[PostFactum]

In your theory - the more people have food, the more they sleep and have children. But look at the US and European Union, food? Yes, a lot and anought. In some american films they throw it to each other. I was never understandind this, but - how many native Brits, French, Italian born for now? Less than emmigrants who arrive there. Children don't depend from food, it depend from way of thinking.

[Lemmy]

romanP romanP:

Well, you dropped a name and a time span, I guess I can't refute that!

I didn't drop a name. I accused you of making the same simplistic, linear-thinking error that Malthus made 200 years ago.

romanP romanP:

Of course he's been wrong for 200 years, the problem of a global food shortage has never existed before in human history until now!

There is no global food shortage problem. There is a global DISTRIBUTION of food problem.

[martin14]

romanP romanP:

Are you blind?

It doesn't take a brilliant statistician to figure out that more people require more resources. Our resources are finite and as population grows, there is less to go around, driving up the cost of everything. With our current global population, the more children everyone has, the more we all suffer, including every new child that is born.

Yup, a good message for you to take with you to Africa.

Canada isn't the problem here.
Nor is Europe, domestic populations are dropping.

[DrCaleb]

romanP romanP:

PostFactum PostFactum:

romanP romanP:

My right as an existing, breathing, eating person trumps your supposed right to make more people when resources are scarce. We do not need to make more people, we need to feed and take care of the ones we have. The whole idea of increasing population for its own sake, or for some selfish desire to have a child of your own just because you want to, is incredibly short-sighted.

Your right ends where rights of other people are beginning. If you can't buy boots for your legs you are not cutting them off, you look for a job for having money.

What you are saying is that I have no right to live because you want to have children.

You might just have met IceOwl/romanp, but this is his modus operandi.

You tell him if he wants kids with food prices so high, he has to just get a better job. He 'jumps off the deep end' and shouts 'help! help! I'm being repressed!" without ever considering that 2 people having 2 kids is simple population stagnation.

[romanP]

Lemmy Lemmy:

romanP romanP:

Well, you dropped a name and a time span, I guess I can't refute that!

I didn't drop a name. I accused you of making the same simplistic, linear-thinking error that Malthus made 200 years ago.

Oh no, I've been accused and had a name dropped at me! No one can challenge you now!

$1:

romanP romanP:

Of course he's been wrong for 200 years, the problem of a global food shortage has never existed before in human history until now!

There is no global food shortage problem. There is a global DISTRIBUTION of food problem.

There's that too. The problem is, we can't just go distributing food everywhere because an increase in food supply helps to increase population, which just exacerbates the fact that there really isn't enough food.

[PostFactum]

romanP romanP:

because an increase in food supply helps to increase population, which just exacerbates the fact that there really isn't enough food.

Half of day, I'm trying to prove the opposite. According to your words, China and India are full of food and EU and US, Australia + Canada + few African "oil" countries are suffering from hunger. A lot of food doesn't mean a lot of people.

[romanP]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

You tell him if he wants kids with food prices so high, he has to just get a better job.

I don't want children, and have a very reasoned and principled stance for this. Perhaps you should have read the rest of that post, or any other post I've written in this thread. I've been pretty clear on that front.

$1:

He 'jumps off the deep end' and shouts 'help! help! I'm being repressed!" without ever considering that 2 people having 2 kids is simple population stagnation.

Way to miss the point, genius. If you're too literal-minded to understand my example, just increase it from two people having two children to two people having three or five or six or seven or whatever number you like.

[PostFactum]

romanP romanP:

I don't want children, and have a very reasoned and principled stance for this.

So let begin with the anti-children cockroaches in your head, and after that we will speak about food prices.

[2Cdo]

romanP romanP:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

You tell him if he wants kids with food prices so high, he has to just get a better job.

I don't want children

And thank god for that!

[Lemmy]

romanP romanP:

There's that too. The problem is, we can't just go distributing food everywhere because an increase in food supply helps to increase population, which just exacerbates the fact that there really isn't enough food.

Your logic is dazzling.

[andyt]

At some point Malthus will be proven very very right. The question is only when. Lots of arguments say we're already there. The green revolution is based on very high oil consumption, which could be a problem. And, the green revolution has petered out, no more increases in yields and no solution in sight at the moment. (Doesn't mean one can't be found). Then there's environmental degradation leading to loss of arable land. Intensive agriculture causes soil salination.

And if it's only a matter of distributing food, how are we going to do that? Are the Americans going to give away their wheat to countries that can't grow their own and don't have the money to pay for it? How do you equitably distribute food when you don't believe in an equitable economic system?

[martin14]

andyt andyt:

How do you equitably distribute food when you don't believe in an equitable economic system?

You can't. There is no such thing as an equitable system anyway.


So prepare for people coming, lots of them.

At first, peacefully. Then, not.

I still think water will hit before food, and it will be in the Middle
East again where it hits first.

[andyt]

Oh well, all he younger unemployed can get jobs in the new military that will be needed to fight off the hordes. War solves every problem, including Malthusian ones

[Lemmy]

andyt andyt:

At some point Malthus will be proven very very right. The question is only when. Lots of arguments say we're already there. The green revolution is based on very high oil consumption, which could be a problem. And, the green revolution has petered out, no more increases in yields and no solution in sight at the moment. (Doesn't mean one can't be found). Then there's environmental degradation leading to loss of arable land. Intensive agriculture causes soil salination.

Nope. How do you know that some bright young kid at Cal Tech isn't going to discover a process that will feed 10x the world's population on 100 acres of farmland? You're taking human ingenuity out of the equation and that's the most important variable.

andyt andyt:

And if it's only a matter of distributing food, how are we going to do that? Are the Americans going to give away their wheat to countries that can't grow their own and don't have the money to pay for it? How do you equitably distribute food when you don't believe in an equitable economic system?

I hope "you" doesn't mean me. If I had the answer, I'd be rich (and fatter). But there's plenty enough food in the world. The food wasted in the course of a day at any medium sized restaurant could feed a small country.

[BartSimpson]

romanP romanP:

This is why people need to stop having children.

And your post is why your parents should not have had children.