chain.

Good to know.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 10:00 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Fine. And what would the populations be if they weren't dying from poverty?"

Paradoxically, after a brief surge, they would be going down.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 10:01 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

What you seem to be saying is that the wealthy's lack of support for individuals who wish to create large families is deliberate eugenics, but IMHO it's just "social Darwinism". Starving people to death is nothing new for the rich. They've been doing it for millenia, long before overpopulation was even thought of. It's just a by-product of thinking of poor people as exploitable resource. That the poor may be dying in droves is unrelated to "population control".

The only time when the poor were actually valued was when there was a large shortage of labor immediately following the fall of the Roman Empire (with its attendant population collapse). In THAT case, the "answer" was to tie the laborers to the latifundia, forbidding them to move away, and thus the beginnings of serfdom and the feudal system. It would be interesting to compare this the effects of Black Death... worthy of a graduate paper I'm sure, but beyond my available time.

Now, with automation and in a milieu of rapidly rising populations, raw human power is not worth much. It is a sad fact that slaves today are bought for far less money (in inflation-adjusted amounts) than they were in the time of slavery in the USA.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 10:01 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

grrrrr..... gorram double

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 10:03 AM

Huh. So, Wulf, in your estimation, which of the areas with the highest population growth rate are the "dumbest and basest" humans? Chinese? Indo-Ayrans? Africans? All?

I think you should clarify just which races and nationalities you think are evolutionarily inferior. For our reference.

This is the result of POVERTY, Wulf, not genes. Poor white people have lots of kids too.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 10:05 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I think Byte might think I am making a case that the better off care for the poor. Not at all. The poor are there to be exploited for immediate profit. They are a resource to be used or used up, as seen fit.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 10:17 AM

Quote:
Paradoxically, after a brief surge, they would be going down.

Because...?

Chicken or egg argument. Which comes first? Demographic transition, or improved socio-economic status? And is it necessarily implied that demographic transition is the same thing as improved socio-economic status, or that improved socio-economic status necessarily causes a demographic transition?

I don't think so. The rich in the countries in question (China, African nations and or tribes) have historically had large families. You have to factor in culture, the Victorian gentlewoman might have had a decent socio-economic status, and been bored out of her mind, but she and her peers would not have been able to pursue a demographic transition if their husbands wanted large families.

In order for the populations in question to go down if they were suddenly elevated above poverty, they would have to experience a demographic transition. I don't think that's likely to happen.

Which to me means that their population is being kept from sky rocketing by their death rate.

So, look. We agree on the facts, we just disagree on the interpretation. I don't want to be on Newton's ball of flesh world, but I also don't want to encourage any government or international policies that impose restrictions or limitations on choice in reproductive potential. And I don't want to meddle in people's cultures either. This is an impasse.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 10:20 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

No Byte, because THEY WOULD BE STARVING.

Bacteria in a petri dish exhibit the same growth curve... a long time noodling around at relatively low numbers, a period of rapidly exponential growth once the population base takes off, and a die-off as the bacteria die in their own shit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 10:23 AM

Sig, that's part of the motivation to keep them down, I think. The question is whether death by poverty and exploitation is intentional or not, and I think it is, because it keeps the populations manageable.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 10:31 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Death by poverty and exploitation is intentional BECAUSE IT MAKES PEOPLE RICH. As I said before, this has been happening for millenia. Millenia. Long before anyone could ever think the world was running out of anything.

The poor, alas, are playing into the hands of the wealthy. They (the poor) are NOT going to gain power by "outbreeding" the rich... if that were the case, the 0.000001% of TPTB would ALREADY have been eliminated, seeing as they constitute a numerically vanishing minority.

No, the answer is NOT more kids.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 10:31 AM

So you're saying that poverty has no end result on the death rate, because people will still die (of the same causes even) if elevated out of poverty?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 10:33 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

What??

I have no idea what that means.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 10:34 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

BYTE:

Quote:
The question is whether death by poverty and exploitation is intentional or not, and I think it is, because it keeps the populations manageable.

You made two statements here:

Death by poverty and exploitation is intentional.
The intention is to reduce the population.

I don't think death by poverty is intentional. POVERTY is intentional. EXPLOITATION is intentional. Death is a side-effect. The reason WHY the wealthy make no attempt to save "the poor" from death is because the poor are so very, very good at replacing themselves anyway. It's not bc the rich fear "the masses". (If they did, they should be shitting their pants already because they're already a vanishingly small number. What difference does it make if you represent 0.000002% or 0.0000015% of the population? No, if the rich are afraid of anything, it's an AWARE population.) It's bc the rich simply don't give a good gorram about the vast majority of the world's population.

Thinking that the rich would be somehow afraid of 8 billion, as oppposed to 5 billion, is just... silly. WTF do they care???

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 10:35 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Which comes first? Demographic transition, or improved socio-economic status?"

Improved socio-economic status.

You have to remember that first-world countries didn't get to be first-world completely on their own efforts. What they had was a jump-start on certain things (Guns, Germs and Steel auth: Jared Diamond) which allowed them to exploit other populations. To improve their wealth at the expense of others. Once they became relatively wealthy populations dropped.

The same thing can happen through social change. For example, when China became communist, living conditions for the vast majority improved. (Such was the grinding poverty that communism was a significant step up.) It was that improvement which led to the large drop in birth rate even before the one urban-child policy. And despite improved lifespans, overall population growth is far lower than India while standard of living is far higher, though the two started out equivalent.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 10:37 AM

Quote:
Death by poverty and exploitation is intentional BECAUSE IT MAKES PEOPLE RICH.

It also lets them control the population. You don't think so? Death, poverty, and exploitation are not controls on a population?

Quote:
No, the answer is NOT more kids.

I think TPTB think that this is a threat, though. Having more kids doesn't solve this problem, but TPTB think they're going to be overthrown be a numerically superior "peasant's revolt."

Maybe not outbreed them, but maybe it is important to maintain a numerical superiority?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 10:43 AM

Um. Rue? Living conditions in Rural China? I hadn't heard about that one, I'll admit.

What I have heard about is this little gem:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chairman_Mao#Great_Leap_Forward

Historically, India has also had large family sizes. Is the demographic transition an urban phenomenon? I wonder how much of India is still rural.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 10:47 AM

Quote:
What??

I have no idea what that means.

Clarifying.

You compared humans to bacteria, and said that after a population explosion, the bacteria starve themselves as they run out of resources.

My assumption was that the initial population explosion you're describing is the poor, elevated out of poverty. They continue to have children at their usual rate, and die of starvation because they eventually use up their resources.

So my question was if you think poverty has an effect on the death rate, because from what I'm understanding you're saying that poverty versus no poverty has no effect on the end result (dying of starvation).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 10:53 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Maybe not outbreed them, but maybe it is important to maintain a numerical superiority?

BYTE: Cross-posted, above.

TPTB are ALREADY numerically vanishingly small. Approximately 500 people own roughly half of the world. How small is THAT?? Do you think it REALLY makes a difference to that 500 whether the population is 5 billion, or 10 billion? Do you think they're thinking "Oh no! My numerical advantage just went down from 0.00002% by a factor of two!"???

No, I think if there is ANY consideration about population growth, is simply that - due to lack of water, soil, etc.- the poor will no longer be able to sustain themselves, and THEN living conditions will get so miserable it may trigger a revolt. But AFA sheer numbers... nah. They don't give a sh*t.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 10:59 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Byte

I had a link in another thread which detailed this, I think in a 'standard of living' discussion. I don't have time to dig it out. But yes, the biggest decline in population growth came about as the standard of living improved, BEFORE the one urban-child policy.

***************************************************************

ETA: but as a follow-on: your thesis is that poverty is intended to control population growth. You claim this DESPITE the fact that the poorest nations have the higest population growth rates. You also claim this despite the well-known fact that populations drop when overall economic well-being goes up - a fact that has been demonstrated in populations as long ago as 1400's France (Mother Love), or modern Japan.

You seem to have no data, or indeed evidence, to support your claims, while I have provided much to support mine.

Do you, in fact, have anything you can point to to support your assertions ?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 11:03 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
So my question was if you think poverty has an effect on the death rate, because from what I'm understanding you're saying that poverty versus no poverty has no effect on the end result (dying of starvation).

No, of course poverty has a role in the death rate. People are not bacteria, per se, and we're very good at creating unequal distribution of resources (unlike bacteria). My point was that while poverty is intentional and created by the theft of resources by the rich from the poor (and from women to men) death is not.

ETA: In fact, now that I think about it... if the poor want to take control they have to take responsibility too. Say F*ck the rich! I'm gonna make sure there's enough for me and my kids, enough to at least grow good food and get clean water. Manage my lands and my family. Then get some of that education and technology for myself.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 11:21 AM

Quote:

TPTB are ALREADY numerically vanishingly small. Approximately 500 people own roughly half of the world. How small is THAT?? Do you think it REALLY makes a difference to that 500 whether the population is 5 billion, or 10 billion? Do you think they're thinking "Oh no! My numerical advantage just went down from 0.00002% by a factor of two!"???

Actually, compared to the size of their security forces or government armies...? I think they do care.

I note that recruitment is primarily from among the poor. The poor are easily exploted, and also this might be another way to split any possible opposition. it's similar to the Jacobites in Scotland. Britian recruited a lot of Scottish as they went so the Jacobites would be forced to fight other Scottish.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 11:30 AM

I have logic, and my interpretation of the facts you have provided, which as I said before the interpretation is the only thing we disagree on. We agree on the facts.

You have provided evidence that nations that are poor have a high birthrate and high population growth, but you didn't acknowledge when I pointed out they also have a high death-rate, and I really don't see how this disproves my assertion that the death-rate is intentionally created by outside forces.

You don't have to have a stagnant population to see when there have been limitations placed on population growth. Yes, they have a very high growth rate. I still think their growth rate would be even higher after elevation from poverty, because I don't think we have any guarantees that they would undergo a demographic transition. Maybe population would only increase up until Sig's proposed scenario where they run out of resources, but we don't really know when that would happen, or whether improvements could be made to agriculture that could improve our unsustainable consumption rate.

Bacteria don't have advancements in agriculture.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 11:32 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Byte, with advanced weaponry including nuclear weapons, it doesn't matter HOW numerically small you are.

Let's frame this differently: The higher death rate among women in poor countries is due to a consipracy among men to keep the number of women down.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 11:34 AM

Quote:
ETA: In fact, now that I think about it... if the poor want to take control they have to take responsibility too. Say F*ck the rich! I'm gonna make sure there's enough for me and my kids, enough to at least grow good food and get clean water. Manage my lands and my family. Then get some of that education and technology for myself.

To a degree. Some might be able to manage doing so. Others may need to band together with their community to get the seeds, irrigation technology, and other resources they need. It can be difficult to stand alone.

Screw the rich though, very yes. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 11:35 AM

Quote:
Let's frame this differently: The higher death rate among women in poor countries is due to a consipracy among men to keep the number of women down.

You mean like China? Where they kill female infants because of a cultural belief that males are more desireable?

Kinda yes.

But actually, I'm not saying the size difference matters to US, I'm saying it matters to the powers that be.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 11:36 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Byte, I gotta get back to work. Later.

So, for my break:

BYTE: You contradicted yourself. You said that TPTB are afraid of "us" in relation to their security forces, then said that they recruit security primarily from the poor. So, why don't they just recruit more security from the ever-increasing and ever-more desperate poor??

Also, I cited women as an example how death occurs as an outcome of prejudice, but not as a goal of changing the sex ratio. Just bc something occurs as an outcome doesn't mean it was the desired effect.

Finally, you said that "our" numbers matter to THEM but not to US. I think exactly opposite. OUr number matter to US, not THEM. The people who are going to suffer most from lack of water, heat waves, lack of land and lack of food is NOT them, it's US. Them???? They don't give a cr*p.

You really have this idea that "they" are afraid of "the masses". That's like a cattle rancher with an excess of cattle being afraid of the herd.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 12:49 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
You really have this idea that "they" are afraid of "the masses". That's like a cattle rancher with an excess of cattle being afraid of the herd.

They Poll Herefords, Don't They?
http://www.jpfo.org/smith/smith-herefords.htm

"Listen to them closely and you'll hear that we might as well be different species. They are an elite -- near demigods who are above everything, including the law. We are less than nothing, of no concern to them except for the tasks we perform and the wealth we create for them to steal. If some of us can play the violin, create beautiful paintings or sculptures, or bring audiences to tears with our singing or acting, those are just "stupid pet tricks" without real value or significance."

That pointed out, I do concur that outbreeding them isn't a viable strategy, since the greater part of the problem is still that people LISTEN TO THEM, and obey their orders even when it's directly contradictory to their own interests.

S'why I chose to dump sand in the exact gears of their machine that I do - however this whole conversation and the notions it's addressing is something I am watching with interest cause there's ideas here which could maybe be useful as well.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 1:02 PM

Quote:
You contradicted yourself. You said that TPTB are afraid of "us" in relation to their security forces, then said that they recruit security primarily from the poor.

Not really a contradiction, it's another measure of control. It's splitting the loyalty of the target population. If the poor ever did rise up, they'd have to be fighting other poor people, and possibly members of their own family. Military training (brainwashing) takes away any hesitation they would have over putting us down if told we are a threat, but it's likely we would hesitate attacking them. Or so the strategy is.

Like I said, the Jacobites are an excellent example of TPTB pitting a much scorned "genetically inferior" population against themselves, and by doing so limiting the expenditure of their "own" forces (supposedly "genetically superior" population). To get the men to fight, all The Butcher had to tell his men was to claim that the Jacobites had ordered that they would give no quarter to the redcoats, present them the (falsified) captured orders as proof. Where a regiment of Scottish redcoats might have been uneasy about killing their kinsmen before, suddenly not only were they killing them, but also denying them medical aid, raping the civilians in the area, burning them alive after chasing them into barns, and etc.

Quote:
The people who are going to suffer most from lack of water, heat waves, lack of land and lack of food is NOT them, it's US.

I don't deny this. But TPTB have a unique problem; too few laborers, and they limit profits and what they can steal from us. Obviously, they don't want all the laborers to die, though they aren't particularly crestfallen if a few (or several billion) do die. But they also have concerns about the labour pool. What if the labour pool gets too big? Uh oh. Even if there isn't an overthrow (which I do think they're concerned about, unless they're completely ignorant of history and the dialectic), too big of a labor pool cuts in on their resources. They have to supply and distribute certain necessities and resources to make their workers work, in America this is done indirectly through money. In feudalism, it was allowing the peasants to retain some of the crops they grow during the year for food. And in slavery, it was the master buying food for the slaves (or making other slaves work a separate plot for food to feed everyone, but this plot must be only a small portion of the land for the cash crop, or this would also cut into profits).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 1:13 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"I really don't see how this disproves my assertion that the death-rate is intentionally created by outside forces."

With the intention of REDUCING POPULATION. That's the other part of your schema. If the intention is to REDUCE population, they are failing miserably, in that the populations they want to reduce are growing by leaps and bounds.

"You mean like China? Where they kill female infants because of a cultural belief that males are more desirable?"

Now, how come this has come up again ? After I went and hunted down references that in China anyway, infection with Hepatitis B accounts for over 95% of the 'missing females', but only for 10-15% of the 'missing females' in India. I mean, really, why the fuck do I bother with facts ?

"... I don't think we have any guarantees that they would undergo a demographic transition."

I did find some interesting data on Kerala. Kerala has the lowest birth rate in all of India, where once it had the highest. It also has the highest standard of living and index of development in all of India despite a lack of natural resources.

This was accomplished through education and a low-key small-family PR campaign (we two, our two), along with aggressively socialistic redistribution of resources in the form of education and healthcare. While Kerala is extremely crowded and lacks literally any natural resources, it also has the highest standard of living in India, due in part to: 1) small families, where available resources are divided between fewer members 2) an emphasis on education where expatriates work outside of India and 3) a socialist government that aggressively redistributes wealth in the form of education and health care.

Apparently Kerala achieved its demographic transition both through direct social means AND through improving the standard of living through education and health care.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 1:49 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Capitalists are concerned about excess available workers??? If that were the case, why is the drive always towards more and more automation??

Quote:
too few laborers, and they limit profits

But too many and they face revolution???

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 2:03 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

BTW Byte

I hope you don't think I'm arguing that capitalists are just too NICE to manipulate life and death for millions to their own advantage. Nothing could be further from the truth.

But it makes very little sense to claim that they are trying to reduce populations through means that make them grow. Or to say that a well known, globally-reaching, centuries-old phenomenon - high population growth in impoverished peoples and low population growth in better-off ones - doesn't explain what we DO see today - namely those exact facts.

And, for whatever reason, this seems to be a highly charged topic for you. I observe that it puts together two volatile issues - a well-deserved distrust of TPTB, and defensiveness over loss of personal freedoms - two very understandable and important topics for anyone.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 2:10 PM

Quote:
With the intention of REDUCING POPULATION. That's the other part of your schema. If the intention is to REDUCE population, they are failing miserably, in that the populations they want to reduce are growing by leaps and bounds.

The goal IS to reduce population. Do you want me to find you some quotes from some prominent politicians in support of population control and what they say the goal is? You say you support population control, is not your stated goal to reduce the population so that less damage is done to the environment?

As for why it's not working, maybe either they haven't really started yet (doubt it), maybe the demographic transition IS the instrument of population reduction (as it's mostly an education issue), or maybe they're running into a conflict of interest as they're realizing that they might end up converting an exploitable population. Corporations have already had to move on from China, India, and Pakistan to some degree because now workers can start demanding higher wages. Maybe corporations realize that Latin America and Africa are the last not-too developed areas, and are trying to manage or slow the transition so it works for them, which is in direct conflict with the interests of population reduction, but corporations have more money and power.

Your comments about China are so extremely different from what I've heard that I can't even begin to address them. Unless this is Hepatitis explanation is something that's happened in the last five years, but then why does it mostly effect girls? Anyway, when I said that, I was responding to an analogy Sig was asking me to consider. The analogy I think was valid, but Chinese female mortality rate is I think a completely different issue from population control.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 2:20 PM

Quote:
Capitalists are concerned about excess available workers??? If that were the case, why is the drive always towards more and more automation??

Uh... Because it decreases the amount of workers they need, and makes the rest purely expendable? How does this conflict with what I'm saying?

Too many workers is bad. They want less workers, because they don't have to pay as much / supply as much resources to keep them working. Until they can make everything fully automated, though, they need some workers so they don't have to do stuff themselves.

Quote:
But too many and they face revolution???

One possibility. Unlikely, as you said, but something I think they are afraid of. The other possibility is that they're concerned about their spread of resources.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 2:24 PM

Highly charged? Sometimes, maybe. I'm more enjoying talking it over with you. Plus I'm kind of bored at work >_> and I am a very patient girl. I don't know if we'll ever see eye to eye, but it's good to try to understand each others' point of view.

<_< Though there's been a few times I have been trying to get away a little, because my first year review is coming up next week, and I'm concerned about people thinking I'm slacking off. I try not to. The internet makes it difficult.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 2:34 PM

Also, if the demographic transition IS the instrument of population control, and it's basically about educating people about ways to have a better quality of life, I don't mind that at all, it's still people's choice then. If I had an issue with people choosing to not have many children, I'd kind of be a hypocrite then, wouldn't I?

But, as with the issues I have with mandatory health insurance (and how the expense might hit families), or an actual government restriction on children per family, I can't agree with that. It's compulsion. And with government programs, I also become concerned about ulterior motives.

And if what you say is true, and demographic transition is natural, why do we need compulsion anyway?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 2:35 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
The goal IS to reduce population. Do you want me to find you some quotes from some prominent politicians in support of population control and what they say the goal is? You say you support population control, is not your stated goal to reduce the population so that less damage is done to the environment?

The goal is to reduce population so that we don't face a catastrophic population and societal crash. Is it just possible, do ya think, that might be a valid and good reason, in and of itself, without any horrible ulterior motives?

AFA population considerations, you seem to have "them" poised on a fine balance between "too many to support" and "too few to exploit", between "not enough" security forces and "too many to recruit from". You think somehow they're worried about "the spread of resources" when every famine shows us they are not? Given that the logic just doesn't seem to be there, why do you have an unbreakable assumption that TPTB have ANY reason whatsoever to control "us" by controlling our population???

ETA I just read your other post.

The problem that we are having is that you keep putting a mental "compulsory" in front of "birth control". But I would argue that "not supporting" large families is NOT the same as "compelling" small ones. People face the same choice as before: do I have more children, which will cost $$$ and time, or do I have fewer? The choice has not changed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 2:48 PM

Well, the reason I have a problem with it is it's a difference between a family hurting their socio-economic status because of a lifestyle choice or because they have no alternative options (can't afford birthcontrol), versus additional economic hurt being put on them because of those choices or lack of options.

Quote:
between "not enough" security forces and "too many to recruit from".

I never said this. If they could make everyone who wasn't part of a non-expendable labor force join their military under their control, I think they would.

Quote:
You think somehow they're worried about "the spread of resources" when every famine shows us they are not?

Ah, you misunderstood me here. When I say they're concerned about the spread of their resources, the emphasis was on THEIR. They don't want their resources spreading too much beyond a small circle, and yes, when there's a famine, and their productivity is unaffected, their response is "let them eat cake."

And observing that a group seems to be carefully keeping something within a fine balance does not seem to me to imply a lack of logic involved in the observation. Sometimes something must be kept between two extremes. It's not unreasonable to think worker supply/demand might fall under this category, especially when supply/demand is such a push pull cause reaction idea in the first place.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 3:45 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"if what you say is true, and demographic transition is natural, why do we need compulsion anyway?"

It's the chicken and egg phenomenon: you can induce natural population control by improving the standard of living - or you can improve the standard of living through population control.

The first is an often demonstrated and well-known phenomenon that happens naturally. The second is an experiment b/c, until now, there wasn't enough technology to actually KEEP people from having children if they wanted them.

I've thought for a long time now that China is busting butt to improve the standard of living just to induce that transition, and provide for the long-term stability of the country.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 4:05 PM