Re: Congressman Pacquiao would like to ban condoms in his country
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by
No Contest
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
No Contest
Well I would think with the world becoming overpopulated eventually, it will soon become prosperous to have a declining population.
Please tell me what number equals overpopulation? If you think a declining population leads to prosperity? Please explain Russia. Declining birth rates, life expectancy lower than it was 25 years ago.
Poverty is mostly driven by things other than family size or national population.
Basically I'm talking about resources, there are only so much natural resources. We may not be anywhere near the threshold of being able to sustain the population, but if the population continues to grow at the current rate we will eventually get there. Look at population growth charts just over the last few centuries and development that has taken place. We will eventually run out of of room.
What resources do you think we are running out of exactly?
Food is infinite. We need some, we grow some. We need more we grow more.
You are confusing the affluence and greed of the Western world that wants unlimited fossil fuel to power their SUV's and bloated infrastructure and thinking that these things are essential to humanity.
But of course they are not.
Go look it up, type world population into google, or world population growth charts. Check the wikipedia listing theres a section forecasts of scarcity, overpopulation. If you look at the growth charts the recent spikes are exponential.
Re: Congressman Pacquiao would like to ban condoms in his country
Both sides have great point. And I'm kind of in between.
Stop making kids if you're well aware that you're gonna give them fucked up childhood. And more likely they will turn to a criminal.
But then again, Catholic church are just abiding on the Vatican rule.
Re: Congressman Pacquiao would like to ban condoms in his country
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
miles
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
miles
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
miles
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
miles
That is horrible. Really horrible.
It's such a poor country as it is and the only way to relieve some of that is to have fewer children. Only a complete arse could be against supporting contraceptives.
Pacquiao's comment about multiplying was also tasteless and crude. So every one should have as many children as they can eh Manny? Are you going to pay for them?
Yet there's actually no evidence supporting the notion that a declining population is linked to prosperity is there?
To have 2 children or to have 10? You tell me which is easier to raise on an average income. I would assume it is cheaper still to raise no children. I said nothing about a declining population anyway, it is common sense to assume that too many children is costly and likely to keep you in poverty.
In THIS case common sense is simply wrong. The causes of poverty are largely unrelated to family size or national population.
So tell me how one income can provide for 10 children when such an amount leaves most families living pay check to pay check with only 2.
If every family in the Philipines had 10 children, I have little doubt that it would make a poor country even poorer. More food needed, more clothes to buy and no jobs for those children when they get older. And then those children go and have 10 children each. It is hopeless and pointless.
But if you believe that this is a positive thing and actually makes society a better place, I am curious to know how.
The mistake you are making is assuming the ONLY thing that can be changed is the number of kids. The causes of Poverty are far more complex. If it were as you described? A family with ten kids would be noticably wealthier than the family next door with only nine than the family next door with eight in a linear progression. But there is obviously no such correlation.
Again if you were correct a declining Russia should have seen a significant increase in national prosperity over the last decade. It hasn't happened.
Your argument is making little sense to me.
For instance, there are two couples earning the same money. Couple A has no children, they invest their money. Couple B has 10 children, they spend all of their income on raising their children. Sometimes they even have to borrow.
Which couple is financially better off. It is clearly A.
Raising children costs both in terms of time and money. On a low income to have 2 is more sensible than to have 10.
I'm not going to spend all night doing economics 101. (sorry for that sounding Douchey, this ain't 101. what I mean is I don't know how to have this conversation with someone not conversant in economic theory and the vocabulary)
I've given you three books that can do that on this topic. Here is a fourth. Hernando de Soto's The Mystery of Capital.
Let me summarize. The cost of getting 10 people out of the sun, rain, wind and snow is not that different from getting two out. The fixed cost of a residence is the key.
The cost of feeding the incremental mouth is very, very small. It is the cost of the stove and refrigerator etc. that are FIXED and large.
Plus again, you are assuming wrongly that the only thing that can change is the size of the family. It's just an assumption that cannot be defended. Property Rights, corruption, industrialization etc can ALL be changed and have a marked effect.
Please read at least one of those books and I'll be pleased to have a longer discussion.
I'm out!
Educated by books, ignorant of reality.... and common sense...
Obviously you don't have 10 children... or maybe not even 2...
Also how does a government support a population where at least 50% of the population doesn't barely have a formal job, and the political stance on population control is god's word, "go forth and multiply".... Regardless of what books you've read or how experienced on economics you are,,, if you can't see that that is a recipe for poverty that in 30 years will be absolutely impossible to fix, then sorry boy you are a moron...
Yes, you've mentioned political, property, corruption, industrialization, etc all affecting poverty.... And exactly, we are talking about the Philippines here... where all these things are fucked and have been against the people for years!! So you couldn't get a WORSE situation where you tell people to have as many kids as is absurd to them... And eventually high population will fit your economics books, and the Philippine people will all be living rich!
They need to start with something to fix poverty there.... Controlling population (like every other prosperous country does) is only a positive thing....
Leaving everything else out, Can we not just agree on that one point...?
Re: Congressman Pacquiao would like to ban condoms in his country
Telling poor people to have more children... Not wanting to give a teaspoon of blood for tens of millions?!
...and they say politicians are out of touch with their people. :rolleyes:
Re: Congressman Pacquiao would like to ban condoms in his country
everybody's got aids, aids aids.
