From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Population
Date: 15 Sep 92 01:30:11 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney) writes:  
     The stuff with one >

>tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
     the stuff with >>

jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes:
     This was me.  I wrote the stuff with >>> and the stuff with no >'s
     I said I was done with this, but my good name (what, why are you laughing?)
     was dragged into this, so I'd like to clear up my point.

[I was responding to the argument that starvation in Africa is due to warfare]

>>>I've always wondered about logic like this.  I suppose the increasing 
>>>population in sub-saharan Africa to going to stabilize politics thus
>>>making food available?  Sure.  Makes sense to me. 
>>
>>This is the point I've been listening for. It really doesn't matter what
>>the reasons for starvation are. It is happening.

>Garbage. Ignorant hand-waiving garbage. If you want to provide a solution, you
>have to know the causes.

First, I'd like to point out that I'm not the same person who wrote the follow
up to my post, nor do we agree on all things.  Doug lumps us togther.  Since 
the mid 80's, America has stopped giving moneyt to the UN agency that works to
combat population growth in the third world. Come to think of it, I believe
we don't give the UN any money anymore.  Anyway, my point is the following,
given that there is an unfulfilled demand for birth control (I don't think I've
cited sources here, but if you want I'll dig some up) and that population
growth in the third world tends to eat up progress made by foreign aid, it makes
sense to help reduce growth - where the assistance is desired - instead of 
sending cash.  I then went on to suggest that lowering growth would be more 
likely to help  stabilize the region that not lowering growth.  

Please explain whether you disagree with my givens or explain why my assumption
is wrong.

>In Ethopia, we would have had to overthrow the (Communist) government and
>create a new one. In Somalia, we'd have to hunt down all the warring factions
>and install a military presence.

>Will you two volunteer to be in the army? Kill people in order to feed
>villages. That's about what it takes.

Naughty, naughty - you're lumping us together again.  I never suggested we 
should try to solve the whole problem.  I suggested what I believe is a cheap
way to help, certainly in the long run.

>>>I see, so In ten years, all those green technologies the crazy tree huggers
>>>have been working on are going to be suitably conservative for you to use?

>Oh pleaseeeeee. You patronizing bunch of know-it-alls. As soon as oil becomes
>too expensive, other substitutes will become available.

But transitions take a while.  The people who are working on electric vehicles,
which may eventually be quite competitive with gas powered ones, or solar 
thermal power, or finding ways to _save_ money through conservation are doing
it because it's a good investment.  The substitutes you're talking about are
being worked on now, but you're slamming them.

-- 
Josh Hopkins              "I believe that there are moments in history when 
                           challenges occur of such a compelling nature that to 
j-hopkins@uiuc.edu         miss them is to miss the whole meaning of an epoch.
jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu  Space is such a challenge"       - James A. Michener   
Newsgroups: sci.space