donincognito wrote on Jun 25^th, 2013 at 1:44pm:

So you support the war in Afghanistan then?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 25^th, 2013 at 1:03pm:


No. If anything, it would exacerbate it. The reason that we have an overpopulation problem in the third world nations is because people are having children without thought about their children's future or their own. They have children because that's the results of having sex. They have sex because it feels good. Somehow we have to find a way of stopping the third world nations from having too many children. That way being introducing contraceptives. Because expecting them to stop having sex is unrealistic.

The sardonic response I came up with in regards to just stop feeding the third world people, was motivated by the forward thinking that this won't simply rectify the situation of illegal immigration in Australia, or just kill off the problem in the short term. Historically, an epidemic of starvation and malnutrition has helped keep the population of civilisations within sustainable levels. Yet, in contemporary times, with modern medicines that ward off disease, and farmers being able to produce massive quantities of food for consumption, plus advances in transportation technology, we have seen world population growth quintuple in the last 150 years.

How would you be able to feed the entire globe without the reciprocity process, and not expect the numbers to keep swelling in developing nations? The problem being that if we want to expect overpopulation reduced in developing nations, we have to expect strategies to be formulated that allow women the right to choose how many children they have, and allow women the right to have careers on the equal footing that their male counterparts have. That's what changed the birth rates down to replacement levels in developed countries.

Imagine cutting off funding to developing nations. You will find that the people their will just revert back to barbarism and possibly a type of chaos. Whatever resources we are trying to get from them will be cut off. Then there will be no reason for the locals to stay put. Hence the reason they will try for more developed and safer countries. Reciprocity funding from developed to the developing countries, however, will reduce the likelihood of exacerbated social and political problems in the future for both regions.

That is also true, Datalife.

donincognito wrote on Jun 25^th, 2013 at 1:44pm:


Spot on.  Nailed it.

UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 28^th, 2013 at 12:07am:


Exactly right.  In the instances where we aren't providing foreign aid, there's not much we can do about it.  But in the cases where we ARE providing foreign aid, we can tell the (often corrupt) Governments of these countries what changes we'd like to see made, or we'll gradually reduce the aid we're giving them (which they're often syphoning off for themselves anyway).  Or in the cases where we're trading with these countries, we'll stop trading.  But the second choice will never happen, since it will hurt the profits of our already bloated-rich exporters.