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 (7303)	6/11/2000 8:16:00 AM
From: Dayuhan	Respond to of 9127

These statistics are interesting from a hypothetical perspective, but the perspective is really very hypothetical. There is no doubt that IF resources were distributed equitably, and IF greater economic freedom existed, and IF people in overpopulated areas had the option of migrating to less populated ones, the world could support a much larger population. However, these conditions do not prevail, and will not in the forseeable future. For the many people that live in overpopulated, labor-surplus areas with very limited resources, population control makes a whole lot of sense. The United States alone produces enough food to feed every hungry child on earth bountifully, but those children are no less hungry for that. And just because the earth could support many more people, does that mean that it should? I don't see the carrying capacity of the earth as a very effective argument for denying women the means to regulate their own fertility.

To: greenspirit who wrote (7303)	6/11/2000 8:32:00 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9127

Do you know how many acres are necessary to support a person? Do you know how much grain it take to produce a pound of beef? How about a pound of chicken? I doubt it. But you can find these things out. Do you know how much land is arable? I doubt it. You have swallowed your biases well Michael. There are few people as totally in love with their beliefs as you are. It is quite amazing.

To: greenspirit who wrote (7303)	6/11/2000 1:43:00 PM
From: marcos	Respond to of 9127

Michael, 2500 square feet??! .. where would a person pasture his horses? .. run his cows, grow his frijoles, harvest his firewood, etc, etc? ... assuming here that the guy is lucky enough to draw for his family of four a 50 foot square that will actually grow anything, i.e. is not on a mountain top or down in a strip mine hole ... this is one-thirtieth of your 2 acres estimation, which was already extremely cramped, and did not allow for roads or parks or mines or timberland or efficient agricultural production of any kind ... a single mango tree would use a quarter of your 50 foot square. The capacity of the earth is a subjective question, with many factors you need to input to arrive at an answer with which you are comfortable ... me, i think it's been full for a while now ... just assuming for a moment that the good Se¤or did tell us to multiply and fill the earth, i don't think he meant in volume terms, to overflowing ... and somehow i doubt he had the Hong Kong model in mind for the entire planet. That's an anti-choice site you got that from - well the two questions are not directly connected imho - abortion is a last-resort family planning method for an individual woman, but for the species as a whole the answer is education .... more education equals less children ... i.e. increased education is both a cause and effect of less children [and more educated, more productive children] ... now the education is made possible by advances in living standards brought on by advances toward equitable distribution of resources, but still it is the prime mover. 'The politics of Hurricane Mitch' - counterpunch.org ... just discovered this counterpunch.org ... here's another on-topic - counterpunch.org ... their archives - counterpunch.org