Good point. Reproduction is not only recreation, it is their only mode of insurance.Originally Posted by Sokar Rostau
Last edited by WildBerry; 21-12-2008 at 11:56.
Not having any recreational outlets for their communities was just one of the factors I mentioned as a contributor to the disaster. There were other factors I mentioned. I didn't say they procreate solely due to lack of other things to do.
And if I fail to understand how charity works, would you care to enlighten me? All I know is that 300 trillion went into Africa and they still need so much more. All I know is that charity doesn't seem to be working after all these years. Plus, I don't hear anyone coming up with other solutions.
Just make them rich. The richer a country gets the lower its birth rate. I guess because povs have nothing better to do with their time.
Perhaps they need big families to make sure they are taken care of after they get older.
stillman, what I find scary is your willingness to kill people, even in the face of your admitted naivete. "I don't know what's going on, but I know it's not working, so let's kill them" is a horrible attitude.
I'm also curious to see where that $300 trillion comes from. The IMF says nearly $650 billion was given from 1960-2006 (in 2004 dollars) from the OECD. And the US gives about $4 billion/yr, up from about $1 billion per year in the 1990s. By all accounts, your $300 trillion is a gross overestimation. And you fail to take into account that some of the "aid" being sent is debt relief, which really isn't what comes to mind when one thinks of foreign aid.
If you're really curious, you can read the World Bank's book on the effectiveness of aid:Assessing Aid - What Works, What Doesn't, and Why
Historically false, incidentally. Provision of the service and removal of both social and legal barriers increases the activity dramatically. Same thing is proven true for drug use, which is why I thought it interesting that Amsterdam has decided to crack down - not so great now, eh?
I found this to be helpful:
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4311
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5120
And again, I never suggested we 'kill' anyone. I suggested we stop making things worse for them. Halting the cash flow would lead to some deaths, but we are not causing those deaths. I repeat: when you refuse to give a homeless guy money for rent, that doesn't make you his killer when he dies in the winter.
It's not about an insurance policy for old age... especially when "old" in the circumstances under discussion is ~40.
In agricultural societies more children means more hands to work the crops. There's a formula I came across about 15 years ago that basically says one man can only work one hectare (random area for demonstration), which is enough to feed him and his wife for six months. A single child, over five years of age, can work a further hectare but only consumes an extra half hectare which means the man and wife can eat for nine months. Two children are then able to work enough land to feed the family for twelve months and three children are capable of producing a surplus that can then be either sold at the market or saved for emergencies.
The actual formula is, of course, a lot more complex than this and involves diminishing returns, a surplus that gets smaller as the children age, but it is complicated by several things.
The first is infant mortality. There is no guarantee that the three children will reach the age of five in the first place, let alone survive to adulthood. This means that another two "insurance" children are required and they have to be fed as well, which diminishes the small surplus until one of them, almost inevitably, dies from illness or accident (famine is not here counted, it is a further factor that exacerbates an existing problem) and then that child has to be replaced.
Another major factor that effects this is that by the time the last child is old enough to start working the fields the oldest child is a teenager and is consuming a lot more - likely more than his father. In other times than these, the oldest child would then leave the family, find himself a bride and start the process over, assuming, of course, there wasn't a military threat in which case he would go to war. If no bride or war is handy the family needs an extra pair of hands to feed the eldest child until he leaves, and by that time the second eldest may be old enough to be eating too much and it's time for him to leave.
Another factor that comes into play is agricultural practices. Unless a family already has decent sized holdings (which is very possible under dowry systems) they may come into further problems. If you're going to work seven hectares and you have ten, then there's not much of a problem and you can slowly rotate your crops. If you only have seven hectares then you're only real option is to replant in the same place year after year. While there are things that can be done the soil will eventually become exhausted and cease to be fertile, at least temporarily. Climactic crop failure combined with exhausted soil means disaster. It has to be noted, however, that the soil does eventually become fertile again - some people are under the impression that Ethiopia has been starving for 25 years and that is not the case, what is happening now is a second major drought (combined with other factors).
Natural mortality rates keep systems such as this stable for centuries. Can anyone guess what disrupted these systems and ultimately led to the situation in Africa we have now?
Spike Lee said it was due to crackas.
I can imagine an evil mastermind reading this thread then donating millions to charity
They wouldn't be so poor in their old age if they hadn't tried to support a hundred kids in their prime.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks