Live 8...a success??

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Cdn Blackshirt, the "problem" of overpopulation is a myth that has been exposed over and over since Thomas Malthus first came up with it 300 years ago (according to him, and several others, we should have already been wiped-out several times over).   Unfortunately, this doesn't stop the eco-luddites "anti-gmo" crowd from trying to make sure it happens.

Sorry, but I call "BS" (in the nicest possible way....  ;D)

Fixed Resources + Quickly Growing Population = Less resources per person leading to deforestation and aquafer draining.

The only "myth" in this debate is pretending overpopulation isn't a problem because it clashes with some people's religously-justified disdain for birth control.

Specifically, if you look at agriculture-based economies in Africa you have the following math repeating itself generation-after generation.

2 people (man & wife) own 1 plot of land (2 acres).  Those two people have 8 children (4 boys and 4 girls)

The 4 girls are married to 4 young men of 4 different families and take land from the parents in those families.

The 4 remaining boys also get married to 4 different women and then split the family plot amongst themselves as the father becomes too old.

The 4 remaining boys and their wives therefore now must subsist on 0.5 acres per couple as opposed to the 2.0 acres that their father had before them.  Regardless of technological improvements this is absolutely positively unsustainable.  Ergo, usually some of the children do one of two things: deforest areas that were previously rainforest to make new farmland (or grazing land for animals) or move to cities and live in shanty towns looking for work.  Worse still is the next generation who need to try to split 0.5 acres 4 ways....and pretend they can subsist upon it.

Bottom Line:  Overpopulation is "the key" to getting Africa first to a point of subsistence, then educated and then to economic prosperity.  You could address ALL the other issues involved, but if you do not stabilize the populations, things will only get worse....



Matthew. 

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Sorry, but I call "BS" (in the nicest possible way....  ;D)

Fixed Resources + Quickly Growing Population = Less resources per person leading to deforestation and aquafer draining.

Your inital assumption is not applicable in the real world.  Technology improves resource utilization: in the case of agriculture, crop yields have improved dramatically (and continue to improve) with advances in technology (like pesticides and "Frankenfoods").  If 18th Century farming practices were still in use, there'd already be widespread famine: resources aren't "Fixed."

 

[Britney Spears]

Fixed Resources + Quickly Growing Population = Less resources per person leading to deforestation and aquafer draining.

Well, I don't think it's a simple linear relationship like that, because otherwise countries like Japan and Singapore wouldn't be doing so well. Rather, lack of birth control and education creates myriads of of social and economic issues that third world nations have no way of overcoming. It's not so much the absolute number of people versus resources as much as how many people a society can reasonably accomodate.

 

[Taylor187]

IMHO, Live 8 was a chance for an old burn out to get the spot light and get the warm fuzzys again 20 years after he had it first. If all these people want to help africa by getting super powers to wipe debt, then get into the bloody scrum. Dont stand at the side lines and bitch and moan, get into the politics of your country and do what you can from the inside. People who sit in an air conditioned press room and look into the camera while saying "We need to do something!" should be thrown into box in the back of a c-130 and air droped into Sudan or Ethopia.

Me personaly, I wont give any money to the great crusade to save african nations.

If Canada was to up and give half of next years surplus, lets say shits and giggles five billion, to african countrys or the AU to distribute where does it go? It goes into self proclaimed monarchs and leaders of these countrys who will use it to build thier 150 wives palaces and host huge partys, and buy BMWs to be drivin around in. You cannot throw money at a problem when the money goes directly into the pockets of greedy sons of bitches who are only concerned with thier way of life and not thier peoples or countrys.

Throw what ever insults you want at me for refusing to help them, but untill there is some sort of credible world body that can oversee the restructuring of an entire continent then I will never help out. (Dont say the U.N. is that body. All the UN does it stand at the side lines in air conditioned press rooms)

 

[Britney Spears]

I think Dave Matthews is South African is he not?

If so, then there's at least one performer who is actually, you know, African. 

 

[dutchie]

Pouring more money into Africa to ease poverty is like pouring more water into a bucket with no bottom. Sure, it looks like you are helping out, but it is quite possibly the least efficient way of dealing with the real problem.

I 100% agree with debt forgiveness (we'll never see the money anyhow), but to send more rice and dollars is pointless. The problem is political, not agricultural or economical, therefore the solution must be political. The other problems can only be solved once a government that is responsible to (or for) the people is in place. It does not necessarily need to be Democratic, a monarchy would be fine if it acted in the best interests of His/Her subjects. I suspect, however, that this would be highly unlikely, so a democracy is likely the only way.

I loved the quote from Bob Geldof in response to the question of whether or not this will work: 'I expect it to be a complete failure. I don't think that they (G8 leaders) will be sitting there in front of the tele watching Annie Lennox perform and say, "Fecking hel! She's got a point!'. (paraphrased).

BTW, I though the London and Philadelphia concert was great, and the Barrie one blew. WTF is up with Gord Downie? Is he stoned, retarded, both? What a terrible excuse for a singer.

 

[Long in the tooth]

I'm watching this whole thing with some amusement as the 'protesters' have no clue about the economics of the situation.  The 'debt' instruments are not typically owned by other countries but by intermediaries like institutions, banks, and bond mutual funds that may even be RRSP eligible.

When Brazil was close to default 15 years ago its debt was being bought and sold at pennies on the dollar, the threat of default was so high.  The funds that hold this third world debt must be going up and down like a yo yo as speculators purchase them in the hope that fools like our government would actually retire them at face value.

As for spending $15 billion per year on foreign aid, I would raise it with a $500/person-year head tax and see how palatable that would be.  It's great to have principles and then lobby someone else to pay for them.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

http://www.torontosun.com/Comment/Donato/2005/07/03/1115541.html

 

[The_Falcon]

Charity begins at home.  We have problems in this country that need attention, but are are given nothing more than lip service and wads of cash (taxpayer cash), but no real direction on how to use the money or solve the problems.  Events like these are for the most part about making the rich artists feel good about themselves, and maybe possibily getting a chance to be in the spotlight again (ahem Pink Floyd, I love that band dearly but one must ask why now?), while boosting album sales. 


http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=15698716&method=full&siteid=94762&headline=pink-floyd-album-sales-take-off-name_page.html

PINK FLOYD ALBUM SALES TAKE OFF
THEY all did Live 8 out of compassion - but the stars of the biggest concert ever have all seen massive increases in record sales since Saturday's event.


All apart from Pete Doherty, that is.


After his shambolic duet with Sir Elton John, sales for his former band, The Libertines, have dropped.


Pink Floyd's album sales have rocketed 13-fold since their long-awaited re-union appearance. Sales of Echoes: The Best of Pink Floyd are up 1,343% at HMV stores.


The Who and Annie Lennox also registered massive increases.


HMV compared sales at its 200 stores yesterday with the previous Sunday.


Coldplay sold the most albums yesterday but only registered a 3% increase because new release X&Y also sold huge numbers last week.


A spokesman for HMV said: "Razorlight and Joss Stone have also registered big sales increases, so they obviously went down very well with the audience.


"It's likely the impact of Live 8 will become more pronounced throughout the week, as more fans and record buyers respond to the combined effect of the weekend's televised event, the G8 summit and all the ensuing publicity."


Sales increase at HMV between Sunday June 26 and Sunday July 3:


1 Pink Floyd - Echoes: The Best of Pink Floyd - 1343%


2 The Who - Then and Now - 863%


3 Annie Lennox - Eurythmics Greatest Hits - 500%


4 Dido - Life For Rent - 412%


5 Razorlight - Up All Night - 335%


6 Robbie Williams - Greatest Hits - 320%


7 Joss Stone - Mind, Body and Soul - 309%


8 Sting - The Very Best of Sting & The Police - 300%


9 Travis - Singles - 268%


10 Madonna - Immaculate Collection - 200%


11 Scissor Sisters - Scissor Sisters - 174%


12 Mariah Carey - Greatest Hits - 170%


13 Snoop Dogg - Rhythm & Gangsta - 166%


14 The Killers - Hot Fuss - 131%


15 U2 - Best of: 1990-2000 - 116%


16 Elton John - Greatest Hits: 1970-2002 - 111%


17 Keane - Hopes and Fears - 101%


18 The Beatles - 1 - 71%


19 Snow Patrol - Final Straw - 69%


20 REM - Reveal - 50%


21 Stereophonics - Language Sex Violence Other? - 36%


22 Coldplay - X&Y - 3%


23 The Libertines - Up The Bracket - - (minus) 35%

A while back MuchMusic did a show where Ed the Sock basically rips U2 for using African Aid as a ploy to help boost record sales.  Now it was down tongue in cheek but, Ed clearly got the point across that whenever U2 need sales to go up, or whenever they launch a record, by sheer "coincidence" Bono is appearing every where talking about sending the worlds poor, speciffically africa. Now artist are entitled to their opinions, i just resent them trying to send everyone on a guilt trip just so they can make a buck.

BTW as side note, Whatever happened to all that "aid" that went towards tsunami relief.  I still see ads saying more money is needed.  What happend to the hundreds of millions of dollars that was sent?

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Your inital assumption is not applicable in the real world.   Technology improves resource utilization: in the case of agriculture, crop yields have improved dramatically (and continue to improve) with advances in technology (like pesticides and "Frankenfoods").   If 18th Century farming practices were still in use, there'd already be widespread famine: resources aren't "Fixed."

Of course it is....Even if you gave every single person in Sudan a greenhouse and hydroponics set-up if they are limited to 0.25 acres, that would sustain that generation and that generation only.  Once you add another generation with 4x the number of mouths to feed, you either need to quadruple the land allocation (by clearcutting orests) and water requirements (by draining aquifers/rivers or setting up a desalination plant) or you immediately get people starting to starve again.

Why do you think the Chinese so ruthlessly held to the "One Child Policy"?  It's because they recognized that first they had limit population growth to allow agricultural development to first reach subsistence, then abundance, prior to transitioning rural workers into the industrial age with education, electricity and all the anciliary services associated with it.



Matthew. 

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Well, I don't think it's a simple linear relationship like that, because otherwise countries like Japan and Singapore wouldn't be doing so well. 

I don't understand your comment Brittany.  Wealth per person and education per person in both Japan and Singapore are amongst the world's highest because they have amongst the lowest birth rates in the world.

In essence, you will have the assets of two parents in most cases being given to two children (static population) and in some cases only one child (receding population).

Rather, lack of birth control and education creates myriads of of social and economic issues that third world nations have no way of overcoming. It's not so much the absolute number of people versus resources as much as how many people a society can reasonably accomodate.

Right, I think.... ;D

For me the starting point is always agriculture because historically all nations first became self-sufficient in agriculture before they were able to advance any further.  Ergo, from an agricultural standpoint each nation (and by that I mean ecosystem) has the capacity to support "XX,000,000" people based on current technology.  Should that ecosystem try to support more than that "sustainable population" it inevitably means that you must fundamentally change the ecosystem (clearing forests to make way for more agriculture or start to damage rivers, aquifers, etc.)  My add-on to that would be as you transition from an agricultural society you first need to be at a state of abundance in which fewer farmers can produce more than enough food to support a "professional class" of tanners, metal workers, artisans, doctors, teachers and civil servants.  The services provided by that "professional class" are directly linked to the level of abundance which could literally be measured as a "net" number.

Ergo, if you had two nations with the following spec's, all other things being equal you tell me which citizens would do better:

Nation One:
Population 2005:  10,000,000
Population 2025:  10,000,000
Irrigated Arable Land 2005: 0.5 acres per person
Irrigated Arable Land 2025: 0.5 acres per person
Educational Seats Available 2005: 2,500,000
Educational Seats Available 2025: 2,500.000
Condom Use 2005: 100%
Condom Use 2025: 100%

Nation Two:
Population 2005:  10,000,000
Population 2025:  15,000,000
Irrigated Arable Land 2005: 0.5 acres per person
Irrigated Arable Land 2025: 0.33 acres per person
Educational Seats Available 2005: 2,500,000
Educational Seats Available 2025: 1,000.000 (less agricultural surplus, less wealth, less ability to fund education, but many more children)
Condom Use 2005: 0%
Condom Use 2025: 0%
HIV Rate 2005:  20% (huge drain on resources now)
HIV Rate 2025:  30% (worse drain on resources later as many of those you've educated, die)

Bottom Line:  First you stabilize the population, then and only then is it worthwhile to start planning.....

Cheers,


Matthew. 

 

[Slim]

Well I know I'm going to invite the wrath of the masses when I say what I have to say but I'm going to anyway.

For the most part Musicians (the "professional" ones anyway) are whiners. They depend on an emotional response to be successful. No response...No next record deal. That is the way it works.

Now these benefit shows are no doubt organized by people who (mostly) really do believe that they are going to do some good. (a whole other point that has already been well covered in this thread)

The musicans know all too well that fame and fortune are a rather fleeting thing...So they NEED to keep finding ways to make us FEEL something with their music. And ways to keep drawing us out to their shows and buying their records...Especially in these liberated days of music downloading. (when was the last time anyone actually bought a CD?!)

Benefits are a win-win thing because the industry (musicians and the people behind them) can take the moral high ground and say its for the public good. In fact the only awareness hat it raises is what U2 and the Hip sound like these days.

BTW The reason that I can say thins with relative impunity is that I worked in the music industry for a time, having gone through the Trebas Institute for the Recorded Music Production program, graduating and working in the music industry for several years before getting fed up and changing careers yet again.

Cheers all

 

[Long in the tooth]

It's anathema to the feel good protesters to suggest that the reason the European countries (and I include the US and Canada) are wealthy are property rights.  Robert Mugabe just expropriated all the land from white farmers and gave it to his home boys.  Once an exporter of food, Rhodesia (whoops, Zimbabwe, how un PC) now cannot even afford to feed its own people.

The first step must be regime change.

 

[GO!!!]

I would be curious to see how much debt could be relieved by the "artists" who performed in Live 8s from their own personal fortunes...

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Of course it is....Even if you gave every single person in Sudan a greenhouse and hydroponics set-up if they are limited to 0.25 acres, that would sustain that generation and that generation only.  Once you add another generation with 4x the number of mouths to feed, you either need to quadruple the land allocation (by clearcutting orests) and water requirements (by draining aquifers/rivers or setting up a desalination plant) or you immediately get people starting to starve again.

Why do you think the Chinese so ruthlessly held to the "One Child Policy"?  It's because they recognized that first they had limit population growth to allow agricultural development to first reach subsistence, then abundance, prior to transitioning rural workers into the industrial age with education, electricity and all the anciliary services associated with it.
Matthew. 

Wrong: with a greater population, there will be more people working on increasing crop yields (i.e., developing technology): in the long run, humans have always demonstrated that our ability to develop technology has outpaced population growth and any other demands on resources. Any given generation almost always enjoys a higher standard of living than all of the previous ones - the recent anti-growth and anti-development product of widespread socialism notwithstanding.  Greater population will lead to faster technological growth, provided it is not retarded by half-baked socialist "development" policies (which seem to be designed to create a system of perpetual dependence rather than any kind of economic growth).

WRT to the exmples you provided to Britney, they reflect the same assumptions that perverted your previous example: what matters is not arable land, but crop yield.  "Nation 2" would almost certainly develop more efficient farming methods and/or crops and/or trade with another nation with a surplus, and develop something they themselves enjoyed a comparative benefit in producing (unless of course they were the European Union or some "People's Republic").  Birth control rates [oops!] fall as a consequence of economic and technological development: the Chinese were trying to put the horse before the cart because their authoritarian system nullified the growing population's ability to provide for itself (same thing happened with the USSR and all centrally-planned economies eventually).  Birth control is also why western nations are on the edge of a serious underpopulation problem (as demonstrated by your "Nation 1," which is actually on the brink of disaster) ...

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Wrong: with a greater population, there will be more people working on increasing crop yields (i.e., developing technology): in the long run, humans have always demonstrated that our ability to develop technology has outpaced population growth and any other demands on resources. Any given generation almost always enjoys a higher standard of living than all of the previous ones - the recent anti-growth and anti-development product of widespread socialism notwithstanding.   Greater population will lead to faster technological growth, provided it is not retarded by half-baked socialist "development" policies (which seem to be designed to create a system of perpetual dependence rather than any kind of economic growth).

WRT to the exmples you provided to Britney, they reflect the same assumptions that perverted your previous example: what matters is not arable land, but crop yield.   "Nation 2" would almost certainly develop more efficient farming methods and/or crops and/or trade with another nation with a surplus, and develop something they themselves enjoyed a comparative benefit in producing (unless of course they were the European Union or some "People's Republic").   Birth control falls as a consequence of economic and technological development: the Chinese were trying to put the horse before the cart because their authoritarian system nullified the growing population's ability to provide for itself (same thing happened with the USSR and all centrally-planned economies eventually).   Birth control is also why western nations are on the edge of a serious underpopulation problem (as demonstrated by your "Nation 1," which is actually on the brink of disaster) ...

Which part of "the law of diminishing returns" don't you understand?  There is a point at which arable land divided by the number of people is unsustainable!  If you follow your perverted argument to its conclusion you will inevitably reach a point where you have 100 people on 1 square meter, and you claim that the higher intensity will yield sufficient crops?  Of note, how about the next generation when you have 400 people on that same 1 square meter.  Or the generation after than where you have 1600 people on that one square meter.

That's brilliant....



M..  :

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Which part of "the law of diminishing returns" don't you understand?  There is a point at which arable land divided by the number of people is unsustainable!  If you follow your perverted argument to its conclusion you will inevitably reach a point where you have 100 people on 1 square meter, and you claim that the higher intensity will yield sufficient crops?  Of note, how about the next generation when you have 400 people on that same 1 square meter.  Or the generation after than where you have 1600 people on that one square meter.

That's brilliant....



M..  :

I understand diminishing returns well enough to know that it doesn't have any meaningful application to your argument.  My argument is not perverted in any way: you are trying to pervert it by assuming perfectly linear population growth, which simply does not happen!  Read my post again: as technology (or more specifically, the economy) develops, the birth rate will decline and the population will level-off (and then decline) naturally.

From Wikipedia:

In demography, the term demographic transition is used to describe the transition from high birth rates and death rates to low birth and death rates that occurs as part of the economic development of a country from a pre-industrial to a post-industrial economy. Usually it is described through the "Demographic Transition Model" that describes the population changes over time. It is based on an interpretation begun in 1929 by the American demographer Warren Thompson, of the observed changes, or transitions, in birth and death rates in industrialized societies over the past two hundred years or so. Most developed countries are already in stage four of the model, while many developing countries are in stages one and two. ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition

African nations are generally stuck in the earlier stages of the model, due to wars/conflict and socialism: even absent war, anti-trade practices (protectionism in both their world and ours) and the emphasis of the sphere of distribution (which doesn't happen, anyway) over that of production effectively kills any potential for economic growth anyway.

 

[Island Ryhno]

Where's the UN when you need it?  : Africa is a continent in shambles, superstar Bono can kiss my big hairy ass if he believes the superstar bonanza will make a difference. I don't see a fix to this problem. What would you do? The world would have to go into each individual country and stablize them one at a time, how freaking long would that take? Sadly I don't see how any of this can be fixed in our life times.

 

[Slim]

The world would have to go into each individual country and stablize them one at a time, how freaking long would that take?

Yep...You'd have to go from one country to another, removing dictators along the way...Then the oh-so-well-informed peace freaks would protest (just as they do now) against it!

Africa has to fix itself...We cannot be held responsible for those countries unless we have the power to go in and fix them. And we don't!

 

[dutchie]

One thing that has been bantied about lately that annoys me: the call for all Industrialized nations to contribute 0.7% of their GDP to African relief. Some are vilifying PM Martin for not committing to this now.

Ahh, excuse me, but the PM is responsible to Canadians, not Africans. I don't want my hard earned dough going to some despot so he can line his pockets. If these social activists want to contribute 0.7% of their own gross income, fine. But don't force me to fund these killers and thieves.

So what exactly is the theory behind even more financial aid to Africa when 2 decades of immense financial aid has not produced any measurable improvement? (in fact, it appears to have gotten worse). Is there any real plan? Or is it just "throw more money at 'er"?