I hate the Chinese method of population control, but are they right?

[Ramo]

In just one century at the present rate with a start of six billion

Why do you assume the rate of population growth will stay constant? It has drastically decreased over the past few decades, and I don't see any particular reason why the trend should stop. Hell, many European countries are already experiencing a negative population growth.

As countries become more developed, and their people more educated, their growth rates tend to decline.

[Ramo]

Bah, should've refreshed.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Ramo


Why do you assume the rate of population growth will stay constant?

Given the context, he was being facetious.

[Ramo]

You're probably right. I figured that someone who wrote so much on the point couldn't be facetious.

[David Floyd]

Well, you all know my feelings on the subject - the government has no place in the home in that way, and using economic force in that matter as wrong, especially because I believe that the government should have no such force to exert in the first place - they shouldn't give handouts that they can use to hold people hostage with, and should not require official IDs and the like.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
Industrialised countries are already complaining about the effects of falling fertility.

Must be the governments and they must be ignoring the complaints about traffic and crowding. Just worrying about the bills. They will have to adapt. Thats is of course only industrialized countries you are talking about.

If today's low fertility rates continue, then as the current baby boomers die, things will get drastically worse.

Better. In which case the rates will go back up. People are having less children in industrial nations because they know the place is crowded.

If each generation's adults continue to produce not much more than half the number of children needed to replace them, McDonald calculates that the population of Italy is set to crash from 56 million now to just 8 million by 2100. Likewise Spain would lose 85 per cent of its population within the same time frame and Germany 83 per cent

BIG assumption. It is far more likely that fertility rates will rise again. They are down at least partly because the boomers are no longer having children. In the US their children have allready begun to have children.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Ramo


Why do you assume the rate of population growth will stay constant?

Why not? Especially since I was specificaly dealing with John Millers bald and unsupported statement that we need as many people as we can get.

It has drastically decreased over the past few decades, and I don't see any particular reason why the trend should stop. Hell, many European countries are already experiencing a negative population growth.

Birth rates have only decreased in industrial nations and in China(China being a major reason for worldwide effects). The overall rate would be much the same without China's actions and of course the massive starvation that has occured in Africa and the deaths there from AIDS. I so love population control by starvation. Its so efficient and kind. Its the only kind the Pope finds acceptable and he influences over 1 billion people. Don't look to Europe for that influences effect. Look to South and Central America.

As countries become more developed, and their people more educated, their growth rates tend to decline.

True at least in general. Many countries are not yet doing that. Many countries rate of population growth is what is keeping that from happening. Many have cultural reasons for having large families even as the economic situation improves.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin


Given the context, he was being facetious.

Given the statement by John I was showing the distastrous consequences of unlimited growth. Reductio Ad Absurdum is not the same as being facetious.

[bogi]

Originally posted by nationalist
No. Government has a right to determine how many children you have. That is a fundamental, natural right shared by all living things. Besides, overpopulation is not a problem in the U.S. I think that the reason it is a problem world wide is due mostly to poor government rather than sheer number of people. A country can't feed itself if its agriculture is destroyed yearly by civil war.

Look at what your saying By saying that government doesn't have a right to control the amount of children because its not natural is wrong. Its not natural for people to live past 36. Government has been helping people get healthy and by doing that they made allot people live longer, and longer enough to have kids which then caused major boom in population right after penicillin. It was never natural to have health care because by doing that we eliminated natures checks and ballances. So its right to let people have 20 kids because its natural ?

[bogi]

To add more, INDIA now has the largest population they surpassed CHINA. And if you want to see what having no decent population control plan will do just look at india in 20 years and watch them suffer even more(assuming there are no nukes).

[MasterBob The Elder]

Okay, let me tell you this. You've seen bejing, shanghai, Hong Kong, and the rich chinese cities, but have you any idea how piss-poor most of the countryside is in China, especially in the north. The idea still holds there that the more kids you have, the better, and it will not change anytime soon because it is insanely hard to raise the quality of education in those parts.

The chinese method may not be all that great to you guys, but it is necessary. China already has problems with food and water.

[Roland]

"Really? I thought China was currently a net food exporter!"

Maybe in a good year. From what I've read there are also regional differences. But they really made a lot of progress. IIRC China is the world leader in aquaocultures.

"What is the net for Europe on food?"

The net ? Not sure what you mean. I have some older (1996/1997) supply/consumption percentages for the EU here; they should be lower now after the CAP reform got some traction.

milk, butter ~105 %
beef 112 %
pork 105 %
wheat, rice, corn, etc (all sorts, total) 116 %
sugar 138 %

And of course about two thirds of global wine production. Cheers.

[muxec]

Originally posted by Ethelred
Its not my fact book. Its the CIAs but is more likely that you just have a difference of oppinion than it is that the CIA got it wrong. Of course they could but Israelies have there own point of view on a number of things.

So drop the other shoe.

What two things?

Like you didn't want me to ask allready.

1. Resources: on factbook written oil and it's 100% false.
2. Languages: on factbook written must common unoficial is English and it's false.

[Ethelred]

1. Resources: on factbook written oil and it's 100% false.
2. Languages: on factbook written must common unoficial is English and it's false.

Thats almost as cryptic as what you first said. Its equally unsupported.

What about oil is wrong and what is right?

What about English is wrong as I can't be sure what you intended to say?

From the site

Languages: Hebrew (official), Arabic used officially for Arab minority, English most commonly used foreign language

Languages: Hebrew (official), Arabic used officially for Arab minority, English most commonly used foreign language

Whats wrong with those? What language do YOU think is the most commonly used toungue that is foreign to Israel. Or do you think English isn't foreign?

From the site

Natural resources: timber, potash, copper ore, natural gas, phosphate rock, magnesium bromide, clays, sand, oil

You do have a bit of oil don't you? Not much but some. They also say :

It depends on imports of crude oil

So unless you can be a bit more clear I will assume you didn't quite understand all that it said.

[muxec]

Languages in Israel:
1. Hebrew
2. Russian
3. Arabic
4. Spainish
5. English (according to survey)
We see two more common languages.
Oil deposits. Point me on map on the oil.