A nutty third world issue...

[peadar1987]

Before I begin, I'm presupposing for the purposes of this thread that man-made climate change is real, and will have devastating effects if left unchecked. This thread is not the place to debate this point, so any posts trying to will be Terminated !

The issue I was thinking of is as follows:

There are a lot of efforts at the moment going into fighting disease, ending wars, providing clean water and stopping starvation in third world countries.

All of this is wonderful, worthwhile work, but if it successful, what will the outcome be? I think it would be a third-world population explosion.

Therefore I think just as much effort needs to be put into encouraging family planning, and social responsibility as needs to be put into directly saving lives in the Third World. This may sound callous, but if we don't, the crisis could well come back and bite us with a vengeance is a few decades as the population density spirals out of control.

And that's not to mention the extra pollution and climate change caused by "development" of new economies, the effects of which we're already seeing in China and the Indian subcontinent.

So, the floor is open! (Unless you want to debate global warming )

 

[Axioma]

Raising the standard of living means people have fewer children, not more.

 

[BlackSabb]

Before I begin, I'm presupposing for the purposes of this thread that man-made climate change is real, and will have devastating effects if left unchecked. This thread is not the place to debate this point, so any posts trying to will be Terminated !

The issue I was thinking of is as follows:

There are a lot of efforts at the moment going into fighting disease, ending wars, providing clean water and stopping starvation in third world countries.

All of this is wonderful, worthwhile work, but if it successful, what will the outcome be? I think it would be a third-world population explosion.

Therefore I think just as much effort needs to be put into encouraging family planning, and social responsibility as needs to be put into directly saving lives in the Third World. This may sound callous, but if we don't, the crisis could well come back and bite us with a vengeance is a few decades as the population density spirals out of control.

And that's not to mention the extra pollution and climate change caused by "development" of new economies, the effects of which we're already seeing in China and the Indian subcontinent.

So, the floor is open! (Unless you want to debate global warming )

I think you're making very wrong assumptions based merely on pure human population numbers. That the environment will be preserved from fewer people than more. It would be a bit like saying that it was a good thing that there were world wars 1 and 2 because of the huge decrease in population that ensued. And so better for the environment.

But the whole thing is a fallacy. Firstly, in the case of the 2 world wars, the benefit of the environment from a reduction in population was well offset by the environmental damage caused by the enormous arms production and use from all sides. Then there was the enormous environmental toll from other things such as increased transportation needs, increased fuel use, increased food and clothing requirements (not less) from warring armies. Then there was the huge environmental impact of having to rebuild bombed cities and whole nations. Not to mention the damage to the environment directly from weapons, including the atomic bomb.

I think you'll agree that having more people but not having war is much better for the environment. It's the same in your third world scenario. Having better infrastructure, cleaner energy generation, cleaner water resources, less polluting factories etc is better for the environment even if there's a greater population.

 

[Verv]

I believe that we should allow for third world nations to tackle their own problems at their own speed...

They can develop on their own and... Stand on their own, two feet.

By assuming we can make their lives better by imposing Western (scratch that, European) values is culturally... Ridiculous.

We are currently going through a massive moral decline ourselves... We shouldn't spread that.

I also am glad to see you supported the Iraq war -- judging by your post, you seem like a huge interventionist. It is rare to meet Europeans like yourself who are such supporters of the Bush doctrine.

Raising the standard of living means people have fewer children, not more.

This statement is true.

 

[Fantine]

Raising the standard of living means people have fewer children, not more.

This is a proven fact.

Many third world families have as many children as they do because infant mortality rates are so high, and because many more children die before reaching maturity.

 

[visionary]

Not all interference with mother nature by man, has been a healthy outcome.

 

[peadar1987]

I believe that we should allow for third world nations to tackle their own problems at their own speed...

They can develop on their own and... Stand on their own, two feet.

By assuming we can make their lives better by imposing Western (scratch that, European) values is culturally... Ridiculous.

We are currently going through a massive moral decline ourselves... We shouldn't spread that.

Well you already know where I stand on the whole "moral decline" front, as in I don't believe it exists, or is an issue. It depends what you mean by "European" values. I think the third world would benefit greatly from reduced military spending and racial, gender and religious equality.

I'd support an end to the protectionism and exploitation of third world countries by the developed world, but I just think it has to be tempered by education and strong encouragement of family planning.

I also am glad to see you supported the Iraq war -- judging by your post, you seem like a huge interventionist. It is rare to meet Europeans like yourself who are such supporters of the Bush doctrine.

I don't support Bush doctrine, I support my own doctrine, which is some rare cases happens to align with GWB. I think Saddam Hussein was an evil megalomaniac, and I am glad he is no longer in power, but I don't approve of the invasion of sovereign states based on faulty intelligence.

This is a proven fact.

Many third world families have as many children as they do because infant mortality rates are so high, and because many more children die before reaching maturity.

I'm not saying birth rates won't drop, but I doubt they'll drop as dramatically as death rates, and this should be a cause for concern. We've seen it in India, and we've seen it in the rest of South East Asia, as the country becomes more developed, the birth rate doesn't drop off as quickly as the death rate. Bangladesh in particular is becoming one of the world's most densely populated countries.

I think you'll agree that having more people but not having war is much better for the environment. It's the same in your third world scenario. Having better infrastructure, cleaner energy generation, cleaner water resources, less polluting factories etc is better for the environment even if there's a greater population.

That's pretty much what I'm advocating, maybe I didn't explain it brilliantly the first time.

If we put all our energy into reducing death rates, as seems to be happening at the moment, we're just going to end up with more people, and more frequent famines, wars and diseases to deal with, so it's like pouring money into a hole, the more people we save, the more people will need to be saved.

There is currently huge pollution in India, which is probably the best example of what I'm trying to say. The death rates were driven down by investment in health care, and social welfare meaning people no longer starved so much. However, very little was done to address the culture of having very large families, so now we see huge slums, and returning rampant disease.

There's also the question of what happens when the economies of India and China grow to such an extent that almost everyone can afford a car, as they can in the West. It's going to be an ecological disaster if not addressed

 

[Deba]

There are a lot of efforts at the moment going into fighting disease, ending wars, providing clean water and stopping starvation in third world countries.

All of this is wonderful, worthwhile work, but if it successful, what will the outcome be? I think it would be a third-world population explosion.

Therefore I think just as much effort needs to be put into encouraging family planning, and social responsibility as needs to be put into directly saving lives in the Third World.

You are right they are both important and most of the people and aid agencies that I know on the ground here take a holistic approach to improving lives.

That being said, people very quickly understand the need for clean water and having enough food. They are more reluctant to give up polygamy, alcohol (which is at the center of most religious celebrations) and materialism.

Friday I went to one of my employee's homes. It was a woven hut with a dirt floor. Cooking was done over a fire bucket in the far corner. But to enter the house I had to walk around a 20foot antenna which was connected to a nice color TV that dominated the room.

But I pay for her 3yr old daughters medical treatment because she tells me she has no money.:o

 

[Penumbra]

I'm not saying birth rates won't drop, but I doubt they'll drop as dramatically as death rates, and this should be a cause for concern. We've seen it in India, and we've seen it in the rest of South East Asia, as the country becomes more developed, the birth rate doesn't drop off as quickly as the death rate. Bangladesh in particular is becoming one of the world's most densely populated countries.

In the long run I don't think this will be a problem. There may be a population growth during the transition, but over time as nations develop, their birth rate drops to the point where their population tends to stay relatively static or even decline somewhat. Look at Europe's population change. Or Japan's.

That's pretty much what I'm advocating, maybe I didn't explain it brilliantly the first time.

If we put all our energy into reducing death rates, as seems to be happening at the moment, we're just going to end up with more people, and more frequent famines, wars and diseases to deal with, so it's like pouring money into a hole, the more people we save, the more people will need to be saved.

There is currently huge pollution in India, which is probably the best example of what I'm trying to say. The death rates were driven down by investment in health care, and social welfare meaning people no longer starved so much. However, very little was done to address the culture of having very large families, so now we see huge slums, and returning rampant disease.

There's also the question of what happens when the economies of India and China grow to such an extent that almost everyone can afford a car, as they can in the West. It's going to be an ecological disaster if not addressed

I think that the environmental destruction issue that you present here is larger than the population issue. Many third world countries are already very densely populated. Countries turning into the next India or China can cause a lot of damage to the environment.

In my opinion, and I'm no economist...., the best way to help out third world nations is to invest in their companies. This leads to long term growth and stability instead of continually putting a band-aid on the situation. It puts out a hand for them to pull themselves up to where they want to be, instead of continually dragging them to their feet. Of course it's good to have some help available for the population as a whole with charities, but I think that investing will help out in the long term.

The only dilemma to that approach, as you pointed out, is that when they get more developed, they will pollute more. But I don't see a way out of it. This world is becoming increasingly more connected, and people are increasingly able to see what the rest of the world has, and declare that they want it to.

Hopefully if we keep focusing on better energy sources then we can catch up with the needs of developing countries. If oil runs out or becomes too expensive because it is controlled by fewer countries, then third world countries will have a difficult time obtaining it and have to use other energy sources. My university has projects where they go to countries in Africa and help build infrastructure with windmills and solar panels, and water pipes and purifiers. This creates self-supporting villages, with little pollution output, that have access to electricity and clean water.

 

[Joachim]

I don't debate global warming, I debate that man is causing it. Just based on the knowledge I have that earth's climate goes in cycles of both warmth and cold, and the idea that we have the ability to interfere with that seems like the whole crazy plot they use to have on TV shows of evil men with weather machines.

There is no doubt the earth is getting warmer, however, we had nothing to do with it. It was coincidence that it coincided with the industrial revolution. The one thing that we did do was put a whole in the ozone layer. That is man made, the rest isn't. I actually think the rising heat we see probably has more to do with that hole than it does factories on the rest of the planet.

It is important to remember that we both had more carbon dioxide and a hotter planet during the time of the dinosaurs.


However, honestly, living in North America, the problems of the third world really don't feel like a concern for me (and for the record, I don't consider South America part of it. Not densely populated enough, and also primarily western in culture too)

 

[peadar1987]

I don't debate global warming, I debate that man is causing it. Just based on the knowledge I have that earth's climate goes in cycles of both warmth and cold, and the idea that we have the ability to interfere with that seems like the whole crazy plot they use to have on TV shows of evil men with weather machines.

There is no doubt the earth is getting warmer, however, we had nothing to do with it. It was coincidence that it coincided with the industrial revolution. The one thing that we did do was put a whole in the ozone layer. That is man made, the rest isn't. I actually think the rising heat we see probably has more to do with that hole than it does factories on the rest of the planet.

It is important to remember that we both had more carbon dioxide and a hotter planet during the time of the dinosaurs.


However, honestly, living in North America, the problems of the third world really don't feel like a concern for me (and for the record, I don't consider South America part of it. Not densely populated enough, and also primarily western in culture too)

Sarah Connor?

 

[Verv]

Not all interference with mother nature by man, has been a healthy outcome.

And not all of mother nature, towards man, has been healthy.

I think that nature ought to be subdued.

 

[visionary]

I think man needs to think of the consequences of his actions and may they be for the good, rather than for the alterior motive.