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 : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (795)	4/11/1999 5:37:00 PM
From: D. Long	Respond to of 36917

<<One of most evident problems is the lack of economic development in these societies, resulting in labor intensive industry and large family units.>> This is the catch-22 of the third world, especially Africa. Africa is a developmental nightmare. The legacy of colonial Africa has produced a vicious circle of debt and poverty. In order to develop their nations, massive infrastructure programs must be undertaken, which requires money. They borrow. To pay off the debts, they must raise the tax base and increase exports. To raise the tax base, traditional people are forced into cash cropping settlements, resulting in population explosion. The production of the country in the form of cash crops, for instance, are sold off to raise cash. In the meantime, labor is being expended to produce exportable goods instead of subsistence goods, which generally means that third world countries actually buy their food from abroad while exporting food goods. The population explosion resulting from sedentary lifestyles puts furthur strains on the food supply, requiring more imports, which means more money going out of the country. This is why most left leaning individuals of the unsavory sort insist that the West "exploits" the third world. In reality, they cause their own problems quite without meaning to. It is probably safe to say that most of Africa, for instance, is not fit for modernizing to begin with. It probably would have been better to leave the natives to the ways which have evolved over the past 50,000 years to cope with that environment. It really is a mess, and I dont think there is an easy solution. Least of all merely enforcing birth control where it is inappropriate and will doom these poor saps either way to starvation.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (795)	4/11/1999 11:01:00 PM
From: pezz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

Ron, Ron, Ron, You can't be serious about a war or plague to control world populations. How about if you were one of the victims,huh?? Or maybe your family? Would you be so insensitive then? I get the feeling that when you are talking this way you mean war and pestilence for other countries not the good old USA. Could it be? All this misery to avoid large families? <<Why is that highly developed economies are extremely dependent upon immigration to meet their economic labor requirements??>> This is of course a gross overstatement of the problem. These societies are simply trying to keep the prices of certain goods competitive and thus sustain unrealistic economic growth. One thing that all will have to learn is that we cannot continue to borrow from the future in hopes of more, more. <<Were I a true environmentalist, I would be engaging in planned exterminations of entire nations of people who, like a cancer, were polluting the earth through their own cultural, religious, and societal ignorance.>> Gee, Ron if I were to take this ridiculous statement at face value. I would guess that you would be talking about the USA. We are only 5% of the worlds population and produce 25% of the worlds pollution and use 25% of her resources........so. <<Just who do you plan to prevent from reproducing??>> Limiting families to two children isn't preventing any body from reproducing now is it? This could be done with simple changes in the tax laws or other such measures that take away rewards for having large families. It would apply to all. No drastic government controlling laws would be necessary. I have tried to address your main points. Now how about affording me the same courtesy. When is enough enough? Do you agree that some day we will need zero population growth or does the population grow until we don't have enough room to stand on? If not now, when!! pez