We are deviating from abortion so let us make another thread.
I don’t deny that birth control is a “huge steps towards population decline”. It is. There is no denial that condoms work wonder as nuclear bombs does. Actually it works so well we will be below replacement level by 2050. Unless you are some Dystopian prophet this thing would be a good thing. No?
But Cyrene you always imply that less population means a greater economic growth for a country. Well of course, because there will be less poor people to be counted as poor in our statistics.
But that is not progress Cyrene that is cheating.
Birth control is never an economic solution, especially in a communal level. Birth control policies is just ugly eugenics.
To break it down for you I will reiterate my points:
You want to reduce population to reduce poverty. But I say it will reduce poverty because you just dried the poor people’s genetic pool. And I still say it is cheating.
You also say that birth control will do magic to reduce population. It does, no argument there, but I say it is a bad thing.
And I say this plan will backfire, even more I say it will destroy economies in the process.
Poverty is caused by urban congestion.
Poverty is caused by corrupted governance both in a National and Inter-National Level.
People must be seen as assets not as problems. The Earth is not a lifeboat where you push people overboard to save yourself.
If in a demographic sense it is in a way a diservice to the specie.
If it is as a lifestyle, it depends on what is your school of thought and how you approach it.
If in a hedonistic sense, then by all means it is not wrong.
But personally I would like to see couples grow in responsibility thru sex. And furthermore for me sex is both unitive as it brings two seperate being in one act and procreative as it is a defacto avenue for having offsprings.
So working from that school of thought, I must say sex for enjoyment is good but if children comes along the way I frown if you don’t expect that would happen in the long run, duh. I think the problem of having children between couples in this time is that our generation is not too ready to let go off certain lifestyles due to the responsiblities we ourselves ought to expect.
Wow, thats the dumbest thing i’ve ever heard. No one is saying we should force birth control down their throats (though that might work better in areas where literacy is so low) but that offering it as government supported tactic to help family planning and unwanted children. Plenty of people who had 4+ children and then find out about birth control are astounded that this option had been available to them, birth control is part of a multi-pronged aproach which also usually requires programs of attempted education, which usuaully does require an economic growth, but what i’m saying is that these economic growths usually occur with birthcontrol at the start too, it helps set the ball rolling.
I’m sure that individual places have individual problems with poverty, maybe requiring unique solutions for certain environments.
Its idiotic to talk about drying up the poor people’s genetic pool. Idiotic. The most natural form of population control does a great job of that by itself, starvation, disease and parasites is the best form of genetic-pool sucking that there is, having a stable society or a increased stable society (like birth control has demonstratably done for some) increases the ability of the human organisms to live healthily and happily as individuals and as a society.
Surely you don’t believe that because first world nations have stable populations that we should desert huge amounts of money/birth control and etc, because we’re ‘drying up the genetic pool of the poor’
its absurd. things like malaria that get passed around in these super dense populations is enough. Or y’know, the numerous wildlife that eats them too, which they could better defend against with an increased economy/birth control. Malaria kills more people then birth contorl ever could (not that birth control IS killing) and malaria actually kills full individuals… so, thats stupid, what you’re saying is stupid.
It does not. Economies rely on a healty replacement of population, a healthy and educated workforce. Civilizations crumble when they can no longer replace their population.
Civilizations flourish when their is a steady growth in population coupled with a good system of governace, and good zoning. You only have to look at the Baby Boomer generation to picture what I’m talking about.
Which means if you have less young people to replace older people then your “economic growth” means nothing in the long run.
Analysis by Mr. Samuelson.
Bad economy Cyrene. You see all of the world’s leading economists analyzes that population control is really dead wrong. Amartya Sen, the 1998 Nobel laureate in Economics, insists that it is a “delusion,” a country cannot solve poverty via family planning; development has to take place and then fertility will come down.
American economist Jacqueline Kasun debunks “overpopulation,” saying that all the people in the world could even move into Texas—six billion people divided by 262,000 square miles—and you have a city even less dense than the city of Paris. You see Cyrene, the problem is never “overpopulation” (because that phenomena can not exist because we die duh) but rather urban overcrowding, unequal distribution of goods, and untapped human resources.
Also the Malthusian concept of high-population-growth-equals-poverty theory was earlier debunked by Simon Kuznets, the 1971 Nobel laureate in Economics.
The 1992 Nobel Prize economist winner, Gary Becker, said that high population growth’s impact on economy is positive, because of human capital. Also, the 2001 Nobel laureate economist George Akerlof blames the rise of the contraceptive culture for the increased incidence in promiscuity, divorce, back-up abortion, and children born out of wedlock, which hurt the poor who have a greater stake on having a stable family.
This only shows you have less interest in really solving poverty per se and throwing simplistic solutions like birth controls.
Are you really that intellectually lazy Cyrene?
Population control will back fire because it will just depopulate the specie in an irreversible way. Birth control does not stabilize a population it ruins it.
YOu can keep and keep and keep saying that birth control can’t help poverty and that its economic issues which cause the population drive, and that birth control can’t in practice, help start* that economic boost.
Well, you might be right except you’re completely wrong. Birth control programs have been introducedd in places that then seen subsequent economic improvement, as in, a small amount of people used it which gave some breathing room for improvement of the economic sort, which then helped support birthcontrol IN TURN.
I guess it was just coincidence that it coincided with the birth control though and was totally unrelated.
Oh, and I never ever ever claimed that birth control was the end all of all methods, I never claimed it was better than economic growth for population control, I never said that birth control would work by itself in some areas without increased improvement in education, women’s rights, and so on and so forth. Just that it can help economic stability even when introduced to a unstable area, and especially, ESPECIALLY when a group is just becoming economically stable, or getting on the road to economic stability, birthcontrol does wonders at that point too.
Sure theres places in the world where throwing birthcontrol into the streets isn’t going to have people efficiently using it, theres also places where it can be efficiently used, and even in places where it can’t work by itself, it can work WONDERFULLY as part of a multi-pronged approach.
And your arguement is not only/simply that ‘birth control just doens’t work’ its also that for some reason ‘birth control dries up the genetic pool of the poor and its discriminatory’.
We both know that; anyone who actually thought that birth-control just didn’t work would never bring up such an assinine, inane, senseless, dumb point to make, as its totally unconnected to anything that has to do with the subject besides some kind of religious belief or emotional investment against birth control?
What could possibly drive you to say that? Explain to me at length, how you could justify saying that what-so-ever, try doing it without looking like a nutjob’
birth control the scourage of the poor! who cares about malaria, starvation, infectious disease, we neeed to eliminate birth control to protect the poor from discrimination against their genes.
I don’t think you can really discriminate against the genes of ‘the poor’ you can discriminate against a group of peoples who MOST OFTEN happen to be poor, but not ‘poor genes’ as anyone who was successful would probably carry genes that the local population has as well. You can;t discriminate based on genes at that level, not unless you’re trying to runa eugenics program, which is not really what modern birth control programs are about. (and not like it would work on that level anyway, because eugenics is senseless)
unless you think that this massive population of poor people have some kind of genetic quality that predisposes them towards engaging in poverty, you could hardly discriminate against it now could you. Are you saying that we can genetically discriminate against the poor? because that neccessarily implies that you think some genetic quality lends itself to creating poor people.
That’s racist.
’
by implying birth control could discriminate against the poor on the basis of sucking up genetics, that by itself is discrimination, and its idiotic.
oh wait, you do think of birth control as eugenics.
If you look at the post thats quoted in the OP by me, all i’ve said is that birth control can help to an extent, even if economic growth is a required first-step towards stabalization.
Do you really disagree that they work at all to some significant effect? Do you not think they work after some measure of stabalization has already happened? Even that would you deny?
One huge problem in developing countries is education, and is probably one of the best population lowerer’s there are, increased education is a must for a lot of reasons, but lowering birth-rates it does a great job of as well.
So 20million extra people across developing regions is not a financial stress on already strained areas? Those abortions don’t help? And making abortions legal wouldn’t allow/make millions more abort?
No, its ignorant to suggest abortion doesn’t help as well, when 20million abortions are going on, a huge huge portion of them, very unsafely. If women aer willing to commit mass abortion like this when its that dangerous, you don’t thionk more would do so if it were legal/safe?
But rhetoric aside. One of the big problems in the Philippines and Indonesia is that population is growing faster than GDP. But this doesn’t imply that more education and more develpment is the answer. The people would be better off if they get out of the mega-cities and the industrial hell that eats them up there; and went back to the villages. Classrooms are useless to beggar kids and loom-kids and shoe-shine kids; what possible use could literacy and maths be to them? And technical education is even worse, it’s the fodder for industry and development. But teach a man to fish…
With the exception of China, almost no state recognizes that it has a population problem. I live in one of the most densely populated countries in the world (which is not a tiny psudo-state, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co … on_density) and yet the daily papers are in an uproar that population increase has leveled to about one percent.
Here’s a billboard from a series deploring the decline in Ukraine’s population, I saw one in Kiev last year reading “Ukraine needs cosmonauts! lets make love!)” --comic, but Ukraine is a net importer of agricultural products, falling nearly five-million tons short of it’s own domestic wheat consumption; forty-six million people is not enough?
I’m talking about literacy … When 50% of the population can’t read, convincing them to take birth-control, or telling them how to say, do somthing as simple as increase crop yields or whatever, isn’t exactly the easiest task in the world.
Theres plenty of personal testimony from really realy poor people(in the poorest places) who express extreme suprise that birth-controlw was always available after having 4 children and said they would have taking it opriginally if they had known.
The arguement is that poverty breeds childrent to meet a demand for labour or whatever, and thats certainly true, but so does a LUST FOR SEX BY MEN, it would be nonstop sex on the woman, and we all largely know this. I’m not soley talking about the philipines either.
AS TO THE PHILLIPINES.
When 4/5 people are catholic and the government won’t support a birth-control program; who is seriously kidding themselves, that despite whatever problems the phillipines has, THIS IS A CONTRIBUTING FACTOR.IF remotely any of them take catholicism criticism of birthcontrol/abortion seriously, and plenty of them DO.
It doesn’t matter if its not the root cause or a huge solution to poverty/population problems in the phillipines, IT IS A CONTRIBUTING FACTOR THAT DOESN"T HELP.
My Cyerene I really admire how your rhetorics works. Intellectual arrogance is tolerable to a point, but only to a point.
Cyrene I never believed in the “poor man’s gene” as I don’t believe in Creationism, Eugenics, Malthusian economics and the “God gene”. Do read my post in context the next time. I’m saying the poor man’s genetic pool not the poor gene. Idiot.
But you always babble like a kid who still miss the point. Now what you are doing is drawing a bad caricature of my ideas and points Cyrene and defeating it makes you quite immature.
Well again in my home turf.
Cyrere, even if 82% are Catholics in my country only 60% or less of the Catholic population know the actual stance of the Church, 8% do it as a matter of obedience but Filipinos know that the root of our poverty is not because of our children but because of Uncle Sam and the abandoning of farms for the cities and corruption.
Population is not the cause of poverty!
It can be a cure if viewed as an asset rather than a problem.
How many Nobel winners for economy and demographers and even historians do I need to quote from?
Oh wait you pose a dilemma…
A bunch of Nobel winners for economy and renowned demographers who says that poverty can be cured thru proper allocation of wealth and empowerment of the citizenry and WARNS US THAT BIRTHCONTROL WILL BACKFIRE
versus
a forum member named Cyrene who still babbles his obsolete pseudoscientific Malthusian doctrine and still plays the part of the condom fairy who can cure your poverty by saying “oooh look at me… we reduced the poor folks therefore their is less poverty”.
Yup, that is a phenomena that I can attest is happening in my country and in my friend’s country.
The problems that I will point out again for those who are— never mind, is that farmers and provinces are not empowered, competition is destroyed by importing foreign rice (Haiti is a good example on how US subsidized rice from Miami paralyzed the nation even after Duvalier), and that they are attracted by the misconception that there is “greener pastures” in the metropolis.
So yes, political will to relocate and empower the farmers to farm will solve urban and rural poverty in third world countries. Stopping the abuses of the global market, the IMF and the US foreign policies will do wonders. Just provide aids without strings attach not like the USAID who promote condoms in virtue of US interests.
