4 ms·
> But we actually have the capacity to feed them, to feed everyone, even now, even if we don’t have the will. Careful, having the capacity to do something does
by powertower 13y ago
> But we actually have the capacity to feed them, to feed everyone, even now, even if we don’t have the will.
Careful, having the capacity to do something does not mean you should do it.
An excellent way to grow a starving population from 80MM people to 800MM people in about 80 years is to feed them (these numbers aren't made up).
Then all you have to do is just feed their children, and their children, and their children, until that population hits some type of a pivotal point where everything becomes great, they become independant, responsible, have a self-sustaining economy, government, start having only 1.4 children, etc.
The chances of it all going horribly wrong is very high, but why not balloon the population of the world, and have all those new soles competing over limited resources.
- philwelch 13y agohttp://annualletter.gatesfoundation.org/#section=myth-three http://annualletter.gatesfoundation.org/#section=myth-three
- powertower 13y agoSo all we have to do to prevent the population booms by feeding the poor of the world is to provide them education, housing, clean water, healthcare, a good government, and about 12 other things (while praying hard to make sure they don't get dependant on that outside help)? And then after the initial exponential population run-up (which happens anyways), it will all level out in the end (with lower birth-rates). Seems kind of like the counter-argument is avoiding the issue at hand by re-framing it in terms of future birth-rates (instead of accepting the immediate reality).