Comments on: Smashing the ‘too many babies’ myth http://www.humanaction.co.za/2010/07/smashing-the-too-many-babies-myth/ freedom begins with new thinking Mon, 31 Oct 2011 10:56:22 +0200 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: freeman http://www.humanaction.co.za/2010/07/smashing-the-too-many-babies-myth/comment-page-1/#comment-270 freeman Tue, 03 Aug 2010 06:59:37 +0000 http://www.humanaction.co.za/?p=1970#comment-270 Wow, hard to know exactly where to begin in response to this. So much nonsense. I'll keep it simple. The notion that Africa is awash with people is a myth. Just travel from Namibia to Botswana to Zambia to Tanzania to Uganda and Kenya and the horn of Africa and you'll quickly see that there ain't a lot of people out there. Africa is a very sparsely populated place compared with say Europe, Asia and the USA. Yet it is Africa that has all the malnutrition clinics, not Europe, Asia and the USA. One of the reasons is that people in these more densely populated parts of the world PRODUCE more than they CONSUME, while in Africa they CONSUME more than they PRODUCE. There are also more people to work the available resources, making more goods and services available at a cheaper price. In Africa, places with few people are places where resources are not tapped, and the cost of living is very high. Market scale is limited and logistics costs become prohibitive to suppliers to properly service areas. Africa needs more people, not less. As for richer, better educated people having fewer children, this is probably true, but at current Western world birth rates those folk won't be around much longer to tell the tale. It is the fecund who will inherit the earth, not the 'rich and educated' having 1 spoiled designer baby at 40. Mark Steyn's "inverted family tree" theory (4 grandparents have 2 children have 1 grandchild) does not make for a successful society, as Europeans are finding out with a bang. So basically the population alarmists have been wrong for the past 200 years since Malthus got all hot under the collar for populatastrophe. The big risk these days is not overpopulation but dwindling populations. The eco-alarmists have also been wrong for centuries, warning of the great cooling then the great warming then the great cooling then the great warming, generation in, generation out. Those are some pretty well-established trends in intellectual failure, and I'll happily follow Mr. Vegter in not bucking them. Wow, hard to know exactly where to begin in response to this. So much nonsense. I’ll keep it simple. The notion that Africa is awash with people is a myth. Just travel from Namibia to Botswana to Zambia to Tanzania to Uganda and Kenya and the horn of Africa and you’ll quickly see that there ain’t a lot of people out there. Africa is a very sparsely populated place compared with say Europe, Asia and the USA. Yet it is Africa that has all the malnutrition clinics, not Europe, Asia and the USA. One of the reasons is that people in these more densely populated parts of the world PRODUCE more than they CONSUME, while in Africa they CONSUME more than they PRODUCE. There are also more people to work the available resources, making more goods and services available at a cheaper price.

In Africa, places with few people are places where resources are not tapped, and the cost of living is very high. Market scale is limited and logistics costs become prohibitive to suppliers to properly service areas. Africa needs more people, not less.

As for richer, better educated people having fewer children, this is probably true, but at current Western world birth rates those folk won’t be around much longer to tell the tale. It is the fecund who will inherit the earth, not the ‘rich and educated’ having 1 spoiled designer baby at 40. Mark Steyn’s “inverted family tree” theory (4 grandparents have 2 children have 1 grandchild) does not make for a successful society, as Europeans are finding out with a bang.

So basically the population alarmists have been wrong for the past 200 years since Malthus got all hot under the collar for populatastrophe. The big risk these days is not overpopulation but dwindling populations. The eco-alarmists have also been wrong for centuries, warning of the great cooling then the great warming then the great cooling then the great warming, generation in, generation out.

Those are some pretty well-established trends in intellectual failure, and I’ll happily follow Mr. Vegter in not bucking them.

]]> By: Theseus http://www.humanaction.co.za/2010/07/smashing-the-too-many-babies-myth/comment-page-1/#comment-269 Theseus Mon, 02 Aug 2010 19:44:57 +0000 http://www.humanaction.co.za/?p=1970#comment-269 If you consider Ivo Vegter an island of sanity it is time to increase your medication. This reactionary loon is against science, rants against the the evidence against global warming and now is in population denialism. His only worth is to give ammunition to fundamentalists that some of us may not have evolved. It is a simple fact that richer, better educated couples have less children because they are able to care for them better. You should visit (along with Vegter) a malnutrition clinic. Remember, the intellectual and physical damage done by malnutrition is irreversible. While birth control is unpleasant, the alternative, famine or war may be worse. The third choice, emigration (think how many "europeans" there are in N America, the former Commonwealth and elsewhere) is no longer viable. It is population pressure on the habitat that is causing outbreaks of yicky diseases that live in "the wild" - for instance Ebola & Swine flus, AIDS and even the plague, which was thought to be extinct (the rats caryying the flea plague vector had been living undisturbed in the forests). Oh, and the BP oil spill is another consequence of the economics-driven quest for more resources. If you consider Ivo Vegter an island of sanity it is time to increase your medication.

This reactionary loon is against science, rants against the the evidence against global warming and now is in population denialism. His only worth is to give ammunition to fundamentalists that some of us may not have evolved.

It is a simple fact that richer, better educated couples have less children because they are able to care for them better. You should visit (along with Vegter) a malnutrition clinic. Remember, the intellectual and physical damage done by malnutrition is irreversible.

While birth control is unpleasant, the alternative, famine or war may be worse. The third choice, emigration (think how many “europeans” there are in N America, the former Commonwealth and elsewhere) is no longer viable. It is population pressure on the habitat that is causing outbreaks of yicky diseases that live in “the wild” – for instance Ebola & Swine flus, AIDS and even the plague, which was thought to be extinct (the rats caryying the flea plague vector had been living undisturbed in the forests).

Oh, and the BP oil spill is another consequence of the economics-driven quest for more resources.

]]>