Radical Depopulation Of The Earth - The Solution To Mankind's Problems?

[forfismum]

Originally Posted by imp

But the most powerful NATIONS do have the highest populations.

Bollox,bollocks,bollaux

[imp]

Originally Posted by forfismum

Bollox,bollocks,bollaux

You dispute what I am saying?

[forfismum]

Originally Posted by imp

You dispute what I am saying?

Looks like that to me.

[spadlet]

Originally Posted by imp

But the most powerful NATIONS do have the highest populations. Don't give me B.S. red herring arguments about which FAMILIES have the most power.

Originally Posted by spadlet

If domination is related to number of children, why don't the most powerful people have the most children?

I didn't say anything about the most powerful nations having the largest populations. I asked about the most powerful families having the most children. The world only has so much of so many resources. Power is gained from having a higher density of those resources (or an ability to persuade other people to give up their resources). Alot of better off families are those that have inherrited and added to their collection of resources for generations. The more chldren you have, the lower the density of resources each child inherits. However there are other issues such as ability to obtain resources which mean that to some extent the greater the number of children the greater their effect may be in coordinating the collection of other people's resources.

So it seems that if you are poor, having more children not only increases the ability of the family to survive conditions which adversley affect health and wellbeing (as they have fewer resource to buffer themselves from adverse effects) but it also increases the influence that the family can have (eg siblings working in related industries and doing each other favours). But if you have large quantities of resource the child is at the best advantage if it can retain those resources (check out the films about Elizabeth 1 in England. It was all about trying to retain power and manipulate the rest of the country), so the more children you have the greater their disadvantage, once survival agains disease etc is guaranteed.

If you can find any evidence to suggest that there isn't an optimum number (or range of numbers) of children to maximise retention of power within a family it would be very interesting to see. Off the top of my head I cannot think of a single wealthy couple that has had more than about 5 children. it would be interesting to see if reality backs up my theory or not.

I did not say anything about the power of nations or population size.

Regarding national effects:
If you erradicate birth control then in coutries like the UK you increase the chances of children being born with parents from different social (could not think of a better word to include ethinicity, class etc) groups. This is because people would be more likely to get pregnant in the early stages of a relationship before the effects of those differences on the day to day working of the relationship have such a large effect. This would probably lead to either the creation of other social groups (those that are 'mixed') or would lead to a blurring of the distinctions between the social groups. This would be coming form experience of people at school getting together with little regard for social background then spillting up due to the effects of such things on the expectations they had from their relationship, pressure from others, activities which they chose to get involve in later in life etc.

[imp]

[quote=spadlet;240422]

Originally Posted by spadlet

If domination is related to number of children, why don't the most powerful people have the most children?

I didn't say anything about the most powerful nations having the largest populations. I asked about the most powerful families having the most children. The world only has so much of so many resources. Power is gained from having a higher density of those resources (or an ability to persuade other people to give up their resources). Alot of better off families are those that have inherrited and added to their collection of resources for generations. The more chldren you have, the lower the density of resources each child inherits. However there are other issues such as ability to obtain resources which mean that to some extent the greater the number of children the greater their effect may be in coordinating the collection of other people's resources.

So it seems that if you are poor, having more children not only increases the ability of the family to survive conditions which adversley affect health and wellbeing (as they have fewer resource to buffer themselves from adverse effects) but it also increases the influence that the family can have (eg siblings working in related industries and doing each other favours). But if you have large quantities of resource the child is at the best advantage if it can retain those resources (check out the films about Elizabeth 1 in England. It was all about trying to retain power and manipulate the rest of the country), so the more children you have the greater their disadvantage, once survival agains disease etc is guaranteed.

If you can find any evidence to suggest that there isn't an optimum number (or range of numbers) of children to maximise retention of power within a family it would be very interesting to see. Off the top of my head I cannot think of a single wealthy couple that has had more than about 5 children. it would be interesting to see if reality backs up my theory or not.

I did not say anything about the power of nations or population size.

Regarding national effects:
If you erradicate birth control then in coutries like the UK you increase the chances of children being born with parents from different social (could not think of a better word to include ethinicity, class etc) groups. This is because people would be more likely to get pregnant in the early stages of a relationship before the effects of those differences on the day to day working of the relationship have such a large effect. This would probably lead to either the creation of other social groups (those that are 'mixed') or would lead to a blurring of the distinctions between the social groups. This would be coming form experience of people at school getting together with little regard for social background then spillting up due to the effects of such things on the expectations they had from their relationship, pressure from others, activities which they chose to get involve in later in life etc.

That is all fine but why are you sidetracking the thread by discussing family size on the micro scale instead of looking at the macro (national population).

The thread attempts to tie in population reduction as an effective means of prevening climate change. I am saying that no rational, power-maximizing nation would take steps to reduce its population because it leads to a loss in relative power to potential foreign invaders/enemies. It is this counter-argument that completely eliminates any talk of a global "concensus" that populations need to be reduced.

[forfismum]

Originally Posted by imp

I am saying that no rational, power-maximizing nation would take steps to reduce its population because it leads to a loss in relative power to potential foreign invaders/enemies. It is this counter-argument that completely eliminates any talk of a global "concensus" that populations need to be reduced.

Like I said before in so many words...bollox.The populations of all the developed ie rich and powerful,nations has been declining naturally and rapidly for years .Russia is worried as is France.
Invaders? Read up on the numbers of troops in Afwanistan and Iraq,the British and American armies are vastly outnumbered [forget the germans and others ,they dont fight].The word attrition comes to mind,or as the American Marines put it "Atrit".In simple terms they are superior troops and better equipped so you get one of them ,they get 10 or more of yours.Last time sheer numbers mattered was prolly at Stalingrad.

[imp]

[quote=forfismum;240428]

Originally Posted by imp

Like I said before in so many words...bollox.The populations of all the developed ie rich and powerful,nations has been declining naturally and rapidly for years .Russia is worried as is France.
Invaders? Read up on the numbers of troops in Afwanistan and Iraq,the British and American armies are vastly outnumbered [forget the germans and others ,they dont fight].The word attrition comes to mind,or as the American Marines put it "Atrit".In simple terms they are superior troops and better equipped so you get one of them ,they get 10 or more of yours.Last time sheer numbers mattered was prolly at Stalingrad.

3 most populous nations: China, India, and the US

3 least populous nations: Andorra, Antigua & Barbuda , and Dominica


Care to wager on who would win that game of 3 on 3?

[forfismum]

[quote=imp;240431]

Originally Posted by forfismum

3 most populous nations: China, India, and the US

3 least populous nations: Andorra, Antigua & Barbuda , and Dominica


Care to wager on who would win that game of 3 on 3?

What a peculiar way of thinking you have.I can just picture Andorra marching on Bejing.However back in the real world think of Israel.Exercise your mind a little.

[spadlet]

Forfismum, I've fixed the quotation code on my post, please can you fix post number 66 because I didn't type that.

[spadlet]

Originally Posted by imp

That is all fine but why are you sidetracking the thread by discussing family size on the micro scale instead of looking at the macro (national population).

The thread attempts to tie in population reduction as an effective means of prevening climate change. I am saying that no rational, power-maximizing nation would take steps to reduce its population because it leads to a loss in relative power to potential foreign invaders/enemies. It is this counter-argument that completely eliminates any talk of a global "concensus" that populations need to be reduced.

But how can you completely separate the two if you live in any vaguely democratic country? The continuing arguements about tax levels in the UK alone shows that people are often more interested in the effects that policies changes will have on their personal lives than 'the wider good of the nation'.