sleazy
Posts: 781
Joined: 11/23/2006 From: UK Status: offline
|
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
< Message edited by sleazy -- 12/28/2006 4:53:18 PM >
_____________________________
Opinion is packaged by weight not volume, contents may settle during transit. Consult you medical practitioner. Do not attempt to stop moving parts by hand. Ensure all safety shields in place. Open this way up. Do not expose to temperatures exceeding 50C
|