From: ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)
Subject: Re: Overpopulation and other leftist myths (was  Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!)
Organization: TECHNET, Singapore
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 05:25:47 GMT



This thread seems to be spread out over God's green earth (and all the
starving people thereon) so if anybody wants to direct follow-ups to a
suitable venue, please be my guest.

In article <BZS.92Nov19223139@world.std.com> bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
>From: ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)
>>There is no overpopulation problem.
>>
>>People are nowhere starving as a result of overpopulation. On the
>>contrary, increasing population is the key commerce and human
>>advancement, generally.
>
>The point you are perhaps trying to make is that there are, or easily
>could be, sufficient calories and other nutrients to support the
>current world's population (and likely more.)

That is certainly one issue though not the entire story. Few reasonable
people, though, argue that there is not enough food for everybody so
thanks for not making me prove this point.

>The problem being mostly distribution, most of that food is not where
>the hungry people are, and it would cost a lot of money to get it
>there (not to mention that the hungry cannot pay for the food itself,
>let alone its transportation even if the food were free.)

Saying that the problem is distribution is rather misleading. Food
somehow manages to find its way to the deserts of Saudi Arabia but not
to adjacent Somalia. It is a bit silly to blame food distribution
channels for this problem. Of course, you meant something more general
but many people read what you say and imagine food trucks stuck in the
swamps of Cambodia with sacks of rice and people starving to death
only kilometers away.

>>As Juliam Simon has amply demonstrated, every resource of
>>signifance, from metals to food stuffs, has decreased in price over
>>the last century. And, of course, when you consider other sources of
>>human wealth such as knowledge and skill, the finite resources
>>argument crumbles even further.
>
>This is probably true, but it doesn't seem to help the fact that
>thousands of people die of starvation daily. Perhaps your answer is to
>tell them what they should be doing. Good luck.

In fact, it helps a great deal. It shows that they are not starving
because overpopulation is driving up the cost of food or raw
materials. It eliminates the major Malthusian excuse for human
suffering. Knowing what is NOT the source of the problem is an
important step toward finding what IS the source of the problem.

Consider, for example, the choices that a "developing" nation faces
and the presures and influences exerted by international
organganizations. Knowing what will help and what won't allows a more
rational decision to be made. Of course, that presupposes that
rational decisions are to be made. In most starving countries, the
government is practicing population control of a most old-fashioned
nature. It's enough, sometimes, to make otherwise reasonable people
wish for the return of colonialism.

Indeed, knowing exactly what the problem is and actually solving it
are entirely two different things. But blaming continuing death and
starvation on overpopulation merely for lack of a solution is
borderline superstition. You might as well say that overpopulation is
the cause of cancer (even if overpopulation doesn't cause cancer, that
"doesn't seem to help the fact that thousands of people die of cancer
daily").



And now to the sillier responses:

In article <1992Nov20.211820.6977@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (WE'RE ONLY HERE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ALL HERE) writes:
>In article <BxyExr.4I1@lincoln.technet.sg>, ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes...
>>In article <1992Nov16.184439.19349@mercury.cair.du.edu> jvilhube@diana.cair.du.edu (Jan Vilhuber) writes:
>>>In article <adams.721933831@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>>>>There's too many people here already.
>>>>But that is NOT my situation.  And as for you not having any kids, fine.
>>>>Your choice.  Now please allow me mine.
>>>What do you mean that not your situation?? Are you trying to imply
>>>There's too many people and it's time to limit. Your view of the world
>>>is very narrow (i.e. focused on yourself). "*I* have my kids; *I*
>>>can afford them. So everything is fine". That still does not counter my
>>>argument that we have an overpopulation problem on Earth AS A WHOLE!
>> 
>>There is no overpopulation problem. 
>>People are nowhere starving as a result of overpopulation. On the
>>contrary, increasing population is the key commerce and human
>>advancement, generally.
>
>I'm sure that all those countries in Africa will be glad to hear that.

I doubt most of them understand English. I'm sure that the starving
people of Bosnia will be glad to hear that Europe's population is
heading for decline. Their relief is an abortion away.

>>Arguments concerning the alleged population problem usually center
>>around the myth of finite resources.
>
>Until someone manages to actually generate "cold Fusion" then 
>everything in the world is finite.

Only for those preoccupied with the physical and without the
slightest concern for efficiency.

>>Of course, those who push the population problem usually have an
>>agenda which requires it. For example, many leftists are weded to
>>the idea of controlling population because it is a convenient
>>bridge to controlling people, generally.
>
>I think you are on to something now. It's all a communist PLOT!

If it walks like a duck and it talks like a duck...

Someone suggested, by mail, that what some countries need are
desalinization plants. I would argue that they would be far better off
with destalinization plants. Nothing this century has exacerbated the
misery of the third world like the practice of socialism.



In article <By11EL.7Gq@fc.sde.hp.com> marc@hpmonk.fc.hp.com writes:
>I get it.  This is one of those parodies of Nazi-Holocaust revisionism, where
>you deliberately say stupid things to point out how stupid the Nazi-Holocaust
>revisionists are, right?  I don't know, there were two better (IMHO) ones
>posted to rec.humor.funny in the last few months, but I encourage you to submit
>this one in case Brad or Maddi plan to make a collection.

If only life were so simple that the simple minded stood a fair chance
in intellectual combat.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh