Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : About that Cuban boy, Elian -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: greenspirit who wrote (7201)	6/9/2000 10:54:00 AM
From: X Y Zebra	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 9127

In order for me to answer your question, I need to understand what you mean by "family planning strategy" and at what point abortion would be used to implement that "strategy". Ah I see, answer a question with a question... ok. Never mind, that gave me a clue. Thanks. I wonder what is, is ? The planet can sustain many times 8 billion people. So the inference that 8 or 9 billion is some huge problem is misguided IMO. Sure... That's why CURRENTLY people are starving, they FOR SURE are MISGUIDED given the fact that they continue to have children, regardless of how starved they are. I guess if they were to "misguide" their penis they would solve part of the CURRENT overpopulation problem. Most of the problems related to poverty and starvation are caused by lack of economic freedom. Not by the size of the population. If population size or density alone were the cause, Japan would be an economic wasteland. Freedom begets the creation of wealth, freedom creates the environment upon which higher living standards occur. Aha... well, I wonder if the masses know that, it would be a good thing if they did, perhaps they would have more freedom to have less children then. If wealthy societies focused more of their energy toward changing the conditions in other countries related to economic freedom, poverty and starvation would be more effectively addressed. What ? you mean "re-distribution" of wealth ? or... "policing" of other people's choices how to run their affairs ? Or, Interference on other countries politics ? Hmm I guess I must be "misguided" since frankly I do not know how you would suggest that said wealthy nations would "focus" their energy towards the less wealthy. Lots of "ifs" here... If my aunt had wheels, she would be a bicycle too. he he he... So, given the fact that ifsuch poor countries were to learn how to effectively use their economic resources, then, the world could easily support 9 bill plus human beings, then forget overpopulation, let's go and populate the world NOW... since... one of this centuries people will become more efficient and capable of maintaining a higher standard of living for all. Hmmm I wonder who is really misguided.

To: greenspirit who wrote (7201)	6/9/2000 11:23:00 AM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 9127

The planet can sustain many times 8 billion people. Huh? If by "sustain" you mean simply producing enough food to keep them from starvation, perhaps so. If population size or density alone were the cause, Japan would be an economic wasteland. Freedom begets the creation of wealth, freedom creates the environment upon which higher living standards occur. Japan can keep it's standard of living. I feel squished in the U.S. I wouldn't want to live as the Japanese do. Fortunately, Michael, bias won't be an issue for us here because each of us has his own sense of how much elbow room is optimal. All perspectives are equally valid. From my perspective, the world would be a lot better if there were only half as many of us. I sure don't want more. Karen