Pro-Life Means Protect the Earth

[BlackCat]

Ben, we've gone down this road before, with regards to more children being better.

Let me ask you a DIRECT, YES OR NO question:

Would the world be a better place, if the average birth rate was, say, 7 children per mother?

For bonus points, support your answer rationally.

He answered as expected, but of course missed his bonus points.

[Ben Kenobi]

Man, I can't believe Black Cat disses the Lord Kelvin defense.

[BlackCat]

Please translate, the LK reference doesn't make any sense.

[Berzerker]

more people, more brain power, more technological innovation

[David Floyd]

Also, there is no rational defense to his answer, hence the reason he failed to provide one.

He also thinks that poor, starving African nations with birth rates of 4+ children per mother would somehow get better if the birthrate doubled. Huh?

I've done this dance before with him. I will post any number of stats directly correlating poverty with a high birth rate, and his only counter was that that wasn't true 200 years ago. So ****ing what? It's true now. Look at each nation in the world, and you will find that richer nations have lower birthrates, while poorer nations have higher birthrates. While the list isn't completely switched - ie, the richest nation doesn't have the lowest birthrate, and vice versa - the trend is pretty damn clear.

[David Floyd]

more people, more brain power, more technological innovation

Then explain the lack of innovation in sub Saharan Africa. Also, if a nation doesn't have the resources to utilize the ideas created by the all the children, such innovation doesn't do them much good, does it?

[Berzerker]

Then explain the lack of innovation in sub Saharan Africa.

Why? I can explain it in several ways and not one is due to over population.

Also, if a nation doesn't have the resources to utilize the ideas created by the all the children, such innovation doesn't do them much good, does it?

Ideas are a resource, but smart people tend to find a way to contribute. I cant believe you think population has nothing to do with the rate of innovation. History is replete with examples of technological advancements coinciding with population booms, like cities.

[David Floyd]

Why? I can explain it in several ways and not one is due to over population.

Fair point, but that doesn't mean that a higher birthrate would improve things. I imagine you are going after either corruption or foreign interference, both of which are true, but neither of which are solved by having more children, as BK seems to imply.

Ideas are a resource, but smart people tend to find a way to contribute. I cant believe you think population has nothing to do with the rate of innovation. History is replete with examples of technological advancements coinciding with population booms, like cities.

Absolutely, but at some point, you start to top out on what is sustainable. Granted, the United States is nowhere near that point, and I'm not saying it is. However, doubling the birthrate in the 3rd World is hardly the answer to solving their problems, either.

[Ben Kenobi]

Also, there is no rational defense to his answer, hence the reason he failed to provide one.

Just because you've not caught onto the Lord Kelvin argument, doesn't mean that the argument is invalid.

The point being, all it takes is one person to substantially change the world works. Lord Kelvin was one such person and he came from a large family. I could give hundreds of examples, but Lord Kelvin will do.

What would happen with more of these people around? Would we not see more innovation? You cannot get innovation from people who weren't born in the first place.

He also thinks that poor, starving African nations with birth rates of 4+ children per mother would somehow get better if the birthrate doubled. Huh?

I look at the west, and how Industrialisation was coupled with a drastic increase in the birth rate. As people became wealthier, they had more children. That's only changed with the advent of contraception, to the detriment of the economy longterm.

As for arguing of the poverty of Africa, you'd be surprised to see that Africa as a whole has some of the lowest densities of people on the planet. Famines there are a result of mismanagement. One wouldn't blame the Irish potato on overpopulation in Ireland, it was an unprecedented natural disaster. What alleviates famines are the ability to transport goods easily from one area to another. Ireland at the time had very poor access, and it's the same with Africa now.

Secondly, the people of Africa are experiencing relative poverty, poverty relative to the west, even as they experience gains in absolute poverty. There's a huge difference between the two. As they industrialise, we will begin to see the same wealth accumulation in the rest of the world. I mean look at South Africa. Same nation, but one is very poor, and the other had western living standards. Whether a nation is prosperous or impoverished has far more to do with management than with any other factors. Africa is incredibly naturally rich.

I've done this dance before with him. I will post any number of stats directly correlating poverty with a high birth rate, and his only counter was that that wasn't true 200 years ago. So ****ing what? It's true now.

It's true in the west yes, but that is because we are again, looking at relative poverty. Are you seriously arguing that the larger families in the west are absolutely poor compared with those folks of even 50 years ago? No.

Look at each nation in the world, and you will find that richer nations have lower birthrates.

We've discussed this before. China has half the birthrate of USA. Why is USA wealthier?

Why is it that Russia is poorer than France? Russia has a lower birthrate than France, yet France is significantly wealthier.

[Ben Kenobi]

Fair point, but that doesn't mean that a higher birthrate would improve things. I imagine you are going after either corruption or foreign interference, both of which are true, but neither of which are solved by having more children, as BK seems to imply.

And killing people will be the solution? What does killing people solve?

Absolutely, but at some point, you start to top out on what is sustainable.

Fine, since you are an authority, and the USA is nowhere near the sustainable limit, what is the sustainable limit? Moby has argued in this thread already that one person is too many for children.

Here's the problem. Technology changes the limits of population. More people, more technological innovation. I'd argue that innovation has grown in proportion to the population. Call it an inverse malthusian.

Granted, the United States is nowhere near that point, and I'm not saying it is. However, doubling the birthrate in the 3rd World is hardly the answer to solving their problems, either.

Why is it that New York with a population density of 2000 people per sq mile is wealthier than Murzuq, which has 1?

[David Floyd]

Smoke and mirrors, BK. I refuse to play this game with you. The valid point is, you claim that an average birthrate of 7.0 would be a net positive for the world, including already starving African nations. If those same starving African nations are starving with a birthrate of, say, 4.5, how does increasing the mouths that need to be fed help any?

The example of France vs. Russia is a prime example of smoke and mirrors, which I already addressed. The lists are not absolutely symmetrical - you are taking two nations near the top of the list in wealth, relative to the 3rd World, and saying that my argument doesn't hold water because the one with the higher birthrate is wealthier. Smoke and mirrors - I'm looking at trends.

Lord Kelvin? What's your point? If Lord Kelvin was born in ****ing Rwanda, it's not likely he would have made much difference. He was born in the United Kingdom, which at the time was the wealthiest nation in the world. Again, smoke and mirrors.

Asking me what the sustainable limit is, is more smoke and mirrors. I don't know any more than you do. I do know that when a nation is starving, adding more mouths to feed isn't going to help the starvation problem.

[Ben Kenobi]

Smoke and mirrors, BK. I refuse to play this game with you. The valid point is, you claim that an average birthrate of 7.0 would be a net positive for the world, including already starving African nations.

Yes, because famines have nothing to do with the population.

If those same starving African nations are starving with a birthrate of, say, 4.5, how does increasing the mouths that need to be fed help any?

Yet, if you killed half the population, famine would still be there. Famine has to do with mismanagement, not the people. Look at South Africa now vs South Africa 40 years ago. Management has everything to do with it. Why do you think people starve in Rhodesia? Is it because the land is infertile? No. It's because of Mr. Mugabe.

The example of France vs. Russia is a prime example of smoke and mirrors, which I already addressed. The lists are not absolutely symmetrical - you are taking two nations near the top of the list in wealth,

Umm, they are not near to each other in wealth.

USA per capita: 45k
China per capita: 6k.

France 33k
Russia 15k

France is over twice as wealthy as Russia.

Or perhaps I should compare:

Oman 25k 5.5 TFR
Vietnam 3k 1.98 TFR

Lord Kelvin? What's your point? If Lord Kelvin was born in ****ing Rwanda, it's not likely he would have made much difference. He was born in the United Kingdom, which at the time was the wealthiest nation in the world. Again, smoke and mirrors.

At a time when there were 200 births/thousand. This is 4x the rate which it is now.

[David Floyd]

Yes, because famines have nothing to do with the population.

Disingenuous. So what? It's simple math. If a population of 1 million is already starving, then adding in 100,000 more won't end starvation; rather, it will exacerbate the problem. The initial problem may or may not be overpopulation, but that isn't relevant in the here and now.

Yet, if you killed half the population, famine would still be there. Famine has to do with mismanagement, not the people. Look at South Africa now vs South Africa 40 years ago. Management has everything to do with it. Why do you think people starve in Rhodesia? Is it because the land is infertile? No. It's because of Mr. Mugabe.

I don't disagree with you at all. I agree that authoritarianism stifles growth more than anything else. Hell, the Soviet Union could have fed itself in the 1930s just from the Ukraine, instead, it decided to murder millions of Ukrainians. Is it any wonder what the result was? The point is, adding more Ukrainians into the picture into the 1930s wouldn't have ended the Ukrainian famine.

I get it. You're saying that more children aren't the root cause of famine. That's fine, I agree. But if there's ALREADY A FAMINE, how the hell does increasing the birth rate help anyone?

I'm not gonna nitpick the rest of your points, because we're obviously speaking a different language. Your point is, if you assume perfect, non-corrupt government, starting from scratch, then a higher birth rate can only be a good thing, assuming adequate natural resources. If that's not your position, I apologize, please correct me. My point, though, is that we have to deal with reality, and regardless of root cause of famine (which, btw, isn't the ONLY thing we're talking about, but regardless) we have to deal with reality, and reality dictates that increasing the birth rate in the middle of a famine is NOT A GOOD THING. Surely you can see that?

[Ben Kenobi]

But if there's ALREADY A FAMINE, how the hell does increasing the birth rate help anyone?

Where did I say I wanted to 'increase the birth rate'?

All I said is that the decision ought to be left up to folks to decide how many they want. I think that population control should be rescinded, what sense does it make to ship boxes of condoms instead of food to starving countries?

Your point is, if you assume perfect, non-corrupt government, starting from scratch, then a higher birth rate can only be a good thing, assuming adequate natural resources.

No, quite the opposite. I assume that people are valuable in and of themselves, and that with an increase in the population we would expect to see greater innovation. I assume that government will be corrupt and try to stall innovation, which is why they support population control.

If that's not your position, I apologize, please correct me. My point, though, is that we have to deal with reality, and regardless of root cause of famine (which, btw, isn't the ONLY thing we're talking about, but regardless) we have to deal with reality, and reality dictates that increasing the birth rate in the middle of a famine is NOT A GOOD THING. Surely you can see that?

All I am arguing is that sending condoms instead of food is disastrous. I am not calling for active measures to 'increase the population', all I am saying is that we should just get out of the way.

[David Floyd]

All I said is that the decision ought to be left up to folks to decide how many they want.

I don't think anyone is advocating anything different, at least not here. You keep bringing up the killing babies strawman.

I think that population control should be rescinded, what sense does it make to ship boxes of condoms instead of food to starving countries?

I don't think we should send either, at least not until the country in question brings about regime change. However, in the absence of regime change - or more accurately, the continued presence of corruption, condoms are of more long term benefit than food.

No, quite the opposite. I assume that people are valuable in and of themselves, and that with an increase in the population we would expect to see greater innovation. I assume that government will be corrupt and try to stall innovation, which is why they support population control.

Governments don't try to implement population control because they hate people, any more than the Catholic Church opposes birth control because they love people. The reality is, population control measures are in place because some governments can find no other way to maintain an equilibrium in terms of sustainable population. Also, the Catholic Church opposes birth control (even VOLUNTARY birth control) because they see no other way to expand their numbers (it's about the $$$, and if this isn't the case, I'd encourage the Vatican to use its wealth to start exporting food rather than Bibles).

Other than those points, you didn't really say anything other than a platitude about people being valuable.

All I am arguing is that sending condoms instead of food is disastrous. I am not calling for active measures to 'increase the population', all I am saying is that we should just get out of the way.

I quite agree - I oppose foreign aid unless it's in our national interest. However, sending a short term solution to end a famine, in a country where continuous famines are the result of corruption and, yes, overpopulation, at least vis a vis that nation's available resources/technology, is certainly more disastrous than shipping condoms.

Additionally, the use of condoms helps prevent something else - the spread of STDs, particularly AIDs. I know you're gonna try to tell me that not using a condom is more effective than using a condom when it comes to stopping the spread of AIDs, but that's flat out wrong and you know it, and so does the Catholic Church - it's just that the Catholic Church doesn't really care about stopping the spread of AIDs if that conflicts with their primary aim of spreading doctrine, and I'm sad to say you seem to agree with that position.