Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Population and DNA

Well I promised this so here it is.

We often joke about which came first, the chicken or the egg, and as Blacknad has pointed out Dawkins has written a book roughly related to the subject but let dig in and apply some mental horsepower.

Which major problems currently confronting our species, and others, on this planet is not directly attributable to our current and rising population?

1. Global warming
2. Water for drinking and farming
3. Infrastructure costs such as roads, schools, airports
4. Quite a number of wars
5. Costs and losses related to natural disasters
6. Immigration (worldwide not just US)
... and I could add tens if not hundreds of additional items but I think the point is made.

And we treat each and every one of these as a separate topic where we get to debate, ad nauseum, funding this and that and taxes, etc.

The one sacred cow in all of this is population. We continue to increase population without discussion, without measure, without concern about the impact on quality, and do so because our genes are programming to replicate full-speed-ahead damn-the-torpedos.

But how and in what way is this in our best interest as opposed to the best interest of our DNA?

From a biological standpoint it is easy to see why the vast majority of those on this planet do this mindlessly. To not reproduce guarantees the extinction of the DNA line. So DNA that did not control the belief system of its owner dies out while the DNA of those who engage in essentially uncontrolled reproduction proliferates.

Yes I know there are some of you out there doing it for religious reasons or whose churches tell you birth control is wrong. But have you asked yourselves why and considered the implications?

We are rapidly closing in on genetic and pharmacological solutions to diseases that will continue to extend life and decrease child mortality producing an ever larger population. And no where is their any compensatory action. In Japan and Russia and a few other countries where birth rates have fallen recently ... the governments have started incentive programs to increase the population. The only country that has successfully confronted the issue, the People's Republic of China, was universally condemned for doing so. And today is sitting on top of one trillion dollars in cash, a booming economy, and it should surprise no one.

So lets have at it folks. I am challenging you to consider that we should strive for a population of 50% of our current population in the next 100 years to solve almost all of our major problems.

And I fully expect some of your reactions to be near thermo-nuclear. Have at it.

Dan, the answer to your original question is none of them.

You wrote:

"We continue to increase population without discussion"

Now that's not entirely true. Every now and again someone leaps up in NZ and says, "We must increase our population if we want our economy to grow." No-one points out that if you can get an economy to grow without increasing the population you've actually achieved something.

Someone, somewhere once said, "The best thing you can contribute to the next generation is not to contribute any children."

To me that is not a discussion. There are a few old timers like me that remember that ZPG stands for Zero Population Growth.

But it is not in the news.
It is not in the political discourse.
It is not in the schools.
It is not in the pulpit.
It is not just shunned ... it is a non-issue.

I would say that a reduction to 50% within a 100yrs is a supremely ambitious target, but...

I'll assume that everyone in the forum agrees that the world is overpopulated, or at least soon will be. Therefore, I'd say that everyone would also agree that the world would benefit from measures to halt the population growth or reverse the trend.

I think this is a deep subject, and the arguments may be full of potential pitfalls and byways that may not be immediately obvious.

Proposals for reducing population/population-growth need to be based on a clear view of the factors that affect the growth rate. Maybe we can compile a list -

Positive forces, increasing growth rate/population size:

(1) The sexual drive.
(2) Maternal/Paternal instinct - the natural desire to raise a family/to care for offspring.
(3) Expectations of society - "Mum's asking when we're going to start a family" and "You only have one child? When are you going to have another?" etc.
(4) Religious affiliation and belief concerning contraception.
(5) Lack of family planning facilities and related education.
(6) Increased life expectancy
(7) High infant mortality rates, resulting in high birth rates.

Negative forces, reducing growth rate/population size:

(1) Economic factors - such as are believed to be responsible for low population growth in some countries. Some economies have become dependent upon both husband and wife being in fulltime employment.
(2) Regulatory laws such as in China.
(3) More extensive family planning facilities and related education, particularly in regions of high population growth.
(4) ?

That's a start. Can we extend the lists?

Having done so, then perhaps we can examine the various listed components, and hopefully develop rational ideas that might reasonably be expected to contribute to a solution.

Just a suggestion
_________

DA said:
"From a biological standpoint it is easy to see why the vast majority of those on this planet do this mindlessly. To not reproduce guarantees the extinction of the DNA line. So DNA that did not control the belief system of its owner dies out while the DNA of those who engage in essentially uncontrolled reproduction proliferates."

Here's an alternative that could, perhaps, occur:-
I think that the current ecological situation may well reverse the outcome that you suggest. In some regions of the world overpopulation may lead to population collapse through overstressed ecological systems, whereas in other regions with sustainable population densities the stock would remain healthy. In that case, the DNA of the 'mindful' would survive while that of the 'mindless' died out. DNA would still be the 'winner', since it would have effectively created a new strategy for survival, preserved in cells of the successful 'mindful' population.

It is today.

See http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2007/

The Reith Lectures 2007.

The first one by Professor Jeffrey Sachs is called 'Bursting at the Seems'.

They will be available for download for the next seven days here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2007/lectures.shtml

Blacknad.

Blacknad, excellent link. Audio download only a 61 byte 'ram' file. I look forward to the other lectures.

There are 4 more broadcasts, one on each Wednesday until 9th May, and each will remain available for download for seven days after broadcast.

I'll try to play nice

I'll agree that almost all of our problems are due to population. However, I'll also make the argument that the solution to those problems will come from our population "problem". How? Human ingenuity. More people equals more minds equals more human horsepower available to solve problems.

Now, of course we can't just breed like bunnies and assume everything is going to be rosy, people are going to have to be actively engaged in order to contribute to the solving of our problems (we can't have them eking out a life on a patch of dirt). Enter globalization and development. Take China and India as an example. There's 3.5 billion people that are entering the global community - this very well may be a watershed moment for the earth. Never before, and likely never again, will so many people become actively engaged in the global community at one time. These people, and their children will become educated and will help move our species forward. How many Hawking's, Einstein's or Newton's will we find in 3.5 billion people? I don't want the next Hawking to spend his/her life in a rice paddy. With all 6 billion souls (stabilizing at 9 billion) pushing the human race forward, I don't doubt that we can accomplish some amazing things.

Optimistic? No doubt.

Regarding the China quote


You can't make the argument that reducing population is good for an economy (or at least use China as evidence of that). China has 1 trillion in reserves and a booming export economy because a dirt cheap labour pool of 1.3 billion people is being exploited, it has nothing to do with the 1 child rule. China is a whole whack load of agrarians moving to manufacturing labourers - so in a sense, manufacturing (which is what is driving China's success), is seeing a large increase in the population of available workers.

China's one child policy will come back to hurt them - but it will be in a generation. China realizes this, and they even have a name for it. Google the "4-2-1" problem, where 1 child will need to support 2 parents and 4 grandparents. Some real significant issues come along with that. This is also the reason why the scaremongers have got it wrong in regard to some hypothetical West/China armed conflict. China can't afford to lose it's young - they're too valuable.

"You can't make the argument that reducing population is good for an economy (or at least use China as evidence of that)."

- I can't agree with that. Care to take a guess on the current population of China, if not for the birth controls? Think of all those extra hundreds of millions consuming ever more resources, and scarcely able to pay their way economically due the an ever decreasing share of the resources that remain (raw resources plus social resources, welfare etc.). I think DA has a point.

"More people equals more minds equals more human horsepower available to solve problems"

- True - of course, you're not advocating that we 'breed like bunnies' to achieve that end. We would certainty be better off reducing the population and sacrificing the prospect of a proportionate number of geniuses in the process.

"With all 6 billion souls (stabilizing at 9 billion) pushing the human race forward, I don't doubt that we can accomplish some amazing things."

- Your optimism is refreshing, especially the 9 billion bit.

"This is also the reason why the scaremongers have got it wrong in regard to some hypothetical West/China armed conflict. China can't afford to lose it's young - they're too valuable."

- Yet another reason for peaceful co-operation and mutual help.

I'm not disputing that birth controls were not required in China's case, I just don't think the 1 child policy is the major reason for China emerging as the most significant exporting country in the world - I think that has much more to do with China's Industrial Reform and Open-Door Policy of 1979, loads of foreign direct investment from the West (which has now reached 10 billion USD a month), and the enormous pool of cheap manufacturing labour.



No, no breeding bunnies here. What I am advocating (rather than some Orwellian population control project) is bringing the 'disconnected" into the global community by development through expanding globalization, which incidentally has been shown to reduce birth rates to replacement levels, or in Japan's case, lower than replacement.

By the way - how's Japan's economy doing lately?
(this is tongue firmly planted in cheek, I realize there are a number of factors for the present state of Japan's economy).



I apologize if I am using wrong numbers, I seem to remember reading somewhere that stated global population projections would stabilize around 9 billion.

Just did some reading on the UN website. It shows a 'low variant' scenario with a stable population at 9 billion at 2050, with a 'high variant' of 10-11 billion, without stabilizing.

redewenur wrote:
"(1) The sexual drive."

I think the first part of the problem is stopping the confusion between sex and reproduction. They were essentially the same thing at some point in the past: They are no longer connected. One can have sex without reproduction and reproduction without sex.

"2) Maternal/Paternal instinct"

Which is code for "my DNA makes the decisions and I am just along for the ride." that is precisely the problem. All chemistry ... no sentience.

Thanks Blacknad ... on this issue I would really enjoy being wrong. Alas I expect it will not be heard again for another year or two.

The concept that reproduction is good for the economy is the argument of the retailer. Just as the argument of the man who fishes is that the oceans are infinite. Both are self-serving.

Canuck: "I apologize if I am using wrong numbers, I seem to remember reading somewhere that stated global population projections would stabilize around 9 billion."

No need for apologies. You're right according to 'the medium scenario projection'.

Canuck: "Just did some reading on the UN website. It shows a 'low variant' scenario with a stable population at 9 billion at 2050, with a 'high variant' of 10-11 billion, without stabilizing."

Yes, the following quotes are from page 12 of:
World Population to 2300
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs/Population Division
http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/WorldPop2300final.pdf

"Under the assumptions made in the medium scenario projection, world population will not vary greatly after reaching 8.92 billion in 2050 (figure 6). In another 25 years, by 2075, it is projected to peak at 9.22 billion, only 3.4 per cent above the 2050 estimate. It will then dip slightly to 8.43 billion by 2175 and rise gradually to 8.97 billion, very close to the initial 2050 figure, by 2300. Therefore, world population growth beyond 2050, at least for the following 250 years, is expected to be minimal."

However, the high and low scenarios differ vastly:

"In the high scenario, it will go from 10.63 billion in 2050 to 36.44 billion in 2300"

"In the low scenario...over the entire period to 2300, by two-thirds, from 7.41 billion in 2050 to 2.31 billion in 2300."

Yes, in the modern world a more appropriate term is 'fertility trends', which takes your point into account, and isn't restricted to describing the natural capacity for reproduction. Unfortunately, in large parts Africa and Asia where increasing population is most serious, 'natural capacity' and 'sex drive' seem to retain their dominance.

(apologies for double post)

Optimists, all of you. As long as people can breath, they will breed.
What the Human Race needs is to adopt a "Global View" among individuals. That can never happen. In poor countries, your kids are your Retirement Fund. Try telling Farmers in Third World nations that they need to stop having kids after their second child - you'll be laughed right out of the Hut.
I took a taxi from the Wharf into downtown Singapore. The driver said he lived in one of the many high-rise apartment buildings we passed along the way. He told me there were two sizes of apartments, 2 bedrooms for small families, 3 bedrooms for large families. he lived in a 2 bedroom because he had a small family - SIX KIDS! And, no, I didn't ask him about his "Global View".

Wolfman wrote:
"As long as people can breath, they will breed."

That does seem to be both the trend and the issue.

"a "Global View" among individuals. That can never happen."

I sincerely hope, you are incorrect because if you are correct human civilization is doomed.

Having commuted to work in Tokyo I can understand why Japan has a falling birth rate. Too bad the government won't leave well enough alone and let future generations experience a decent quality of life. Perhaps letting teenagers experience the Tokyo commute would be as helpful in cutting the birth rate as having them carry around watermelons to simulate pregnancy.

Still, having reviewed all of the posts here, I see something missing and want to drag everyone back to it.

Which major problems confronting us are, at their heart, caused by our inability to control our global and regional populations? And why is it we never confront the underlying issue when discussing them?

For example why not cut the population over the next 50 years rather than searching for more oil? Why not cut the population over the next 50 years rather than building more schools?

Our genetic coding will not allow that. We need to be re-programmed. The Watermelon idea is a good one. People need some incentive to get the Population Explosion under control. Say, Tax benefits, a special "ZPG Fund" that rewards couples without children, some sort of penalty for those who do. Can you visualize that? I can't. And here's something else to consider - How do you convince the Islamic World that this is the way to go?

DA asked:

"why is it we never confront the underlying issue when discussing them?"

You already answered your question:

"The concept that reproduction is good for the economy is the argument of the retailer."

Canuck wrote:

"More people equals more minds equals more human horsepower available to solve problems."

Unfortuanately the next time human population numbers in the world crashes it will not be the first time. Populations have certainly completely died out at times regionally, usually through over-exploitation of local resources. This is another issue that is not confronted often.

If Canuck wrote: "More people equals more minds equals more human horsepower available to solve problems." Then he is partially correct. More people does equal more minds. There is no evidence that it equals more horsepower to solve problems. Anyone that thinks that no doubt thinks committees make good decisions too.

What was the human population when J.S. Bach was writing music?
There haven't been any better?

Lets run down the list of the greatest minds of which we know?
Newton? Einstein? DaVinci? Rembrandt? Pythagorus? shall I go on?

If Canuck was correct then it would follow that a human population on this planet of 60 billion would be better than a human population of 6 billion. Anyone want to test it out?

Click here: http://opr.princeton.edu/popclock/
and let me know when we get smart enough. <g>

Have been thinking about this (while I've been trying, and failing, to get some work done).

As I stated before, I think it's pretty obvious that most of the world's problems are caused by the population - after all these are human problems, remove humans from the equation, and the problems go away. Simple as that.

But - an alternate theory (and I'm just flapping my gums here). Is the problem over-population, or is the problem that the population is not developed enough?

Think about the timeline that North America has gone through over the past 150 years, heck even the past 30 years. It wasn't that long ago when it was acceptable to bury "old barrels" out in the back 40. A town here in Ontario, lost it's water supply due to contamination from a UniRoyal plant that occurred back in the 60's (they made Agent Orange for the US military back in Vietnam). Love Canal, Hamilton Harbour - the list of Superfund sites goes on and on. But this just isn't acceptable any more. Society has decided that we can't bury old barrels - we've changed, and the result is, many of the problems we're dealing with, are historical ones. As North America has become more developed/advanced many of the "problems" caused by people are becoming less and less. I'm not saying everything is perfect - but it's pretty hard to deny that things are much better now than they were in the 70's.

So why are we getting better? I think it could have something to do with the fact that we don't have to worry about whether or not we will survive past tomorrow - we live fairly secure lives. There may be some ups and downs, but we will get through. Most of us will live into our late 70's. This removes a huge amount of pressure from us, and gives us time (and energy) to worry about other things - like our impact on the environment.

Then look at other, less developed regions of the earth. The African villagers that shoot an elephant in order to sell it's tusks on the black market couldn't care less about the health of the elephant herd. The fisherman who has a starving family and uses dynamite to fish isn't worried about losing the world's corals. And the country that needs electricity to lift millions out of destitute poverty isn't worried about air pollution.
When it comes down to acute vs chronic issues..........acute always takes precedence, even if the solution to the acute issue causes a chronic one.

So - how do we get the world's population to develop a global conscience? We could probably start by giving them the tools so they no longer needed to scratch out a life. Development to the rescue......Plus you get the added bonus of a greatly reduced birthrate!

sigh - Morgan, if you had bothered to read my post you will see that nowhere I was advocating increasing the population to some obscene number. In fact I explicitly stated "Now, of course we can't just breed like bunnies and assume everything is going to be rosy".
The quote of mine that you pulled was in the context of bringing the people, that are in effect, 'disconnected' from the global community (aka the ones eking out a life in a rice paddy), into the global community, so that we can get the whole of humanity actively engaged in addressing problems and helping move the human race forward.

Once again you're looking silly by quoting people out of context.

Canuck wrote:

"Plus you get the added bonus of a greatly reduced birthrate!"

Eventually.

Yes, eventually - within a generation. This drop has been seen between the the post war baby boom and today's birth rates in the West.
Were you hoping for something faster? I'm not sure how you would lower fertility rates replacement levels (or less), in a shorter time than 1 generation - short of a mass sterilization program focussed on the areas of high population growth, namely Africa and South Asia.

Do you reckon it's always as fast as that?

Well - there's no such thing as a sure bet.

But Europe, North America, Austrailia and Japan are all seeing fertility rates that are at replacement levels, or lower, and have reached this point since the post war baby boom.
Since these areas more or less make up the developed world, I would say there's a pretty good chance.

Sorry - don't have time to look up references for the low fertility rates on this right now, but here's the wikipedia entry on the topic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility

Interestingly enough - Japan is mentioned.
"Another, perhaps simpler explanation, could be a reduction in the frequency of sex in populations with low birth rates. For example, according to a survey published by the Japanese Family Planning Association in March 2007, a record 39.7 per cent of Japanese citizens ages 16-49 had not had sex for more than a month "

Canuck is again partially right. We do get a reduced birthrate.

But it doesn't matter and it doesn't make things better.

The result is an ever enlarging population of the elderly.

And governments, like the ones in Japan and Russia giving their people incentives to reproduce.

So lets get this clear - you're not looking reach your future population goal of 50% of current levels, through reductions in birth rates, because that will give us too many old people.

If you're not going to reduce the population through reduced birth rates, what do you propose? The only other way I can think of is removing 3.25 billion people from the face of the earth at once.
I'm starting to feel ill..........

An aging population can present serious economic and social problems. The U.K. has an a minor 'aging population' problem partly as a result of the post WWII baby boom and partly due to increased longevity, and has had to make social and economic adjustments that affect quality of life and standard of living; but that's not even a pale shadow of the kind of adjustments and hardships that could arise from global population reduction. In the extremely overpopulated and poor third world regions, where it would be most required, the result of reducing the population, rather than merely slowing/stopping growth, could be catastrophic.

It looks to me like the one and only way to achieve a 50% reduction within a hundred years (short of armageddon)is through enforced birth control.

Conclusion: it can be done.

Is there a feasable alternative? I think so. Given enough time, there should be no 'third world' regions. It's in the interests of all nations that this happens as soon as possible. As a result of the process, growth rates should fall sharply.

Canuck said: "So - how do we get the world's population to develop a global conscience? We could probably start by giving them the tools so they no longer needed to scratch out a life. Development to the rescue......Plus you get the added bonus of a greatly reduced birthrate!"

- Exactly my thinking.

We have the DNA that allows positive and constructive action. We also have brains which, evidently, DNA has found advantageous, so the least we can do is try to use them.

Of course you're right - here in Canada, we're trying to figure out how to maintain our public health care system, and pension plans in the face of an aging population. Our solution - immigration. So we steal the best and brightest from the countries that need them the most. Not the best solution.

But at any rate - what I was previously trying to get across, is that any reduction in population that is caused by a lowered birth rates is going to result in an aging population. There's no getting around that. Population growth is more young people than old people - if we want the population to stabilize, young people have to be equal in number to old people, there's your aging population.



I don't know if it can be done, practically speaking. We're already seeing huge resistance from traditional societies who don't want to accept modern societies morals - that homosexuals, should not only be "tolerated", but accepted, or that women are more than property - how do you think those traditional societies will respond to enforced birth control? I have an idea, and it isn't pretty.



Agree 100% with you. Lets loose this concept of under-developed countries, bring modern society to every man, woman and child in this world. Lower birth rates will follow, and in addition, we will be using all the brains that are present on this earth to move us forward as a species (rather than just 1/3 of the brains).

This is the reason why the Davos Trade talks are so critically important. The agricultural subsidies that the US and Europe provides to it's own agriculture sector is keeping 3rd world countries mired in poverty. For those countries without natural resources, their only path towards development is through selling agricultural products - but they can't compete with the rich subsidies Western farmers are getting. Barriers to trade also have to come down to give 3rd world access to Western markets, as well as to give them access to Western investment.
If we keep the 3rd world barred off from the West, it's going to take much longer for them to develop, and will take much longer to get their birthrates under control. It's too bad that unions and farmers can't get that "global perspective' when they're opposing the latest trade agreement, or the Davos talks.



Any feedback on whether we need to actually reduce our population, or if it's more a matter of engaging the ingenuity of the entire population to address our issues?

redewenur wrote:
"Given enough time, there should be no 'third world' regions."

Fewer perhaps. But from where I'm sitting I see the intentional destruction of the US middle class. Which will, in effect turn the US into a third world country.

redewenur quotes Canuck as asking: ""So - how do we get the world's population to develop a global conscience?"

Tools? I think the only way is to appeal to their vested self-interest.

For example: Lower taxes for those whose actions of personal responsibility don't further burden society by requiring more schools, more roads, more sewage processing, larger airports, etc.

So you think that pair of Bangladeshis, who may need 6 kids in order provide a family income that's sufficient for the parents to survive, will choose to have only 2 kids because of some promise of lower taxes?
I wonder what the taxes are in Bangladesh anyways, or how many public dollars are spent on sewage treatment plants?
Sorry, I can't see it happening.

The only place in the world where your solution would work, is in the developed world. And guess what? Populations in the developed countries are not expanding due to birth rates. So you've come up with a solution to a problem, that's only applicable in places where that problem is non-existent to begin with.

You want to stop the additional roads, STPs, schools or airports from being built in the US? Easy solution - stop immigration. The US birth rate is 2.1 which just so happens to be the exact birth rate that is required for replacement. The US population won't increase 1 iota if you stop people from coming in.

!!!! Please excuse my MAJOR error!!!!

That should have read

"Conclusion: it can't be done."

hehe - that changes your statement a bit

Redewenur wrote:

'That should have read "Conclusion: it can't be done."'

My eyes must be really playing tricks on me. That's how I saw it when I read your original comment! Must have assumed something. I've gone back and seen that of course you are correct.

Canuck wrote:

"The agricultural subsidies that the US and Europe provides to it's own agriculture sector is keeping 3rd world countries mired in poverty."

Exactly. And when do you think the US and Europe will lift those sudsidies? The unfortunate thing is the free trade deals being made at the moment are almost totally designed for the benefit of first world countries. They mainly involve the free flow of money and intellectual property. Guess who's worried about those things. There is a lot of hollerin' and cryin' here about Oz having an FT deal with US while we don't. However sensible people point out that the sort of deal Oz has is completely useless for them and would be even worse for us.

Any move to actively reduce population in the West will eventually result in a Muslim planet.

It is imperative for Muslims to reproduce because at heart, Islam is a territorial religion. Geographical gains are inextricably linked to the Qur'an.

If you look at the average family size in, say, the UK and compare non Muslim with Muslim, the Muslim family will be twice as large.

Islam will not be sympathetic to any form of population reduction.

Blacknad.

Blacknad. I'm sure "Islam will not be sympathetic to any form of population reduction." However the Roman Catholoc Church is not sympathetic to any form of population reduction either. Canuck holds out hope that more people will mean more brains to come up with more solutions. It seems the rest of us are not so sure.

No, no, no - please don't represent my views. Perhaps I've been unclear. I think we need a higher proportion of the current population to provide their ingenuity to come up with more solutions. Let's differentiate between increasing the population to come up with problem solvers, and accessing current untapped population (the under-developed or developing countries) to come up with problem solvers. I'm advocating the latter.

Honestly? Seeing how the Republicans have f'ed everything up, and are on their way towards giving the Democrats control of every single government institution - not any time soon. The Democrats have never been a fan of opening up global trade.

As far as Europe goes - I can't see them giving up their socialist ways, the ag subsidies are there to stay.


And I apologize - it is the Doha trade talks - not the Davos trade talks.



Interesting to hear you say that only 1st world countries are concerned about money movement and intellectual property. I would say these are the very first things needed to develop the 3rd world. Money has to move in to 3rd world countries in order for factories to be built, for natural resources to be developed, etc... It's the leading edge of development. As far intellectual property goes, if a company's IP isn't protected in a certain country - they're not going to get involved with that country, so that money flow is stopped.

Blacknad wrote:
"Any move to actively reduce population in the West will eventually result in a Muslim planet."

And why is this an issue?

I suspect I know what your motivation was for writing that statement so I invite you to look at yourself in the proverbial mirror and ask what relevance it has to anything.

In your lifetime and that of your children ... I would think looking at what is happening in China, India, and the so-called West far more relevant.

Interesting to hear this come from somebody who seems to think religion is one of the primary causes of the world's past and present ills (I've been lurking the 'not-so-science forum).
I wonder if our esteemed friend would say the "why is this an issue?" if somebody suggested that a particular action would end up with a planet full of Christians.

Or perhaps he thinks the world would be a better place if it was legal to have people killed because of their sexual orientation, or women treated as chattel.

My goodness, DA, one can only assume that you were experiencing a "Senior's Moment" when you made your last entry. Why is a "Muslim Planet" an issue? They're still pissed at us over the Crusades. They have prayers that include lines such as "May the swords run with the blood of the Infidels". Punch in JIHAD on your Search Bar to see why this is an issue.

Not a senior moment at all.

I am more than well aware that some percentage of those who follow Islam don't particularly like my government and my culture and several western religions.

I am also aware of the fact that keeping them under our thumbs by out-reproducing them is roughly equivalent to cutting off your own nose because you don't like your face. It would seem to me that people as wise as yourself and Blacknad could come up with an alternative or two.

Here are a few from my list.

1. Get our own house in order. Put decent resources behind moving from oil to fusion and stop subsidizing hate with dollars.

2. Stop selling weapons and technology to people for purposes of war just because it generates profits.

3. Stop hypocritically messing around in the affairs of other countries.

4. Sincerely apologize for having messed around in their affairs in the past.

5. Provide foreign aid only for education and health and never again for military purposes.

No doubt any reasonable person could add to my list but it gives a flavour of what could be done.

And if it were I've no doubt in a hundred or so years the people of a particular religious persuasion would either modify their behaviour or become irrelevant to those of us that have.

One thing I think we can all agree on looking back at the previous 2000 years of history. What we have been doing has not worked.

Sorry Canuck. I agree we should try "accessing current untapped population (the under-developed or developing countries) to come up with problem solvers."

You write:

"The Democrats have never been a fan of opening up global trade."

Nor have the Republicans when it comes to agriculture. In spite of your comments regarding free flow of money and intellectual property opening agriculture trade would be a first step to helping the third world.

Free trade only works when there is a level playing field. Something that does not exist and for which there are no plans to make it exist.

What we have is global trade that benefits existing financial interests at the expense of everyone else.

One need only read the list of food seizures at our port in this morning's Seattle Post Intelligencer newspaper to see how far we are from level.

PS: I've too much self respect to identify with either the US Democratic or Republican parties: Both been corrupted by money.

Sorry for not getting back to you sooner - have been out of town for a while.




Not that I'm defending the Republicans (heck, that's as close to a capital offense as we have up here in Canada), but they're at least participating in the Doha talks. There is a huge push on right now to get something done, because the Fast Track Trade Authority given to the President sunsets this June. After this deadline, it's widely expected that the Democrats will kill any further liberalization of trade, there's also definite rumblings from the Democrat camp about seeking additional protective measures. 2008 isn't looking too good.

You can always tell an economy is headed for a correction when the mental lightweights start talking about economic "protective measures". The ironic thing is, those protective measures just make the correction that much worse. If it wasn't so sad it would be funny - the US is all hot and bothered about China's trade imbalance, but yet they're not putting 2 and 2 together by figuring out that the trade imbalance is financing the US debt! If China stops buying US debt, America will have to find other buyers, which means interest rates will have to go up to attract these buyers, which means the economy will really go in the crapper.

As far as whether it's removing ag subsidies, protecting IP so that companies will go into developing countries, or cross border money movement that is the critical thing to help under-developed countries get a leg up - I think it's dependant on the country itself. A country that has poor agricultural lands, but rich in minerals doesn't need 1st world ag subsidies lifted, they need foreign investment in order to develop those resources.
We need to get a move on in all three areas.