Africa (was ...10 trillion people in this solar system?)

From: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Omar E. Vega

> Many countries have corruption (Think in Italy, Japan and Mexico!)
> and does not mean they have hunger.

Funny, I had never before heard anyone talk about Italy or Japan as
having particularly bad corruption problems. Of course Mexico's
problems are sufficiently bad that the government can think of no better
solution than to encourage the poor to leave, so they can become
somebody else's problem.

> And also, many countries have had wars and they did not trigger mass
hunger either.

No, I wasn't trying to argue that wars inevitably create hunger (though
I think they frequently do). I was speaking of hunger used deliberately
as a weapon of war.

> That does not explain it at all.

No, by no means all. But far too much.

> That may be. But look at China. A communist country, at least in
theory.

China's rapid economic growth is happening despite their communism, not
because of it. If they hadn't begun opening their economy to the
capitalist West (and essentially playing the game by capitalist rules),
they wouldn't be experiencing the economic growth they currently are.
And no, I wouldn't primarily attribute their economic improvement to
their draconian population control measures.

> Yes it is. I am not talking about population SIZE but population
> Growth. Every time it grows the per capita income declines.

Again, this is the zero-sum view of economics.

> Singapore does not have a population growth crisis at all.

Maybe I'd better be cautious here; I'm probably lecturing outside my
areas of deep knowledge. I guess I was thinking about people remarking
how crowded Singapore is.

> Just getting more people does not improve anything. More people has
> to be matched with economical development. Otherwise is a disaster.

No, I wasn't arguing that more people is the key to economic
development. I was merely denying that more people is the primary cause
of poverty.

> No. That's not the cause. The problem was that people in the
> developed world don't want to expend time or money in kids. People
> in the developing world is just concern about having fun. That's
> all.

You're talking about their attitude toward it, but I think their
attitude is largely a result of their affluence.

I don't think 3rd world population growth rates are primarily because
they are "just concerned about having fun." I think it's because 3rd
world cultures are primarily agrarian ones with no economic safety net
for the elderly. More children means more help on the farm, and more
security in your declining years.

Regards,

Mike Combs