I think the problem is both, really. Uneducated people increasing their population beyond what their local area can sustain is a problem. (We see this in the US too. I believe there has been much discussion on GeekNights about the topic of people having children beyond their means.) Stopping it will not solve the poverty problem entirely, but it will help. It's part of the puzzle. You acknowledge that people having children without sitting down and taking a heavy look at their budgets and lives is a terrible idea, and that if they get into financial trouble because of it then it's their own fault. That is slightly different from 3rd-world countries that were poor to begin with, but the decision to have children definitely makes the poverty worse. If you don't have enough to take care of your existing family, having more kids is a bad idea.
It is true we often admonish people in the US, and other parts of western civilization, having children they can not afford. However, in our societies children are nothing but a cost.
In an agrarian society, children help you economically if they can stay healthy. It is true that we would much rather have the kids go to school all day, and not have to work. However, kids working the farm is a reality of rural society. Even though each one is an additional mouth to feed, their labor creates more value than they can consume. Again, that is as long as they stay healthy.
In addition, there are sometimes opportunities for children born into such situations to actually help their families. If you are lucky enough to get your kid into some sort of educational program deal, they might actually make money and help you get out of the rut. You know, it's the old situation where the younger kids all work the farm so the oldest child can go to school and hopefully they will make it in life and nobody will have to work the farm anymore.
So if you are living in poverty, having some amount of children can be beneficial to you in some ways. Having too many children is obviously a problem. Also, having unintentional children due to lack of, or refusal to use, birth control is also a huge problem. However, if all people in poverty just stopped reproducing, it might have a few very short term benefits, but would be a disaster in the long-term.
Well-elaborated. I agree that if the children make a net positive contribution, then they are not a problem. Obviously the need would be to keep people from having children that are net negative.
Thanks for clarifying your point, Nuri - your original post definitely came off as "The best way to solve the problem is to let starving people die," not as "The best way to solve this problem is not to focus solely on charity, but to combine charity as a starting point with education, technological advancement, and foundation of an economic infrastructure, making sure that we don't overemphasize food over other essentials of life." The second point is a lot more reasonable, and one with which I would agree.
Heh heh...but it got you guys fired up about the discussion and brought out some good points, didn't it? Yes, I'll agree that clarification was needed. XD
Thanks for clarifying your point, Nuri - your original post definitely came off as "The best way to solve the problem is to let starving people die," not as "The best way to solve this problem is not to focus solely on charity, but to combine charity as a starting point with education, technological advancement, and foundation of an economic infrastructure, making sure that we don't overemphasize food over other essentials of life." The second point is a lot more reasonable, and one with which I would agree.
I feel the need to point out that I think Nuri was completely right with her original statement. From a biological point of view.
Thanks for clarifying your point, Nuri - your original post definitely came off as "The best way to solve the problem is to let starving people die," not as "The best way to solve this problem is not to focus solely on charity, but to combine charity as a starting point with education, technological advancement, and foundation of an economic infrastructure, making sure that we don't overemphasize food over other essentials of life." The second point is a lot more reasonable, and one with which I would agree.
Thanks for clarifying your point, Nuri - your original post definitely came off as "The best way to solve the problem is to let starving people die," not as "The best way to solve this problem is not to focus solely on charity, but to combine charity as a starting point with education, technological advancement, and foundation of an economic infrastructure, making sure that we don't overemphasize food over other essentials of life." The second point is a lot more reasonable, and one with which I would agree.
I feel the need to point out that I think Nuri was completely right with her original statement. From a biological point of view.
Yes, from a purely biological standpoint, that is correct. From a purely biological standpoint, we should probably all be dead of some horrid disease right now. The humanitarian standpoint does have its merits.
Yes, from a purely biological standpoint, that is correct. From a purely biological standpoint, we should probably all be dead of some horrid disease right now. The humanitarian standpoint does have its merits.
This discussion is just more evidence demonstrating Nuri's awesomeness.
Did I miss something? If you make this statement Thaed, I assume you have tried to get her on FNPL?
Edit: I meant the original FreeRice game. Oops.
That's also a nice one, though when I played it, the rate of grains went from 20 to 1 after you made one error. So it would be better to just start over rather than just continue getting harder and harder to spell words for barely any gain.
Thanks for clarifying your point, Nuri - your original post definitely came off as "The best way to solve the problem is to let starving people die," not as "The best way to solve this problem is not to focus solely on charity, but to combine charity as a starting point with education, technological advancement, and foundation of an economic infrastructure, making sure that we don't overemphasize food over other essentials of life." The second point is a lot more reasonable, and one with which I would agree.
I feel the need to point out that I think Nuri was completely right with her original statement. From a biological point of view.
Which is why I asked if she had any moral viewpoint.
I played both the grammar game and the geography game, donated about 2000 grains. I have to admit I was kind of ashamed of how I did on the geography one.
Haha, thanks. ^_^;; Pretty sure my candor won't be appreciated in politics. I'm not much for softening truth with pretty words and empty promises. I wouldn't last long in a campaign.
Well we could be the first president / vice president duo to be assassinated.
Comments
In an agrarian society, children help you economically if they can stay healthy. It is true that we would much rather have the kids go to school all day, and not have to work. However, kids working the farm is a reality of rural society. Even though each one is an additional mouth to feed, their labor creates more value than they can consume. Again, that is as long as they stay healthy.
In addition, there are sometimes opportunities for children born into such situations to actually help their families. If you are lucky enough to get your kid into some sort of educational program deal, they might actually make money and help you get out of the rut. You know, it's the old situation where the younger kids all work the farm so the oldest child can go to school and hopefully they will make it in life and nobody will have to work the farm anymore.
So if you are living in poverty, having some amount of children can be beneficial to you in some ways. Having too many children is obviously a problem. Also, having unintentional children due to lack of, or refusal to use, birth control is also a huge problem. However, if all people in poverty just stopped reproducing, it might have a few very short term benefits, but would be a disaster in the long-term.
EDIT: There, another 1280 grains.
Edit: I meant the original FreeRice game. Oops.
I played both the grammar game and the geography game, donated about 2000 grains. I have to admit I was kind of ashamed of how I did on the geography one.
</kickstart of creativity>