The Third World

[AdamW]

First off, I would like to say that this is a pretty sensitive issue and I do not wish to offend or upset anyone by it. I warn you that I have approached this from the direction of logic rather than cultural sensitivity, and from the viewpoint of a well-fed First-World dweller sitting up in his ivory tower. I would be very interested to see what you all think about this, whether you think I am talking bo**ocks, or if you have something to add.

I was perusing the CIA World Factbook today (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html), and came across the section on "fertility", children born per woman. Then I thought "I wonder how this relates to crisis countries?"

Here is what I noticed. The numbers are children born per woman. Note that with a rate of 2.0, this would result in a steady population size assuming no migration or infant mortality.

UK 1.66 (so our population would be falling without our high immigration levels)
USA 2.07 (a fairly sustainable number)
Russia 1.26 (quite a low number)
India 2.85 (A developing country, but by no means Third World)
Angola 6.33 (a country currently suffering with a famine)
Eritrea 5.67 (a country currently suffering with a famine)
Ethiopia 5.44 (a country currently suffering with a famine)

Now, famine is a terrible thing for anyone to suffer, and I am glad that I will probably never know what it is to truly starve. But, I am wondering if this wasn't an inevitable problem when the reproductive rate is so high...

The average life expectancy in these countries is about 40, compared to about 80 in the richest countries. Perhaps if the inhabitants had fewer children (say 2 to 3 per woman) then the quality of life would improve sufficiently over 10-20 years to eradicate famine and thirst, and reduce disease? Due to the reduced reproductive rate the population would of course fall, possibly significantly, for a few years, but would level out after around 40 years. Their life expectancy would also increase dramatically... I can't help but wonder if the way they calculate it includes infant mortality, therefore if adults live to 80 but half of children die very young then it averages to 40...

Obviously it is not that easy. There are cultural issues (must have lots of children to prove I am a virile man/ to look after me in my old age) but I would sooner have 2.5 healthy children than 6.3 children who might not see their 5th birthday. There are political issues too: how to stop governments embezzling aid money, or exporting food when it is needed at home.

 

[2scoops0406]

That is a massive subject, you'll never get to cover it on this forum. Can't say more, it's a huge issue.

 

[ZenStalinist]

Problems are that they need people to help on the farms, etc. Then they need to feed these kids, so they need more kids.

Religion doesn't help either.

 

[jasy]

you've hit the nail on the head mate. The larger the family the better chance of survival. Tough i know but famines and the like have been happening for thousands of years. That is natures way. The sad thing is when they are man made by greed and the gun.

 

[AdamW]

Problems are that they need people to help on the farms, etc. Then they need to feed these kids, so they need more kids.

Must be a way round this... Mechanisation would reduce the need for sprogs but £100K for a combine harvester is a bit out of the price bracket of a farmer in Angola.

If only we could somehow move those EU food mountains southwards a few thousand miles... I really doubt it would affect anyone in the EU, the food is just piling up and if starving countries can't afford to buy it from us, we aren't losing anything by just GIVING it to them. If anything, we are saving money because the EU won't need to build and run storage facilities.

Life is simple, politics is complicated. I occasionally wonder if Johnny Rotten and his chums were on to something with "Anarchy in the UK"

 

[AdamW]

The larger the family the better chance of survival.

Not necessarily. My point is, there isn't enough food to feed the large families (6+ children) in these countries. So, if they only had 2 or 3 children per family, they would get more food and thus be stronger, healthier, with a greater chance of survival, and they would increase their life expectancy way beyond 40. When food is scarce, most animals don't breed. Why should we be any exception?

 

[securespark]

You're right, Adam.

In fact, if humans receive a very poor diet, then menstruation can become irregular and stop altogether. This (obviously) prevents reproduction.

 

[fitter]

But even at it's best these people have a poor diet, wouldn't the body change to suit.

I read something many years ago, research( I use the term loosely) done by the Germans in the second world war, found that the instinct to reproduce was second only to breathing in males and third in females, maternal being second.

Their subjects were hardly in peak condition.

 

[pipme]

........... how to stop governments embezzling aid money, or exporting food when it is needed at home.

great way of arming a country without using taxpayers dosh ... how many more middlemen have taken their cut too ? Stench abounds.
Happening all around us .... just witness the shennanegins of company directors when the spotlight falls upon them ..... we should be far better off than we are ... and dare I say, then in a better position to help those that need it !!
Charity starts at home .... When I perceive a fiscal threat to my family, however tenuous ... I rein in, just in case.

Anyway shouldn't we leave it in the hands of our Prime Minature .. Bliar !!

But precisely !! To the poor, large family means lots of helpers .. they do not give a fig for intelligent ideology ... It tends to fiddle their aid in one way and another !!

P

 

[kendor]

If only we could somehow move those EU food mountains southwards a few thousand miles... I really doubt it would affect anyone in the EU, the food is just piling up and if starving countries can't afford to buy it from us, we aren't losing anything by just GIVING it to them. If anything, we are saving money because the EU won't need to build and run storage facilities.

They go on about "It's not economically viable to give it away" and so forth but legislation should be in place to force countries to comply regardless of cost, why put a value on someone's life and make where they live an issue aswell.