Jump to content
Islamic Forum
Asking

Malthus And Overpopulation

Recommended Posts

Guest Sulemaan

Hey asking!

 

Salam brothers,

Does this include irresponsible parents who have more children than they can provide with a life in dignity? Not only feed, we are not pets, but also educate?

 

Ah! Let me see...if I am forced into poverty, forced into starvation, then I should try to limit my family, reduce them in numbers until no one is left? No poor, no poverty! That's a good solution! Why doesn't Malthus advice genocide for the poor, that will get rid of them all and help rich people get richer. I think sister Elif was right, this is social Darwinism.

 

What of those who are responsible for public welfare? What of the State that takes up the responsibility of education? What of the rich that are suppose to provide for the poor? If all the money that the rich hoard in their bank accounts goes into circulation in the economy; if those corrupt leaders start using public funds in the right direction, then yes, even poor children can have education and eat a decent meal. Today, even third world countries offer free education up to a certain level, and anyone can get merit seats based on their performance. There is no dearth in education; the dearth lies in our thinking.

 

Including those responsible for overpopulation through wrong interpretations of the Quran?

 

I told you before that the Quran doesn't need unnecessary interpretation. A majority of people who reverted to Islam have read only the English text without any commentaries, (mainly Pickthal's translation). For anyone who reads the Quran, it is quite clear and needs no further explanation (for a greater part of it). Some parts which do need explanation or "interpretation" were explained by the Prophet Muhammad (may peacea nd blessings of Allah be upon him). Who can interpret the Quran better than the one to whom it was revealed? No other person can claim he knows better. Don't take this personally, but I think proclaiming that you believe in the Quran, but not exactly the way it is believed is more dangerous than denying it altogether. Each and every individual is different in his or her own way. Each person has his own way of thinking and if left to us, we will always prefer our own convenience or our interest (be it noble or otherwise) over anything else. Hence, there has to be a standard; a line has to drawn where it says, "this is right and that is wrong". Otherwise, every person who interprets the Quran by himself will start to practice his own Islam, accepting that which suits him and rejecting that which does not suit him.

 

So, nobody is responsible for anything until the Day of Judgement? Not before? Fantastic.

 

How in the world did you come to that conclusion? May I know your age? I have a strong feeling I am engaging with someone much below my age here. Let me rephrase it - when the world (as we know it) ends, the people who were given responsibility (people, here on this Earth, like me and you, like our parents, teachers, leaders, etc, each one of us, will be asked how they handled their responsibility. Ever heard of appraisals? Evaluation? Judgement? Well this will be the final one. Here, let me show you a glimpse -

 

Verily the Day of Sorting Out is a thing appointed

The Day that the Trumpet shall be sounded and ye shall come forth in crowds;

And the heavens shall be opened as if there were doors

And the mountains shall vanish as if they were a mirage.

Truly Hell is as a place of ambush

For the transgressors a place of destination:

They will dwell therein for ages.

Nothing cool shall they tastes therein nor any drink

Save a boiling fluid and a fluid dark murky intensely cold

A fitting recompense (for them).

For that they used not to fear any account (for their deeds)

But they (impudently) treated Our Signs as false.

Holy Quran 78:17-28)

 

That Day will be the sure Reality: therefore whoso will let him take a (straight) Return to his Lord!

Verily We have warned you of a Penalty near the Day when man will see (the Deeds) which his hands have sent forth and the Unbeliever will say "Woe unto me! Would that I were (mere) dust!"

Holy Quran (78:39-40)

 

Then verily We shall question those unto whom (Our message) hath been sent, and verily We shall question the messengers.

Then verily We shall narrate unto them (the event) with knowledge, for verily We were not absent, (when it came to pass).

Holy Quran (7:6-7)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds
Guest Sulemaan
Salam brothers,

 

Hi Kale,

 

How much more do Mexican companies pay for the same job compared with American companies in Mexico?

 

Since when did America start measuring itself by (what it calls) third world standards? Or is it your understanding? In that case do you think a person should be paid according what his country pays him back home? Or according to his merit? You don't have to answer that. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam brothers,

 

What I mean is that I suppose Euro-American companies pay similar salaries to non Euro-American companies. Are they all greedy or only Euro-Americans?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Sulemaan
Salam brothers,

 

What I mean is that I suppose Euro-American companies pay similar salaries to non Euro-American companies. Are they all greedy or only Euro-Americans?

 

Hi Asking,

 

Greed is universal. I was wrong in singling out the West like that. I apologize for that. The colonization has left an everlasting impression of the "white man" which is hard to dispel. We believe if it wasn't for the colonization, the West wouldn't be where it is today, and we also know what price WE, the people of the East (and South) had to pay for the colonization. Some countries (particularly in Africa) continue to pay that price.

 

Regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, Sulemaan,

 

I must congratulate you for this pearl of humility.

 

Greed is universal. I was wrong in singling out the West like that. I apologize for that.

 

It has pleasantly surprised me because, I repeat, admitting own faults or others merits is not something I often see here, whether Muslims or not. This argument of western greed has been very abused by some Muslims to blame the west for everything.

 

You are right colonization brought injustice to colonies. But I repeat again Spanish people were as poor as the colonized people during the times Spain was the richest country in the world. It was only the king and the court elites who were rich, and the king ended up bankrupt. At that time countries were practically the property of the king, helped by the church, who made him appointed by God. That is why we did the French Revolution to end that. The only solution was to separate church and state, religion and state. The French revolution will reach Muslim countries sooner or later.

 

We forget Europe did not only squeeze colonies for riches, but a good part of that riches came back to the colonies. Spain had to build a lot to bring a stone age continent, America, into European standards as much as possible, and that also cost Spain a lot in terms of brain and muscle drain. Many of the best men in Spain went to America and Spain lost them. The sick and the weak did not go. In Spanish history we studied that Spain, “the mother of 20 nations, almost died in the process of giving them birth�. This is true, and partially explains Spanish decadence from the 16th century to early 19th century.

 

Millions of educated healthy Spaniards left Spain, therefore Spain was also �squeezed� of its best riches, many of its best men, to enrich America. We built cities, universities, bridges, roads, agriculture, etc., just like Muslims did before. This did not come from heaven, but from a good part of the money taken. This is ignored, willingly or unwillingly, by some. The US owes much of its riches to the same European muscle and brain drain. English children were working in the mines in the times of the British empire. It was not Europe squeezing others. It was the European rich squeezing the poor, in Europe and everywhere. And non Europeans were doing exactly the same. Your admittance honours you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam brothers,

 

We believe if it wasn't for the colonization, the West wouldn't be where it is today, and we also know what price WE, the people of the East (and South) had to pay for the colonization. Some countries (particularly in Africa) continue to pay that price.

 

Sulemaan,

 

If the fact that Africa is behind Europe is a proof that colonization is to blame, then the fact the US, also a former colony, plus Canada, Australia, etc., which are richer than a good part of Europe, should also be a proof of the opposite. Africa is the poorest because it is the last continent to be explored and colonized and it is not so easy to bring countries from stone age to modern European levels. You cannot do that in a few years, it takes centuries. Colonization stopped many decades ago and Africans have ruled themselves for long. The fact they are corrupt is also blamed on the west, like if they were angels. In my opinion, fewer people would have died if Europeans were still ruling. All the African against African genocides would probably not have taken place. I am not saying colonies should still exist. Only that independent Africans are not doing it much better than colonization.

 

I repeat again, Europe was poor after WWII and our prosperity would not exist if we had not drastically reduced birth rates and we distribute that riches among 3 or 4 times today’s population. Poor countries would not be so poor now if they had started doing the same as Europe two generations ago. China’s population would be now between 4 and 6 billion without the one child policy. Would they be the same, better or worse? It is not like in your unnecessary exaggeration “no children no poverty�, but the right middle way between “no children� and “as many as possible�.

 

have a nice day, brothers :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace.

 

How much more do Mexican companies pay for the same job compared with American companies in Mexico?

 

I have no idea. I imagine it's not very different. Depending on the company. The only Mexican company I'm familiar with the workings of is a family who weave hammocks. There are lots of them, but they're probably not exploiting the workers, because they're all related.

 

Anyway, I didn't say that American greed was responsible, as if Americans are the only people capable of greed. These American companies (which are now 'multinationals' and loyal to no country) have just managed to be more dramatically greedy than others. Greed is responsible, and people have it regardless of what country they're from or their race.

 

Ah! Let me see...if I am forced into poverty, forced into starvation, then I should try to limit my family, reduce them in numbers until no one is left? No poor, no poverty! That's a good solution! Why doesn't Malthus advice genocide for the poor, that will get rid of them all and help rich people get richer.

 

Well, without the poor, rich people would have a much much harder time getting richer. Doesn't matter if the poor are dead or if they're well-off enough that they don't need to work for starvation wages, they'd no longer be a resource easy to exploit.

 

Aside from that, your assessment is correct. Advocating that poor people not have children is advocating a sort of genocide for the poor. It is atrocious to suppose that a person's poverty makes him unworthy to be a parent. A poor person is just as likely to produce a child who will make wonderful contributions to society as a rich person is, and a poor child is just as valuable as a rich one.

 

What of the State that takes up the responsibility of education? What of the rich that are suppose to provide for the poor? If all the money that the rich hoard in their bank accounts goes into circulation in the economy; if those corrupt leaders start using public funds in the right direction, then yes, even poor children can have education and eat a decent meal.

 

Yes. If leaders chose to use public funds for the public good, instead of using them to help themselves and their friends get richer, if leaders chose to regulate business to prevent the sort of brutal exploitation that goes on now, nobody would starve.

 

We forget Europe did not only squeeze colonies for riches, but a good part of that riches came back to the colonies.

 

Hmm. Asking, you're talking as if the drain of healthy young people from Spain to the colonies was riches for the Americas. I'm afraid that from the point of view of the people who already lived in the Americas, this was no influx of riches, it was poison, death and disaster. It wasn't good for Spain, it was incredibly bad for the Native American people. I'm sure some folks got awfully rich, though.

 

Anyway, they weren't all stone-age people, some of them were working bronze. Some of them had cities, and bridges, and they understood higher mathematics. Probably they might have built their own universities once the idea was given them, if the Europeans had met with them as equals and had an exchange instead of a slaughter.

 

As for Spain giving agriculture to the new world, erm, not a bit of it. The Incan people had sophisticated agriculture. Modern tribal peoples in the Andes also do. I've been reading about potatoes and have now encountered two authors in a row describing their agriculture as the 'most sophisticated' in the world. The mountains create these little microclimates, so every little plot is better for certain things. They've got 3000 varieties of potato. In your scale of actual wealth, the first sets of potatoes imported to Europe were of infinately greater value than all the gold of the New World that men have grabbed and trodden on and slaughtered one another for. Universities live on potatoes.

 

Anyway, matters of the actual value of potatoes versus their cost, one can't claim that colonialism's expense to the mother country means that the colonized country is benefitting. Unless you decide to enumerate a country's benefit in terms of how much money people who live there make, in total, and don't pay any mind to how it's divided up or the conditions under which people live.

 

It was not Europe squeezing others. It was the European rich squeezing the poor, in Europe and everywhere

 

Yes. Still is, but now it's the American rich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam, brothers.

 

Hi, Kale, thanks for your long post.

 

I also have a long answer. I enjoy this dialectic tennis with an expert trained in philosophy like you. At last you explained somewhere where your dialectic mastery comes from. I suppose you understand I cannot agree with you in everything, otherwise you would be my wife or my boss or both. :D Sorry for the joke. Sarcasm is in my horoscope and it is not my only defect nor the worst, but at least it brings a little humour, to which I am terribly addicted, so after all, better than some hateful posts I have seen. Needless to say, not from you.

 

Now I will only deal with the Spanish colonization. You seem to judge them by 2005 Dutch standards. With whom are you comparing Spaniards? Did they do any worse than other Europeans in the US? Find me Indian reservations in Southamerica. Find me a new race in the US similar to the millions of “mestizos�, mixture of Spanish and Indian. What is the population of Northamerican Indians compared to Southamerican Indians? Find me a country in Europe that gave nobility titles to Indians.

 

From the point of view of the people who lived in America, except the few who dominated, it was mostly liberation from other “civilized� Indians whom they had to pay not only food taxes, but also human taxes to be sacrificed, specially children and women. Only that help of allied oppressed Indians explains that a few hundreds of Spaniards, even with horses and armour, could conquer a continent of millions in a few years, just like only the help Muslims got from oppressed people can explain how could they conquer the world in a few years when it took Christians 300.

 

You say it was not riches going to America but only death. No, Kale, it was both, first death and then riches. Probably many fewer died from Spaniards than would have died from other Indians if Spaniards have never gone there. And it is clear many more Indians died from sickness, millions. Spanish conquest did not kill millions, tens of thousands probably.

 

The conquest was quick. Once it was over, the flow of men and goods of course enriched South America just like European emigrants enriched the US, even if a part of the money came back. And of course that made Spain poorer, like Europe was not enriched by emigrants to America until the Marshal Plan.

 

Should Spain have respected their valuable “culture� and “religion� so we could still have the “civilised� Actecs and Incas carry out bloody human sacrifices, by the hundreds some days, of children, young women and war prisoners, as their version of “panem et circenses�, which would now be on TV? Would they have behaved better than the Spaniards if they had invaded Europe before we invaded them? What do you think Spaniards should have done instead? But please do not tell me they should have done what the Dutch would do now.

 

If you read Charles F. Lummis, American historian who wrote about the Spanish conquest, perhaps you will get a better picture. As he was not Spanish perhaps you will trust him more.

 

Before I continue on birth control and overpopulation, I need to know something. What influence or importance have your religious convictions on your position on birth control and overpopulation? And specially or specifically, the bible command “Grow and multiply�. No influence? Small, medium, large or XXL? :D

 

Have a nice day, brothers, and keep your good humor always alive. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(Sulemaan)

What of the State that takes up the responsibility of education? What of the rich that are suppose to provide for the poor? If all the money that the rich hoard in their bank accounts goes into circulation in the economy; if those corrupt leaders start using public funds in the right direction, then yes, even poor children can have education and eat a decent meal.

 

(Kale)

Yes. If leaders chose to use public funds for the public good, instead of using them to help themselves and their friends get richer, if leaders chose to regulate business to prevent the sort of brutal exploitation that goes on now, nobody would starve.

 

I find this intersting. Is communism the answer? I can't speak for other countries, but here in the US, the poor do have opportunities. I am not saying it is easy, it is a struggle, but food is free, education is free, college is free, there is welfare, there are programs that if you are on welfare, you may learn a new trade, get educated. The opportunities are there, it is taking advantage of them, that is more of a sociological subject as to what makes the poor remain poor in the US? Again I can't speak of ohter countries. I grew up poor, welfare poor, didn't accept, too much pride, and we are succeeding with advanced degrees.

 

The key to success for these countries is education. India is a poor country, with overpopulation, through education and the fact that they are one of the world leaders in technology where men and women alike are seeing tremendous opportunities, this will only advance the country. As people get more educated, more ideas are grown, more advancements they will make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam, brothers,

 

As I only studied one year of economics, I have asked an expert. He has a degree in Economics, graduated with number one in a Spanish university and made masters at Cornell and others. I met him soon afterwards as Financial Director of one of the biggest tourist companies in the Canary Islands and I lost track of him 5 years ago when I came to Holland, but heard he was in China in a University and had married a Chinese woman and had a son. I have jut got his Email from another friend, so I sent him the post from Kale about Mexican workers and asked his opinion. Here is his answer.

 

I do not have so much time, so I will tell you only two things from my experience in China.

 

1. They go on with the one child policy. But they are relaxing its enforcement for instance in Shangai, where they have found that people do not want more than one son (even if they are allowed), sometimes they want none. Reason: more prosperity. The best birth control system is to have a numerous middle class.

 

2. Multinationals in china have brought prosperity to this country. The wages they pay are much higher than Chinese companies. The true exploiters are Chinese businessmen, not multinationals. I imagine in Mexico it happens more or less the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace, everyone.

 

I enjoy this dialectic tennis with an expert trained in philosophy like you. At last you explained somewhere where your dialectic mastery comes from. I suppose you understand I cannot agree with you in everything, otherwise you would be my wife or my boss or both. :D Sorry for the joke.

 

Hehe! I don't generally think of myself as an expert. If I was your boss, you'd have to agree with me because it was me saying it, and not because I was necessarily convincing. I don't mind the jokes, I'm amused by them. I stopped trying to make jokes on IF because they often don't cross the cultural divide here and confuse folks.

 

You seem to judge them by 2005 Dutch standards. With whom are you comparing Spaniards?

 

Saying that the Spanish conquest of South America was better for the Native peoples than the English/American conquest of North America is just not the same as saying that the Spanish conquest was good. I don't have to compare the Spaniards with their contemporaries to say that their conquest was unjust. I compare their behavior with ideals of justice instead.

 

Probably many fewer died from Spaniards than would have died from other Indians if Spaniards have never gone there. And it is clear many more Indians died from sickness, millions. Spanish conquest did not kill millions, tens of thousands probably.

 

I really doubt your first statement. History of mass slaughter by Spanish colonists is pretty readily available. Okay, more Indians survived the Spanish than survived the English -- the Spanish enslaved them, the English exterminated them. But the Spanish habit of forcing Indians to work in mines rather than in their gardens caused widespread malnutrition and probably killed a very large number of people who would otherwise have lived, and caused terrible suffering for a enormous number of people who would otherwise have lived well.

 

As for sickness, probably 90-90% of the population of the East coast of what is now the US died of disease brought from Europe. The first American colonies were built on the sites of what had formerly been Indian towns -- European colonists made use of the cleared farmland. This wasn't really the colonist's fault. Nobody could haveknown, at the time, that this would happen.

 

Should Spain have respected their valuable culture and religion so we could still have the civilised Actecs and Incas carry out bloody human sacrifices, by the hundreds some days, of children, young women and war prisoners, as their version of panem et circenses, which would now be on TV?

 

Respecting someone's culture to the point of not destroying it and enslaving its people is rather different from saying that everything about it is acceptable. An equitable contact would have probably resulted in an eventual extermination of the practice of human sacrifice, done willingly.

 

As for what's on TV, or what might be if history had gone differently, you're silly. By that reasoning, I might conclude that since Spanish culture was not destroyed, the Spanish people must still force Indians to collect gold for them, and cut the hands off the ones who don't do it. Native American peoples are fully capable of cultural advancement, just like other peoples.

 

Would they have behaved better than the Spaniards if they had invaded Europe before we invaded them? What do you think Spaniards should have done instead? But please do not tell me they should have done what the Dutch would do now.

 

The first question is irrelevant, as right-action is not defined as "behaving better than anybody else who happens to be around."

 

As for the second, I don't know what the Dutch would do now. I speculate that if the Spanish had met the Indians as equals, both parties might have benefitted from the contact. Northern Europe lives on potatos, Africa lives on corn, both came from the Americas and their value is immeasurable. The American Natives could have benefitted by emulating Old World's frequent use of the wheel (the Indians invented it, but never made much use of it) of sailing ships, of more efficient weaving-looms, of apples and a few other agricultural products, and so on. All of this could have happened without slavery and genocide.

 

Before I continue on birth control and overpopulation, I need to know something. What influence or importance have your religious convictions on your position on birth control and overpopulation? And specially or specifically, the bible command Grow and multiply. No influence? Small, medium, large or XXL?

 

I don't take all of the Bible literally, and even if I did, I don't think 'Be fruitful and multiply' is a command for modern humans. All living creatures were given this command, but it was followed by 'fill the Earth.' Once the Earth is full, you're done. Probably there are enough people. I'm all for birth control, and think safe and effective modern methods of contraception ought to be made available for all people, and that all people ought to be encouraged to limit the number of children they have. The goal is to eventually have a situation where the human population is stable. If this doesn't happen relatively soon, we'll have a real population crisis -- too many people, too few resources. But right now, we don't have a population crisis. There's enough for everyone. If you saw a village of a hundred families where one family owned 98% land and grew absurdly rich and fat off it, while all the other people in the village had only a tiny plot, and could only grow enough to die slowly of malnutrition, you would not say the village was overpopulated. Earth is like that, right now. It's a greed crisis.

 

I find this intersting. Is communism the answer?

 

Communism implies mutual ownership of everything, and every person recieving an equal share. This isn't the answer. Poverty will always exist, even in such a situation -- there will always be somebody who is cleverer and can use the same resources as everyone else to get a better standard of living, and there will always be someone who is foolish and uses his share in a stupid way that results in his standard of living being worse than the average. The clever guy will be 'rich' and the foolish one will be 'poor.'

 

We can't really end poverty, it's a relative thing. What we can do is raise the bar, so that poverty doesn't mean you are starving, naked, and have no shelter, clean water, or sanitary facilities. We don't need communism to do that, just social welfare programs. Historically, Islam has been all for free enterprise, private ownership, and people accumulating wealth, but it also has requirements for people to contribute to social welfare programs that made poverty a survivable and not particularly torturious condition. This isn't communism. It's just accepting, as a people, that everyone is responsible for improving the condition of his fellow man.

Edited by Kale

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, Kale,

 

If we judge Spaniards or anyone, it has to be by comparison with others of the same time, Kale. It is not reasonable to compare them with angels. If you say all conquests are evil, obviously Spanish conquest was. I am not saying Spaniards were angels, and perhaps not better than others, but not worse.

 

True, Incas had the best ancient agricultural system, and no starvation. But based on communism. There was no private property and everything belonged to the Inca-God-King, so they were actually all slaves of the king.

 

The Indian “civilizations� were not so civilized. Civilization is not only making buildings or knowing mathematics, but behaving humanely, and those Indians were terribly inhumane, they had constant wars, slavery and bloody ritual human sacrifices with cannibalism (priests eating hearts still beating) as routine, and it was compulsory for everyone to watch it to instil terror. Nothing done in secret like nazis did with Jews. Look at the faces in most monuments. Terror. It was a “civilization� based on terror and the amazing pyramids were built with slaves’ and war prisoners’ blood. But that is all off topic, let is leave that now.

 

What is important here is that it is wrong that 1) colonization only produces poverty, or 2) that poverty is the automatic or only result of colonization and 3) That US riches or riches in general is due mainly to poverty. All arguments to blame the west. Sulemaan has been honest and humble enough to admit blaming everything on western greed is wrong.

 

I still cannot understand how you and others underestimate the importance of immigration as a source of riches.

 

Is it not important that the US did not need to pay a cent for rearing up and educating tens of millions of people who came from Europe as educated healthy adults ready and eager to work and produce?

 

Is it not important that that the US owes much of its riches to an incredibly big land, incredibly fertile, and with incredible natural resources? When I studied high school in the late fifties, US was the first world producer of 43 of the main raw materials and agriculture products, all produced in the US by US labour.

 

Is it not important that the brain drain sent many the most innovative Europeans to US where they developed new machines, inventions, etc. The early 20th century, when US was not yet the richest and most powerful nation, saw the development of many inventions that made the US more efficient and richer by exporting technology, cars, agriculture machines, radio, telephone, etc.

 

Who went and go to America? The fearful or the courageous? The most enterprising or the least enterprising? The american enterprising Spirit is the result of this selection of the most enterprising Europeans who made America.

 

How can some ignore the muscle and brain drain and consider that its contribution to American riches was and is small? It is still ing many of the best men from the whole planet, Einstein, Von Braun, etc, etc, etc., including from Muslim countries, who go to the U.S. where they have better opportunities.

 

I am happy to see you accept at least birth control though not yet that the world is overpopulated … yet.

 

Now first, let me first say something about “greed�. “No greed at all� is only acceptable for monks or solitary yogis in the Himalayas, but not right for a father who is the FIRST responsible of supplying for his children. Greed, like many things, has to be in balance, in the rifht middle way, like Buddha and Socrates said. No greed is as bad as too much greed. A father who is poor, already has 5 children, and continues until he has 10 children, is much more wrong than a rich father who stimulates his children’s materialism, unless the 10 children end up being solitary yogis.

 

Well, without the poor, rich people would have a much much harder time getting richer. Doesn't matter if the poor are dead or if they're well-off enough that they don't need to work for starvation wages, they'd no longer be a resource easy to exploit.

 

What about the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Norway? There are no poor people there but these countries get richer and richer. It is not only the poor that make the rich, not only. Money may be made without the poor. That is a grave exaggeration and misconception. How did the richest man in the world, Bill Gates, make his money, from which third world poor? The idea that prosperity may only come from the poverty of others is an absolutely ridiculous argument which comes from communism, a failed system which is soon only going to be seen in archaeology programs of National Geographic and Discovery Channel. It is unbelievable that in 2005 someone may still be saying something like that.

 

And now that I speak of Bill Gates, he is very praised for his saving third world children with vaccines. But he is not going to educate them until 18 and give them a job for life afterwards. He does the easy job and leaves the difficult job for others to finish.

 

Aside from that, your assessment is correct. Advocating that poor people not have children is advocating a sort of genocide for the poor. It is atrocious to suppose that a person's poverty makes him unworthy to be a parent. A poor person is just as likely to produce a child who will make wonderful contributions to society as a rich person is, and a poor child is just as valuable as a rich one.

 

Understood. If you kill them through overpopulation and starvation after they are born, there is no genocide? Only if you avoid their birth? Poor parents who have more than 5 children are 100 % innocent? And the rich thousands of miles away are 100 % guilty? And 10 uneducated badly fed children in unhealthy conditions are better than 2 educated well fed children in healthy conditions? Because who knows, perhaps one of the 10 will be a great man, so let us have as many children as possible just for the possibility. A person's poverty makes him an unworthy parent if he has more than 3 or 4 children.

 

Riches produces riches, and poverty produces poverty. This is an economic law. Do you have a better solution than wait till the rich become generous, and people stop being greedy, which means never? Is birth control not better than nothing?

 

And the following questions have not been answered by any of the persons who still do not think poverty has anything to do with birth control and overpopulation. (I would have also ignored them if I had no answer).

 

Would European prosperity be the same now without birth control if Europe had now 1 billion people?

Would the Chinese be now the same, better or worse with 4 to 6 billion people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace, all.

 

If we judge Spaniards or anyone, it has to be by comparison with others of the same time, Kale. It is not reasonable to compare them with angels.

 

It's not only reasonable, to do otherwise is dumb.

 

The goal in engineering light bulbs is to produce a light bulb that never wears out and is 100% efficient at transforming electricity into light. This light bulb has never been built and probably never will. It is, so to speak, an angelic light bulb.

 

It's all very well to say that Edison's original light bulb was great and wonderful. But there would be no improvement in light bulbs if people compared them only with other contemporary designs and did not consider how they measured up against the angelic light bulb.

 

It would be foolish to teach about Edison's light bulb without mentioning its flaws, and the fact of other designs that are closer to the angelic light bulb.

 

Human societies tend to be more complex and difficult to make than light bulbs, but the same holds true.

 

I'm not suggesting that we ought to go back in time and put the Spanish on trial for their crimes. Or that we should go back and give Thomas Edison a beating for inventing a less efficient light bulb than was technically possible. Just that we take note that we can do better. And that we consider the project of doing better to be more important than fostering our pride by glorifying an imperfect past so that the glow of its glory washes out its evils and renders them invisible. You cannot learn from what you do not see.

 

True, Incas had the best ancient agricultural system, and no starvation. But based on communism. There was no private property and everything belonged to the Inca-God-King, so they were actually all slaves of the king.

 

The Indian civilizations were not so civilized. Civilization is not only making buildings or knowing mathematics, but behaving humanely, and those Indians were terribly inhumane

 

Appearantly they had not only the best ancient agricultural system, but the most sophisticated agriculture in human history.

 

Other than that, I don't really know much about those civilisations.

 

The Iroquois people were very humane. I suppose I could be in accordance with your request that we judge the Spaniards only in comparison with their contemporaries and denounce them heartily because they couldn't hold a candle to the peaceful, egalitarian, just and prosperous society of the Iroquois. Who probably didn't do a lot of maths, and never made very permanent or monumental structures, and lacked a system of writing, so maybe you don't want to count them as a civilisation.

 

I still cannot understand how you and others underestimate the importance of immigration as a source of riches.

 

How can some ignore the muscle and brain drain and consider that its contribution to American riches was and is small?

 

I don't know why you think I have said these things.

 

I am happy to see you accept at least birth control though not yet that the world is overpopulated yet.

 

Oh, I'd call it overpopulated. I like my space. It's just not a crisis. I could have more people living in my house than I'd like and still not have the septic system get overloaded, you know?

 

What about the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Norway? There are no poor people there but these countries get richer and richer. It is not only the poor that make the rich, not only.

 

You will find that did not say that the rich couldn't get rich if there were no poor. I said they'd have a much harder time of it.

 

Understood. If you kill them through overpopulation and starvation after they are born, there is no genocide? Only if you avoid their birth? Poor parents who have more than 5 children are 100 % innocent? And the rich thousands of miles away are 100 % guilty? And 10 uneducated badly fed children in unhealthy conditions are better than 2 educated well fed children in healthy conditions? Because who knows, perhaps one of the 10 will be a great man, so let us have as many children as possible just for the possibility. A person's poverty makes him an unworthy parent if he has more than 3 or 4 children.

 

If they starve, it is a genocide. If, by some means, they are forced not to have children, it is also a genocide.

 

Are rich parents who have more than five children (but can afford to bring them all up in the lap of luxury) 100% innocent?

 

A person's poverty makes him an unworthy parent? How about my friend T. He's a paraplegic. Most paralegic's can't have children and he's quite pleased with himself these past few years. But T has trouble with his toddler going places he can't follow in the chair, and he'll never go hiking or skiing with her, and probably, since he's a big man, his shoulders will go before she's grown and his mobility will be even less. T's poverty-of-physical-ability means that his kids will have to go without some experiences, and he might not be able to run to the rescue at a life-and-death moment.

 

So, should I say that T. is an unworthy parent, and that he shouldn't have children?

 

Do you have a better solution than wait till the rich become generous, and people stop being greedy, which means never? Is birth control not better than nothing?

 

Birth control is a very good idea. But the solution to poverty is not birth control. As for people being greedy, there is greedy and there is greedy. When you have governments that allow businesses to pay workers near-starvation wages and yet make enormous profits, and then go so far as to give those businesses tax-breaks and even grants? Is it appropriate that thousands of workers should make poverty-wages while the company that employs them reports enormous profits? Part of the solution would be to insist that if a company wishes to pay workers wages that still leave them impovershed, that company better prove that it's a hair's breadth from going broke.

 

The other part of the solution is simply to actually spend public funds on public good. Which includes programs to help the poor. In the US we've got this deal where welfare benefits and childcare assistance programs are cut, while Bush gives big grants to wealthy corporations and sells a few thousand acres of public land to a mining interest at a dollar an acre when a similar acre sold between two private investors would go for twenty thousand. For what we spent on the first few months in Iraq (which isn't good for the American public or the Iraqi public) we could have fed, watered, and provided basic medical care for every impovershed person in the world for eight years. Or thereabouts. According to the UN development council's numbers about how many poor people there are in the world and what it would cost to take care of them, anyway.

 

Would European prosperity be the same now without birth control

 

Surely not. But that's not really the point. I advocate limited family sizes for everybody, but I refuse to say that any particular class of persons ought not to have children. Or even that somebody who wants to have sixteen children is somehow wrong to want that, or that it is somehow blameworthy for him to have sixteen children.

 

Birth rates in Europe have gone down, and standard of living has gone up. You attribute the causal relationship backwards, I think. Nobody ran around Europe screaming, "You lousy Europeans, having so many children you can't afford to feed!" and convinced everybody to have fewer. Nor did the European people arrive at any sort of group consensus on the matter, nor did any country pass laws forbidding people from having more than a few children.

 

People often measure wealth and security in terms of family. It is valid to do so. Rural Chinese people hate the one child rule, because in their culture sons take care of their elderly parents. If your one child was a daughter, or your son died before you did, you'd be in serious trouble. Probably relatively few people actually think, "Lets have a lot of kids so even if a few don't make it, there will be some around to look after us when we get old," but this feeling is there. From a biological standpoint, where the goal is just to pass your genetic information along, and not necessarily survive long or be happy, it pays off for an organism in a higher-stress situation to put all of its effort into reproducing before the dangerous circumstances kill it, and to reproduce very often, as the circumstances are equally dangerous for its offspring.

 

Having experienced a stable prosperity, where most people lived into old age, many Europeans lost the desire to have a lot of children. Which makes sense in a situation where your kids are very likely to live, and the way to make sure you enjoy the benefits and pleasures of a stable family is not to have a lot of them, but to treat a few very well and put as much effort as possible into insuring their success.

 

Or so I speculate. As I said, people don't really think that way, and it's the sort of conclusion one makes when pretending to be watching the Earth from outer space. But it's true that more affluent societies have lower birth rates, and I believe this phenomenon will cross cultural boundries -- birthrates in India going down, birthrates in the US going up if poverty here continues to increase and social-welfare programs continue to be destroyed.

 

So, IFers!

 

How many kids does the average Muslim family have? Do you have more or fewer brothers and sisters than your parents did? Do you want a larger or a smaller family than your parents had? How about the difference between your parents and your grandparents?

Edited by Kale

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam brothers,

 

Hi, Kale, again, sorry not to agree with you in some things.

 

I said if we judge Spaniards or anyone, it has to be by comparison with others of the same time not with angels. And you say it's not only reasonable, to do otherwise is dumb.

 

No Kale, only being fair. We should strive for perfection is one thing. And another one to be unfair. Judging primitive cultures by much more advanced cultural standards is as logical as judging children by adults standards. That does not mean to accept what they did. It is only being fair.

 

Apparently they had not only the best ancient agricultural system, but the most sophisticated agriculture in human history.

 

Kale, if it was so good somebody would have tried it afterwards. Do you think they could compete with modern industrial agriculture? Nobody can compete with American or Dutch farmers using modern agricultural machinery. That is one of the problems of third world farmers. The Netherlands is a very tiny country, but the third food exporter in the world. You need Dutch climate, machines and the best farmers in the world to do the same.

 

I agree with you the Iroquois and any people who are humane and do not build impressive monuments are more civilised than those who built them and were cruel. And that is what I said, civilization is not only, and not mainly, to build monuments and know mathematics. There were many dozens of different Indian tribes in America, many were peaceful, accepted Spanish rule, and were neither enslaved nor killed, with unfortunate exceptions, and the same for tribes who helped the Spaniards against oppressing Indians.

 

The law made by the Spanish king said that Indians that accepted Spanish rule were to be considered as subjects of the king with the same rights as mainland Spaniards. But you cannot expect that all the Spanish soldiers and colonists behaved like angels, and just like it has happened in Irak’s prisons now people did things against the law. It took months for reports to reach the king, by ship, and months for orders to reach back, and some Spaniards were punished. Wars were almost only with the Actecs in Mexico, Incas in Peru and Araucanos in Chile.

 

QUOTE(Asking)

I still cannot understand how you and others underestimate the importance of immigration as a source of riches.

How can some ignore the muscle and brain drain and consider that its contribution to American riches was and is small?

(Kale)

I don't know why you think I have said these things.

If I understand you right, you seem to think, like some Muslims and other people, that US riches is mainly due to exploiting others and world poverty mainly a consequence of US greed, and you gave proof with your Mexican salaries story, which was answered by my friend in China. If you don’t think so, sorry, that was only for those who think so.

 

If they starve, it is a genocide. If, by some means, they are forced not to have children, it is also a genocide.

 

Nobody is forced except in China. But I still think it is better than giving them birth and let them starve. I suppose you know that in Chinese famines, they used to eat the baby, as after all the baby was condemned to starve anyway, and eating the baby could save his brothers and parents from starvation for some time. Do you think that situation was better than the present one? More humane?

 

Are rich parents who have more than five children (but can afford to bring them all up in the lap of luxury) 100% innocent?
I do not see why rich parents who have many children are responsible for poor parents who have many children.
A person's poverty makes him an unworthy parent?
If he has 2 or 3 children, no. If he has 10, yes.
How about my friend T. He's a paraplegic.
Kale, please. It is not the fact that he is paraplegic, this has nothing to do with what we are saying. It is the fact that the number of his children should be proportionate to his income, just like non-paraplegics.
(Asking)

Do you have a better solution than wait till the rich become generous, and people stop being greedy, which means never? Is birth control not better than nothing?

(Kale)

The solution to poverty is not birth control. As for people being greedy, there is greedy and there is greedy. When you have governments that allow businesses to pay workers near-starvation wages and yet make enormous profits, and then go so far as to give those businesses tax-breaks and even grants? Is it appropriate that thousands of workers should make poverty-wages while the company that employs them reports enormous profits? Part of the solution would be to insist that if a company wishes to pay workers wages that still leave them impoverished, that company better prove that it's a hair's breadth from going broke.

 

The other part of the solution is simply to actually spend public funds on public good. Which includes programs to help the poor. In the US we've got this deal where welfare benefits and childcare assistance programs are cut, while Bush gives big grants to wealthy corporations and sells a few thousand acres of public land to a mining interest at a dollar an acre when a similar acre sold between two private investors would go for twenty thousand. For what we spent on the first few months in Iraq (which isn't good for the American public or the Iraqi public) we could have fed, watered, and provided basic medical care for every impoverished person in the world for eight years. Or thereabouts. According to the UN development council's numbers about how many poor people there are in the world and what it would cost to take care of them, anyway.

So the solution is for you then government imposed salaries, like communists, and forget market rules? You know how that ended and you still advocate that Governments should dictate salaries and not the market? There are laws on minimum wages in every country, but overpopulation does not help wages go up. Labour is a commodity, though you try to ignore it.

 

I still do not understand your logic. For you, the solution to poverty is not birth control, but welfare. The best welfare system in the world is in Western Europe, thanks to birth control. Please help me to understand your logic. If possible, without calling me silly or dumb.

I refuse to say that any particular class of persons ought not to have children.
I never said that Kale. I said it very clear: we have to find the right middle way between no children and as many as possible.
Or even that somebody who wants to have sixteen children is somehow wrong to want that, or that it is somehow blameworthy for him to have sixteen children.
It is right only if he has money to give them education, otherwise, it is not right. Children have rights. If you do not educate children, you condemn them to poverty for life.

 

Europeans did not make laws like the Chinese because the problem was not so acute, but they allowed contraceptives, abortion, information, etc. to make it easy for those who wanted fewer children. No coertion, still success.

But it's true that more affluent societies have lower birth rates.

 

No, Kale, the opposite is true. Societies which have lower birth rates become more affluent, as the only two clear examples we have until now, Europe and China, clearly prove. You cannot have more affluent societies without birth control. No system nor government may create jobs at the rate of growth suggested by a Muslim who said in this Forum that to make Islam grow “lets multiply and multiply�. It is easier to make children than schools, houses, roads, hospitals, etc. And much more pleasant. :D

 

Have a good day brothers. It is easier with good humour :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, my quotes are all messed up. I am a disaster. :D

 

But thank Allah, everybody here is smarter than me, so no problem. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace.

 

No Kale, only being fair. We should strive for perfection is one thing. And another one to be unfair. Judging primitive cultures by much more advanced cultural standards is as logical as judging children by adults standards. That does not mean to accept what they did. It is only being fair.

 

Oh, people judge children by adult standards all the time. They tell them, "That was very grown up of you," and that's a compliment. A positive judgement is a judgement. We expect children to make childish mistakes and it is not fair to expect otherwise, but saying that a mistake is understandable is not the same as saying it's not really a mistake.

 

Kale, if it was so good somebody would have tried it afterwards. Do you think they could compete with modern industrial agriculture?

 

They do try it. Agricultural colleges have 'experimental' farms that try all sorts of things.

 

If the goal is to produce the maximum amount of high-quality food on the minimum amount of space, without depleting the soil of nutrients, this 'ancient' agriculture is best.

 

Modern Western agriculture doesn't have that goal, though. What it wants is uniformity. If you go to McDonalds and get some french fries, you're not just eating any old potato Solanum tuberosum. You're eating Solanum tuberosum "Russet." It's not Solanum tuberosum "Yukon Gold" or Solanum tuberosum "Andean Garnet." They taste differently, and McDonald's wants their french fries to taste the same the world around. Same business with about anything. The company that mills and markets wheat flour wants every bag to taste the same. If Hard Red Durham wheat is more productive in your climate than another variety, you're still going to grow the variety that the miller will buy.

 

Modern agriculture also limits itself to methods that can use the machines we have now. The Iroquois' "Three Sisters" method of agriculture involved planting corn, pole-beans and squash in the same plot. All three crops produce better this way, in less space, and if you're turning the soil by hand it's a lot less work. Nobody has invented a machine that can harvest a field of Three Sisters. I have no doubt that it would be possible to do so, and thus increase the productivity of thousands upon thousands of acres of farmland while simultaneously reducing the need for fertilizers.

 

I do not see why rich parents who have many children are responsible for poor parents who have many children.

 

Because all people are responsible for the welfare of children.

 

My question is, what is it about rich people that makes you think they have more right to have children than poor people?

 

Kale, please. It is not the fact that he is paraplegic, this has nothing to do with what we are saying. It is the fact that the number of his children should be proportionate to his income, just like non-paraplegics.

 

Why?

 

Because he is a parapalegic, T's children will not enjoy some advantages that other children have. And they might, in fact, die because he's less able to take care of them than someone who has use of his legs.

 

Because a poor person is poor, his children will not enjoy some advantages that other children have. And they might, in fact, die because he's less able to take care of them than someone who is rich.

 

So a lack of money (which could adversely effect the children) is a very important matter when determining who is a fit parent, but a lack of something else (which could also adversely effect the children) has nothing to do with it?

 

So the solution is for you then government imposed salaries, like communists, and forget market rules? You know how that ended and you still advocate that Governments should dictate salaries and not the market? There are laws on minimum wages in every country, but overpopulation does not help wages go up. Labour is a commodity, though you try to ignore it.

 

I'm not advocating government imposed salaries, precisely. I am advocating that certain standards of practice be enforced for businesses. One standard being, you cannot make profit when the people doing the work don't make enough money to live on.

 

You say that a person who cannot afford to care for his children ought not to have them, but you do not agree that a business that cannot afford to pay its worker enough for a decent diet, housing and clothes ought not to be in business?

 

As for market laws, governments interfere with them all the time. American slaughterhouses are inspected and must meet sanitation requirements and be in compliance with laws against animal cruelty. This costs the slaughterhouse money. It would be cheaper to run a dirty slaughterhouse. Nobody need know, and you can market the meat at full price. Is there something wrong with a government protecting people and animals by demanding that slaughterhouses be clean and use humane methods? If so, why is there something wrong with a government protecting people by demanding that businesses pay a fair wage?

 

There aren't minimum wage laws in every country. And of course overpopulation does not make wages go up. And yes, labour is a commodity, but the market is not open. The price of a Mexican-made t-shirt in the US is about the same as the price of an American-made t-shirt in the US. Market forces set that price. But the price of the labour used to make the shirts is grossly different. "Free trade" laws mean that Hanes may sell their t-shirts wherever they can get the best price, but immigration laws mean that Average Jose' cannot sell his labour where he can get the best price. If the North American Free Trade Agreement meant that there was free trade for every commodity, labour included, we'd have a jolly period of migration across the continent, followed by a equalization of wages. As it is, it just makes exploitation of poor countries where wages are low easier and more profitable. This phenomenon is increasing.

 

Is this really any different from having only one man in town who is allowed to sell rice, and letting him charge whatever he wants for it? We used to have laws against monopolies, and against price-gouging.

 

I refuse to say that any particular class of persons ought not to have children.

 

I never said that Kale. I said it very clear: we have to find the right middle way between no children and as many as possible.

 

Sure you did. You say that a poor person ought to limit the number of children in his family. Though at least you do seem to be giving even the most destitute person the right to have two or three. But you seem to be saying that a rich person need not restrict the number of children he has unless he wants to. So you're saying that lower class people ought not to have (more than three) children.

 

I was thinking about these two families I know. Four kids each. One family is very poor. Things are better for them now, but when I knew them, they lived in apartment that was just two rooms. They were, in fact, in violation of a child-welfare law that says that kids above a certain age must not share a bedroom with their parents or with siblings of the opposite sex. The kids didn't seem to mind. They're happy, bright, lively kids. I used to have the most interesting conversations with their 8-year-old son. A very smart and charming child. Those kids are loving and considerate to each other, and to folks in the neighborhood. The other family is in a three-story house with six bedrooms, a dining room, a living room, and a room that's just for their ridiculously huge television and video games. Their 8-year-old son appears to be dumb as rocks, cannot have an intelligible conversation, much less an interesting one, is cruel to his siblings, refuses to share toys, is rude, and so on.

 

Certainly the rich kids are in a better situation. But almost as certainly, the poor kids are better citizens. Which goes to show that rich people aren't better parents than poor people.

 

If, as you say, there is a limit to the number of jobs that can be created, why does it make a difference wether the workers came from rich or poor families? The rich 8-year-old will probably grow up to be an educated man with have a good-paying job, but he probably won't grow up to be smart, generous and considerate. The poor kid is already growing up to be a smart, generous and considerate man, but it's likely that he won't be as educated, and will work low-paying jobs, and perhaps be unemployed a lot.

 

Is it really right to say that the poor parents ought not to have so many children, while it's just fine for the rich ones to? Is it better? Those limited jobs and limited education opportunities, well. If that obnoxious rich child had never been born, the kindly and talented poor child would have a better chance of getting those things.

 

It is right only if he has money to give them education, otherwise, it is not right. Children have rights. If you do not educate children, you condemn them to poverty for life.

 

Of course children have rights. But you are saying that it is the sole responsibility of parents to insure that children recieve what is their right. It's not. It's everyone's responsibility. Otherwise, if a child's parents die, he doesn't get his rights because nobody else is obliged to provide for him. Sorry. It's not okay to let children go without food, clean water, shelter, education simply because their parents cannot provide that for them. It doesn't matter if the parents are deficient because they're poor or because they're dead.

 

What if a person is doing well, making a lot of money, and has a lot of kids but then loses his source of income and becomes terribly poor? Is it now wrong for him to have these children, when it was right a year ago? What should we do about it? Nothing, since children are the parent's responsiblity alone?

 

I thought it was generally agreed in the west that it is everyone's responsibility to educate children. Otherwise we wouldn't have public schools.

 

No, Kale, the opposite is true. Societies which have lower birth rates become more affluent, as the only two clear examples we have until now, Europe and China, clearly prove. You cannot have more affluent societies without birth control. No system nor government may create jobs at the rate of growth suggested by a Muslim who said in this Forum that to make Islam grow lets multiply and multiply.

 

China's birth rate was forced down, and they became more affluent. But I don't think you can prove that there was a drop in European birth rates before there was an increase in affluence. As you say, societies with lower birthrates (at least in the case of modern China) become more affluent. But it does not mean that it is not true that affluent societies naturally come to have lower birth rates. Europe doesn't prove me wrong, and China's special situation renders it useless as a source of data concerning this matter. I'm pretty sure lower birth rates in the US cooresponded with increased affluence caused by the 'New Deal.' Which consisted of welfare programs. Birth control didn't create the New Deal.

 

Obviously I don't think people ought to have children for the purpose of making their religion grow. And I think birth control should be made available and used, and everybody ought to have smaller families. But I'm not going to say just poor people ought to have smaller families. Or that poor people create their own poverty by having too many children.

 

I apologize, about the dumb thing. I didn't mean to say that you are dumb. You're not. I am quite enjoying our conversation. I just meant I think it's a dumb idea. I have a lot of them myself. I speculate that intelligent people tend to have more dumb ideas than dull people, actually. On account of them having more ideas to begin with, and being capable of a greater variety of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam, brothers,

 

I repeat Kale's question

 

How many kids does the average Muslim family have? Do you have more or fewer brothers and sisters than your parents did? Do you want a larger or a smaller family than your parents had? How about the difference between your parents and your grandparents?

 

No Muslim answers?

 

Have a nice day, brothers. Easier with good humour. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peace brothers,

 

It seems to me that Malthus and his ideas are underestimated in the West. But in the Muslim world I do not even know if Malthus is known. Has Malthus been translated into Arab?

 

What do Muslims know and think about Malthus?

 

What do Muslims think about overpopulation?

 

Salam

 

There are plenty of resources for everybody ... but not enough for their greed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Sulemaan
Salam, brothers,

 

I repeat Kale's question

No Muslim answers?

 

Have a nice day, brothers. Easier with good humour. :D

 

I want more than my parents had! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How many kids does the average Muslim family have? Do you have more or fewer brothers and sisters than your parents did? Do you want a larger or a smaller family than your parents had? How about the difference between your parents and your grandparents?

 

All my muslim friends in england want way less than our grandparents and parents had. Most of them just want 2 kids. Whilst a lot of our parents have had 4 or 5 kids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam brothers

 

From the Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf today

 

China has now 1,32 bilion and India 1,10 billion people. In 2050 China will have 1,39 billion and India 1,59 billion.

 

India will pass China in 2030. Until now the expectation was 2035. Indian women have more than 3 children, and the Chinese 1,7. Total world population will be in increase by 2050 2,6 with and reach 9,1 billion. In 15 countries mainly in South and East Europe, women have 1,3 kind per woman. This is new in the history of mankind, according to UN experts.

 

It is very simple my friends, what do we want, quantity or quality?. Yes, it is not impossible to have both, but not so easy either. Usually you have to choose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace.

 

Saufia's experience seems pretty consistant with my family history, and my theory.

 

The side of my family where, as far as we can remember (just a few generations) people have been engineers and academics and other such upper-middle-class types, people have had one or two children per couple.

 

The side of my family where people were farmers, they had four or six children per couple. They weren't really poor, they were very rich in food, skills and mules, but they had very little money and their farms counted on large families to operate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace to everybody

 

In January 2005, the unemployment rate for under-25s was 18.3% in the euro-zone and 18.7% in the EU25. In January 2004 it was 1 7.9% and 18.7% respectively. The lowest rates for under-25s were observed in the

Netherlands (7.4% in December 2004), Denmark (7.5% in December 2004) and Ireland (8.0%), and the highest in Poland (37.7%), Slovakia (29.3%), Greece (27.1% in June 2004) and Italy (22.4% in September 2004).

Eurostat estimates that, in January 2005, 12.7 million men and women were unemployed in the euro-zone and 19.0 million in the EU25. These are seasonally-adjusted figures in line with ILO criteria. In January 2005, the US unemployment rate was 5.2% and the Japanese rate was 4.5%.

 

Yes, there is enough food for everybody in the world. But where are the jobs to enable everybody to buy the food? This week another Dutch factory has decided to move production to China, 400 people, Muslim and not, who have to find another job, like 19 million other Europeans. A few years ago in every car factory there were thousands of workers. Now there are thousands of robots. A computer can do the job of dozens of office clerks. They are of course still investing in creating robots that will substitute workers.

 

In German, the word for employers is “work-givers� (Arbeitgebers) and the word for employees or workers is “work-takers� (Arbeitsnemers). Who has to provide jobs for the “poor and good work-takers�? Of course the “rich and bad work-givers�.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Asking,

 

I'm so confused. Didn't you explain on another thread that you believed in reincarnation? But , according to that belief, there are only so many souls, which keep coming back in different guises. So why are you now worried about over-population? How can the population rise without limit, unless new souls are being created. In fact, if the population is controlled, where do these souls go? Is there a waiting area? And why are they all coming back in China and India just now?

 

Please enlighten me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, IbnSina,

 

I'm so confused. Didn't you explain on another thread that you believed in reincarnation? But , according to that belief, there are only so many souls, which keep coming back in different guises. So why are you now worried about over-population? How can the population rise without limit, unless new souls are being created. In fact, if the population is controlled, where do these souls go? Is there a waiting area? And why are they all coming back in China and India just now?

 

No, IbnSina, it is not as you think. There are many misconceptions about reincarnation as there are about many concepts. For instance, “nirvana� is thought to be a sort of thoughtles limbo, but what it is is actually Superconsciousness, or Cosmic Consciousness or Total consciousness or Unlimited consciousness. Our consciousness is limited by our body and mind. We have a consciousness similar to an animal, we are only consciousness of our body, not of our soul or anything only our body and the outer universe, it is a kind of “animal consciousness�. As long as our consciousness is identified with our body and the physical world, and limited by mind, we cannot expand our consciousness.

 

When a yogi, after lives of meditation, which is concentration within, may completely isolate his concentration, his attention, from the outer world, which is what is limiting our consciousness, he experiences Superconsciousness. But to reach that state it is necessary to stop breath completely, because to achieve perfect concentration for long periods breath is an obstacle, it is something moving in your breast which distracts and does not allow total concentration, a sort of Superconcentration within, so it needs to be stopped for long periods. You may think a person will die then, but scientists know of toads which may live without breath for years when deprived of air, and then return to life when they are exposed to air again. So if it is possible for animals, perhaps it is possible for us, as we have an animal body.

 

Concerning the number of souls, God is constantly creating souls and everything else. Creation is constant, of things and of souls. It is not something that happened long ago. Religions believe God makes the soul when the child is born, when we make the body.

 

Many souls existed long ago, even before Adam and Eve, we may have existed before Adam and Eve, but we forgot it, and will remember again when we reach the stage of Cosmic Consciousness. Until then this memory is stored in our astral body, to which we have no access yet. Advanced and fully Realised yogis may remember their previous lives. Until then it is better for us not to know it. At our stage, it would be worse if we could remember all our mistakes and what others did to us, for instance.

 

And there must be millions of planets similar to ours with inhabitants who also have a soul and are also a part of creation just like us, perhaps with different bodies, perhaps less advanced spirituall and materially and perhaps more. There are more souls than we can imagine. Creation is so immense we cannot even imagine it.

 

So, here is the explanation of Adam and Eve and the “Eden� which is of course not a place anywhere in this planet, neither in the Middle East, nor in the Canary Islands, nor any other place people have thought in the Middle Ages, but a state of consciousness. That is what the people who interpreted the bible for us in the middle ages, and whose interpretations we have inherited, could not imagine.

 

Page 47. The Second Coming of Christ.

 

The first immaculate conception, in its highest form, was when God materialized Adam and Eve – the symbolic parents of all human beings. God did not create original man and woman by sexual union (Which came first, the tree or the seed?. The tree, of course, which was then endowed with the ability to produce its own kind).

 

Though the physical body of man was generally patterned after the physiological and anatomical instrumentalities that had resulted from the long process of evolution of animal species, human beings were created by God with a unique endowment possissed by no lower forms: awakened spiritual centers of life and consciousness in the spine and brain that gave them the ability to express fully the divine consciousness and powers of the soul.

 

By an act of special creation, God thus created the bodies of adam and Eve in the immaculate way of direct materialization, and empowered these first beings similarly to reproduce their own kind. We find in the Hindu scriptures also mention of the real inmmaculate conception when the divinely endowed first beings could create offspring by mind power. Man and woman, expressing from their sexless souls a positive or negative vibration, could produce other male or femaile beings, respectively, by materialization even as God had created the Biblical Adam and Eve.

 

In the beginning, the sexual organs were not pronounced at all in the symbolic Adam and Eve. God warned them not to eat of the fruit “in the midst of the garden� (Genesis 3:3). That fruit was the sensual touch of sex in the middle of the bodily garden. When Adam and Eve succumbed to temptation and ate of that fruit – embraced each other in a lustful way – they were “driven out� of the Eden of spiritual consciousness.

 

In their “fall�, having descended to the low estate of body identification, they lost their soul-awareness of the divine perceptions and capacities in the subtle cerebrospinal centers – including the power to create in the immaculate way. Their sexual organs developed, as in the lesser evolved forms of the animal kingdom. In the positive, more aggressive human form the protruding male organ developped, and in the negative, more pasive body the recessive female organs developped.

 

The divinity and power of creation that God gave to Adam and Eve before their fall is still potentially present in every human soul, and will be brought back again when the Eden of godliness is reentered. The rishis of the ancient higher ages in India had the power to create by mind. By will power anything can be materialized in this world. In all cases, it is the Cosmic Vibration or Holy Ghost that informs all matter.

 

This vibration can be consciously wielded by the will power of Christlike beings who unite themselves with the Directing Intelligence of God’s will in the Holy Vibration. Or God Himself, directly or throough His hierarchyof angelic agents, may transmit this power of the Holy Ghost to fulfill His purpose.

 

So perhaps we were one day long long ago in that higher state of consciousness and lost it, and we are tied to our body consciousness by our physical desires, until we learn to master them and disengage our consciousness from body (animal) consciousness and regain our “soul� consciousness.

 

Souls are constantly being created, they are made out of the same “essence�, as everything is made of, Allah’s consciousness transformed into manifested energy, in apparent and illusive temporary forms. Jus like the “souls� (astral bodies) or humans, also animals and trees, that is, every living thing has an astral “double� which gives life to the physical body, and when the “soul� leaves the physical form of the plant, animal or human, the physical “house� disintegrates. That is why scientists do not know exactly what “life� is, and will never find it with a microscope. Some scientists speake of “creating� “life�, like if they were God, but they do not even know what it is.

 

So to resume, the number of souls is enormous, many more than we can accomodate in this world, many more want to be born that may possibly be born no matter how many children we may have. They want to be born and need to be born, but if we women do not get pregnant, there is no way that too many souls, with their respective "houses" or bodies will overpopulate the earth. Allah has given us the possibility of reasoning and deciding how many children we want to have. That is our responsibility. If we are responsible, some souls will simply have to way a little longer, and perhaps will be born later but better, as I think we are now in the 12.000 ascending cycle of the spiritual evolution cycle or yuga, so things are improving in general for mankind, even if some do not see it so.

 

So, Ibn Said, as you like science, I will try to find another text with interesting scientific information.

 

Peace and happiness to everyone.

 

De National Geographic

"http://nationalgeographic####/eye/deforestation/effect.html"]nationalgeographic

#####/eye/defo...ion/effect.html[/url]

 

Forest Holocaust

 

The statistics paint a grim picture. According to the World Resources Institute, more than 80 percent of the Earth’s natural forests already have been destroyed. Up to 90 percent of West Africa’s coastal rain forests have disappeared since 1900. Brazil and Indonesia, which contain the world’s two largest surviving regions of rain forest, are being stripped at an alarming rate by logging, fires, and land-clearing for agriculture and cattle-grazing.

Among the obvious consequences of deforestation is the loss of living space. Seventy percent of the Earth’s land animals and plants reside in forests. But the harm doesn’t stop there. Rain forests help generate rainfall in drought-prone countries elsewhere. Studies have shown that destruction of rain forests in such West African countries as Nigeria, Ghana, and Côte d’Ivoire may have caused two decades of droughts in the interior of Africa, with attendant hardship and famine.

Deforestation may have catastrophic global effects as well. Trees are natural consumers of carbon dioxideâ€â€Âone of the greenhouse gases whose buildup in the atmosphere contributes to global warming. Destruction of trees not only removes these “carbon sinks,â€? but tree burning and decomposition pump into the atmosphere even more carbon dioxide, along with methane, another major greenhouse gas.

 

The Chinese and the Indian are getting richer, or less poor, as you want, so they need more and more oil, wood, etc. I know you will not like to hear it, but more people need more space, wood, food, etc. That means more need more resources, no matter how you distribute them. I like to be optimistic, but not at the cost of denying reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×