I have Bio class in an hour and have to argue the opposition of this argument. We had to read several articles from Scientific American about population growth and all pointed to the fact that those in developing countries often have a higher rate of procreation due to high infant death mortality. As infant mortality rates go down, families tend to have only two children as opposed to six or seven.
The meaning I found of "developed world" included the United States, Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and several other Asian & European countries. The "developing world" examples included several countries in Africa. Development refers to industrialization while developing used to be labeled as third-world.
My stance on this issue is that imposing sanctions would only increase infant death mortality as less food would become available. Plus, in most developing countries a single person uses more resources every day than ten people or even a hundred in a non-developed world. Therefore I feel the developed world should advise (suggest for the good of the world and future food supply, not mandate) its population to have smaller families (1-2) and increase food supply and medical care to developing countries.
What do you think? (sorry for the longness)
There is no such thing as overpopulation.
EDIT - right and when was the last time you filled your tank? Gasoline's back under $2.
I'm sorry, but who the hell do you think you are?
Who on earth would put such a thought in your head that YOU or WE can decide for other people what they should do?
Edit:
Yes, I read your question. Have you read it? It's not a question about biology, it's a question about influencing the behavior of other people.
The "Biology" question COULD be, "Would people in countries with high birth rates be better off, if they reduced their birth rate?"
The question you ask involves actively imposing your beliefs on another group of people.
If you inquired "Should our country continue to support countries with high birth rates?" -- That at least would be only you deciding what to do or not.
The word "sanctions" implies actively punishing people for not behaving as you wish. (Which is one of the many ways people who are "do-gooders" end up being hated by the people they are "trying to help." -- sound familiar?)
well, how did it go? the only country that has tried a coercive population policy is china, it worked, but at great personal pain to many citizens.
Chapter 12: Recognizing Interdependencies and Thinking Long Term::
File Format: Microsoft Powerpoint - View as HTMLWORLD TOTAL. 16.4. 28.8. 12.4. All Developing countries . Instead of striving for self-sufficiency, countries should focus on what they can do . of sanctions, but that this has failed; (c) that the sanctions imposed conform Stage 1: High birth rates and death rates in pre-industrial subsistence economies.
http://www.humboldt.edu/~envecon/ppt/econ309sustinterdepHOME |
three things needed to reduce birth rate;
emancipation and education of women (opportunity)
access to contraception (means)
Get a free year of FP! Two years for only $24.95. Migration's New ::
Of this population, 60 percent reside in developed regions. .. most need remittances by imposing blanket sanctions against governments and financial Countries in the developing world can also do their part to make the most of migrants from the developing world impose costs on their rich host countries in
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=191&print=1HOME |
reduce infant mortality (motive)
The insurance of survival as a species is (reproduction).At least I've never heard or read anything contrary to this believe. In this case, I think education would be more appropriate.
Right now we are using accumulated solar energy in form of petroleum, wood, coal. Petroleum will run out in half a century, not before having polluted the atmosphere. Other non renewable resources will run out too, perhaps even uranium. By that time, the world population will be around 10 billion. Earth can sustain one billion with not destroying the planet.
Wars will be fought for the last drop of petroleum, forest and drinkable water. That would mark the end of our civilization. That is our nature and we can't help it.
The solution, if any, is to decrease the world population, stop the usage of petroleum entirely and learn to use renewable resources rationally. Impossible by human thought. Nature will solve that itself.
Perhaps we have some two billion years ahead to think of smarter solutions...
Do note the story about bio fuel as an example what is going on in this sad world. The same companies which control petroleum have engaged into cutting rain forests which provide us oxygen, undiscovered medicine and (non commercial) biodiversity. Besides using the wood and converting it into CO2, they plant genetically modified monsters to be used as bio fuel. These monsters depend on chemicals and other artificial life support which compensate overproduction (gigaproduction). These pollute and drain up the fertile soil and its bio diversity.
All this so people can drive their jeeps and sport cars... and all this we allow with silent blessing... In other words, we are killing our children by suffocation.
Sunshine,
this category is GLOBAL WARMING, perhaps you should pick a more suitable YA category for your question and re-post it.
Oh, and don't forget to delete this one too.
THX!
A sanction would do little to reduce birth rates. All it would do is make the governments want the citizens to reduce birth rates, and in most developing nations, the government doesn't have a whole heck of a lot of control.
Also I don't fully agree you should make the connection that high infant mortality is the root cause of high birth rate; I think it's much more likely they are just both the result of poverty. Families in poor communities have a lot of children because doing so means there are more members of the family to work and thus make the family better off. Rule number one of economics is that individuals work to make themselves better off; imposing sanctions would not create any individual motivation to reduce birth rate.
 Microsoft Unleashes Visual Studio .NET
 IBM's iPhrase Buy Adds to WebSphere
|
HOME