[frookenhauer]

Shinrei no Shintai;370507 said:

!!!!!!!

Guy from rich western country tells africans how they should go about breeding and holds incentives over their heads....

I think you need to do more to explain this, because this sounds a titbit tyrannical.

It is because I am in agreement with Gwynns assessment regarding population explosion. The reason is that people in poorer countries tend to have many kids, but because of high infant mortality. Improved conditions without some kind of birth control is going to be detrimental to the overall effort of improving their situation. I take my stand with the 1 kid max benefits (maybe 2). The pill and rice thing was bait for Napp
This is much better than the idea that it is better to let them starve, just so there are enough resources to go around, which is just plain unethical. Tyranical? who the fuck cares as long as they get to live and have a better life, its a damn site better watching their kids die through malnutrition or whatever. They can complain to me about it while sitting on their porches in their free time

Scifreak;370591 said:

I cannot believe someone just posted 'why not use the chinese method' in seriusness.

I think the infanticide stats associated with such practises to be wholly unnacceptable.

That someone was me, I had not realised that government sponsored infanticide was part of the deal. Is that what you are saying? Or are these parents doing this of their own accord? I'm going to assume the latter, because the first idea is preposterous. Any parent who murders their kids just so they can keep the benefits should be locked up, its murder plain and simple. Condoms and pills would have been a much better solution.

[Scifreak]

Abstract your simplw a-b-c thinking for a moment. Infanticide rises when governments try to control breeding. No amount of your 'common sense' solutions will work, aociety is made up of vast amounts off differing forces that cannot be controlled like some firdt year sociologists fantasy. Does not the innate complexity of malazan/letheriii society but echo our own?

[frookenhauer]

Scifreak;370632 said:

Abstract your simplw a-b-c thinking for a moment.

First of all, your spelling is atrocious, how can anyone take you seriously if you cannot be bothered to at least check your post before reading it, a glance is all it takes as poor spelling is underlined in red .

Secondly, what on earth does abstract your simple a-b-c really mean? Speak English boy! I was attempting to be specific. I'd rather not talk in generalities, because otherwise there is the risk of sounding vacuous. Allow me to provide you with an example:

Scifreak;370632 said:

No amount of your 'common sense' solutions will work, aociety is made up of vast amounts off differing forces that cannot be controlled like some firdt year sociologists fantasy.

What solutions? Why 'common sense'? Why wont they work? Which specific society? What vast amount of forces? Why do they differ? Why only the first years? Is it a fantasy? Stringing together a few abstractions without justifying them isn't enough. Locke would not be proud of you...

Scifreak;370632 said:

Infanticide rises when governments try to control breeding.

Infanticide occurs because there are some really f**ked up people in this world. Whether its strangling baby girls or suffocating baby number two with a pillow. Those that do it are the ones to blame. Not society, not a government led program to control population, or what the neighbours might think. Its all down to the specific individuals who do the crime.
Lets look at this from a different angle. Society / Government program / Peer pressure - whatever, makes them want to do the deed. The problem is the kid, must get rid of kid. Rewind 9 months. What can be done at this point to prevent the future crime? Contraceptives! Pills, condoms, diaphrams, there is a plethora of choices. Hows that for simple c-b-a thinking? The people who commit infanticide have the means at their disposal to prevent the situation in the first place, is this the Government sponsored population control programs fault? Nope, its because they are frikkin headcases

Scifreak;370632 said:

Does not the innate complexity of malazan/letheriii society but echo our own?

All stories are mirrors of our world to varying degrees, otherwise there is nothing to relate to and therefore why should we have any desire to want to become a part of them? Probably your least profound statement thus far, but there was some stiff competition...Then again, who am I to judge?

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

This thread has taken a dark turn...

[Scifreak]

Apparently people exist in a vacuum and are in no way affected by thier enviroment, nor are thier actions in any way affected by social or cultural mores. That right there is first year sociology student thinking mate.

Now, try to attack the substance of the arguements not the spelling, I'm not running a spellchecker at the moment (new install).

So. You wish to know know what I meant by abstract your a-b-c thinking. Basically you are approaching the issue as if it's a linear problem with linear solutions. It's not, thats Bush-style republican thinking and I don't think I need to point to the disasters caused by such thinking in the last 10 years do I?

[frookenhauer]

Scifreak;370772 said:

Apparently people exist in a vacuum and are in no way affected by thier enviroment, nor are thier actions in any way affected by social or cultural mores. That right there is first year sociology student thinking mate.

Do you actually bother to read other peoples posts? I included into the argument the potential for pressures that society, peers and rigid birth control regimes bring to bear, where's the vacuum that you are insisting exists? You've completely failed to counter my argument that the people who commit infanticide are just plain messed up in the head. Instead of rushing off to counter my argument with some obscure meta-sociological theory regarding social dynamics, think about the incident itself, forget the why for a moment and concentrate on the crime itself. Stop hunting for excuses that make child killers out to be victims. If this is first year sociology student thinking, so be it, I did maths so that statement is irrelevant.

Scifreak;370772 said:

Now, try to attack the substance of the arguements not the spelling, I'm not running a spellchecker at the moment (new install).

More excuses? I thought I was doing a damn good job pointing a big hairy finger at both...Anyhoo. I would suggest that you take a moment to reread your posts, you might find it useful. For example: their, environment, arguments.

Scifreak;370772 said:

So. You wish to know know what I meant by abstract your a-b-c thinking. Basically you are approaching the issue as if it's a linear problem with linear solutions. It's not, thats Bush-style republican thinking and I don't think I need to point to the disasters caused by such thinking in the last 10 years do I?

Thankyou for taking the time to explain abstract a-b-c thinking, but I already knew what it meant, I was being a little sarcastic. If you had really bothered to read the post the clues were already there "specific instead of general" "c-b-a thinking". Its sometimes such a pain when one tries to be subtle ( ). As for the Bush+Republicans and linear thinking, apart from he fact that you are giving them far too much credit, how is their thinking linear? Provide examples, give reasons, I'm willing to listen. Stop making simple statements and expect them to carry any weight.

Raymond Luxury Yacht;370741 said:

This thread has taken a dark turn...

Sorry RLY, somebody mentioned infanticide and blamed it on social pressure rather than the killers themselves.

[tiam]

Scifreak;370583 said:

I never accused you of holding racial prejudices, nor did I mention race at all.

Equality doesn't mean treating everybody exactly the same. It's a little more complex than that. Sometimes you have to accept that some people, say women for instance who across the board do not have pay parity with thier male counterparts, are in fact not being treated equally by the current system. Shall we then not do anything about that because it would increase tension between men and women in the workplace? no. Fact is anyone offended by actions to bring the wages into parity needs to have a think.
Political correctness is a confused and reletavily new type of discourse designed to not make varied groups (be they a racial, sexually oriented or group) feel offended by the dominant social goup in society (and thats white males with money, despite what the Daily Mail tells you). It's got to be better than forty odd years ago where the Tories could contend a bye-election under a 'If you want a Nigger for a nieghbour, vote Liberal or Labor' campaign.

I wasnt accusing you of accusing me of accusing political corectness of accusatory

Its just that anyone who questions political correctness is deemed a racist. Its happened before and one this board. Im not on about tension in the workplace as such but the racial tension created.

I admit that the philosophising and theories are above my head/knowledge but it seems to me that Frokenhaur a few posts back was throwing slightly imperialistic views about. Turning the African nation into the worlds energysupplier is a very unethical view to take and to me seems quite logical. Make them the new answer to global warming by using solar power water etc. They have the space, manpower etc. But the west will never give there energy source to a power they dont control. Also although this seems win win ie africa stable governemnt economy benefits etc with the west receiving reasonably clean power, 'convincing', and by that i mean forcing or making a circumstance where that it is the only viable option, Africa to do this is out and out exploitation just dressed up nicely.

This coupled with your idea of population control based on the chinese ideology of one child wouldnt work. It only works in china due to complete state control. This communist ideology coupled with the capitalist opportunism, although i agree it would be a good, wouldnt work frankly.

IM $ure th3r3s sp3ll1ng m1stakes 1n th1s post so go nuts.

Furthermore blaming infant mortality rates on the killers and claiming that its not social pressure or any sort of pressure is undeniably naive. Apart you picking up on speling i thought your points were well thought out and such but this to me seems an odd thing to say.

Quote

What solutions? Why 'common sense'? Why wont they work? Which specific society? What vast amount of forces? Why do they differ? Why only the first years? Is it a fantasy? Stringing together a few abstractions without justifying them isn't enough. Locke would not be proud of you...

WHy wont they work- Its not that they wont work, im referring to your earlier African= Energy solution, but it is unethical, a previous point of yours. As mentioned above.

I admit my post doesnt address all your points but i thought id give a specific arguement and example of why it wont work

Quote

Speak English boy!

A bit condescending and doesnt really bring anything positive to the conversation. Sarcasm is fine but a condescending comment can descend into flaming easily

[Scifreak]

frookenhauer;370840 said:

Do you actually bother to read other peoples posts? I included into the argument the potential for pressures that society, peers and rigid birth control regimes bring to bear, where's the vacuum that you are insisting exists? You've completely failed to counter my argument that the people who commit infanticide are just plain messed up in the head. Instead of rushing off to counter my argument with some obscure meta-sociological theory regarding social dynamics, think about the incident itself, forget the why for a moment and concentrate on the crime itself. Stop hunting for excuses that make child killers out to be victims. If this is first year sociology student thinking, so be it, I did maths so that statement is irrelevant.

Except I'm not trying to paint them as victims. Areas with rigid birth controls have high infanticide rates and a thriving backstreet abortion black market. With all the negatives associated with that.

it really is that simple. introduce a chinese style birth control and reap the rewards:rolleyes: As for 'no pill no rice' type aid, you are likely already going directly against the religious beliefs of large numbers of any given society. Ever heard the phrase 'I'd rather take the soup', wiki it it's a neat example of using food as a lever for forcing a population to behave the way the dominant power wants them to. quite aside from how despicable an action it is, it doesn't work and makes the populace HATE the imposers

Quote

More excuses? I thought I was doing a damn good job pointing a big hairy finger at both...Anyhoo. I would suggest that you take a moment to reread your posts, you might find it useful. For example: their, environment, arguments.

If I was writing a formal essay or indeed replying to someone worthy of the effort I might check spelling by eye before hitting post. But as you seem intent on attempting to use the age old internet tactics of pedantry AND (as seen above) misrepresentation then I think I'll allow the odd speeling error to slide.

Quote

Thankyou for taking the time to explain abstract a-b-c thinking, but I already knew what it meant, I was being a little sarcastic. If you had really bothered to read the post the clues were already there "specific instead of general" "c-b-a thinking". Its sometimes such a pain when one tries to be subtle ( ). As for the Bush+Republicans and linear thinking, apart from he fact that you are giving them far too much credit, how is their thinking linear? Provide examples, give reasons, I'm willing to listen. Stop making simple statements and expect them to carry any weight.

Sorry RLY, somebody mentioned infanticide and blamed it on social pressure rather than the killers themselves.

No your devestating wit passed me by, or I think half of it might have.

Oh come on, watching american foriegn policy doesn't give you any clue at all? Although thinking about it reeling from one crisis to the next might not be linear:D

As for making simple statements it is you who waded in on your white charger from the West to wave your magic wand and solve food issues. Except your wand is the chinese solution (which btw is only enforced in some regions). LOL
and where do we start with lines like 'Heres a funny thing about population explosions. they don't happen overnight'

Truly I stand in the presence of a sage-like wisdom

[frookenhauer]

tiam;370962 said:

I admit that the philosophising and theories are above my head/knowledge...Frokenhaur a few posts back was throwing slightly imperialistic views about. Turning the African nation into the worlds energysupplier...to do this is out and out exploitation just dressed up nicely.

...population control based on the chinese ideology of one child...

IM $ure th3r3s sp3ll1ng m1stakes 1n th1s post so go nuts.

Furthermore blaming infant mortality rates on the killers and claiming that its not social pressure or any sort of pressure is undeniably naive....

I was actually referring to a system whereby the energy producing African nations would exchange energy for water from coastal African countries which would have the desalination plants, and this would be the new core African economy: energy and water the extra water would lead to better farming methods and so on and so forth. keeping it within the African league with the west providing support in terms of investment, planning, construction etc. The project could be funded by the vast amounts of mineral resources, oil and even ex conflict diamonds. I can see why you thought exploitation, my bad, should have been clearer.

The one child population control method was put forward to counter the population explosion argument put forward by Gwynn. It is an excellent solution to the fact that if aid is given in the form of food, water and medication, the infant mortality rate would drop significantly, older people would live longer, the sick would survive. Without a rigid program of birth control the net result would be an even bigger need for aid further down the line.

I never said that there was no pressure involved, I maintain that the crime of infanticicide far outweighs the pressures that are brought to bear on the killers. This continues later as I reply to Scifreaks diatribe, stay tuned. Speak english boy was a bit immature, but it does seem to have brought out the best in him

Scifreak;371198 said:

Except I'm not trying to paint them as victims. Areas with rigid birth controls have high infanticide rates and a thriving backstreet abortion black market. With all the negatives associated with that.

it really is that simple. introduce a chinese style birth control and reap the rewards

The one child birth control method is simply a solution that was put forward to combat the immense population issue in China. The crimes associated with it are symptomatic of the inherent malevolence and opportunistic attitude of some of the people in society. Lets look at it from a different perspective:

The production, distribution and sale of Crack cocaine and Heroine is a major problem in the west. The solution is to make it illegal and set up agencies to deal with the problem. And yet people will still sell it, kill over it and generally make themselves rich off the suffering of the weak minded people that take it. Malevolence and opportunistic people are once again at the fore. Its not the solution that is the problem, its the people that do the deeds.

And finally (and again, you seem to be ignoring this particular point) the need to commit infanticide 'due to the pressures of society' could have been prevented by use of contraceptives. Why not strap on a johnnie? Take the morning after pill?

Scifreak;371198 said:

As for 'no pill no rice' type aid, you are likely already going directly against the religious beliefs of large numbers of any given society. Ever heard the phrase 'I'd rather take the soup', wiki it it's a neat example of using food as a lever for forcing a population to behave the way the dominant power wants them to. quite aside from how despicable an action it is, it doesn't work and makes the populace HATE the imposers

The no pill, no rice comment was just bait for Napp, you can see that it is placed immediately after the starvation question, have another look. I stand by the Chinese method and the benefits would be more than food. Try superior education, clothing, (laptop and the internet ) and a chance at a better quality of life overall. You call this despicable? How about this:

Gwynn ap Nudd;370462 said:

What if the best thing for people in general is for large numbers of them to die off?

How would you describe this particular gem?

In terms of your spelling, Do you not consider your own message worthy of checking? Never mind, Tiam has already given me some stick for that particular line of argument, so I'll stop .

Scifreak;371198 said:

Oh come on, watching american foriegn policy doesn't give you any clue at all? Although thinking about it reeling from one crisis to the next might not be linear

Bush and his cronies are a bunch of F*cktards, are you suggesting that they even think? Preposterous! Could you describe which situations and crisis in the order they came in? Just stick to the salient points.

Scifreak;371198 said:

As for making simple statements it is you who waded in on your white charger from the West to wave your magic wand and solve food issues.

I quite like that image, except I'd like a white staff and a white cape. The staff has to have a big crystal set in it and runes, don't forget the runes! BTW The Chinese method is only directed at population, not food, and the limited use of the Chinese method is irrelevant.

Scifreak;371198 said:

Truly I stand in the presence of a sage-like wisdom

Cheers :cool: Its a nice feeling to be appreciated by my peers, please be seated.

[tiam]

Quote

I was actually referring to a system whereby the energy producing African nations would exchange energy for water from coastal African countries which would have the desalination plants, and this would be the new core African economy: energy and water the extra water would lead to better farming methods and so on and so forth. keeping it within the African league with the west providing support in terms of investment, planning, construction etc. The project could be funded by the vast amounts of mineral resources, oil and even ex conflict diamonds. I can see why you thought exploitation, my bad, should have been clearer.

The one child population control method was put forward to counter the population explosion argument put forward by Gwynn. It is an excellent solution to the fact that if aid is given in the form of food, water and medication, the infant mortality rate would drop significantly, older people would live longer, the sick would survive. Without a rigid program of birth control the net result would be an even bigger need for aid further down the line.

I never said that there was no pressure involved, I maintain that the crime of infanticicide far outweighs the pressures that are brought to bear on the killers. This continues later as I reply to Scifreaks diatribe, stay tuned. Speak english boy was a bit immature, but it does seem to have brought out the best in him

Yeh i understand you an Scifreak are havin a bit of a conflict of opinions.

The Africa thing itself isnt necessarily a bad idea. ITs only a bad idea in principle. It seems unethical to me. its like we dont want wind turbines on our land so we put it on the land of those we can influence. Also, again it does seem like a good idea, the thought that the outer African nations would exchange water for energy with the inner nations is good. However with individual countries having essential resources for other countries is only going to lead to civil war eventually. Long term one will outweigh the other. Personally id say the new fledgling african central countries economies would use there wealth to secure there own water supply and force higher prices of energy on the outer countries. I know you simply offered a scenario and i do like the idea but it would never be internationally viable for African nations to be forced to co operate. Us civilised westerners barely get on. Also the resources that could be traded in are already being raped from them by the Westtern world in the first place. Africa has coal and gas reserves going from your earlier, example specific post right? Why would they exchange these to build energy efficient and globally friendly technologies? They wouldnt for the same reason we dont. Expense, the substantial massive outlay needed to get going. I understand Africa would be far more tractable because hey had no choice but i beleive that even given the infancy of there industries they would still find it difficult to force, or alternatively be forced, through changes that would damage there already fragile economies.

i agree that the birth control thing would be necessary and agree that if not enforced religiously it would lead to problems on an even larger scale then they are now.

The infant mortality rate arguement however i disagree with. Yes you are correct people will make back alley abortions and also deal crack. its the people who prey on these gaps in society. However wherever theres a niche in the 'market' there ill be people taking things that are illegal and immoral. But to simply say 'give them contraceptives etc' is a bit too easy. I live in Britain and underage unprotected sex is still rampant, granted not on the scale of Africe but were far more controlled and therefore 'knowledgeable' about such things. I cant see allowing free contraceptives to be as useful as it might seem at first. Again a good idea but wouldnt work.

[frookenhauer]

tiam;371582 said:

The Africa thing itself isnt necessarily a bad idea. ITs only a bad idea in principle. It seems unethical to me. its like we dont want wind turbines on our land so we put it on the land of those we can influence. Also, again it does seem like a good idea, the thought that the outer African nations would exchange water for energy with the inner nations is good. However with individual countries having essential resources for other countries is only going to lead to civil war eventually. Long term one will outweigh the other. Personally id say the new fledgling african central countries economies would use there wealth to secure there own water supply and force higher prices of energy on the outer countries. I know you simply offered a scenario and i do like the idea but it would never be internationally viable for African nations to be forced to co operate.

I'm not sure I understand why you still consider the proposal to be ethical. The system is designed to be run by Africans for Africans. Wind turbines and ramblers, I remember that, what a bunch of short sighted ar$*holes. Africa does not have unity similar to the UK, so civil war is not really relevant, war against other nations is a possibility, but Its fairly remote. The last time one African nation invaded another is when Ethiopia?!? invaded Somalia to help rebels oust the Islamic rulers. Amazing how a country thats been on its knees for decades suddenly has the wherewithal to raise an army and send them off to battle, I must admit to being a little baffled :confused: In the Saharan regions water is a more important resource than electricity and it would be difficult to source it from elsewhere, because for the trade scenario to work pipelines would have to have been put in place along with the energy grid. If one country put up its prices choose another. I think that you may be overlaying British thinking and priorities onto the example, hence the water argument. And yes this whole scenario would be amazingly expensive, but not as expensive as the war on terror, and will need massive aid to supplement the input from African nations, but the final result would be one of the greatest humanitarian efforts to date...If you're gonna dream, dream big! The energy efficient and globally friendly technology is put forward to provide landlocked Saharan nations with a viable resource to bring to the bargaining table, and also to counter any eco argument from Gwynn. I don't think there will be a need to force African nations to take up the idea, because the rewards are just so high: Investment, water and energy, how can they resist?

tiam;371582 said:

i agree that the birth control thing would be necessary and agree that if not enforced religiously it would lead to problems on an even larger scale then they are now.

The infant mortality rate arguement however i disagree with. Yes you are correct people will make back alley abortions and also deal crack. its the people who prey on these gaps in society. However wherever theres a niche in the 'market' there ill be people taking things that are illegal and immoral. But to simply say 'give them contraceptives etc' is a bit too easy. I live in Britain and underage unprotected sex is still rampant, granted not on the scale of Africe but were far more controlled and therefore 'knowledgeable' about such things. I cant see allowing free contraceptives to be as useful as it might seem at first. Again a good idea but wouldnt work.

Thanks for the vote of support regarding the need for birth control.

I think you mean infanticide rate, and here it is probably my fault for not clarifying. While it should be an imperative, I'm not saying that free availability of contraceptives is the solution to the problem. I was essentially pointing out the fact that the child killers could have avoided being in a position where they felt that murder was the only choice (pressures exerted by the non vacuum in which they exist) by use of contraceptives. At every point along a-b-c... these murderers had a choice, a chance to do the right thing, condom - morning after pill -....- raise the child and live with it. Lock them up after making an example out of them.

[Scifreak]

frookenhauer;371299 said:

I was actually referring to a system whereby the energy producing African nations would exchange energy for water from coastal African countries which would have the desalination plants, and this would be the new core African economy: energy and water the extra water would lead to better farming methods and so on and so forth. keeping it within the African league with the west providing support in terms of investment, planning, construction etc. The project could be funded by the vast amounts of mineral resources, oil and even ex conflict diamonds. I can see why you thought exploitation, my bad, should have been clearer.

The one child population control method was put forward to counter the population explosion argument put forward by Gwynn. It is an excellent solution to the fact that if aid is given in the form of food, water and medication, the infant mortality rate would drop significantly, older people would live longer, the sick would survive. Without a rigid program of birth control the net result would be an even bigger need for aid further down the line.

Thats a neat assumption but largely untrue, given that wealthy westerners rarely have more than 2.5 children (yeah i know, not my statistic a uk gov one from the 90's) Increased education and resources do not in fact lead to continued population explosion, quite the opposite. It's telling that the last baby boom in the UK was during a time of war and rationing during and directly after WW2.

Quote

I never said that there was no pressure involved, I maintain that the crime of infanticicide far outweighs the pressures that are brought to bear on the killers. This continues later as I reply to Scifreaks diatribe, stay tuned. Speak english boy was a bit immature, but it does seem to have brought out the best in him

Truly I dance to your tune:rolleyes:

Quote

The one child birth control method is simply a solution that was put forward to combat the immense population issue in China. The crimes associated with it are symptomatic of the inherent malevolence and opportunistic attitude of some of the people in society. Lets look at it from a different perspective:

The production, distribution and sale of Crack cocaine and Heroine is a major problem in the west. The solution is to make it illegal and set up agencies to deal with the problem. And yet people will still sell it, kill over it and generally make themselves rich off the suffering of the weak minded people that take it. Malevolence and opportunistic people are once again at the fore. Its not the solution that is the problem, its the people that do the deeds.

That is a breathtakingly bad analogy given that the 'problems' of crack and heroin (no e needed) are almost directly inspired by prohibition. It's a fact that before the prohibition moves of the 1970's pushed the 100 or so addicts (largely based in Londons chinese quarter of the '60s) onto the hands of criminals, there was no massive problem. Drugs were not a criminal enterprise untill the laws came into criminalise them. During prohibition 20's america the gangs made fortunes and were not averse to selling poisoness moonshine or murdering the rivals. Tell me does the US alcohol trade still involve large scale gangsterism now it's legal again? are not alcoholics treated as sick rather than criminal now? Those you call 'weak minded' are sick, same as an alcoholic is sick. A government controlled program like as stringent as alcohol laws would cut the money right out of the scummy middlemen and allow some state approved body to be in charge of supply. Hey the CIA could do it, they've plenty of practise in the cocaine trade.. As with alcohol prohibition, drug prohibition has pushed a huge criminal market into existence. The solution exacerbates a percieved problem into the large scale and no amount of reductionist bleating about personal responsibility is going to change that. You propose the cleaver where the scalpel is needed iyswim.

Quote

And finally (and again, you seem to be ignoring this particular point) the need to commit infanticide 'due to the pressures of society' could have been prevented by use of contraceptives. Why not strap on a johnnie? Take the morning after pill?

Religious and cultural resistance. Plus let's not forget that infanticide falls heaviest on female babies in chinese and indian societies. Go patriarchy!

Quote

The no pill, no rice comment was just bait for Napp, you can see that it is placed immediately after the starvation question, have another look. I stand by the Chinese method and the benefits would be more than food. Try superior education, clothing, (laptop and the internet ) and a chance at a better quality of life overall. You call this despicable? How about this:

How would you describe this particular gem?

I'm glad you can sit baiting people over such a topic, it shows you in a sensitive light. As for his comment, well words fail me. The arrogance of imperialism never ceases to amaze me tbh

Quote

In terms of your spelling, Do you not consider your own message worthy of checking? Never mind, Tiam has already given me some stick for that particular line of argument, so I'll stop .

It's not a formal essay nor is it even an informal letter. It is the internet.

Quote

Bush and his cronies are a bunch of F*cktards, are you suggesting that they even think? Preposterous! Could you describe which situations and crisis in the order they came in? Just stick to the salient points.

Do I need to summarise the last five years of american foriegn policy for you? Surely you've been following the debacle.

Quote

I quite like that image, except I'd like a white staff and a white cape. The staff has to have a big crystal set in it and runes, don't forget the runes! BTW The Chinese method is only directed at population, not food, and the limited use of the Chinese method is irrelevant.

You can have a white pointy hat as well if you like. Why do you think the chinese instituted their method anyway? resources FFS. Food being a vital one after Moa's cultural revolution caused so much starvation. The limited use is hardly irrelevant when the sparse application of the nationwide rule is indicative of just how unworkable it is on large scale.

Quote

Cheers :cool: Its a nice feeling to be appreciated by my peers, please be seated.

Don't mind if I do *pulls up Throne of Shadow and sends some T'lan to sort out Frook*

[frookenhauer]

Scifreak;371857 said:

Thats a neat assumption but largely untrue, given that wealthy westerners rarely have more than 2.5 children (yeah i know, not my statistic a uk gov one from the 90's) Increased education and resources do not in fact lead to continued population explosion, quite the opposite. It's telling that the last baby boom in the UK was during a time of war and rationing during and directly after WW2.

Interesting you should mention the baby boom, it was actually a post war phenomenon, it peaked in 1959 and suddenly began to decline rapidly from 1960. Why? The birth control pill was introduced at that point, thats why. In Africa the birth rate per family is 5 (BBC World), and therefore food, water and medical aid will mean a major population surge. Birth control is necessary, there is just no way to ignore this fact.

Scifreak;371857 said:

That is a breathtakingly bad analogy given that the 'problems' of crack and heroin (no e needed) are almost directly inspired by prohibition. It's a fact that before the prohibition moves of the 1970's pushed the 100 or so addicts (largely based in Londons chinese quarter of the '60s) onto the hands of criminals, there was no massive problem. Drugs were not a criminal enterprise untill the laws came into criminalise them. During prohibition 20's america the gangs made fortunes and were not averse to selling poisoness moonshine or murdering the rivals. Tell me does the US alcohol trade still involve large scale gangsterism now it's legal again? are not alcoholics treated as sick rather than criminal now? Those you call 'weak minded' are sick, same as an alcoholic is sick. A government controlled program like as stringent as alcohol laws would cut the money right out of the scummy middlemen and allow some state approved body to be in charge of supply. Hey the CIA could do it, they've plenty of practise in the cocaine trade.. As with alcohol prohibition, drug prohibition has pushed a huge criminal market into existence. The solution exacerbates a percieved problem into the large scale and no amount of reductionist bleating about personal responsibility is going to change that. You propose the cleaver where the scalpel is needed iyswim.

I was not actually using it as an analogy, merely a forum to highlight the fact that there exist malevolent, opportunistic and generally nasty scumbags in society, whether they are baby killers,drug pushers or murderers. Its interesting to see that you've put forward a plan that I used to think would work with regards to the drug trade problem, but I would immediately veto any chance of crack or smack being legalised, because they are despicable. Also if drugs in general are legalised with clinics and whatnot the criminal element will just carry on selling in the black market and undercut the government prices like they do with cigarettes and alcohol. We both live in the UK and the beer and fag run to France is commonplace (Hows that for some empiricism? I'm not averse to supplementing my reductionism ). Legalisation is not a good solution, but nice try anyway . Recently I've been more inclined to think that pressure needs to brought to bear on the demand side of the equation, but what to do? Increased sentences for possession, or maybe some form of curfew, enforced rehabilitation, self help groups...or how about the enforced application of neutralising agents which render the drug useless in the bloodstream? Damn shame nobody has invented it yet.

Iyswim? haven't manage to decipher it yet...

Scifreak;371857 said:

Religious and cultural resistance. Plus let's not forget that infanticide falls heaviest on female babies in chinese and indian societies. Go patriarchy!

In terms of religious, social, racial, an@l and hormonal pressures being brought to bear on these pillars of society that are forced by the oppressive patriarchal society that looms over them to force pillows over their own children faces, where on earth are the social, religious, racial pressures that would force them to take that pillow away and begin nurturing their progeny and start living with the consequences? Bottom line: the crime is too deplorable to be explained away by pressure.

Gwynn deserved to be baited for that statement, and I don't believe for one minute that words would fail you. I'm not saying another word about spelling...seriously, BTW congratulations on finding that unnecessary 'e' . The Bush machine and its debacles are hardly linear, its more like a drunkards walk...

Scifreak;371857 said:

You can have a white pointy hat as well if you like. Why do you think the chinese instituted their method anyway? resources FFS. Food being a vital one after Moa's cultural revolution caused so much starvation. The limited use is hardly irrelevant when the sparse application of the nationwide rule is indicative of just how unworkable it is on large scale.

Cheers for the pointy hat, can those runes be in red? Nice one! Mao's cultural revolution was in 1958 - 1960. It was labeled as the great leap forward. The starvation and resource distribution problems continued until 1963. The One child method was not introduced until 1979, which happens to be 3 years after his death. It was implemented to alleviate social and environmental problems, read too many Chinese and not enough space. In actual fact it is enforced in most of china, but in rural areas a second child is allowed if the first is female or disabled. And here is the funny thing, this policy is supported by over 75% of the Chinese population, which to me looks like a majority. I love Wiki! In your face Mr Inaccurate

Scifreak;371857 said:

Don't mind if I do *pulls up Throne of Shadow and sends some T'lan to sort out Frook*

Bring it on! I eat T'lan Imass for breakfast, I prefer them iced

These really long posts are seriously knackering...

[Scifreak]

frookenhauer;371964 said:

Interesting you should mention the baby boom, it was actually a post war phenomenon, it peaked in 1959 and suddenly began to decline rapidly from 1960. Why? The birth control pill was introduced at that point, thats why. In Africa the birth rate per family is 5 (BBC World), and therefore food, water and medical aid will mean a major population surge. Birth control is necessary, there is just no way to ignore this fact.

So it peaked a few years after rationing ended. Wow. The idea that this was because of the pill is false. Societal and religious pressures continued, until the liberalism and breaking away of the sixties. But even so we had a and still have a certain parity with the poorest societies. Like them, it is our poorest elements who end up in a revolving door prison system, committing crimes and engaging in the worst activities. No doubt you'd call me on making the criminal a victim again, which I am not. But why are such crimes more prevelant amongst poorer people? because they are 'weak minded'? Are you some merciless nietztchian?
The pill and the real empowerment afforded to western women by contraception didn't filter through to the majority until the late 70's.

Quote

I was not actually using it as an analogy, merely a forum to highlight the fact that there exist malevolent, opportunistic and generally nasty scumbags in society, whether they are baby killers,drug pushers or murderers. Its interesting to see that you've put forward a plan that I used to think would work with regards to the drug trade problem, but I would immediately veto any chance of crack or smack being legalized, because they are despicable.

Really, grow up and perhaps look at the medical data and history. Opium addiction was a vice of the rich and rarely fatal back in the days before prohibition. Crack is just a way for middlemen to turn more money from adulterated product, money that could be denied to them by medicalising the problem and treating addicts as sick people the way we treat alcohol addicts now. To describe some substances as despicable really shows a niavite and foolishness I'd not expected from you. As if a substance can be called evil. How entirely stupid to call street heroin and crack evil when the legal opiates an cocaine derivatives are available on prescription:rolleyes:

Quote

Also if drugs in general are legalised with clinics and whatnot the criminal element will just carry on selling in the black market and undercut the government prices like they do with cigarettes and alcohol. We both live in the UK and the beer and fag run to France is commonplace (Hows that for some empiricism? I'm not averse to supplementing my reductionism ). Legalisation is not a good solution, but nice try anyway . Recently I've been more inclined to think that pressure needs to brought to bear on the demand side of the equation, but what to do? Increased sentences for possession, or maybe some form of curfew, enforced rehabilitation, self help groups...or how about the enforced application of neutralising agents which render the drug useless in the bloodstream? Damn shame nobody has invented it yet.

And so your jackboot shows itself. Let's demonise the group the SUN told me to, bring pressure to bear on innocent partiers who just want to party. Sorry but last time I checked the black market trade in duty-free fgs and booze wasn't violent and tied up with people trafficking, unlike the illegal drug trade

Quote

Iyswim? haven't manage to decipher it yet...

If You See What I mean

Quote

In terms of religious, social, racial, an@l and hormonal pressures being brought to bear on these pillars of society that are forced by the oppressive patriarchal society that looms over them to force pillows over their own children faces, where on earth are the social, religious, racial pressures that would force them to take that pillow away and begin nurturing their progeny and start living with the consequences? Bottom line: the crime is too deplorable to be explained away by pressure.

More reductionist personal responsibility nonsense. I don't deny that those killers make their personal decision. But I do insist that the stats speak for themselves, and infanticide rises when controls are put in place. Should we shrug that off or perhaps consider more carefully just how such policies are implemented if at all?

Quote

Gwynn deserved to be baited for that statement, and I don't believe for one minute that words would fail you. I'm not saying another word about spelling...seriously, BTW congratulations on finding that unnecessary 'e' . The Bush machine and its debacles are hardly linear, its more like a drunkards walk...

I prefer to attempt to sway someone with half a brain rather than someone with none. That missing 'e' could have been a whole little piss-take paragraph but unlike you I don't indulge in vulgar pedantry to feel superior:p
As I said the reeling from crises-to-crises is non-linear but the 'these a-rabs attacked us-lets pretend they gots WMD-invade-rebuild-get mired and start dying' routine is woefully stupid and the product of thinking 'If we do A and then B then surely C will be the outcome'. You did mathematics right? that discipline has right answers but don't expect the thinking that availed you there to translate to real world problems

Quote

Cheers for the pointy hat, can those runes be in red? Nice one! Mao's cultural revolution was in 1958 - 1960. It was labeled as the great leap forward. The starvation and resource distribution problems continued until 1963. The One child method was not introduced until 1979, which happens to be 3 years after his death. It was implemented to alleviate social and environmental problems, read too many Chinese and not enough space. In actual fact it is enforced in most of china, but in rural areas a second child is allowed if the first is female or disabled. And here is the funny thing, this policy is supported by over 75% of the Chinese population, which to me looks like a majority. I love Wiki! In your face Mr Inaccurate

Those free-speaking not scared of the government at-all Chinese who are totally free to say what they like about their government. LOL.

Sorry, but the scattered Chinese I speak to dismiss it as largely sidelined and ignored these days even in areas that claim to enforce it to keep the Party authorities in Beijing happy. I'm sure wikipedia tells a different story. Same with the idea of when the cultural repercussions of moa's fuck up ended. It's telling that you rarely see a bird outside of a cage or cookpot in China these days. China is a huge country with plenty of space and it is food not space that has caused their hardships

Quote

Bring it on! I eat T'lan Imass for breakfast, I prefer them iced

These really long posts are seriously knackering...

I'm hiring Kallor soon.

[Gwynn ap Nudd]

I suppose I may as well respond to some of this:

frookenhauer;368242 said:

Plenty of resources, whats the problem? Apart from exploitation.

Water and arable land.

frookenhauer;368242 said:

Apart from the fact this happens without your say so, take Iraq for example, if a military dictatorship is running a country, there is not much that can be done without ousting the govt and for gods sakes stop selling them arms! Leave those countries to aid organisations and handouts. Reserve the 'improvements' to the countries which have at least the modicum of a fair government or are at least on the path to political reform. Democracy rules!

If, as you later suggest, this would be done and funded by the G8, I do have a say.

Democracy is short sighted and inefficient. For the sort of sweeping societal changes and long term vision needed for real improvements, democracy may not be the best choice.

Scifreak;370583 said:

Thing is, there is enough money and food in the world to deal with population explosions but when you have ridiculous situations like the top 10% of the uk population holding 45% of the wealth there isn't enough to go around. Brcause thoe at the top are hogging it all.

And most of them aren't willing to let go of it.

frookenhauer;368242 said:

You've completely failed to counter my argument that the people who commit infanticide are just plain messed up in the head.

Incorrect. In the developing areas where this happens they are desperate. Desperate people do things most of us wouldn't dream of. Such as killing the newborn so they can feed the rest of the family. Your idea of limiting rations to those who have more than a certain number of children would have a similar effect.

frookenhauer;368242 said:

I was actually referring to a system whereby the energy producing African nations would exchange energy for water from coastal African countries which would have the desalination plants,

Which is waste of energy. Recent, and mostly experimental advances, have dropped the cost of desalinated water to twice that of water from traditional sources. Which makes it a somewhat unrealistic option. What makes it a waste is that those costs are based on co-generation plants where the excess heat from burning fossil fuels is transferred and used in the desalination process. Otherwise it's a fourfold cost difference. With much of the technology and expertise to build and maintain such plants needing to be imported, costs would rise even further.

It's also a waste as you are introducing the huge cost and transmission losses associated with an intercontinental energy grid. And solar arrays only produce energy half the time, meaning either huge storage capacity needs to be built or twice as many desalination plants do (which would require a more robust and expensive transmission grid). I also think you have little idea of the energy and monetary cost required to pump water over long distances and increases in elevation.

Scifreak;370583 said:

Thats a neat assumption but largely untrue, given that wealthy westerners rarely have more than 2.5 children (yeah i know, not my statistic a uk gov one from the 90's) Increased education and resources do not in fact lead to continued population explosion, quite the opposite. It's telling that the last baby boom in the UK was during a time of war and rationing during and directly after WW2.

No, a wealthy, industrialised and educated society generally does not have a continued population explosion. In fact most of the first world countires would currently have negative population growth if it was not for immigration. At some point the extra expenses associated with bearing and raising a child outweight the benifits of having one. However, at the point where infant mortality rates drop, and life expectancy rises in general, population growth occurs very fast. There is a lengthy transition period from people needing to have a large number of children to people deiciding not to have many.

To reference the Chinese solution, it has not stopped population growth. China's population is predicted to plateau in the next couple decades, but it has not yet. And this is under a totalitarian system with lack of regard for human rights.

The question "What if the best thing for people in general is for large numbers of them to die off?" is a somewhat serious one. This planet does have a limit to the number of people it can continually sustain. We do not know what that limit is. Further, each region on the earth has a limited carrying capacity as well.

I did like how most of the more serious questions were passed off to someone else though.

And lastly, I'm still shaking my head over India being held up as an example of improvement. A country that had plentiful water until it poisoned most of it and where infanticide is common practice. A country that spent vast sums of money, not on the welfare of its people, but on a nuclear arms race with one of its neighbours. India should be in far better shape than it is currently.

[frookenhauer]

Scifreak;371982 said:

So it peaked a few years after rationing ended. Wow. The idea that this was because of the pill is false. Societal and religious pressures continued, until the liberalism and breaking away of the sixties. The pill and the real empowerment afforded to western women by contraception didn't filter through to the majority until the late 70's.

Must have just been a coincidence, or fortuitous timing, whatever, at the time only married couples were allowed access to the pill, which allowed couples the choice to have or not have a baby If thats not birth control, I don't know what is. You seem to be the only person in the world who disagrees that the pill ended to baby boom, see Wiki or this article in The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/200...tionships.women
Access was granted to all women in the 70s and may have had a significant role in the whole empowerment process if feminists are to be believed, women could now have consequence free sex just like men etc etc.

At Baby booms peak fertility rates were at max 3, compared to 5 in Africa today. Whats keeping the African population from spiraling out of control is a high infant mortality rate, disease, famine and war. This is an inescapable fact. If aid is given and manages to combat the old 'population control', something is needed to combat the population surge to come => implementation of Chinese method or a superior alternative which someones going to supply. I think its high time I stopped defending my proposition and had a go at poking a great big hairy finger at someone else's master plan.

Scifreak;371982 said:

Really, grow up and perhaps look at the medical data and history. Opium addiction was a vice of the rich and rarely fatal back in the days before prohibition. Crack is just a way for middlemen to turn more money from adulterated product, money that could be denied to them by medicalising the problem and treating addicts as sick people the way we treat alcohol addicts now. To describe some substances as despicable really shows a niavite and foolishness I'd not expected from you. As if a substance can be called evil. How entirely stupid to call street heroin and crack evil when the legal opiates an cocaine derivatives are available on prescription:rolleyes:

Thanks for thinking so highly of me, but legalising crack and smack is not a good idea. The reason why I said they are despicable is because they are highly addictive, they strip away the dignity, morals and destroy the lives of addicts. I used the word in the sense of being vile, not morally corrupt like you've assumed.

Scifreak;371982 said:

And so your jackboot shows itself. Let's demonise the group the SUN told me to, bring pressure to bear on innocent partiers who just want to party. Sorry but last time I checked the black market trade in duty-free fgs and booze wasn't violent and tied up with people trafficking, unlike the illegal drug trade

F*ck the SUN, its not even good enough to wipe my @rse with. The reason I want the pressure to swing to users is the fact that crack and smack don't really follow normal supply and demand rules, this is due to their highly addictive nature, which is why we get the Hydra effect with regards to the criminal element, demand is just too frikkin high. And I don't regard smack-heads and crack-whores to be party people, do you? My point with regards to beer and fags was that the criminal element will not disappear if we legalise it, they'll just undercut the government prices and carry on dealing, murdering and people trafficking.

Scifreak;371982 said:

More reductionist personal responsibility nonsense. I don't deny that those killers make their personal decision. But I do insist that the stats speak for themselves, and infanticide rises when controls are put in place. Should we shrug that off or perhaps consider more carefully just how such policies are implemented if at all?

If more people took responsibility for themselves in this world instead of blaming someone else, it would be a better place. Stats are all very well, but whats happened in the past doesn't necessarily mean that we will get the same result in the future. By this I mean that things are a little different in Africa than in China and the scenario is likely to produce different results. China is unified and totalitarian whereas African nations are disparate and anarchic. Also the level of benefits i.e. education, medication, food, water and clothing for keeping dick in pants would make it really worthwhile. Implementation, yes, how would you suggest we implement this to cause the least grief?

Scifreak;371982 said:

...unnecessary filler...You did mathematics right? that discipline has right answers but don't expect the thinking that availed you there to translate to real world problems

Logic is never the ideal solution to dealing with people, so I'm also devouring a lot of psychology these days to improve my hit ratio at work. How to win contracts and influence clients

With reference to China, its immaterial whether its Mao's fault or not, I proposed the Chinese method because its one of the things I remembered from school and it fit nicely as a population control method with my Eco friendly, trade and industry proposition for Africa. What would your cunning plan be?

Scifreak;371982 said:

I'm hiring Kallor soon.

Kallor is nobodies tool...

Gwynn ap Nudd;371986 said:

"What if the best thing for people in general is for large numbers of them to die off?"

?!?

[Scifreak]

frookenhauer;372538 said:

Must have just been a coincidence, or fortuitous timing, whatever, at the time only married couples were allowed access to the pill, which allowed couples the choice to have or not have a baby If thats not birth control, I don't know what is. You seem to be the only person in the world who disagrees that the pill ended to baby boom, see Wiki or this article in The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/200...tionships.women
Access was granted to all women in the 70s and may have had a significant role in the whole empowerment process if feminists are to be believed, women could now have consequence free sex just like men etc etc.

The pill likely hastened the end of a baby boom initiated by the war and hardship of the early nineteenth century. It cannot of course be the sole contributor, we have to also look at changing social attitudes, increased personal wealth (the growth of the petit bourgeoisies) and the empowerment of women who had been occupied in what were once traditional male roles (heavy industry etc) while the men were off fighting. I'm likely missing a whole wealth of other factors.

Quote

At Baby booms peak fertility rates were at max 3, compared to 5 in Africa today. Whats keeping the African population from spiraling out of control is a high infant mortality rate, disease, famine and war. This is an inescapable fact. If aid is given and manages to combat the old 'population control', something is needed to combat the population surge to come => implementation of Chinese method or a superior alternative which someones going to supply. I think its high time I stopped defending my proposition and had a go at poking a great big hairy finger at someone else's master plan.

I don't have the stats to hand but I'm willing to bet that during late medieval periods British birthrates measured similar. A huge amount of these people are living in conditions we as wealthy western populations have not experienced for a good two centuries. The superior method you seek is fairly simple, Social Democracy run on Keynesian economic models actually produces surplus and keeps unemployment low. It doesn't allow wealth to travel upwards to a small powerful percentile (unlike our Glorious Pragmatic Neoliberalism). It really has no chance. Sadly we'll see big die-offs and resource drought before the Friedman mindset fades away:( . T

Quote

Thanks for thinking so highly of me, but legalising crack and smack is not a good idea. The reason why I said they are despicable is because they are highly addictive, they strip away the dignity, morals and destroy the lives of addicts. I used the word in the sense of being vile, not morally corrupt like you've assumed.

I've smoked a few pipes of crack and a couple of opium laced spliffs before. I am not now a raving addict, in fact I leave them well alone because they are a shit buzz in my opinion. I was educated not to take any drug ever by the school and state, but educated by my parents that smack and crack are 'a mugs game'. These drugs do not automatically turn you into raving stereo thieving smack-rats upon contact. The reason I said earlier that crack and smack addictions are a sickness is because they ARE physically addictive. Once a habit is established it actually hurts to go without, makes one rattle and shake and puke etc.
To not have the ability to pull out of that intense desire once the body has shaken the addiction, then that is the mind. And a mind that needs the sweet oblivion of smack even though it knows it to be drastically self destructive is a damaged one that needs fixing with talking therapies and strong social support.
And yes alcohol is an addiction so are fags, they kill so many every year. But you don't see them in the same light? you have swallowed your propaganda well mate.

Quote

F*ck the SUN, its not even good enough to wipe my @rse with.

If the SUN was offering free blowjobs and a bacon sandwich I'd still not buy it (I'd get a mate to collect the appropriate tokens of course)

Quote

The reason I want the pressure to swing to users is the fact that crack and smack don't really follow normal supply and demand rules, this is due to their highly addictive nature, which is why we get the Hydra effect with regards to the criminal element, demand is just too frikkin high. And I don't regard smack-heads and crack-whores to be party people, do you? My point with regards to beer and fags was that the criminal element will not disappear if we legalise it, they'll just undercut the government prices and carry on dealing, murdering and people trafficking.

They do, really they do. They follow the standard blackmarket route of people adulterating product all the way down the line. They follow the standard route in that the prohibition makes the price of product go up, it directly increases profitability and ends up being run by those already involved in ruthless muscle and gun led criminality. 1920's alcohol prohibition was a total object lesson that has never been learned.

Quote

If more people took responsibility for themselves in this world instead of blaming someone else, it would be a better place.

In Haiti poor workers eat mud fried in vegetable oil to get themselves by until the day wage at night. Should they be given your 'responsibility, pull your socks up' speech? and the mother from the barrios working 12 hours a day stitching western bought clothing for pennies, the one who watched two babies starve and the eldest son dead in child gang war? what would you say to this catholic (non contraceptive taking, remember) woman?
'have another child and watch it starve'. And what if she pushed the kids chest down for a beat too long and supplied some more food by denying that one life. Who is the real killer here? her, who does a triage of starvation, or the power elite that live in indolence while allowing such to go on and blaming the individual.?

Quote

Stats are all very well, but whats happened in the past doesn't necessarily mean that we will get the same result in the future. By this I mean that things are a little different in Africa than in China and the scenario is likely to produce different results. China is unified and totalitarian whereas African nations are disparate and anarchic. Also the level of benefits i.e. education, medication, food, water and clothing for keeping dick in pants would make it really worthwhile. Implementation, yes, how would you suggest we implement this to cause the least grief?

China's centralization' isn't quite as thorough as you might assume given a totalitarian style of Maoism. It's too big for such.
As for implementation, dear god no. I cannot begin to analyse the situation well enough to make workable solutions. But I'm pretty sure those that can and do are not getting heard. I think the dread hand of the IMF lies heavily on the situation and thats a grip that won't shift without violence in my honest opinion

Quote

Logic is never the ideal solution to dealing with people, so I'm also devouring a lot of psychology these days to improve my hit ratio at work. How to win contracts and influence clients

I'm hoping you aren't taking freud too seriously after all he was a repressed vienesse wrong'un:D

Quote

With reference to China, its immaterial whether its Mao's fault or not, I proposed the Chinese method because its one of the things I remembered from school and it fit nicely as a population control method with my Eco friendly, trade and industry proposition for Africa. What would your cunning plan be?

Meh. It involves Socialism, direct democracy, democratic anarchism. If you really want me to expand I will tomorrow. Tonight multi quoting has exhausted me.

[frookenhauer]

Hey Scifreak, would love to post a reply today, but am wasted after hard day at the mines. You could say I hit the motherload . Hatchet will be sharpened for tomorrow, as will the quill

[Scifreak]

frookenhauer;373014 said:

Hey Scifreak, would love to post a reply today, but am wasted after hard day at the mines. You could say I hit the motherload . Hatchet will be sharpened for tomorrow, as will the quill

You see, mining with a hatchet is doomed to failure mate:D

As is applying a whetstone to a quill or a blunt solution to a problem bristling with sharp edges and corpses:)

[frookenhauer]

Scifreak;372992 said:

The pill likely hastened the end of a baby boom initiated by the war and hardship of the early nineteenth century. It cannot of course be the sole contributor, we have to also look at changing social attitudes...

Factor away all you want, but theres no way of getting around the fact that the pill was instrumental in ending the baby boom, it was the means, the method and allowed choice to enter the picture.

Scifreak;372992 said:

I don't have the stats to hand but I'm willing to bet that during late medieval periods British birthrates measured similar. A huge amount of these people are living in conditions we as wealthy western populations have not experienced for a good two centuries. The superior method you seek is fairly simple, Social Democracy run on Keynesian economic models actually produces surplus and keeps unemployment low. It doesn't allow wealth to travel upwards to a small powerful percentile (unlike our Glorious Pragmatic Neoliberalism). It really has no chance. Sadly we'll see big die-offs and resource drought before the Friedman mindset fades away:( . T

In late medieval periods average life expectancy was low, medicine was primitive and there were plenty of wars to keep the population down, so even if birth rates were similar, there would be no population explosion. Give it up man, a population surge would come to pass if standards of living are raised. As far as I can tell, we seem to be in living a social democracy right now and the economy seems to run on a Keynesian model or am I missing something?

Scifreak;372992 said:

I've smoked a few pipes of crack and a couple of opium laced spliffs before. I am not now a raving addict, in fact I leave them well alone because they are a shit buzz in my opinion. I was educated not to take any drug ever by the school and state, but educated by my parents that smack and crack are 'a mugs game'. These drugs do not automatically turn you into raving stereo thieving smack-rats upon contact. The reason I said earlier that crack and smack addictions are a sickness is because they ARE physically addictive. Once a habit is established it actually hurts to go without, makes one rattle and shake and puke etc.
To not have the ability to pull out of that intense desire once the body has shaken the addiction, then that is the mind. And a mind that needs the sweet oblivion of smack even though it knows it to be drastically self destructive is a damaged one that needs fixing with talking therapies and strong social support.
And yes alcohol is an addiction so are fags, they kill so many every year. But you don't see them in the same light? you have swallowed your propaganda well mate.

Most people have had a brush with exotic substances, to varying degrees. I smoked, but never inhaled for many years and was very happy while clubbing for some time too, it was all the rave, you see Like you say crack and smack are addictive in all areas physically and mentally, which is why I do not want them legalised. Its this very combination that makes them so deadly. Cigarettes are physically addictive, but do not alter your reality. Alcohol alters your reality, but is not physically addictive (It might be in extreme cases, however). I'm not going to argue about the health issue, but when was the last time you heard of anyone 'actually' killing someone for a cigarette? Until a decent easily administered neutralising agent is developed, prohibition is the only answer for the present.

Scifreak;372992 said:

If the SUN was offering free blowjobs and a bacon sandwich I'd still not buy it (I'd get a mate to collect the appropriate tokens of course)

The fact that its UKs No. 1 daily paper says something about the culture we live in. I'm a strict Reuters + Economist reader, but I pick up the mail occasionally to see what the enemy has to say for itself.

Scifreak;372992 said:

... it directly increases profitability and ends up being run by those already involved in ruthless muscle and gun led criminality. 1920's alcohol prohibition was a total object lesson that has never been learned.

You're forgetting the fact that smack and crack have never been considered socially acceptable by the general public, whereas alcohol was, is and will be...Addicts will always be at the fringes of society, by choice or pressure is immaterial, where they are joined by the criminals that supply them, and that is where both need to remain until a better solution is found. The prohibition argument is therefore not altogether applicable because it does not affect the whole of society. I'm not denying that there is an impact, but its not that important.

Scifreak;372992 said:

...What would you say to this catholic (non contraceptive taking, remember) woman?
'have another child and watch it starve'. And what if she pushed the kids chest down for a beat too long and supplied some more food by denying that one life. Who is the real killer here? her, who does a triage of starvation, or the power elite that live in indolence while allowing such to go on and blaming the individual.?

Fine, while its not always personal responsibility with regards to workers in Haiti and so on, but I would like to add that part of the problem stems from the fact that over a third of the population is under the age of 14. To the Catholic mother, I'd suggest she abstains (abstinence is very Christian) from sex or tries @nal as an alternative, both options are apt as far as I'm concerned, because murder leads to the hellfire.

Scifreak;372992 said:

...I think the dread hand of the IMF lies heavily on the situation and thats a grip that won't shift without violence in my honest opinion

I have not yet fully read up on the IMF, but so far its seems to be a tool that enables the rich countries to stay on top and keeps the status quo... (Note to self, investigate IMF)

Scifreak;372992 said:

I'm hoping you aren't taking freud too seriously after all he was a repressed vienesse wrong'un

He may have plagiarised Sophocles, but he had a good bedside manner apparently...I am brushing the surface regarding psychology due to the fact that I am no longer a student and time is now a valuable resource and am concentrating on influence, NLP, body language and pretty much anything that makes me more effective in front of clients. Do I hear a yawn?

Scifreak;372992 said:

It involves Socialism, direct democracy, democratic anarchism. If you really want me to expand I will tomorrow. Tonight multi quoting has exhausted me.

Care to elaborate? BTW All this camaraderie is stifling...You stink! And you're Lazy...

Gwynn ap Nudd;371986 said:

I suppose I may as well respond to some of this:

And so will I, because it would be rude not to, seeing as you've put some time and effort into the post...And also because there are plenty of points I can pick holes in with my trusty big hairy finger...

Gwynn ap Nudd;371986 said:

Water and arable land.

Which is waste of energy. Recent, and mostly experimental advances...based on co-generation plants where the excess heat from burning fossil fuels is transferred and used in the desalination process. Otherwise it's a fourfold cost difference. With much of the technology and expertise to build and maintain such plants needing to be imported, costs would rise even further.

It's also a waste as you are introducing the huge cost and transmission losses associated with an intercontinental energy grid. And solar arrays only produce energy half the time, meaning either huge storage capacity needs to be built or twice as many desalination plants do (which would require a more robust and expensive transmission grid). I also think you have little idea of the energy and monetary cost required to pump water over long distances and increases in elevation.

I do realise that water and arable land are an issue in Africa, which was why I proposed my idea, more water would lead to an increase in arable land. For someone who is worried about the damage to the planet by having too many people, you seem to be very quick to want to burn fossil fuels, but I think you are ignoring the fact that once the solar array is set up, the energy is free. After the initial investment these is no fuel cost, so in the long run everyone benefits. Running the desalination during the day and having 'normal' power stations that kick in at night to keep the systems idling along, or even use wind and wave and tidal and geothermal energy if appropriate.

I do not think you really understand much about transmission losses in terms of energy 'grids', the energy loss in the system is given by (current)squared times resistance, but distances greater than 4000 miles are not economical, which is okay because no point in Africa is greater than 4000 miles away from the coat. At present Europe already has a continental power grid and plans are afoot to bring power to Scotland via Iceland. By keeping voltage really high, current is kept extremely low and transmission losses are kept to a minimum. Sometimes I'm glad I did physics A level. In terms of pumping water around the place, it all boils down to whether or not it is necessary. Africa needs water as much as it needs fossil fuels to enable a stable economy and improve the standard of living. We build pipelines for oil and gas and its not too far a stretch to want to be able to do the same for water.

Once again its all down to the initial investment. The end product is worth the time, effort and money, because it really could change the face of Africa.

Gwynn ap Nudd;371986 said:

...at the point where infant mortality rates drop, and life expectancy rises in general, population growth occurs very fast...To reference the Chinese solution, it has not stopped population growth...And this is under a totalitarian system with lack of regard for human rights.

Agreed in terms of population growth. The chinese method did slow down population growth, which was the aim in the first place. Totalitarian, but how else do you manage a country of 1 billion?

Gwynn ap Nudd;371986 said:

Democracy is short sighted and inefficient. For the sort of sweeping societal changes and long term vision needed for real improvements, democracy may not be the best choice.

Would you manage it by democracy? Ah, but thats short sighted and inefficient, hmm, alas what to do?

Gwynn ap Nudd;371986 said:

I'm still shaking my head over India being held up as an example of improvement. A country that had plentiful water until it poisoned most of it and where infanticide is common practice. A country that spent vast sums of money, not on the welfare of its people, but on a nuclear arms race with one of its neighbours. India should be in far better shape than it is currently.

I'm willing to change my mind with regards to an Indian model, but you got to admit, they are developing into an economic powerhouse. A little subcontinent packed to the brim with hard working intelligent people.

Gwynn ap Nudd;371986 said:

I did like how most of the more serious questions were passed off to someone else though.

Which ones?

Gwynn ap Nudd;371986 said:

The question "What if the best thing for people in general is for large numbers of them to die off?" is a somewhat serious one. This planet does have a limit to the number of people it can continually sustain. We do not know what that limit is. Further, each region on the earth has a limited carrying capacity as well.

Forecasts show 9 billion by 2050, so hopefully by then we'll be living in Biomes, the new 'gated community'. By then GM foods will be the norm and we'll have fusion and all that, so I reckon we'll still be okay...sort of. (I'm hopeful, but understand that this is mostly wishful thinking)

It is silly to ask the question regarding letting people die off, because it is unethical, immoral and very unsportsmanlike. On a more serious note, what would actually be your criteria for judging who has to go?