Japan -- Geriatric Society

[Ben Kenobi]

True, just not the part of the world that is producing them at the greatest rate. There, population growth is one of the things holding them back

I'd challenge that notion. Look at what happened to the west, our prosperity increased along with our population growth. These folks are experiencing the same thing.

[Lancer]

Originally posted by Aeson
People are made up of 60% water! If they all die the ocean levels will rise even higher.

Bury people in Death Valley for 2 reasons.

1) It just sounds reasonable

2) The water from their bodies won't contribute to sea level rise but will create the Dead Sea. Oh hell, nevermind, that's been done.

[David Floyd]

That just doesn't apply in this situation. Take a nation like Haiti. In what way would a rapidly expanding population help them, when they can't even feed themselves? Or South Africa, which has one of the largest numbers of AIDS victims in the world?

The key difference is that the West wasn't starving to death when our population exploded. In the US, for example, there was plenty of untapped agricultural and other natural resources to support a rapidly expanding population. In Europe, advances in agriculture, as well as imports from food producing areas of the world, supported population growth.

Africa doesn't have any of those options today. What resources they have are largely unexploitable, because of widespread poverty and corruption, and the same things prevent them from being able to afford to import food. Hence the global food crisis. Here in the US, we ***** because we are paying an extra $.50 for a gallon of milk. In Ethiopia, most of the people can't afford food to begin with, or if they could, rising prices put the cost of basic food out of reach.

So you tell me - how will an expanding population help them? Conversely, if we in the West are being called upon to feed them and give them medicine, isn't it in our best interests to tie contraception and responsible reproduction to food and medical aid?

[Theben]

The main issue- and really the only issue- is the expanding wealth of 3rd world societies. More luxuries means more consumption/waste/etc. and there's a finite amount of goods to go around. More people right now= exponential resource depletion, a declining one~ usage stays about the same.

3 guys starving to death in Africa use a lot less than the average westerner.

[Ben Kenobi]

That just doesn't apply in this situation. Take a nation like Haiti. In what way would a rapidly expanding population help them, when they can't even feed themselves? Or South Africa, which has one of the largest numbers of AIDS victims in the world?

And there were no hungry in Europe as they industrialised?

The key difference is that the West wasn't starving to death when our population exploded.

Then why did Malthus say that the population at the time was already outstripping the food resources? Food production rises as the population rises, they are not independent variables of each other.

In the US, for example, there was plenty of untapped agricultural and other natural resources to support a rapidly expanding population.

Where? In the great plains? They weren't able to be tilled until there were improvements in the plows.

In Europe, advances in agriculture, as well as imports from food producing areas of the world, supported population growth.

And those advances were triggered by the start of the industrial revolution.

Africa doesn't have any of those options today. What resources they have are largely unexploitable, because of widespread poverty and corruption, and the same things prevent them from being able to afford to import food.

Africa has enormous amounts of resources that they are just getting around to tapping. You should talk to some folks from there. They are going through the same pains as we did as we industrialised.

So you tell me - how will an expanding population help them? Conversely, if we in the West are being called upon to feed them and give them medicine, isn't it in our best interests to tie contraception and responsible reproduction to food and medical aid?

Actually, they don't want our aid. They want to sell stuff to us. We should simply provide for them out of humanitarian impulse with no strings attached. Why should we ship over our cornicopia of propylactics as a prequisite for food? That's horrifying. You might as well demand that they submit to sterilization in order to eat. The purpose of aid is to help, not to impose.

[David Floyd]

And there were no hungry in Europe as they industrialised?

Yes, there were. You're missing the point, which is that there is a difference between hunger in the lower classes in Europe and the US, and the hunger in the lower class in sub-Saharan Africa. The poor and hungry make up the majorityof sub-Saharan Africa, with most of the rest being corrupt leaders of one sort or another. I'm sorry, but comparing starving nations of Africa today with pre-Industrialized Europe in, say, the late 1700s, is insane, and saying that just as a growing population was good for Europe and the US, so would it be good for Africa, is doubly insane. And no, that's not an ad hominem, it's pointing out a ridiculous comparison.

Then why did Malthus say that the population at the time was already outstripping the food resources? Food production rises as the population rises, they are not independent variables of each other.

Then explain widespread starvation in Africa, Haiti, and elsewhere. Yes, a growing population is not the ONLY cause, but there is a direct correlation between the nations with the highest population growth rate and the nations with the highest poverty rate.

Where? In the great plains? They weren't able to be tilled until there were improvements in the plows.

Ummm, the expanding US population was never at risk of mass starvation, nor was the expanding population of Europe. Even during the Great Depression there was very little, if any, starvation.

And those advances were triggered by the start of the industrial revolution.

An industrial revolution which was triggered, among other things, by access to raw materials, access to financial resources, higher education, a move away from religious doctrine and towards liberalism/rationalism, and the ability of a good chunk of the population to do something other than spend most of their time trying desperately to find food. You see, the nations of Europe weren't starving BEFORE the industrial revolution, either, and it's well documented that the ability to expand scientifically and industrially is predicated by the ability to feed yourself adequately.

Africa has enormous amounts of resources that they are just getting around to tapping. You should talk to some folks from there. They are going through the same pains as we did as we industrialised.

Africa has lots of resources, yes - Nigerian oil, for example, and gold, diamonds, etc., in South Africa, to name a couple. South Africa, though, has gone backwards in the past 20 years, in terms of standard of living - I don't see that nation, as an example, being on the verge of greatness, I see it sliding further back every year. Nigeria, I don't know enough about to tell you, but I do know that corruption in government is a MAJOR stumbling block throughout Africa, as is the tendency in a lot of African nations to embrace socialism/communism, which even che will tell you is doomed to failure if the state and the people aren't relatively rich to begin with.

Actually, they don't want our aid. They want to sell stuff to us.

Really? If we posed the question to Haiti - that is, "Do you want free food from America?", or, to a nation like South Africa suffering from major AIDS epidemics, "Do you want US medicine", the answer would be "No?". Well, strike that, the South African health minister refuses to admit that HIV is linked to AIDs. Ignorance like that is simply another reason some of those nations are going exactly nowhere.

[quote]We should simply provide for them out of humanitarian impulse with no strings attached.[/quot]

Why? If they are going to take the food, take the medicine, and continue on with behaviors that cause hunger and disease, why should we send them anything? That's just negative reinforcement.

Why should we ship over our cornicopia of propylactics as a prequisite for food? That's horrifying. You might as well demand that they submit to sterilization in order to eat. The purpose of aid is to help, not to impose.

So people who receive unemployment benefits shouldn't be required to look for a job? There's nothing at all horrifying about tying aid to behavioral change, if certain behaviors are causing you to require aid in the first place. It's common sense.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Lancer


Bury people in Death Valley for 2 reasons.

1) It just sounds reasonable

2) The water from their bodies won't contribute to sea level rise but will create the Dead Sea. Oh hell, nevermind, that's been done.

Go with your instincts... they're both good reasons!

[Ben Kenobi]

Yes, there were. You're missing the point, which is that there is a difference between hunger in the lower classes in Europe and the US, and the hunger in the lower class in sub-Saharan Africa.

Oh there is? How so?

The poor and hungry make up the majorityof sub-Saharan Africa, with most of the rest being corrupt leaders of one sort or another.

Again, how is this different from Europe say in 1750?

I'm sorry, but comparing starving nations of Africa today with pre-Industrialized Europe in, say, the late 1700s, is insane, and saying that just as a growing population was good for Europe and the US, so would it be good for Africa, is doubly insane. And no, that's not an ad hominem, it's pointing out a ridiculous comparison.

It seems to me the challenge is in your position to show why Africa is exceptional in this regard where greater industrialisation and population growth should not bring about greater prosperity as it did in the West.

Then explain widespread starvation in Africa, Haiti, and elsewhere.

Why is it that Haiti starves, but the Dominican Republic does not?

Yes, a growing population is not the ONLY cause, but there is a direct correlation between the nations with the highest population growth rate and the nations with the highest poverty rate.

There is? Why then is the US more prosperous then China, despite having a much higher population growth rate?

Ummm, the expanding US population was never at risk of mass starvation, nor was the expanding population of Europe. Even during the Great Depression there was very little, if any, starvation.

Well, you should look at things again. Malthus is blunt that famine is a fairly regular occurance in his time which is the late 18th century.

An industrial revolution which was triggered, among other things, by access to raw materials, access to financial resources, higher education, a move away from religious doctrine and towards liberalism/rationalism, and the ability of a good chunk of the population to do something other than spend most of their time trying desperately to find food.

No, the trigger was the Agricultural revolution which got the population out of the rural areas where they farmed, and into the cities where they could work in factories.

What does the religion aspect have anything to do with things? Yes, there was more interest in scientific endeavours, and the renaissance was the rediscovery of ancient knowledge that had been lost. This all happened centuries before.

So why is it only after England gets labourers in the cities that we start to see the Industrial Revolution take off? You need population density. Go read Adam Smith. He says the same things.

You see, the nations of Europe weren't starving BEFORE the industrial revolution, either, and it's well documented that the ability to expand scientifically and industrially is predicated by the ability to feed yourself adequately.

You are aware that the Industrial revolution greatly increased the capacity of Europe to feed itself? The industrial revolution was triggered by the surplus labour in the cities at the time. They could afford to run factories, when they had enough people there in the cities that could work them.

Africa has lots of resources, yes - Nigerian oil, for example, and gold, diamonds, etc., in South Africa, to name a couple. South Africa, though, has gone backwards in the past 20 years, in terms of standard of living - I don't see that nation, as an example, being on the verge of greatness, I see it sliding further back every year.

So if South Africa could be a success, why not the rest of the continent, what is it that South Africa has slid back? What is it in South Africa that prevents them from moving forward?

Nigeria, I don't know enough about to tell you, but I do know that corruption in government is a MAJOR stumbling block throughout Africa, as is the tendency in a lot of African nations to embrace socialism/communism, which even che will tell you is doomed to failure if the state and the people aren't relatively rich to begin with.

No argument from me. It's the management that is holding Africa back, not the lack of resources. They need the population in the same way the west did in order to industrialise.

It may surprise you but the countries with the least population density, many of them are in Africa, and are among the poorest nations in the world.

Really? If we posed the question to Haiti - that is, "Do you want free food from America?", or, to a nation like South Africa suffering from major AIDS epidemics, "Do you want US medicine", the answer would be "No?". Well, strike that, the South African health minister refuses to admit that HIV is linked to AIDs. Ignorance like that is simply another reason some of those nations are going exactly nowhere.

Well I should open your eyes then. It's pretty tough to compete against 'free'. I'll find you some articles written by real Africans who say exactly that!

Why? If they are going to take the food, take the medicine, and continue on with behaviors that cause hunger and disease, why should we send them anything? That's just negative reinforcement.

Where is your evidence that lack of contraception causes hunger? Do condoms relieve hunger? If that were so Africa would be free of hunger when we send them buckets of plastics.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by snoopy369
It rather depends on how you define 'overpopulation'. You could define it certainly as 'population > food available', but that would be a rather absurd definition, considering we don't live in a communist society and all...

I think most countries would benefit from zero or negative population growth in the short term, at least. Spending additional resources to feed people who cannot be productive (due to the decreasing need for human capital, ie labor, as technology advances) is inefficient.

Certainly I don't favor directly reducing population However, if people are voluntarily reducing the population via not having more children, how can that be a bad thing?

The main problem is the countries who most need to do this, aren't (India, eg) ...

this post comes as no surprise at all in light of this post

Originally posted by snoopy369


I generally believe that manufacturing (or raw materials) growth is the only meaningful growth in the long term for an economy; and we don't have a lot of room for that except in automation ('productivity enhancements') which, unfortunately, don't have as beneficial an affect on the economy because they tend to encourage concentration of wealth rather than distribution of it (as they decrease jobs and/or the need to pay as well for jobs, thus decreasing the amount of money available for the middle class and poor, which is the money that drives the economy via spending).

[David Floyd]

Oh there is? How so?

For one thing, the level of the hunger. Yes, there were people who starved in 1790s England, for example, but not a whole hell of a lot. There were plenty of poor people, and even homeless people, but RELATIVE TO the poor people today in Africa, they were far, far better off.

Again, how is this different from Europe say in 1750?

Well, the leaders of Britain and Prussia and France and the US during that time frame were many things, but "corrupt" was not the way one would generally describe them.
And again, while POOR people made up the majority of society, let me make a couple of points: 1)The poverty in those nations relative to the poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa today is not the same - it's worse in Africa. 2)There was a very productive entrepreneurial class, a well-educated, well-supported academia, and the beginnings of a middle class, none of which applies to most African states today.

It seems to me the challenge is in your position to show why Africa is exceptional in this regard where greater industrialisation and population growth should not bring about greater prosperity as it did in the West.

That's what I'm trying to do, although honestly, before we started this discussion, I thought it was so obvious that all I had to do was state it as fact. Seriously. Also, you are slipping something extra into the argument - you are assuming greater industrialization for Africa. I'm assuming no such thing. Why do you think that Africa is on the verge of an "Industrial Revolution" that will propel it in much the same way Western Europe and the US were propelled by it?

Why is it that Haiti starves, but the Dominican Republic does not?

Look how rampant corruption has been in Haiti. Also, consider that the Dominican Republican was under outright occuption by the US Marine Corps for decades, in the early 20th Century - US influence may have something to do with the disparity.

There is? Why then is the US more prosperous then China, despite having a much higher population growth rate?

Well, first off, China's economy is expanding greater than that of the US

Here are some relevant figures, though. As of 2007, the US population growth rate was 0.88%. The growth rate of China was 0.61%. That's not that significant of a difference, given that the average WORLD population growth rate is 1.17%. For comparison, the growth rate of Ethiopia is 2.31%, that of Chad is 2.88%, that of Niger is 3.49%, and that of Liberia is a staggering 4.50%. For a full listing, see the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...on_growth_rate

Note that the growth rate for the US is higher in that link, and lower for China, than I had stated above, which is due to the fact that the US and Chinese figures are from 2007, and the link I posted is 2006. Best I can do, sorry, but I think the trend is clear. The first nation outside of the Middle East and Africa is Guatemala, ranked 31st. Next is the Solomon Islands at 38th, the Cape Verde Islands and Marshall Islands at 41st and 42nd, and Belize at 47th. You don't find a legitimate First World nation until Ireland, at #69, followed by Israel at #78, Luxembourg at #118, and Australia at #127. I think my point is well made.

Now, for the disparity between China and the US, in terms of greater population growth in the US, even though the US is a richer nation, I think the explanation is that China, faced with a MASSIVELY expanding population in absolute terms, took steps to address that expansion so as to AVOID over-growing it's available resources. I don't support the manner in which China did so - an enforced 1 child policy through forced abortion - but China's continued growth alongside of efforts to curb population growth seems to make my point, not yours, anyway.

Well, you should look at things again. Malthus is blunt that famine is a fairly regular occurance in his time which is the late 18th century.

Famine, perhaps. Starvation, no, at least not in the US, Britain, France, Prussia, and the other rapidly industrializing powers.

No, the trigger was the Agricultural revolution which got the population out of the rural areas where they farmed, and into the cities where they could work in factories.

Agreed, but there wouldn't have been an Agricultural Revolution without many of those factors I listed, to begin with.

So why is it only after England gets labourers in the cities that we start to see the Industrial Revolution take off? You need population density. Go read Adam Smith. He says the same things.

Duh, but you have to be able to FEED your population density first. I don't need to be Adam Smith in order to know that if your nation can't feed itself, then expanding your population won't help anything, unless/until you can address the food crisis.

You are aware that the Industrial revolution greatly increased the capacity of Europe to feed itself? The industrial revolution was triggered by the surplus labour in the cities at the time. They could afford to run factories, when they had enough people there in the cities that could work them.

And you continue to compare the relatively modern states of the US, UK, France, and Prussia with the relatively backwards, corrupt basket cases that make up much of Africa today. You haven't yet told me why you think there's going to be ANY SORT OF agricultural or industrial revolution in those nations, outside of repeating the same claim that "If they just keep having babies (and shun teh evil birth control) then they will be prosperous". Sorry, but I need more than that - WHY is Africa the same as Europe?

So if South Africa could be a success, why not the rest of the continent, what is it that South Africa has slid back? What is it in South Africa that prevents them from moving forward?

Among other things, a health minister who refuses to admit HIV causes AIDS.

It's the management that is holding Africa back, not the lack of resources. They need the population in the same way the west did in order to industrialise.

No argument here - but that's my whole point. The reason Africa isn't about to move forward in the way that Europe did is that Europe had competent leaders.

It may surprise you but the countries with the least population density, many of them are in Africa, and are among the poorest nations in the world.

Let's bring out some facts, again.

Western Sahara: Population density of 1.3/sq km, rank #239/#241 (the two below it being Falkland Islands and Greenland, which hardly count). Growth rate of 3.72% per annum, #4 in the world. Without a doubt one of the poorest nations in the world.

For the other end of the spectrum...

Australia: Population density of 2.6/sq km, ranked #235/241. Population growth of 1.01%, ranked #127 and well below the global average. Without a doubt, one of the richest countries in the world.

I can list more examples if you like, but population density does NOT greatly correlate to prosperity.

Well I should open your eyes then. It's pretty tough to compete against 'free'. I'll find you some articles written by real Africans who say exactly that!

Hey, fine! I'm all for ending foreign aid to Africa. You seem to be the one in favor of it. I'm just saying that if we DO send aid to Africa, we should make it contingent upon checking their population growth and spread of disease through reasonable, scientifically proven methods. If they think that is unfair, well, fine - according to you they don't want the aid anyway. Right?

Where is your evidence that lack of contraception causes hunger? Do condoms relieve hunger? If that were so Africa would be free of hunger when we send them buckets of plastics.

Come on. Lack of contraception by definition causes greater population growth, which leads to greater hunger if you can't feed the population you already have and have no reasonable means for doing so.

[Bosh]

Originally posted by DanS
From what I have seen, Korea spends about the same as the US. That means 10% for education overall, not 10% for private education. Point stands that the US and Korea spend much more than others on education.

Not so:

Korean public education spending: http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summ...99-2240920_ITM

Korean private education spending at 14.6% of GDP:

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-256356/PRIVATE-EDUCATION-SPENDING-IN-S.html

Average spending per houshold per month of after school classes and tutoring (not counting private day schools): $153

"During the same period, local households¡¯ total education-related spending, including regular school fees, averaged approximately 303,000 won." (over $300)

That's a lot of money for a country with Korea's GDP and it sure as **** isn't being spent very efficiently.

[Bosh]

1) Negative population growth results in a smaller ratio of productive to unproductive citizens. This is a problem.

2) Negative population growth hurts economies of scale, which become even more important in an information economy.

I think that negative population growth would be a good thing only if it were very gradual, i.e. something on the order of a 1.9-2.0 birth rate. A nice slow gradual decline would give countries plenty of time to adjust to it and it would releave a lot of strain on infastructure and do a lot of good for overcrowded countries like Korea. But once you start falling below a 1.5 or so birth rate you end up with way too many old people as a percentage of the population which is a big problem.

It just isn't right - my tax money shouldn't have to go to people who refuse to act in their own best interests.

In theory I agree, but with such a miniscule percentage of American GDP being dedicated to foreign aid, making an issue out of this is rather laughable.

But then you have the Bush administration trying to steer money away from any aid group that does any kind of family planning at all. So not only is US money not being used to encourage lower birth rates, its actively discouraging them.

[David Floyd]

I agree it's a small percentage, but it's the principle. Would you want your tax money - even a fraction of a % of it, going to support something you consider wrong?

Bush's policies make it even worse. Bush is, of course, opposed to abortion and not birth control, but unfortunately that distinction doesn't always seem to get made.

[Ben Kenobi]

For one thing, the level of the hunger. Yes, there were people who starved in 1790s England, for example, but not a whole hell of a lot. There were plenty of poor people, and even homeless people, but RELATIVE TO the poor people today in Africa, they were far, far better off.

Are you sure you want to go there?

How many folks in Africa have cell phones? Access to the internet? Do you really believe that the average African have a lifestyle worse then the poor did in 1750? The richest folks back then were fortunate to have a privy.

Well, the leaders of Britain and Prussia and France and the US during that time frame were many things, but "corrupt" was not the way one would generally describe them.

By who's standards? They were plenty corrupt back then compared to the standards of today.

And again, while POOR people made up the majority of society, let me make a couple of points: 1)The poverty in those nations relative to the poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa today is not the same - it's worse in Africa.

Really? I would have a hard time believing that the life of the poor in Africa is worse today then the life of the middle class in 1790. In many cases the poor in Africa live better then even the rich did back then.

2)There was a very productive entrepreneurial class, a well-educated, well-supported academia, and the beginnings of a middle class, none of which applies to most African states today.

Well no. Most of the best go to the West because that's where the jobs are.

That's what I'm trying to do, although honestly, before we started this discussion, I thought it was so obvious that all I had to do was state it as fact. Seriously. Also, you are slipping something extra into the argument - you are assuming greater industrialization for Africa. I'm assuming no such thing. Why do you think that Africa is on the verge of an "Industrial Revolution" that will propel it in much the same way Western Europe and the US were propelled by it?

I am saying that they are starting to make the concrete steps necessary. I am not looking at states like Zimbabwe or South Africa, who technically have industrialised. I am looking more at states like Kenya or Nigeria.

Look how rampant corruption has been in Haiti. Also, consider that the Dominican Republican was under outright occuption by the US Marine Corps for decades, in the early 20th Century - US influence may have something to do with the disparity.

So the problem isn't the lack of food resources, but the management. The food is there. You get good people in power, the nation will thrive.

Here are some relevant figures, though. As of 2007, the US population growth rate was 0.88%. The growth rate of China was 0.61%. That's not that significant of a difference, given that the average WORLD population growth rate is 1.17%. For comparison, the growth rate of Ethiopia is 2.31%, that of Chad is 2.88%, that of Niger is 3.49%, and that of Liberia is a staggering 4.50%. For a full listing, see the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ion_growth_rate

Yes I am aware of that, but those nations are far and few. If you look at the fertility rates, they are declining. Africa is the only nation which has fertility rates in the same range as western Europe did in the late 18th century. Everywhere else in the world is past that point.

You don't find a legitimate First World nation until Ireland, at #69, followed by Israel at #78, Luxembourg at #118, and Australia at #127. I think my point is well made.

Sure, they are in different stages in the demographic transition. Africa has changed from the high death rate, high mortality and is starting to experience the large population growth that we saw in the west when the death rates came down and the birth rates stayed high. Many nations in the developing world have already progressed to the next stage where the birth rate drops to meet the death rate, something we didn't see in the west until the 20th century.

Now, for the disparity between China and the US, in terms of greater population growth in the US, even though the US is a richer nation, I think the explanation is that China, faced with a MASSIVELY expanding population in absolute terms, took steps to address that expansion so as to AVOID over-growing it's available resources. I don't support the manner in which China did so - an enforced 1 child policy through forced abortion - but China's continued growth alongside of efforts to curb population growth seems to make my point, not yours, anyway.

The problem is that they will suffer economic collapse. Yes it is possible to make the jump that china did if people no longer have the burden of raising children, but that does not provide a solid economic foundation. Soon their workforce will be declining, just as ours will be except that their workers are only a third as rich as ours are. That will destroy their economy.

Famine, perhaps. Starvation, no, at least not in the US, Britain, France, Prussia, and the other rapidly industrializing powers.

The Irish famine was still in 1850. Famine was still a large worry 50 years earlier.

Agreed, but there wouldn't have been an Agricultural Revolution without many of those factors I listed, to begin with.

There is considerable capital floating around. The major problem is management more then anything else.

Duh, but you have to be able to FEED your population density first. I don't need to be Adam Smith in order to know that if your nation can't feed itself, then expanding your population won't help anything, unless/until you can address the food crisis.

More people = more food that can be cultivated. Food is a very inelastic commodity. There is no incentive to grow more then you need. When the demand for food rises, then the productive capacity expands to meet the need.

And you continue to compare the relatively modern states of the US, UK, France, and Prussia with the relatively backwards, corrupt basket cases that make up much of Africa today.

I think Prussia in 1790 would get crushed by the Nigeria of today.

You haven't yet told me why you think there's going to be ANY SORT OF agricultural or industrial revolution in those nations,

They are in the correct phase of the demographic transition. Severe upswing in population and their death rate is going down while the birth rate stays high.

Among other things, a health minister who refuses to admit HIV causes AIDS.

So if you wear a condom you will never get AIDS?

I can list more examples if you like, but population density does NOT greatly correlate to prosperity.

Fine. Is the wealth of Australia concentrated near Alice Springs? Population density has a very direct relationship to wealth.

Hey, fine! I'm all for ending foreign aid to Africa. You seem to be the one in favor of it. I'm just saying that if we DO send aid to Africa, we should make it contingent upon checking their population growth and spread of disease through reasonable, scientifically proven methods. If they think that is unfair, well, fine - according to you they don't want the aid anyway. Right?

Well then why are we arguing against each other? I think they would be best off without aid too.

Come on. Lack of contraception by definition causes greater population growth, which leads to greater hunger if you can't feed the population you already have and have no reasonable means for doing so.

The first point follows, the second does not. Food is an inelastic commodity. There is no incentive to produce beyond your needs. When the population expands, then the demand pushes the supply to increase along with it and the food supply increases with population growth.

This is the argument that Thomas Gray used to rebut against Malthus way back when.

[Dauphin]

Australia: Population density of 2.6/sq km, ranked #235/241. Population growth of 1.01%, ranked #127 and well below the global average. Without a doubt, one of the richest countries in the world.

I can list more examples if you like, but population density does NOT greatly correlate to prosperity.

I'm not making comment on whether the basic premise is true or not but raw numbers like that shouldn't be used. Most of Australia is barren wasteland where no-one can live. There is a lot of mineral wealth etc to be had from having vast tracks of land, but such arguments are disingenuous given that no-one lives there.