RE: The Problems With Globalization and World Trade (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

seeksfemslave -> RE: The Problems With Globalization and World Trade (12/28/2006 2:11:34 AM)

Since if you are poor then in a non welfare society having children will make you poorer, it seems to me that though there is a correlation, ie poor people tend to have more children, poverty is NOT the cause. If I believed in Darwinism, which I dont, I would just as likely conclude that having children, many of whom will die early, is an attempt to transmit your genes down the generations.

It seems that many of us  think we are in a terminal mess. I wonder if that is true.. I do believe though that major changes to profligate Western lifestyles are inevitable. NOT for some time yet. Say 100 years. maybe more. Whether the changes are managed in some way or come about as a consequences of a social/economic cataclysm....that is the question.





meatcleaver -> RE: The Problems With Globalization and World Trade (12/28/2006 2:25:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

Since if you are poor then in a non welfare society having children will make you poorer, it seems to me that though there is a correlation, ie poor people tend to have more children, poverty is NOT the cause. If I believed in Darwinism, which I dont, I would just as likely conclude that having children, many of whom will die early, is an attempt to transmit your genes down the generations.

It seems that many of us  think we are in a terminal mess. I wonder if that is true.. I do believe though that major changes to profligate Western lifestyles are inevitable. NOT for some time yet. Say 100 years. maybe more. Whether the changes are managed in some way or come about as a consequences of a social/economic cataclysm....that is the question.



Poor societies have higher birth rates, that is a fact. Now you may say it isn't caused by poverty and you may say that reduction in birthrate when a society becomes more affluent has nothing to do with increased wealth. However, the figures go together.

Now you may point to the fact that increased brth rate went hand in hand with increased wealth during the industrial revolution and you would be right, the country did get richer, however for the majority of the population, life got more precarious and were poorer.



Real0ne -> RE: The Problems With Globalization and World Trade (12/28/2006 6:15:46 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

Since if you are poor then in a non welfare society having children will make you poorer, it seems to me that though there is a correlation, ie poor people tend to have more children, poverty is NOT the cause. If I believed in Darwinism, which I dont, I would just as likely conclude that having children, many of whom will die early, is an attempt to transmit your genes down the generations.

It seems that many of us  think we are in a terminal mess. I wonder if that is true.. I do believe though that major changes to profligate Western lifestyles are inevitable. NOT for some time yet. Say 100 years. maybe more. Whether the changes are managed in some way or come about as a consequences of a social/economic cataclysm....that is the question.



Poor societies have higher birth rates, that is a fact. Now you may say it isn't caused by poverty and you may say that reduction in birthrate when a society becomes more affluent has nothing to do with increased wealth. However, the figures go together.

Now you may point to the fact that increased brth rate went hand in hand with increased wealth during the industrial revolution and you would be right, the country did get richer, however for the majority of the population, life got more precarious and were poorer.


Well the wealthy cant get it up due to high blood pressure and the poor have no money and nothing better to do but stay home and f*ck!  LOL



juliaoceania -> RE: The Problems With Globalization and World Trade (12/28/2006 9:17:36 AM)

quote:

The main reason for population growth is poverty. Paradoxically the poorer you are in the world the more children you need to scrounge a living. There is a high mortality rate if you live in poverty so you need plenty of children as an insurance some make it to adulthood so you have security in your dotage. Population growth correlates with poverty. When a society becomes more affluent birthrate drops as in the developed countries because you can have one child and be pretty certain it will grow up to be an adult and procreate.



Poverty and culture and religion play a role in overpopulation of a system, but so does opening up more resources to people. In other words people have no predator, they will continue to reproduce until they strip their environment of resources, and then the population will crash from famine. According to the demographic transition model people all over the world should have followed the West in reproduction patterns, but they haven't for many reasons. Without fossil fuels there would be less arable land under cultivation, without more agriculture there would be less people.

quote:

No doubt there are muscle heads that say, if you can't afford children, don't have them. However, those muscle heads tend not to live under the pressure of poverty. The answer is to population growth is development which means increased access to developed markets by poor societies and that means countries in the west need to stop dumping and open their markets. The other problem is that there is a lack of resources in the world for all people to live to the standard of the developed countries. We are in something of a Catch 22 situation.

Population in Europe during the industrial revolution had much to do with poverty. With people having their land appropriated and less work in the country, people moved to the city, they lived a more precarious life due to slave wages. With no access to a reliable food source and infant mortality high due to desease ridden new towns, people needed more children to survive and earn. When reforms in health and working conditions gave people a more secure life and improved child mortality rates, the birth rate slowly evened out and now is falling.

The answer? There is no short term answer. We are talking about something that happenes subconsciously in a population but the pattern as been repeated enough to make the connection between high birth rate and poverty.



In places like Africa I wonder how they will ever move out of the high birth/high death demographic because of AIDs. Very sad.



sleazy -> RE: The Problems With Globalization and World Trade (12/28/2006 4:47:05 PM)

Hmmm, at the risk of making a rather tenuous argument and doubtless coming across as quite obnoxious..... by enabling people to feed, educate and heal themselves by providing transportation, healthcare and knowledge (courtesy of the communication that any transport model either requires or permits) we should immediately put a halt to the growth of emerging nations (those with higher birth/lower wealth ratios) as we are contributing to the very problem by trying to aleviate? After all if population is growing because we send anti-malaria drugs and medical staff to country X by saving some lives, we are generating more mouths to feed. China has a pretty strict population control programme, but is increasing its use of resources. DISCLAIMER, this is not necessarily something I personally believe in, but is thrown in for the purpose of debate. Whilst people are happy to complain about globalisation resulting in golden arches on every street corner around the world, they forget it also means that education, healthcare and even John Deere can move around the world too with some positive effects

On the poverty front, certainly here with a welfare state, those who tend to be cash-rich are (dare I say it) single parents who are paid on a per-child basis. Sure they dont run around in brand new BMWs but they have to worry a lot less about the next utility bill than I do. I speak from experience having been a single stay at home parent for a while. Even now as a single adult, the welfare state would allow me to have a similar income to that I have now as a single person working long days as a qualified professional by switching to a minum wage job for 16 hours a week if I had a couple of offspring.

To transfer this to an emerging nation with no welfare state, if I can have 8 children working on my little farm or sat on street corners with a bowl, they are quite likely to be able to produce more for the family than they consume, therefore it makes economic sense to produce more offspring. This follows on of course to when they all age, if i have 8 kids and need 5% each of their income to support me, it is actually better for them and their families than just having 4 kids and needing 10%.

To return to my point about fossil fuels, the fact that they are fossil fuels is to me practically unimportant, it is the transportation, communication and mechanisation that they fuel that is the root problem. i.e. fossil fuels are not the cause, merely a resource used by the cause. If anything the fact they are fossil fules, and finite in supply is a good thing, as it encourages the world to look forward and not stagnate. If fossil fuels were of infinite supply I suspect climate change alone would not be sufficient encouragement to invest in alternatives. I do not belive that a nations use of fuels creates their growth, but that the growth uses the fuels.

EDIT
The increased population growth during the industrial revolution could be put down to the fact that industry too is a consumer, and one of the things it consumes is workers, so again as a family the more children I could have working at the mill, or down the mine the richer the family would become



philosophy -> RE: The Problems With Globalization and World Trade (12/28/2006 5:00:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
I don't believe or foresee an environment where Corporations will be ceding power to anyone. If anything the future world will resemble the scenario in the original version of "Rollerball" - you know the James Caan version; with Corporate anthems replacing national anthems.
Remember; one man's "table scraps" is another mans wealth.


...the game, the game..........interestingly 'Rollerball', both the film and book version, has as its main subtext the idea that such a corporate vision is, perhaps inevitably, prone to subversion. Arguably the failure of Soviet Russia to micromanage such an enormous economy points to the same thing.

quote:

Gordon Gecko's "Greed is Good" may not be correct, but "Greed is Human" is an accurate reflection for the majority. Without a mass conversion to "Mother Theresa type" altruism in the world that fundamental aspect of humanity must be considered for every potential solution. It's also the reason there isn't any solution with one exception - global dictatorship. I don't see anyone pushing for that.


......at the end of this whole debate lies the tricky and nebulous form of what human nature actually is. This is as much a philosophical point as a psychological one. Can human nature change? Perhaps, arguably it has changed many times in human history. Often these changes occur because artists show society new visions of what is possible.....or debate and test to destruction the current visions. Greed may be human, but so is altruism. Merc is spot on when he suggests that greed is the base state for most.......but there is no law, no principle, no decree that says it has to always be that way.



sleazy -> RE: The Problems With Globalization and World Trade (12/28/2006 5:21:31 PM)

Slightly off topic, but altruism is a myth (opinion - yours may vary) - call me cynical and you would be right, if I do something for someone elses good I still get a reward, that of feeling good within myself, so I am greedy about feeling good. I think this applies right up to nation state level as much as it does to individuals.

There is a poster somewhere round here uses Robert Heinlein in their sig, I am sure they have a better quote about altruism to hand as I have mislaid my quotes of Lazurus Long :)

Human nature does change, it has to match its environment even whilst human nature is changing that same environment. The only thing that doesnt change is that things always change (I know thats been written elsewhere by someone else, apologies for the plagarism). We changed from a caveman hunter/gatherer economy, into barter, and now globalism, the really intersting question, to me at least, is what it will change into next even if its unlikely I will be around to see it?




Real0ne -> RE: The Problems With Globalization and World Trade (12/28/2006 5:22:45 PM)

wrong post



Sinergy -> RE: The Problems With Globalization and World Trade (12/28/2006 5:23:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

Just to add that Meatcleaver has made a valid point. The balance of real economic power is shifting and its painful. Methinks time for a War ?!!?  Sort the rascals out.



The book "American Theocracy" dealt with this issue in the first few chapters.  The United States currency, and the currencies of much of the world, was backed by Gold 30 years ago.  What ended up happening is that Gold became less important as the preeminence of the value of oil took over on the planet.

Kevin Phillips tended to view the issue a bit differently.  From a historical perspective, the dominant power on the planet at any given time over the past 500 or more years has been tied to control of the dominant energy source.  In the 1600s, Spain controlled the seas allowing them to rape South America for their gold and silver.  This bouyed up an economy and empire.

Spain was overthrown by the Dutch, who mastered wind and wave power, as well as control of the waterways in their country, and ended up building an empire with it.

The Dutch were overtaken by the British who developed a strong navy, but more so the British saw the rise of the first industrial revolution and the building of an empire based on the use of coal.

The British ended up fading into the sunset with the rise of petroleum products and their control in the modern world..

The United States capitalized on petroleum and built an economy and a world power.  The capital to build this eventually left the borders of the United States and went global with the grown of multi-national corporate structures.

What we have with globalization is a multinational, conscienceless company which is riding the tide of an oil economy.  We are also seeing the change from cheap and easy to access oil to difficult to find and gradually disappearing oil.

What will end up happening is one of two things.

1)  A new energy source will be developed to allow the current globalization structure to survive.  It will change, although I suspect the changes may not be pleasant. 

2)  A new energy source will not be developed that can sustain the current global structure, and it will collapse.  I suspect the death throes of this collapse will be extremely painful for pretty much everybody.

It was an interesting analysis, although for the purposes of the book it was describing the fact that each and every one of these civilizations previously listed showed a dramatic rise in fundamentalist religions just prior to going toes up.

The reason I put the quote in there is that our problems in Iraq, the Soviet Union's problems in Afghanistan, our problems with Venezuala, Mexico's problems with everybody, and the rise of China as a dominating world economic power, are all tied to energy.

juliaoceania made the point that our population rate is tied to oil.  I tend to both agree and disagree with this.  Oil has allowed us to feed people more easily in more far flung parts of the globe.  However, there is a cultural bias almost globally to have large families.  This works fine when 50% of the children born do not live to adulthood, and the average age of death is 35.  It does not work on a planet where infant mortality is negligible and people live ages approaching a century. 

The reason I disagree with the assessment that our population rate is tied to oil is that if you took some other type of energy and used it, the population rate would not change.

Just me, could be wrong, but there you go.

Sinergy



Sinergy -> RE: The Problems With Globalization and World Trade (12/28/2006 5:34:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy

China has a pretty strict population control programme, but is increasing its use of resources. 



China has 1 out of every 4 people on the planet, and up to 20 years ago they were increasing their population at something ridiculous like 1.8 children for every adult.   The Chinese government instituted a draconian solution and heavily taxed any births over 1 to a couple.  Their current population is at parity; 1 child for every 1 adult.

India had a similar problem.  They did not take similar measures to China, but the disparity between the rich and the poor tends to take measures into it's own hands.  India currently has >1 child for every adult.  In other words, the population of India is shrinking dramatically.

I read a study on this issue about 8 years ago that described the most likely source for this issue.  Since parents can only have 1 child in China, and since sociologically the only cherished gender is male, and since it is medically possible to determine the gender of a child in utero, people in China are simply choosing to abort female babies.  What this means on a population-wide perspective is that even if you have 1 child born to 1 adult, in a generation or two you will end up with 1 female child for every 10-15 male children.

Another major issue that China is facing is their rampant overuse of resources, most predominantly coal, have led to an explosion of pollution related illnesses and diseases formerly found primarily in the West.  The last statistic I read on this subject basically pointed out that 1/3 of China's gross national product is actually used for health care of it's citizens.  The cool (or not) thing about China is if the government decides to force everybody to ride a bike, only breathe air or use the toilet every other day, they can and will do so.

The idea I get when I read about Globalization is that historically, any outside influence which tried to change China has ended up being changed and becoming intrinsically Chinese.

Just me, could be wrong, but there you go.

Sinergy



losttreasure -> RE: The Problems With Globalization and World Trade (12/28/2006 7:14:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy

There is a poster somewhere round here uses Robert Heinlein in their sig, I am sure they have a better quote about altruism to hand as I have mislaid my quotes of Lazurus Long :)


He did.  [;)] 

"Beware of altruism. It is based on self-deception, the root of all evil."

and

"Never appeal to a man's "better nature". He may not have one. Invoking his self-interest gives you more leverage."



sleazy -> RE: The Problems With Globalization and World Trade (12/28/2006 8:17:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy

China has a pretty strict population control programme, but is increasing its use of resources. 



China has 1 out of every 4 people on the planet, and up to 20 years ago they were increasing their population at something ridiculous like 1.8 children for every adult.   The Chinese government instituted a draconian solution and heavily taxed any births over 1 to a couple.  Their current population is at parity; 1 child for every 1 adult.

India had a similar problem.  They did not take similar measures to China, but the disparity between the rich and the poor tends to take measures into it's own hands.  India currently has >1 child for every adult.  In other words, the population of India is shrinking dramatically.
I may be mistaken, but should this not read that the population of China is reducing due to lack of females and India grows due to no infant/adult parity?

I read a study on this issue about 8 years ago that described the most likely source for this issue.  Since parents can only have 1 child in China, and since sociologically the only cherished gender is male, and since it is medically possible to determine the gender of a child in utero, people in China are simply choosing to abort female babies.  What this means on a population-wide perspective is that even if you have 1 child born to 1 adult, in a generation or two you will end up with 1 female child for every 10-15 male children.

I do have a little fear that in the future this could mean that for the chinese at least that females could become a marketable commodity. Perversely it could also result in a shift in power between the genders where the ability to pick and choose spouse gives the female more power. Perhaps a male sub paradise or hell depending on how you look at it [:D]
quote:



Another major issue that China is facing is their rampant overuse of resources, most predominantly coal, have led to an explosion of pollution related illnesses and diseases formerly found primarily in the West.  The last statistic I read on this subject basically pointed out that 1/3 of China's gross national product is actually used for health care of it's citizens.  The cool (or not) thing about China is if the government decides to force everybody to ride a bike, only breathe air or use the toilet every other day, they can and will do so.

I think that any cultural shift caused by the gender imbalance could have a great effect on any tyranny or lack of in the government. Consumerism is already having an effect to those ends imho.
quote:


The idea I get when I read about Globalization is that historically, any outside influence which tried to change China has ended up being changed and becoming intrinsically Chinese.

Just me, could be wrong, but there you go.

Sinergy

No, I think you are right, simply the massive population of China combined with it all having pretty much the same cultural/ethnic basis makes it very easy to swallow any outside influence, if the USSR, or even the US had a similar foundation global history would be much different I think. However consumerism and the mass media that comes with it are making tiny pinpricks into the basic culture.




Thank you very much Losttreasure, it was the second quote I was had in mind, but have misplaced my copy of Time Enough for Love. (wanders off to amazon to order a new copt whilst contemplating a Heinlien & bdsm thread and Heinlienism as a possible religion [:)] I know a couple of other posters probably grok that)



Sinergy -> RE: The Problems With Globalization and World Trade (12/28/2006 9:58:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy

I may be mistaken, but should this not read that the population of China is reducing due to lack of females and India grows due to no infant/adult parity?



I suppose this is true.  But from my perspective it oversimplifies the problem.

China insists a couple can have one child.

Chinese couples go "huh" and abort female children.

China ends up having an excessive amount of male children compared to the number of female births.

Chinas population drops because of the lower number of females.

I recognize it is a problem, but personally I unsure who to blame for the problem. 

Just me, etc.

Sinergy



Real0ne -> RE: The Problems With Globalization and World Trade (12/28/2006 10:34:19 PM)

Julia whats the circumstances behind fossil fuels increasing population?  Not sure of th edynamics there.



juliaoceania -> RE: The Problems With Globalization and World Trade (12/28/2006 10:42:24 PM)

Ok, because of fossils (it could be some other energy source, but fossils are the energy source that enables this) we are able to grow more food, extend life, and ship the food that is grown around the world. The more food any species has, the more they reproduce, they will reproduce until they run out of food. Once this happens the species will have exceeded carrying capacity and their numbers will crash because of disease and lack of food. Before fossils enabled us to have a global economy that moves at fast speeds, we had to rely on local food supplies to sustain local populations. This is not the case anymore. Instead of having local economies that are sustained by local food sources, we have a globe that is so uber connected that we may end up exceding global carrying capacity. Without fossils (or an energy source of equal potential) this would not have happened to the degree it has. We have a world built on fossils. We start wars over who controls them, nations rise and fall due to the want of this resource.



Sinergy -> RE: The Problems With Globalization and World Trade (12/28/2006 11:00:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy

I do have a little fear that in the future this could mean that for the chinese at least that females could become a marketable commodity. Perversely it could also result in a shift in power between the genders where the ability to pick and choose spouse gives the female more power. Perhaps a male sub paradise or hell depending on how you look at it [:D]



While  I could consider this possible, I dont think it is culturally feasible.

A family has the opportunity to abort a female fetus or carry it to term for some financial benefit 17 years after she is born, which may not happen.  Or they can get an abortion for a small amount of money and then bear a son who  will work to support his family as Chinese custom demands.

I think the whole thing has more nuttiness than off-the-shelf granola, but that seems to be the general desire.

Sinergy



Sinergy -> RE: The Problems With Globalization and World Trade (12/30/2006 7:34:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy

Slightly off topic, but altruism is a myth (opinion - yours may vary) - call me cynical and you would be right, if I do something for someone elses good I still get a reward, that of feeling good within myself, so I am greedy about feeling good. I think this applies right up to nation state level as much as it does to individuals.



I would agree with this, although from a Buddhist perspective.

If everything outside of one's own consciousness is meaningless, how exactly can one be "altruistic" which posits something outside of oneself to be good to.

On the other hand, Buddhists by and large are some of the most altruistic people on the planet, the reason being that they are doing it for their own personal feelings and not for some lofty greater good idealism.

Just me, etc.

Sinergy



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875