UndercoverElephant wrote:

rEvolutionist wrote:It's not the number of humans that is the problem necessarily, it is the level of consumption of a small part of them (and the potential level of consumption of the others going into the future)

It's both. Too many people, nearly all of whom want to improve their living standards.

Does. Not. Add. Up.

Sure, but gross population isn't the primary concern at present. It's overcomsumption in the west. And regardless of what happens either way in Africa, it likely won't make much qualitative difference if the west doesn't do something about it's pollution and consumption very soon.

rEvolutionist wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

rEvolutionist wrote:It's not the number of humans that is the problem necessarily, it is the level of consumption of a small part of them (and the potential level of consumption of the others going into the future)

It's both. Too many people, nearly all of whom want to improve their living standards.

Does. Not. Add. Up.

Sure, but gross population isn't the primary concern at present. It's overcomsumption in the west. And regardless of what happens either way in Africa, it likely won't make much qualitative difference if the west doesn't do something about it's pollution and consumption very soon.

Simple fix: Carbon tax. Problem: Busted lawmaking/enforcing institutions.

UndercoverElephant wrote:

MacIver wrote:On the issue of foreign aid being lost because of corruption and when it does get through it doing more harm than good... in many cases this is what happens.

But that doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater. If we concentrated on the basics like education (teach a man to fish) and maybe got NGOs to distribute the funds instead of giving them directly to governments (which I admit, in itself may cause problems) we may see better results. For me, foreign aid isn't purely an altruistic ideal, as the more developed Africa is, the more stable it'll be... and that be good for all of us.

And what, given the post-empire history of sub-saharan Africa, gives you reason to hope that Africa is going to become more developed? Africa is not progressing. At best, it is going sideways.

I don't really find sweeping statements like that useful to be honest. Africa is a huge place with a wide variety of circumstances. I've been to Africa - Madagascar and Kenya, and I've volunteered there, working on both conservation and humanitarian projects. And whilst my experience is limited to a few towns and a handful of villages I have seen first hand the improvement and progression possible. It all starts with the kids. The better educated they are, the more likely they are to improve their communities and their countries. The more you teach them of the natural world, the less likely they are to destroy it. The more likely they are to break the cycle of corrupt elites sucking the potential from the people and the environment.

These kids, in my experience, want to learn. They want to improve themselves and their world. All they need is a chance, and I think they deserve it.

rEvolutionist wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

MacIver wrote:On the issue of foreign aid being lost because of corruption and when it does get through it doing more harm than good... in many cases this is what happens.

But that doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater. If we concentrated on the basics like education (teach a man to fish) and maybe got NGOs to distribute the funds instead of giving them directly to governments (which I admit, in itself may cause problems) we may see better results. For me, foreign aid isn't purely an altruistic ideal, as the more developed Africa is, the more stable it'll be... and that be good for all of us.

And what, given the post-empire history of sub-saharan Africa, gives you reason to hope that Africa is going to become more developed? Africa is not progressing. At best, it is going sideways.

China's great interest in the continent (i.e. it's resources; and potential markets) will help in that regard.

...until the resources have been extracted and the Chinese no longer have any interest in that part of the world (apart from owning farmland used to feed Chinese people.)

Lasting change has to be owned by the African people. It can't be imposed from outside.

Loren Michael wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:"Third world" is a pointless term. It's out of date. So is is "rich countries", since most of the developed countries are currently bankrupt.

Rich countries have ridiculous amounts of capital, regardless of debt. Unless creditors come in and take capital (assuming the creditors aren't from the same nation of the debtors), the insolvency of individuals doesn't mean much for the material wealth of countries.

It is not individuals who are insolvent. It is the nations themselves.

laklak wrote:Foreign aid doesn't work. Oh, there are a few groups of orphans or whatever that get a couple of cupfulls of gruel a day, but in general the aid money goes into the pockets of corrupt authorities. I've seen it personally way too many more times than I care to remember. The only "solution", if it can be called that, is to back off and let them either fix it or die. Any other approach is doomed to failure and would only cost all of us our standard of living.

False, allowing migration to happen addresses the problem. It raises people’s incomes very dramatically, it’s sustainable, and for the most part it’s also good for the wealthy countries.

Loren Michael wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Loren Michael wrote:

Low hanging fruit = fixing the toilet problem

This is going to happen anyway, almost certainly in Africa and definately in the western world. This will have nothing to do with the problem of getting rid of sewage using water, and everything to do with the world running out of minable phosphate rock.

So, onto step two, enable migration, and step three, local institutional reform.

Enable migration out of Africa? Bad idea.

Local institutional reform? Great idea, but not if it is being imposed from outside.

UndercoverElephant wrote:

rEvolutionist wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

MacIver wrote:On the issue of foreign aid being lost because of corruption and when it does get through it doing more harm than good... in many cases this is what happens.

But that doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater. If we concentrated on the basics like education (teach a man to fish) and maybe got NGOs to distribute the funds instead of giving them directly to governments (which I admit, in itself may cause problems) we may see better results. For me, foreign aid isn't purely an altruistic ideal, as the more developed Africa is, the more stable it'll be... and that be good for all of us.

And what, given the post-empire history of sub-saharan Africa, gives you reason to hope that Africa is going to become more developed? Africa is not progressing. At best, it is going sideways.

China's great interest in the continent (i.e. it's resources; and potential markets) will help in that regard.

...until the resources have been extracted and the Chinese no longer have any interest in that part of the world (apart from owning farmland used to feed Chinese people.)

You forgot "markets".

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Loren Michael wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:"Third world" is a pointless term. It's out of date. So is is "rich countries", since most of the developed countries are currently bankrupt.

Rich countries have ridiculous amounts of capital, regardless of debt. Unless creditors come in and take capital (assuming the creditors aren't from the same nation of the debtors), the insolvency of individuals doesn't mean much for the material wealth of countries.

It is not individuals who are insolvent. It is the nations themselves.

How is sovereign debt particularly more relevant to how capital-rich a country is?

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Loren Michael wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Loren Michael wrote:

Low hanging fruit = fixing the toilet problem

This is going to happen anyway, almost certainly in Africa and definately in the western world. This will have nothing to do with the problem of getting rid of sewage using water, and everything to do with the world running out of minable phosphate rock.

So, onto step two, enable migration, and step three, local institutional reform.

Enable migration out of Africa? Bad idea.

Why's it a bad idea?

UndercoverElephant wrote:
But there really are already too many humans on this planet.

Save the planet. Kill yourself.

rEvolutionist wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:
It is not up to us to decide the fate of sub-saharan Africa. It is time to get out of there, and let nature run its course.

I just don't get this line of argumentation. What is the basis for it? It seems horribly inhuman and cruel to me. In fact it objectively is. It's also defeatest and frankly repulsive.

It's none of those things.

I've already explained what it is based on. It is the only logical, ethical conclusion you can come to if you take all the factors into account.

(1) We are already in overshoot, because the population boom was only possible because of our unrestricted use of non-renewable resources, most importantly fossil fuels. So die-off is inevitable at this point. We have missed the window of opportunity when "sustainable development" was still an option.

(2) Sending aid to Africa just makes it less sustainable, not more so. It breeds dependence and helplessness and discourages the internal cultural changes that are needed to make it more sustainable. It also boosts the population, increasing the overall net suffering.

(3) Lasting cultural progress only happens if it is owned and instigated by the people. You can't teach people how to do democracy. They have to want it themselves and implement it themselves. Then it is their system, not somebody-else's.

It's not defeatist because die-off is going to be a reality. This is realism.
It's not inhuman, cruel or unethical because it is based on good utilitarianism. My suggestion minimises the net suffering. The oppposing view, no matter how well-intentioned, will maximise it.

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Loren Michael wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Loren Michael wrote:

Low hanging fruit = fixing the toilet problem

This is going to happen anyway, almost certainly in Africa and definately in the western world. This will have nothing to do with the problem of getting rid of sewage using water, and everything to do with the world running out of minable phosphate rock.

So, onto step two, enable migration, and step three, local institutional reform.

Enable migration out of Africa? Bad idea.

False; it's a great idea. Which aspects do you think are problematic? It increases living standards, removes people from problem areas and problem cultures. It's functionally nearly identical to local institutional reform, which you thought was a great idea. If the problem is bad institutions, allow people to go to areas with good institutions. The most significant difference is that allowing for increased migration is faster and more certain to be effective than trying to change institutions.

Loren Michael wrote:
"Letting nature run its course" is "us" deciding the fate of Sub-Saharan Africa as much as anything.

Not really. Who ever said we were responsible for deciding the fate of the people of sub-saharan Africa?

How arrogant. Do you think they are responsible for deciding our fate, too?

If you see a child drowning in a shallow pond, your inaction decides his fate as much as your action. "Letting nature run its course" on that child is your decision. You decide the fate of that child. The decision to do nothing as opposed to something is still a decision.

We are talking about strategic decisions at a global level, not saving a drowning child.

rEvolutionist wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

rEvolutionist wrote:It's not the number of humans that is the problem necessarily, it is the level of consumption of a small part of them (and the potential level of consumption of the others going into the future)

It's both. Too many people, nearly all of whom want to improve their living standards.

Does. Not. Add. Up.

Sure, but gross population isn't the primary concern at present. It's overcomsumption in the west.

False dichotomy. Both are extremely severe problems in their own right. Both will ultimately be "solved" by natural forces.

And regardless of what happens either way in Africa, it likely won't make much qualitative difference if the west doesn't do something about it's pollution and consumption very soon.

Absolutely. But we aren't going to do anything about those things. Instead, nature will run its course. We are already running up against the physical limits to growth. Doesn't matter how rich you are - you can't consume resource that don't exist.

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Emmeline wrote:According to stats I've seen (mainly from Hans Rosling) a key factor in reducing family numbers is increasing child survival rates. Other key factors are of course better education and availability of contraception.

Right. So we solve an IMMEDIATE overpopulation problem by trying to reduce infant mortality?

I'm struggling with the logic here.

It seems you are struggling with logic here, try this, why did people in other countries stop having the large families of just a few generations ago? Yes effective contraception, but why was that even desirable? One major aspect to producing alot of children where children are employees wealth and insurance at the same is high infant and child mortality.
You have 6 to ensure you keep 3, once people feel more comfortable that their children will survive they tend to have less of them and invest more in them. This may not always occur but it is the commonly noted effect of improving infant and child survival rates.
Education, especially female education is a well recognized key to reducing the birth rate and improving health outcomes.
That this is not just in rich western countries can be seen in the example of Kerala, what is sometimes known as the Karala Effect.

http://baywood.metapress.com/app/home/c ... 1:300313,1

Kerala is a small, densely crowded state in South India. It is a poor state, even by Indian standards. Its per capita income of US$80 lies well below the all-India average of US$120, and it suffers from the lowest per capita caloric intake in India. Nevertheless, Kerala has managed to achieve the demographic transition from high (premodern) to low (modern) birth and death rates-something no other Indian state has been able to attain. Indeed, the magnitude of Kerala's fertility decline-the birth rate fell from 39 in 1961 to 26.5 in 1974-has never before been observed in a nation with comparable levels of income and undernutrition. Other indices of Kerala's social development are equally surprising: levels of literacy, life expectancy, female education, and age at marriage are the highest in India, while mortality rates, including infant and child mortality, are the lowest among Indian states.

The Kerala effect may be overstated but increasing the autonomy and educational levels of women in conjunction with decreasing infant and child mortality seem effective strategies not only reducing population growth and improving the health outcomes in general, they also seem the most humane response to this issue.
Let them die of in famines etc I see written, an appealing thought to have wnen far away while eating your dinner, but it is not clear that any but the most massive famines really decrease the population that much and may actually encourage a spike in population as people recover.
I see it argued it is 'cultural' well culture is not a fixed point, and it could have been described as 'cultural' just 2 generations ago to have large families in developed countries that now a large family is more than 2 children.

MacIver wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

MacIver wrote:On the issue of foreign aid being lost because of corruption and when it does get through it doing more harm than good... in many cases this is what happens.

But that doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater. If we concentrated on the basics like education (teach a man to fish) and maybe got NGOs to distribute the funds instead of giving them directly to governments (which I admit, in itself may cause problems) we may see better results. For me, foreign aid isn't purely an altruistic ideal, as the more developed Africa is, the more stable it'll be... and that be good for all of us.

And what, given the post-empire history of sub-saharan Africa, gives you reason to hope that Africa is going to become more developed? Africa is not progressing. At best, it is going sideways.

I don't really find sweeping statements like that useful to be honest. Africa is a huge place with a wide variety of circumstances. I've been to Africa - Madagascar and Kenya, and I've volunteered there, working on both conservation and humanitarian projects. And whilst my experience is limited to a few towns and a handful of villages I have seen first hand the improvement and progression possible. It all starts with the kids. The better educated they are, the more likely they are to improve their communities and their countries. The more you teach them of the natural world, the less likely they are to destroy it. The more likely they are to break the cycle of corrupt elites sucking the potential from the people and the environment.

These kids, in my experience, want to learn.

Of course they do. They are humans.

They want to improve themselves and their world. All they need is a chance, and I think they deserve it.

Yes, they deserve it. In an ideal world, all humans should have the same opportunities and rights to self-determination. But this isn't an ideal world. It is a world in overshoot, where the entire global economic system is busted because it does not recognise the physical limits to growth. This changes the ethical landscape. In the longer term, those parts of the world to emerge first from the coming catastrophe will be those that most quickly become independently self-sustainable (or close to). And I honestly believe that in sub-saharan Africa, the quickest way this will occur is if we get the hell out of there and let them face their own future on their own terms and solve their own problems their way.

What right does the western world, which is systematically destroying the global ecosystem, have to impose their "system" on a part of the world which is not systematically destroying the global ecosystem? Our way doesn't work either. Our way breaks the planet.

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Loren Michael wrote:
"Letting nature run its course" is "us" deciding the fate of Sub-Saharan Africa as much as anything.

Who ever said we were responsible for deciding the fate of the people of sub-saharan Africa?

Nobody. You said "It is not up to us to decide the fate of sub-saharan Africa". I showed that it is up to us to decide the fate of Sub-Saharan Africa. Doing nothing is our decision to affect the fate of Sub-Saharan Africa.

The decision to do nothing as opposed to something is still a decision.

We are talking about strategic decisions at a global level

I know. The decision to do nothing as opposed to something is still a decision. This is directly pertinent to strategic decisions at a global level.

rEvolutionist wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

rEvolutionist wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

And what, given the post-empire history of sub-saharan Africa, gives you reason to hope that Africa is going to become more developed? Africa is not progressing. At best, it is going sideways.

China's great interest in the continent (i.e. it's resources; and potential markets) will help in that regard.

...until the resources have been extracted and the Chinese no longer have any interest in that part of the world (apart from owning farmland used to feed Chinese people.)

You forgot "markets".

It is possible that the communist party of China will play a much more significant, and beneficial, role in future world events than most of us currently believe it will.

Loren Michael wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Loren Michael wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:"Third world" is a pointless term. It's out of date. So is is "rich countries", since most of the developed countries are currently bankrupt.

Rich countries have ridiculous amounts of capital, regardless of debt. Unless creditors come in and take capital (assuming the creditors aren't from the same nation of the debtors), the insolvency of individuals doesn't mean much for the material wealth of countries.

It is not individuals who are insolvent. It is the nations themselves.

How is sovereign debt particularly more relevant to how capital-rich a country is?

OK...I think we are getting off-topic here.