[rescue] Re: geek vehicles

[Jeremy Nielson]

> > If we can fit litterally 2.5 billion people into China and India alone,
I
> > don't see the problems for the rest of the planet.  What kind of Big
> > Problems do you see?  Places to store people?  There's plenty of space.
> > Feeding them all?
>
> Ever been curious why people are _Starving_To_Death_ in some areas of the
> world?

Honsetly?  I've never really been that curious.  I feed myself and my own,
and I consider it the responsibility of everyone else to feed theirs and
their own.  If everyone paid a little bit more attention introspectively,
there'd probably be less problems in the world.  But that's a tangent in and
of itself.

> Could it be... because those populations have hit the limit of what the
> Earth will support in those regions?
> Could it be... Equilibrium?
> Could it be... Nature's way of correcting the Overpopulation Problem?

Could it be that people are lazy in communist countries, and when they don't
respect the nature around them, in any form, that causes starvation?  People
can feed themselves in India, however they choose not to eat their cattle.
They have such bizarre social and religious norms, that one would rather
starve than eat the food that's obviously in front of them.  What's the
adage?  You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink...

Now places like Ethiopia, where they were fully able to decades ago, fully
feed themselves, is an obvious sign of mismanagement.  Not overpopulation.
I really can't think of an area that has mass starvation that doesn't have a
regional solution.  But I'm young, and arguably naive...

> We see it in natural populations all the time, Lemmings run off cliffs
into
> the sea... (okay, so they really don't), the Wild Hare population in
Alaska
> plummets from starvation over and over in 11-12 year cycles because they
> overgrow their food supply, and the Red Fox populations follow them about
6
> months behind...

Sure, and the deer/wolf population in michigan, yadda yadda yadda.  One
thing people don't seem to realize when they equate us to animals, is that
we've totally gone and thrown off Darwinistic cycles because we protect the
weak, and diminish the strong.  Personally, as a man of capitalistic
integrity, I feel that every person can and should make their own way.  If
you can't do that, then you deserve what you earn.  But considering these
socialistic ideals that we should be sending food to these people, because
how dare we let one go hungry when we can obviously feed them.... one might
argue that socialism is the bane of the environment.

> It's natural.  Where we are screwing up is by sending food to these
> people...

Actually, you are correct, but not correct for the right argument.  The
reason it's screwed up is based on the old adage "Give a man to fish, he'll
eat today, teach a man to fish, he'll eat forever".  Well, when we give them
food, nobody buys from the local farmers, who end up losing their farms and
starving along side.  This is an economic effect, and again, not an effect
of overpopulation.

> Awww, look at the poor starving Child, Honey, let's send food and money so
> that that child can grow up and have 7-10 more children who will starve to
> death.

Hey I know!  Hey, let's send a doctor over there, and everyone who receives
food that's sent in by some sort of foreign aid, also gets chemical
castration!  Perfect solution!  See, it would work out nicely, because all
the people who have the nuts to work and earn their own way, will survive
and pass those traits on........ </sarcasm>

Jeremy Nielson