Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
PC Games (Games)

Marxist Hacker 42's Journal: Is Overpopulation ONLY political? 11

Journal by Marxist Hacker 42

Two studies released last week seem to indicate that the real problem in human population isn't really overpopulation and overuse of the world's resources- but rather mere politics. 400 million hectares of Africa alone could double the world's current food production- feeding everybody- but development of the Guinea Savanah is currently hampered by 25 different countries having jurisdiction, including well known trouble spots such as Sudan and Nigeria.
 
The OECD is even more hopeful as they report 1.6 billion hectares of new development, mainly in Africa and S. America, could be brought into production with modern climate & agricultural science.
 
Both, though, seem to agree that the real key is localization. Not huge world-spanning corporations, but small community family farmers, taught the new methods, will guarantee that the riches of these areas will reach the inhabitants of these areas. And the key to small family farmers always has been, and always will be, preferential access to local markets.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Is Overpopulation ONLY political?

Comments Filter:
  • It always seemed obvious to me that the only threats of overpopulation came from countries that weren't free. Any country with reasonable freedoms that allow agriculture to prosper in the 21st century can feed itself. I'm convinced this world could support 10 times its current population with a standard of living comparable to the developed world today, given the technological advances we are likely to see in the next century. The only question is if the political realities would allow this technology to

  • The one thing that has been correlated to curbing population growth to replacement levels, education, is denied to the third world. The Anglo-American axis has had policies for decades that deny educational, economic, and technological growth to the third world.

    And this hits the point, it's all lies:

    Tighter control of the internet:
    Stated reasons - kiddie pr0n, terrorism, "cyber-bullying"
    Real reasons - control of the means of communication

    Gun control:
    Stated reasons - reduce crime
    Real reasons - d
  • ...do we invade (and liberate the people on that continent from their oppressors)?

    • Either that- or we start shipping tractors and plows instead of guns and food- and let the market do the rest.

      • by Bill Dog (726542)

        But don't typically a peoples' tyrannical overlords confiscate such useful stuff?

        • Actually, they're MUCH more interested in more immediately useful stuff- like food and bullets. The thing about tractors and plows is, once you have them, if you're going to get any use out of them whatsoever, you have to *hire somebody to drive them*- so even if you are a tyranical leader, you're going to have a positive effect on local wages merely putting the equipment to use.

          On the other side of the equation- putting that equipment to use would mean *actually growing food*, which means more food availa

          • by Bill Dog (726542)

            Actually, they're MUCH more interested in more immediately useful stuff- like food and bullets.

            True. Then it's prolly a function of us (the U.S.) waiting until tyranny pops up, and then naturally we treat what is the immediate need, for finished goods. When maybe instead we should be practicing preventative humanitarian aid, by dropping off equipment and raw materials and how-to manuals now, everywhere people are hungry, before deep suffering causing political turmoil has the chance to take root. I'd much r

            • And that "preventative" aid is the real key- so obvious that the week these studies came out even Obama embraced the idea of an Africa that could feed itself.

              I'm hoping to see some positive change from that- if the Conservatives on Wall Street will ever let loose of our government enough to stop sucking up trillions into their failed investment gambling.

              • by Bill Dog (726542)

                Ditto on the bank bailouts, but AFAIK that's mostly said and done. So is some of Obama and Dem's trillion-dollar spending, but much of it is yet to still come. For example it's totally unnecessary to totally overhaul the U.S. health care system, of course. Just add coverage for the poor. But to Liberals it's about a power grab, not helping the poor. Of course. But if they really cared about people, those trillions could go to what we've been talking about. And when you invent a time machine let me know, and

                • Actually, the poor are pretty well in the current health care system. And the Goldman Sachs collapse is still ahead, I believe (because they've returned to the same stupid gambling as before).

                  What we need to oppose, from here on out, is *individuality*. That's the core of the bank bailouts and the Liberal Power grabs- the idea that the individual is the only thing that counts and fuck the rest of the world.

                  • by Bill Dog (726542)

                    Certainly those who caused the need for bank bailouts put a sinful level of emphasis on individualism. But, and this is only an academic exercise, as I agree that the result is the same, Liberal power grabs are about something else. The former says "I'm the only thing that counts and fuck everyone else" and the latter says "My utopian plans are the only thing that counts and fuck everyone else". So it's not the "individuality" part they have in common, it's the "fuck everyone else" part. So while you like t

Wasn't there something about a PASCAL programmer knowing the value of everything and the Wirth of nothing?

Working...