Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Povertious communites - themselves to blame? Watch

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
    China has a one child policy for exactly this reason, it is looking for slow population growth.

    However you mention ageing population, this is another interesting point. With the one child policy, China is going to have a big problem with an ageing population. The age problem is going to affect all the developed world. Most likely you will just see people working for longer and longer as health improves. I do think India has some advantages over China but we will just have to see how things develop, the fact that India is more 'open' to the rest of the world than China could be a big advantage for them.
    despite the one child policy they have an immense population adn workforce. Granted they have more of an ageing population than india, but I don't believe the one child policy will hold back their economic growth.

    I think the main advantage india has over china is that fact that they have a march large workforce who are fluent in english.

    I would say that china are open to the world in terms of doing business just not when it comes to talking about democracy! Just about everything in the world is produced in china.

    Two economic super powers over the coming years... hence camerons recent trip to india to tie up some trade contracts.
    • Offline

      13
      (Original post by TheRevolution)
      LOL.

      The answer to your question is yes, because I never said they were "immoral" you jackass.

      I sais they were "to blame" or they are a factor contributing to their own plight. My point was that they do not deserve to be considered by others as deserving.
      It's not possible to use the idea of 'blame' without it implying some kind of moral responsibility and as you've argued that morality is subjective then blame is subjective. You really did fail.

      You make exactly the same mistake, of course, when you use the term 'deserve', another notion derived from a moral position.

      Hopefully you'll pick up when you get to university, but I'm not holding my breath.
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by TheRevolution)
      Anyway that's a bit besides the point but you see, they really are their worst enemy. The mothers who have children are thoroughly irresponsible people because they know that they will only be able to provide a life of suffering and poverty for their child. It is so brutally clear that their society and (often local and only local) economies simply cannot provide the resources for the number of offspring that exist or will exist if reproduction continued at its current rate.
      The mothers often get raped in these communities. What's more is they don't have access to birth control and so forth. In any case, they need children to help with the farming and upkeeping of the local community. Even if the mother was to blame, why should the child suffer because (some) westerners are so selfish?

      I think the aformentioned principle is the essence of socialism, that we have a moral obligation to help our fellow man - the contreversy over whether the poor people i mentioned are "deserving poor" is overkill with regards to making my point.
      Nah, socialism is more about workman ownership and democracy - naturally they believe all of these sorts of worldwide problems would "fizzle out" when the economy is in the right hands.

      Edit: For socialists to claim that it is objectivley "Immoral" not to be concerned for the plight of our fellow man is quite a disingenuos argument. Morality is subjective in its nature. For someone who holds moral values averse to anothers's but concedes to their pressure, I think that person is being immoral because he is going against his own moral integrity. For socialists to claim that things are objectivley immoral is just wrong.
      Morality is subjective but without a basic concept of morality, anything would go.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
      There is a lot of evidence to show that an environment of low fertility is more advantageous to economic growth, than high fertility.
      But then why does countries such as the UK, France, Germany, etc.. are so adamant that we need immigration to compensate for our low birth rate?

      (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
      Although it seems paradoxical, the biggest link is with disease and the mortality rate. In countries where there are high levels of mortality particularly child mortality, because of disease/starvation then you get higher population growth because households are naturally risk averse and so overcompensate in terms of fertility. Especially in agricultural societies, where people need children in practical terms because they carry out farming work and support the work of the adults, they have more children because they are factoring in the risk factor that one or two of their children will die.
      Have you considered the fact they have more children just because they, like us, like sex and don't have access to control birth methods?
      Offline

      19
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Mannix99)
      But then why does countries such as the UK, France, Germany, etc.. are so adamant that we need immigration to compensate for our low birth rate?


      Have you considered the fact they have more children just because they, like us, like sex and don't have access to control birth methods?
      I don't think the UK, France or Germany say that we do need immigration to compensate for our low birth rate. The only reason they want it is because it fills gaps in the labour market. Other than that they want to limit it, but are constrained by having signed up to EU laws and international agreements on asylum.

      Birth control is a factor in the birth rate but even without availability of contraception (or in Catholic countries where it is frowned on anyway) you get big drops in birth rate when mortality rate drops. So I would say disease is the biggest factor, but yes in terms of keeping it down birth control is important to.
      • Thread Starter
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by therealOG)
      *compliment. Point proved.
      Alright man calm down.

      You're smarter than me...happy yet?
      • Thread Starter
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Oswy)

      Hopefully you'll pick up when you get to university, but I'm not holding my breath.
      Talk about inferiority complex...
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by TheRevolution)
      Alright man calm down.

      You're smarter than me...happy yet?
      I am calm. I just hope after reading the various comments you now understand high fertility rates are not the cause of poverty.
      • Thread Starter
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by therealOG)
      I am calm. I just hope after reading the various comments you now understand high fertility rates are not the cause of poverty.
      I gave that impression unwittingly but I never actually thought that.
      • Offline

        13
        (Original post by TheRevolution)
        Talk about inferiority complex...
        Dude, you can't make a forthright claim that 'morality is subjective' and then also offer up either your moral position like we should give a damn, or offer up the idea that others should have a moral position or be morally consistent (etc) and not expect to get called on it.

        Yeah, I was a unduly sarcastic, sorry, but you must see the problem in your argument if only on that score.
        • Offline

          13
          (Original post by therealOG)
          I am calm. I just hope after reading the various comments you now understand high fertility rates are not the cause of poverty.
          Indeed there's a reasonable (if incomplete) argument to the effect that the explosion in the human population is due to the productive advances under capitalism operating in combination with the pervasive economic uncertainties which capitalism also generates. It's the worst combination, in which food scarcity is technically done away with but because of how market driven capitalism works - maintaining work and income insecurities - people can't abandon the idea of offspring as insurance for old age.
          Offline

          0
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by Oswy)
          Indeed there's a reasonable (if incomplete) argument to the effect that the explosion in the human population is due to the productive advances under capitalism operating in combination with the pervasive economic uncertainties which capitalism also generates. It's the worst combination, in which food scarcity is technically done away with but because of how market driven capitalism works - maintaining work and income insecurities - people can't abandon the idea of offspring as insurance for old age.
          Soooo, to convert what you just said into understandable English (correct me if I'm wrong), the uncertainties created by a free market (i.e. we cannot predict future changes in supply and demand and therefore price perfectly as a result of exogenous shocks, a lack of government intervention etc) lead to people having more offspring as they hope that they will provide for them in their old age if things go wrong? I can understand that concept and it is obviously true in some ways, but I wouldn't use that as a primary arguement in an essay, it just doesn't hold that much weight.
          • Thread Starter
          Offline

          0
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by Oswy)
          Dude, you can't make a forthright claim that 'morality is subjective' and then also offer up either your moral position like we should give a damn, or offer up the idea that others should have a moral position or be morally consistent (etc) and not expect to get called on it.

          Yeah, I was a unduly sarcastic, sorry, but you must see the problem in your argument if only on that score.
          I shouldn't have said blame. I should have said "poor communities are one of the causes of their own downfall". Morality was implied unwittingly.
          • Offline

            13
            (Original post by therealOG)
            Soooo, to convert what you just said into understandable English (correct me if I'm wrong), the uncertainties created by a free market (i.e. we cannot predict future changes in supply and demand and therefore price perfectly as a result of exogenous shocks, a lack of government intervention etc) lead to people having more offspring as they hope that they will provide for them in their old age if things go wrong? I can understand that concept and it is obviously true in some ways, but I wouldn't use that as a primary arguement in an essay, it just doesn't hold that much weight.
            Well, I did suggest that it was probably an incomplete explanation, depending on the contextual variables.

            You could look at it from the other direction if you prefer; it is with high consistency that in pretty much any society, as people find themselves reaching some threshold of economic security, (i.e. as they attain a certain level of personal or family wealth) their offspring rates go down. Even in societies where there has been a longstanding culture of large families, the generations of the newly wealthy quite quickly start having fewer kids.

            There's clearly something about economic security which inhibits (by some degree or other) the continuation of large families. I think the most obvious 'something' is that economic security diminishes the sense (counscious or unconscious) that children are needed in numbers to secure the parents' old age. Given that among capitalism's essential operating conditions is the need for economic uncertainty among the masses (to encourage the masses to go and work for capitalists, and as cheaply as possible) then unless capitalism is replaced or seriously modified - by, for example, a universal income policy - then the human population will keep doubling until it does reach physical and resource barriers. We will be long dead by the time such population limits are reached, but if you have any care for future generations, including perhaps your own future generations,living in a world worth living in, it's worth questioning the conventional beleif that all is well under capitalism's growth model.
            • Offline

              13
              (Original post by TheRevolution)
              I shouldn't have said blame. I should have said "poor communities are one of the causes of their own downfall". Morality was implied unwittingly.
              At the danger of going all philosophical on you I'm not a big believer in 'free will' arguments about human behaviour and to this extent we're probably going to talk past each other when it comes to finding the causes and perpetuation of poverty.
             
             
             
            Reply
            Submit reply
            TSR Support Team

            We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

            Updated: January 4, 2011
          • See more of what you like on The Student Room

            You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

          • Poll
            What newspaper do you read/prefer?
            Useful resources
          • See more of what you like on The Student Room

            You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

          • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

            Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

            Quick reply
            Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.