Propose a LONG term solution to world poverty etc

[singlecoil]

Everytime something bad happens in some poor part of the world, such as floods in Bangladesh, earthquakes in Haiti etc, famines in Africa, it becomes clear that many countries are in a very bad state, and much of the time the underlying cause is that there are simply too many people for the natural resources of that country.

Each time these disasters happen governments and people are moved to help by providing food, money and other assistance. Organised charities remind us of the ongoing need to continue this help, even after the media attention has ceased.

But isn't it about time we all had a think about how to either increase the natural resources so that they could support the populations (virtually impossible?), or how to reduce the populations back to a size that the land could support?

The 'Hardinian Taboo', named after Garrett Hardin, is the phrase given to the reluctance to discuss population control, there's loads about it on Google.

[tinman0]

Or how about giving them a political system that actually allows people to drag themselves out of poverty, than the continuing cycle of corruption that bleeds these economies dry?

[eldar]

Put me in charge. I'll sort it.

[CommanderJameson]

Massive reduction in population coupled with huge effort by developed countries to uplift the educational level of developing ones.

[Magog]

Nuclear holocaust...

[s2art]

Increase atmospheric CO2, invest big in genetically modified crops. Sorted.

[Shaw Tarse]

singlecoil said:

Everytime something bad happens in some poor part of the world, such as floods in Bangladesh, earthquakes in Haiti etc, famines in Africa, it becomes clear that many countries are in a very bad state, and much of the time the underlying cause is that there are simply too many people for the natural resources of that country.

So how would the UK fare?
If for some reason we were unable to import food, could we survive?

[singlecoil]

Shaw Tarse said:

singlecoil said:

Everytime something bad happens in some poor part of the world, such as floods in Bangladesh, earthquakes in Haiti etc, famines in Africa, it becomes clear that many countries are in a very bad state, and much of the time the underlying cause is that there are simply too many people for the natural resources of that country.

So how would the UK fare?
If for some reason we were unable to import food, could we survive?

Sounds like an interesting question, perhaps you should start a thread about it?

[fido]

Oxygen Tax.

[Darth Paul]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian

[NismoGT]

Magog said:

Nuclear holocaust...

^ As above

[BiggusLaddus]

tinman0 said:

Or how about giving them a political system that actually allows people to drag themselves out of poverty, than the continuing cycle of corruption that bleeds these economies dry?

Wouldn't work, we need them to be poor to make our cheap stuff for us. The richer poor countries get, the poorer we get.

I can't see how it could be possible to solve world poverty without abandoning capitalism. If we did that we would just be turkeys voting for xmas.

[FM]

I reckon these countries have enough problems what with corrupt goverments, a lack of development,jobs & poor or little modern infrastructure. Subsistance level agriculture in these developing nations is also subject to the whims of challenging climate issues..i.e drought in Africa for example.

I reckon the last thing they need is western think tanks hatching ill concieved plans to reduce the population (..how do we manage that then..killing?..stand on the financial flow of aid?) & generally turning our back in times of crisis. It seems to me they already are holding the stty end of the stick without developed countries `reducing the population`.

Long term solution...?

Africa..How about a pipeline bringing water from Europe across the med through Morroco & down into sub Saharan Africa?

Edited by FM on Tuesday 19th January 18:40

[CommanderJameson]

FM said:

Africa..How about a pipeline bringing water from Europe across the med through Morroco & down into sub Saharan Africa?

Just another commodity for the blokes with AK47s to flog to the thirsty masses at a tidy profit.

[Shaw Tarse]

singlecoil said:

Shaw Tarse said:

singlecoil said:

Everytime something bad happens in some poor part of the world, such as floods in Bangladesh, earthquakes in Haiti etc, famines in Africa, it becomes clear that many countries are in a very bad state, and much of the time the underlying cause is that there are simply too many people for the natural resources of that country.

So how would the UK fare?
If for some reason we were unable to import food, could we survive?

Sounds like an interesting question, perhaps you should start a thread about it?

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=205&t=799789&mid=85240&nmt=Could the UK feed itself?

[pacman1]

Ban organised religions. If you wish to believe in God, fine, keep it to yourself, because ultimately it's between you and Him anyway.
You wouldn't have wars and conflicts then. Peolple would work together better, we'd save a bloomin' fortune so we wouldn't have to work so hard to earn, meaning we could spend the time sorting such issues as poverty and over population.
Just a thought.

[BJWoods]

singlecoil said:

Everytime something bad happens in some poor part of the world, such as floods in Bangladesh, earthquakes in Haiti etc, famines in Africa, it becomes clear that many countries are in a very bad state, and much of the time the underlying cause is that there are simply too many people for the natural resources of that country.

Each time these disasters happen governments and people are moved to help by providing food, money and other assistance. Organised charities remind us of the ongoing need to continue this help, even after the media attention has ceased.

But isn't it about time we all had a think about how to either increase the natural resources so that they could support the populations (virtually impossible?), or how to reduce the populations back to a size that the land could support?

The 'Hardinian Taboo', named after Garrett Hardin, is the phrase given to the reluctance to discuss population control, there's loads about it on Google.

Population maybe

Corruption definetly

[Mclovin]

population explosion or whatever they call it, is the greatest threat to mankind...

[plasticpig]

pacman1 said:

Ban organised religions. If you wish to believe in God, fine, keep it to yourself, because ultimately it's between you and Him anyway.
You wouldn't have wars and conflicts then. Peolple would work together better, we'd save a bloomin' fortune so we wouldn't have to work so hard to earn, meaning we could spend the time sorting such issues as poverty and over population.
Just a thought.

Rubbish. Both world wars had nothing to do with religion. Future wars are likely to be over scarce resources. An example of this is the Llisu damn in Turkey.

[grumbledoak]

A large proportion of the world's starving poor are starving due to corruption, lack of government, outright war, local conflict, etc. This isn't going to go away; people have always been this way.

Then we have water issues: it is a more important resource than food or money, and rivers don't respect national boundaries.


Before we start offering 'solutions', perhaps we should try to understand the problems- "World Poverty" is a facile umbrella word for all the different things going on.