Log in

View Full Version : "Overpopulation": Excuses for oppression of the poor



cyu
19th September 2009, 02:12
Excerpts from http://enpassant.com.au/?p=4873

There is a “common sense” belief that has been at the heart of much discussion on the environment for many years – that there are simply too many people on the planet.

The argument echoes the ideas of the 18th century writer Thomas Malthus, who believed that growth in population would inevitably outstrip available food supply.

Malthus’ ideas have no basis in science. Britain for instance comfortably contains a population far in excess of that which Malthus believed would lead to mass starvation.

Improved science and agriculture have enabled us to produce far more food than ever before.

the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation points out that there is 15 percent more food today per person than there was 20 years ago.

Recently it has shown that the total amount of land for crops in the world could be more than doubled.

When the great revolutionary Frederick Engels criticised Malthus, he turned the argument on its head. Rather than asking why people are hungry, he wondered why there isn’t enough food produced.

“The limits of production are determined not by the number of hungry bellies but by the number of purses able to buy and to pay,” he wrote.

The moneyless bellies, the labour which cannot be utilised for profit and therefore cannot buy is left to the death-rate.”

There are more than enough resources to meet the needs of everyone on the planet

The priorities of the system stand in the way of doing this, not a growth in population.

Omegared
20th September 2009, 05:55
That quote was hard as fuck! There are still Neo-Malthusians that promote population reduction. Google Optimum Population Trust.

Revy
20th September 2009, 14:15
Maybe there will be a "reverse Roe v. Wade" situation, surrounding a law to restrict the number of children one can have. Of course, if the court followed precedent established by Roe v. Wade, they would have to rule against it. The right to choose would apply.

There have been a few mild controversies around the issue. The Duggar family, and of course, Octomom...

Black&Red
28th September 2009, 20:05
I can't remember in which book exactly did I read this, I believe it was in a Michael Parenti book), but it said that feminism was the answer to overpopulation.

It stated that if women had more choice and were not forced to marry and have babies to live well, there wouldn't be any problem with overpopulation.

And concerning the food problem, if we ate less meat, most of the agricultural products could be used to feed humans instead of cattle.

Ovi
28th September 2009, 20:40
And concerning the food problem, if we ate less meat, most of the agricultural products could be used to feed humans instead of cattle.
The agricultural production would then decline due to lower demand, and the poor would still starve. It's not about food production, but about money. As cyu already stated

“The limits of production are determined not by the number of hungry bellies but by the number of purses able to buy and to pay,”

Zeus the Moose
28th September 2009, 22:09
and of course, Octomom...

Octomom makes me think of some sort of Lovecraftian horror, rather than a woman who gave birth to octuplets.

PossiblyLeft
28th September 2009, 22:22
So why do poor people need to have more babies exactly?

RedRise
29th September 2009, 09:49
So why do poor people need to have more babies exactly?

In many cultures, especially in places like India, children are like a form of wealth.(:confused: no i don't really understand this either)
I guess if you have lots of children you have a) more farm workers b) more chance of one striking it rich:D and c) more people to look after you and pay for you in your old age when you can no longer work the farm on your own.
Something like that. Although why it applies to people living in places that are no longer primarily agricultural societies is past me.:rolleyes:

bricolage
29th September 2009, 14:52
Although why it applies to people living in places that are no longer primarily agricultural societies is past me.:rolleyes:

If you are it is most likely you live in bad conditions with limited access to clean water, regular food, good medicine etc. Therefore there is a high chance your baby will die, so the more you have the better chance you have of one getting through so to speak.

revolt4thewin
29th September 2009, 23:32
oh vey

Tatarin
30th September 2009, 00:20
Naturally, more babies means more incomes to the family, and more chances for at least one of the children to become a genius/celebrity and get the family out of its poverty. That's one example.