Hang on Poirot, you really are a bit one eyed in your views.

Money lenders have been around in India for a long time. Would
you prefer the old method of credit in India, like selling of
children into bonded labour?

Credit facilities like micro banking etc, have in fact helped
to drag millions out of poverty. Competition in the field, so
that people don't totally rely on selling children and the old
fashioned money lenders, is not a bad thing.

Investing in crop breeding has once again brought huge benefits
around the world. But somebody has to spend the money to do it.
If it were not for selective plant breeding, most of our crops
would regularly be wiped out by diseases such as rust.

Nobody forces anyone to buy seeds from plant breeding corporations.
Farmers have a choice. Govts have a choice too, of bankrolling
plant breeding if they wish.

Life is full of people making poor decisions. But your attitude
seems to be that we should prevent people from borrowing money
and prevent them from modern plant breeding technology, because
somebody might make a profit or they might misuse the technology
and get hurt in the process.

Sheesh on that basis, you should never teach your children about
using matches or knives either.

HORMOAN-A-LETHIA-PITHICus

We are all ruled by our hormones and are all extremely good at forgetting this and actually believing we have free will and the capacity to do good AlTRUISTIC works.

HA!

Pericles,

http://www.oxfam.org.hk/en/one_541.aspx

Of course, it's not only the social question in China, which presently see's 117 male births for every 100 female births. I read once that 9 of the 10 most polluted rivers in the world were in one province in China (will scout around for a link - but you get my drift).
My point in all of my arguments is that the scale of this kind of economic progress (miracle?) is not sustainable, which goes to the heart of the original premise of the article. I we're such a clever and wise bunch, why can't we then find a middle way which is sustainable?

Yabby,

Yes, I can see that I'm a tad one-eyed. But I'm constantly outraged at the intensity of pressure put on developing countries by the World Bank and the IMF (amongst others) in tandem with various governments. Corporations syphon off massive profits often at the expense of peasants in the third world. Ordinary folk in these countries often end up worse off than before intervention - as has been demonstrated recently by the fervour of those disaffected in the Arab world.

In any case, I do agree with you that over-population is at the heart of the problem. Land degradation and water depletion will be a acute challenges in the not too distant future. Both China and India could be seriously battling to feed their populations in the next 10-20 years. You can only wring so much out of the environment.
Things collapse.

That's it, Poirot?

http://www.oxfam.org.hk/en/one_541.aspx

"The Ministry of Agriculture estimates that... nationally, there are as many as 70 million children 'left behind'."

That's your "estimated at between 50 and 150 million". I guess 70 million fits within those boundaries. But why didn't you say that in the first place, instead of the original 500 million?

Back in the sixties, whole villages in Goa emptied themselves of their breadwinners for two years at a time, in order to earn huge sums - as much as fifteen pounds a month - working as stewards on Orient Line passenger ships. This was considered a necessary sacrifice, in order to improve the lot of their communities as a whole. I dare say that Chinese families rationalize in a similar fashion, and who are we, exactly, to tell them how to run their lives?

And don't forget, an entire class of English children used to be raised by nanny, ate their meals in the nursery, were sent away to boarding school and lived for the dictum "seen, but not heard".

The ruling class.

Pericles,

I did apologise for the 500 million figure (wish I hadn't bothered).

As for the toffs jetttisoning their parental responsibilities to nannies and public schools - the so-called ruling class - plenty of horror stories to be told there as well....and loads of neuroses too.

It would be remiss of me, Pericles, if I didn't doff my hat in your direction. You are, without a doubt, OLO's foremost exponent of the art of deprecation.

*But I'm constantly outraged at the intensity of pressure put on developing countries by the World Bank and the IMF*

Poirot, the IMF and World Bank are basically lenders of last resort.
Countries go there, when no private institution would touch that
customer with a barge pole. I don't think its unreasonable for them
to list their terms and that those terms involve changing poor
economic practises which helped cause the problem in the first
place. Now you might not like some of the economic reforms which they
specify, but they would not specify them just for fun, more likely
because they have good reasons backed by evidence and past experiences, to do so.

It is quite true that corporations expect to make larger returns on
their investments in the third world, then in the first world. But
that is not without reason. A larger risk needs a larger return to
justify that risk. The list of corporations losing their shirts
through third world investments is a long one and there are no
functioning courts to turn to, when things go wrong.

Why arn't you outraged when Chavez or Mugabe nationalise another
industry and investors lose their shirts? Yet if a politician
decided to nationalise your house without compensation, you would
be screaming blue murder about the injustice of it all.