That is not the definition of subsistence farming. You’re welcome to look up why, if you’d like, rather than looking up dictionary definitions of the words “subsist” and “farm.” I’ll be nice and save you the trouble, though. Subsistence farmers grow only what they need for themselves, and do not produce excess crops to sell. It does not imply that they can barely grow enough to survive, only that they grow only what they need to survive and no more.
Uh???
The US welfare system?? Taxpayer’s dollar subsidizing 5 or 6 kids??? 
Ehem! I do say sir! (I take the member’s nick’s ending to be literal)
Rather surprising statements re The US from a European perspective. Not that I am a great proponent of the big state machinery, but wouldn’t you say that you’re exaggerating this a tad bit? Or should I say that you might even be completely wrong? Could you provide some cites showing us a clear-cut relationship between large families and the US welfare system?
Meanwhile I’ll posit this instead: It is arguably so that a heightened socially acceptable standard of living with the ensuing raised cost of raring children restricts the number of children a family chooses to have. Therefore very large families tend to be found mainly in the lowest and highest income brackets. In the lower income brackets because it is acceptable in their social context to raise children below the average generally accepted social standard and in the higher because they can afford to have more children at or even above the generally accepted standard. Hence it goes to argue that your food stamp mother is not having kids because she is on food stamps and thus can afford it, but rather that the two are parallel events in her life not inter-related, but both related to her poverty. You argument is a logical fallacy in as much as that the simultaneous occurrence of these events does not by itself give that they are results of each other.
Charming! But I’ll disregard the implied views of humanity as it has little to do with the topic on hand.
However, before you even try:
You said ‘survive’ and I said ‘socially acceptable standard of living’ which is not the same. Food stamps would qualify as quite a bit below par on the desired standard of living scale of things, don’t you say? Hence the government providing food stamps does not make your argument less of a fallacy.
The car bit in your anecdotal reference is the best I think. Priceless logic. When I lived in the states and from what I know of the current situation through my yonder family and from the ads that I get in my periodicals, I understand the availability of car financing even for the financially impaired to be rather on the generous side. Correct me if you like with a cite proving a stringent relationship between poverty and the absolute impossibility of having a new car in the US.
As for the rest of this thread I think the previously linked thread does the job. If you want my view, I think the idea that Mama Earth is overpopulated is nothing other than Neo-Malthusian hogwash.
Sparc
Well considering that Arabs have always maintained an enormous majority over the Israelis in that area, adding a few more shouldn’t be too surprising or worrisome.
[sub]There must be an unspoken rule that all the threads here have to mention Israel in some shape or fashion.[/sub]
Overpopulation is not a problem in the US. So it confuses me why anyone would bring Uncle Sam into this discussion.
Feed your brain, Bandanaman!
http://www.fair.org/extra/9505/welfare-myths.html
http://www.wroc.org/mythfact.htm
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/opre/characteristics/fy98/sum.htm
Actually birth rates in Latin America are down. Besides you will have a hard time finding a spot on Earth more with such a low population as Argentina.
Read a newspaper, monstro. Open your eyes. Go to the mall. You’ll figure it out.
There you go, monstro, if you go to the mall and look around (presumably at all the hormone-ridden teens hanging about) you’ll see right away why, despite a falling birth rate, (and despite draconian changes to the welfare system five years ago), the U.S. is about to overpopulate itself with poor people.
Those facts to which you linked have nothing on the TRUTH that one can see at the mall.
Figure out what? Is that the best you can do for a cite?
In one breath you talk about birth rates and in another you talk about population size. The two are related, but they are totally different things.
But even if this wasn’t so, I think you are quite mistaken. Follow this cite and you’ll see what I’m talking about.
Do you have a cite for this? I was under the impression that India has a population growth rate twice that of China. A casual google search would support that view
from this site: http://www.jhuccp.org/pr/m14/m14chap3_1.stm
China and India, the world’s first and second most populous countries, provide examples of how even modest population growth rates translate into large absolute numbers when the population base is large. In China the population growth rate is about 1% per year, estimated in 1998 (135). Nevertheless, because China’s population is over 1.2 billion people, even a low population growth rate means 12 million additional people each year. India’s population growth rate, which is substantially higher than China’s, at about 1.9% per year, means about 18 million people added each year to India’s current population of about 970 million (180).
More grist for the mill on China:
http://www.paulnoll.com/population-discussion.html
In addition to Japan and Europe have aging populations and low growth rates, Australia, setting aside immigration, has a zero % growth rate. Some high profile people in Australia are working to change current governmental attitudes towards immigration to ensure that Australia remains viable in the future.
When I was doing research from BBC archives, I came across a wonderful interview on celluloid with some (doubtless long-dead) scientist explaining how the over-population of the world was going to affect us all. IIRC the IV was from about the 1950s/60s, and he was giving a futurist’s perspective.
Quite seriously, he explained how by the year 2000, there would not be enough land to house us on, let alone grow crops, so we would have to live and work in vast towerblocks, and be fed a special chemical soup, with everything recycled. In retrospect, his vision was not unlike that of the people-farms in the Matrix.
However - very fortunately - he was wrong. That said, I do believe the size and greed of our (growing) popluation is irreparably ravaging the earth. Already, we do not recycle enough, we consume too much, we over-crop, we generate waste, we poison land, river and sea.
Whether the earth and mother nature will “bounce back” who knows? It’s somewhat of a huge risk to carry on regardless and hope that they will.
I do not know how you define “over-population” let alone measure the maximum sustainable population on earth. But we are already feeling the effects of “population”, so arguably the effects of a “greater population” will only be worse.
What are the effects of “population”?
Well, I actually noted birth rate rather than growth rate, but you are still correct that I misspoke.
In the early 1950s, China and India had comparable rates (both birth and growth). Each country has used “education” attempts to lower those rates–although only China has enacted punitive laws. In the southern regions of India, where the social status of women and the standard of living have both been raised in the last 50 years, the rates for India have sometimes dropped below those of China. However, in the northern regions of India, where few similar changes have taken hold, the effect has been much less, leaving India with a much higher overall growth rate (1.68% vs China’s .77% – other sources give 1.9% vs China’s 1%) as well as a significantly higher overall birth rate (2.5% vs China’s 1.5%). Given that they were each in the 6% range fifty years ago, they have still each made great strides.
http://www.photius.com/wfb1999/rankings/birth_rate_1.html
http://www.photius.com/wfb1999/rankings/population_growth_1.html
Indian birth rates by region:
http://www.mapsofindia.com/maps/india/h3i25.jpg
Well, with the prices at the GAP and A&F, no wonder all those people at the mall are poor!!!
Well, when two people love each other very much…
Anyone have statistics showing how farming has increased production over the past, say 50 years? We can then compare it to a population graph over the same time period and see if we are in trouble. i tried looking myself, but the closest i could find was this biotech site, though it had some interesting things it was going to do soon: http://www.betterfoods.org/Promise/Hunger/Hunger.htm
In and of itself, a growing population is not a problem.
A drastic increase in population in a world with 1.2 billion starving people is a big problem.
-TGD
Interesting how you expect Banadanman to produce cites for his claims, while exempting yourself from the same requirement.
I agree wholeheartedly. As human population grows and expands (regardless of how little room Von Savant says we can take up), everything else suffers. Our population growth is unfair to everything else on the planet.
YMMV.
Do you think so now LonesomePolecat? Last time I checked it would be up to whoever makes the claim first to provide the cite. If you want to you could read my post as the following ‘Mr. BD, would you please provide a cite for your implicit claims, because I doubt them on the following grounds [insert arguments from post]’. The burden of proof being in that direction makes sense although it doesn’t by force have to be that way. You can always counter cite in disagreement. So in that spirit, since you seem to think that I need to cite the comparative ease of getting a new car in the US even when you are in dire straights, I’ll send you here for instance.
If you were implicitly attacking my post overall I’ll happily direct you to this PDF chart from the US governments displaying the average number of kids in families above and under the poverty limit.
That’s from the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE), a place you and Bandanaman might want to surf around a little for the purpose of enlightenment re what the US government really does and doesn’t do as re family planning and poverty.
Now that you have gotten me to stoop to the level of providing cites in the form of US car loan ads to prove the obvious, would you please be so kind to explain what your point was. Were you attacking the level of my rhetoric or do you disagree with me? Or was this your weekly attempt at a wisecrack? Please enlighten me ‘cause I didn’t get it.
In any case Bandanaman obviously isn’t responding to me and his responses to others on the same topic isn’t exactly brimming with brilliant counter arguments, maybe you want to furnish them for him?
Sparc
Read a newspaper, Sparc. Open your eyes. Go to the mall. You’ll figure it out.
Careful with your quotes there Estilicon, I never said that, Tracer did.
Something screwy happens when you quote a quote within a quote. I had to cut and paste yours, you might try that next time.
Anyway, I wanted to reply to Tracer’s statement. To hell with the damnable practice of withholding contraception from people!!! It really pisses me off. It’s time some secular humanists took over the task of saving the world from hunger and poverty. We should offer these impoverished folks meaningful help that will allow them to change their standard of living. Filling their minds with drivel and dogma does them harm, not good.
The starving children I’ve seen aren’t even capable of holding themselves up, much less doing any work. They are emaciated to the point that they don’t have enough muscle tissue left to get up and walk. Their mothers can’t get enough food to produce milk. Hopefully that condition would prevent them from being able to conceive, not real sure about the physiology involved. But they most definitely are, “extra mouths to feed,” NOT, “extra pair[s] of hands to contribute to the family’s production.”
To use their own statistics against them, here are some figures from the World Evangelization Research Center.
http://www.gem-werc.org/gd/gd18.pdf
of the 6.1 billion humans on the globe, (bolding mine)
I can not attest to the validity of their numbers, however, if they are even in the ballpark I would offer them some humble advice…START GIVING AWAY SOME FUCKING CONDOMS INSTEAD OF BIBLES!!! Your religious bullshit is not helping them!
tomndebb: *Each country has used “education” attempts to lower those rates–although only China has enacted punitive laws. *
Well, India did experiment with legally mandating fertility reduction in the forced-sterilization program during the Fourth Five-Year Plan (1972–1977). In fact, its current shift of emphasis to the carrot rather than the stick is probably largely due to the widespread outrage about the sterilizations that helped bring down the government at that time.
And though I agree that India has made great strides in fertility control, and that the education/social-development methods are most likely best for that purpose in the long run, China’s more draconian approach (plus all the other differences between China and India, of course) seems to have been somewhat more effective just at dragging the sheer numbers down quickly. India’s expected to outpopulate China by 2040 (and considering that IIRC it has significantly less habitable area, it’s gonna be pretty crowded there).