The Triumph of Christianity

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
That's why I think it's shortsighted for countries with declining populations to encourage their further decline.

Less people is good. It means there's more stuff for the rest of us.

[MrFun]

Not necessarily true. For instance, the total world food production is always in excess of total minimum consumption among people, needed to sustain a healthy life.

But maldistribution of food is what causes starvation and malnutrition -- not an excess in human population.

[BlackCat]

You are rigth - if we turn each squareinch into farmland and every sea, lake and pond into a fishfarm billions and billions of people can be fed, but is that a good idea ? Isn't there a limit ?

One thing is feeding people, but what about other resources ? Unless, of course, you want the main part kept in materialistic poverty. An argument could of course be that materialism should be reduced, but with my knowledge to human beings you would have to run a dictatorship that would make stalin look like a soft whimpish child.

[MrFun]

What I am SAYING is that it does not matter how much increase in agricultural productivity we achieve -- there will always be poverty and starvation as long as the surplus is maldistributed.

[BlackCat]

I don't think that you are right. I can't remember a case of starvation/malnutrition witch was not initiated by war (including insane politcal systems as that stalin did in the 30´es) or some freak of nature. Of course i think of the last max 50 years.

The first are hard to handle because food often is used as a wapon where the last is easier and often are solved through international aid.

[MrFun]

I tried Googling for general information about food distribution and starvation, but to no avail.

All I got were news pieces on specific, local humanitarian crises rather than more general information on how food distribution works, or fails to work.

[Urban Ranger]

We are producing enough food to feed everybody in the world. It's just that many people aren't getting any, thus it's a problem with distribution, not production.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
We are producing enough food to feed everybody in the world. It's just that many people aren't getting any, thus it's a problem with distribution, not production.

Thanks for reiterating what I already said.



But I couldn't find any sources of information from Google about food distribution.

[CharlesBHoff]

Have any of you ever read the Hateful stuff in Daniel Pipes far right Christian Newletter you get in your E-mail.
He even call Yusuf Islam (former Cat Steven) than terrorist which proof he is than far right wing Christian.

I sign than online petision to ask bookstore tonot carry than book attacking Islam.

[Ned]

We have prosperity and population coexisting. Some would say that prosperity enables population density. Others, even in this thread, have said that population density enables prosperity.

Obviously only one side is right in this argument. Guess which one?

[Bosh]

Originally posted by CharlesBHoff
Have any of you ever read the Hateful stuff in Daniel Pipes far right Christian Newletter you get in your E-mail.
He even call Yusuf Islam (former Cat Steven) than terrorist which proof he is than far right wing Christian.

I sign than online petision to ask bookstore tonot carry than book attacking Islam.

Shame that such a smart man can be such a psycho. His historical work on the Russian Civil War that I've read was very intelligently-written and meticulously research and really good stuff as long as you ignore the more ideologically-charged bits.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ned:

Look at Britain. It was only after they passed laws regulating the countryside, that the population started to accumulate in the larger towns.

Once they got this accumulation, they could specialise to a much greater level, and improve productivity, like the way Adam Smith shows in the Wealth of nations. Once this productivity increases, you get the resultant increase in prosperity, drawing more people into the towns.

[Whaleboy]

Look at Britain. It was only after they passed laws regulating the countryside, that the population started to accumulate in the larger towns.

Wrong. The population began to shift to the cities by the early fourteenth century, accelerated by the increased economic power of the peasants after the first plague and revolt, then the turmoil after the wars of the roses. A steady drain from country to city occured with a reduction during the Commonwealth (Cromwell, you'd have liked him ), then increased exponentially with the industrial revolution. There is no discernable correlataion between laws regulating the countryside and population balance between countryside and city, the laws were relatively minor in any case.

[Ben Kenobi]

Some shifts, but you have to consider the reboud in the 14th century from the black death.

After all, even then, you only had 70K people living in London before the black death. Not nearly enough to produce the dramatic change seen in the beginning of the industrial revolution.

[Ben Kenobi]

then increased exponentially with the industrial revolution. There is no discernable correlataion between laws regulating the countryside and population balance between countryside and city, the laws were relatively minor in any case.

Why this exponential increase? I can't see this coming about without the policies in the Agricultural revolution regarding the enclosure act, and the desire to consolidate holdings in Britain. This forced many people off the land, and into the cities.