As I suspected, Poirot, you are unable to answer the question honestly, so you duck for cover.

No shame in that, of course. It was a tough one, that requires you to face some of the realities associated with your anti-capitalist stance, so it was perfectly natural that you should run away from it

As for your "question", my answer is in fact a)

But since it is a question totally unrelated to the relief of rural poverty in China, I'm not sure what you can learn from it. Because it isn't about me. It isn't even about you. It is about the quality of life afforded to many millions of people in a different country.

Why do you begrudge them the improved lives they have chosen?

Divergence,
I certainly agree overpopulation is a massive problem and we should be taking steps to address it—but so is conspicuous consumption.
Pericles: <Why do you begrudge them the improved lives they have chosen?>
I don’t think anyone begrudges any positive benefits for the poor in China’s or India’s booms, though as Poirot’s been at pains to argue, there are a lot of negatives for individuals, and I argue it can’t be sustained.
“You” seem intent on ignoring the negatives in the larger context in favour of Panglossian optimism, or positivism, and painting criticism of economic globalism and its effects as the ignorant twaddle of unhinged Greenies and anti-capitalists who want to take the world back to the stone age—ironically, that’s exactly where we’re likely to end up the way things are going.
I’m trying to be reasonable and argue that none of the modern world’s ills should be seen in isolation, but as effects of the same economic dynamics. I don’t believe the system can be reformed so long as those fundamental dynamics are in place. Reform has been the perennial patronage for nearly a hundred years. Nor, however, do I think it can be overthrown, as there’s just too much real and ideological momentum invested in it—witness your own and others’ refusal to look self-critically at the big picture Julian Cribb outlined. You prefer your positivist-tinted glasses.
The world system will simply continue to push up against economic and ecological limits and finally collapse.
As things stand, I agree with yours and Yabby’s stand on tariffs and protectionism, seeing the recent push myself as myopic and selfish nationalism, when our wealth is born of international advantage—and good fortune.
You accuse Poirot of refusing <to face some of the realities associated with your [her] anti-capitalist stance>. I don’t think she is—neither she nor I are proposing anything. I think she feel’s as powerless as I do. We’re just staring the Devil in the face and refusing to be conned.
I would accuse you of refusing to face the realities of your pro-capitalist stance.

I was trying to be quite specific, Squeers.

>>“You” seem intent on ignoring the negatives in the larger context in favour of Panglossian optimism, or positivism<<

I was focussing on one aspect of the situation, the improvement in the lives of half a billion people. Generalizing about the morality of capitalism or the potential long-term issues is all very well and virtuous, but it ignores the daily realities for a large number of individuals.

>>I’m trying to be reasonable and argue that none of the modern world’s ills should be seen in isolation, but as effects of the same economic dynamics.<<

On the other hand I'm simply pointing out that the "same economic dynamics" have actually created a substantial improvement over the past thirty years to the lives of fully a twelfth of the world's population. And wondering how this can be seen as a bad thing.

For them, that is.

Nothing to do with Panglossian optimism. The Industrial Revolution had a similar impact on the UK economy, also at an individual level.

You may argue long into the night that the whole thing was a really bad idea, because it served to line the pockets of evil capitalist exploiters. But it did also lift an entire population of real, individual people, to a new level of prosperity.

Squeers,

Well put - and reasonably argued. I couldn't have put it better.

Pericles,

"I was focusing on one aspect of the situation..."

Of course your were. Nice try 'nall that, but just because you decide to dictate the specific agenda at any given point in the debate, doesn't mean the rest of us have to play along.

I particularly liked this one: - "...you are unable to answer the question honestly, so you duck for cover." - I noted amusingly that your "answer" to my follow up question consisted of you barging it aside.
As I stated earlier in the thread, I'm not interested in playing the mouse to your cat.

The bottom line here is that global progress and resource depletion is "unsustainable". I don't begrudge an improvement in the lot of the ordinary Chinese. But the Chinese "miracle" is based on a hyper-industrialised version of the West's rapaciousness. What happens when it can no longer be sustained. As it stands, China is forced to to treat its rivers and air as a waste dump.

For some reason, Pericles, you believe their will be no repercussions from this.

It is not sustainable.

We as a species, for the most part, are clever - not wise...and often we are foolish.
We need to walk a middle path.

@ Poirot,

>> What possible good does it do for the long-term sustainability of Indian agriculture for Western corporations to impoverish Indian peasant farmers and to encourage them to degrade the soil and to deplete their groundwater reserves?<<

OK, Poirot, here’s your chance.

Given these parameters/constrains:

1) “India’s climate is not particularly dry, nor is it lacking in rivers and groundwater. Extremely poor management, unclear laws, government corruption, and industrial and human waste have caused this water supply crunch and rendered what water is available practically useless due to the huge quantity of pollution.”
2) “India’s agricultural sector currently uses about 90% of total water resources. Irrigated agriculture has been fundamental to economic development”
3) “ Thus far, food security has been one of the highest priorities for politicians, and the large farming lobby has grown accustomed to cheap electricity, which allows extremely fast pumping of groundwater, which is something they are unwilling to give up for the sake of water conservation”
http://www.arlingtoninstitute.org/wbp/global-water-crisis/606
4) And the rural population increased from 400,000,000 to 800,000,00 between 1968-2008, & is still growing.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/india/rural-population-wb-data.html

How would *you* have solved the water shortage issue—without depleting the aquifers—and without imposing a totalitarian regime?

That isn't going to get us anywhere either, Poirot.

>> just because you decide to dictate the specific agenda at any given point in the debate, doesn't mean the rest of us have to play along<<

You call it "setting an agenda. I call it "asking a question".

Your insistence on generalizing everything...

>>...global progress and resource depletion is "unsustainable"<<

...is merely a device that excuses you from confronting a difficult truth. Half a billion Chinese have improved their lot in life, and the best you can do is "What happens when it can no longer be sustained".

I doubt that is uppermost in their minds, as they begin the journey to relative prosperity one meal at a time.

>>For some reason, Pericles, you believe their will be no repercussions from this.<<

There may well be "repercussions". There may also emerge new technologies created by a newly-educated half-billion people. We can only hope for the best. But in the meantime, all we are seeing is two major segments of the world's population becoming more like us.

And frankly, there is nothing that you or I can do about it. (Hand-wringing regret and pursed-lipped disapproval don't count.)