andyofborg Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 (famine is natures way of decreasing the population) no it isn't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Hard to say but MrSmith on the money. Keep pumping aid into the Countries that cannot sustain their population (famine is natures way of decreasing the population) and all you are doing is making a bad job worse. Feed them, build them up, let them procreate and bingo, the cycle will continue. Difficult to say when you see pictures of starving children on the box, but would they have been better off never been born, I suspect in tens of thousands of cases - yes. Remember 84 and band aid, here we are 27 years on, and what's changed - bugger all. The starving are still starving. Angel. If famine is natures way, what about bacterial infection? Is this not also natures way of lowering the population? If so if you caught an infection would you take the antibiotics or you just lay back and let nature take it's course? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 If famine is natures way, what about bacterial infection? Is this not also natures way of lowering the population? If so if you caught an infection would you take the antibiotics or you just lay back and let nature take it's course? As we all know antibiotics get progressively less effective if they are thrown round like sweeties so thats a good analegy. Local populations need to find their sustainable level, international interference only delays the inevitable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 As we all know antibiotics get progressively less effective if they are thrown round like sweeties so thats a good analegy. Local populations need to find their sustainable level, international interference only delays the inevitable. So I'll take that you'll also turn down the antibiotics to keep your local population down to sustainable levels? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 So I'll take that you'll also turn down the antibiotics to keep your local population down to sustainable levels? Thats already happened. Antibiotics were doled out like sweeties back in the day, now they are severely rationed. We're doing our bit to sustain our corner of the globe. We should under no circumstances pay out our money to fund overpopulation of other peoples countries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted January 5, 2012 Author Share Posted January 5, 2012 the point is that we have excess beyond what anyone born before 1950ish would dream possible so there is no reason to give anything up. mind you, it would probably be good for us to give a bit up if we have plenty shouldn't we be giving it to those who have less That’s a decision for you to make, what will you give up so the people with nothing can have more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted January 5, 2012 Author Share Posted January 5, 2012 That seems eminently reasonable to me. I suspect the OP is suggesting that we just let the poor of Africa or wherever ( insert poor, brown or black country here ) starve and do nothing to help. I don't have a problem with you giving them everything you have? It’s your choice but I suspect you won’t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted January 5, 2012 Author Share Posted January 5, 2012 That's due to a lack of political will and intelligent and radical thinking though, not due to a lack of resources. No it’s because the planet can't sustain the current population unless most live in absolute poverty. I like the way you pass the buck onto someone else though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted January 5, 2012 Author Share Posted January 5, 2012 So I'll take that you'll also turn down the antibiotics to keep your local population down to sustainable levels? Why do people that want to save everyone always suggest that the people than know the planet is over populated should commit suicide or give up antibiotics. They never actually say what they will give up the feed the people they feel sorry for, not one poster that feels sad at the starving as offered everything they have to help the starving world. The people that took part in Band Aid, they claim to feel sorry for these poor people and yet they live in life well beyond a sustainable level. It’s always about someone else giving up what they have to help the people they feel sorry for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Can the UK afford to house and feed the world, and how much would you give up to achieve this. No, of course it couldn't. But then nobody has suggested it should and we aren't trying to. You as well ask if the UK should detach the island and move it south into the Caribbean, it's just nonsense. I believe there are too many humans on the planet Based on some evidence of over population? and it is this fact that leaves people starving, It tends to be environmental disaster that does that. The UK is one of the most heavily populated bits of land in the world, but you don't see many people starving here. we are after all just one of the many animals on this planet, and nature will always find a balance. And finish with wishy washy statement about nature, what is that actually supposed to mean with regards to the UK feeding and housing the world? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.