Dear Banjo, Yabby, and others,

I agree with you that population growth represents one of the most
critical social problems in the modern world, with consequences in terms of sheer human misery that are almost unimaginable. Yet 90 percent of the billion or so births that will occur before the end of the century will take place in the world's poorest countries.

There are population-control strategies that are being tried - from family planning, anti-natalism (that is, antibirth strategies) and economic improvements.

Westerners are often guilty of the "technological fallacy," the belief
that merely applying technology to a problem will solve it. But
people have to be persuaded to make use of contraceptive technology, and they will not do so if the technology runs counter to their values. Although hundreds of millions of people in the world have been sterilized or have accepted contraceptives, they have done so only after they have produced what they believe is a sufficiently large family. Family planning is an essential element in population limitations, but the strategy is not sufficient in itself.

I read somewhere that the family-planning efforts of many less developed nations fail, it seems, because the resources of these societies are unfairly shared: typically, a tiny elite enjoys a
disproportionate share (and its birth rate drops), but the mass of the
people remain in hopeless poverty (and maintain high birth rates). If this analysis is correct, then policies that focus on a sharing of resources, rather than exclusively on economic development that may benefit only a minority, may be a promising way to reduce global population growth.

We know there are political, religious, and other ideological influences that affect social attitudes concerning population limitation. Many religions emphasize some version of the Judeo-Christian injunction to "be fruitful and multiply." An old Arab proverb declares that "to have many children is to be blessed by Allah," and Islamic religion in several countries is opposed to birth control. The Catholic Church, which is particularly influential in South America - where very high birth rates and grinding poverty are
prevalent has always opposed contraception.

*Ethically, it is a much bigger problem!!*

Squeers, that is highly debatable. Your urge to pass on your genes
in the race of life is in fact driven by your self interest.
By leaving a tribe of kids behind, you are creating a Ponzi scheme
in a way, the long term effects on the planet are far greater
then a single individual living it up a little.

The notion that you have children for altruistic reasons is in
fact a flawed one.

It's endlessly fascinating when someone points out the West's impact on the third world. Full stop.

While I rate Poirot and don't know this underbelly character, I can see his point.

I think I really just don't care about the 'Starving children of Africa' (Just rolls off the toungue so well!). The SCoA!

Like the MIC (Military Industrial Complex). I love the sound of that!

To me, it's all earnest dinner party conversation with the aim (subconscious or otherwise) of anointing one as a virtuous worldly caring person.

It's bunkum. If I really cared, I'd do something more substantial than a lazy 50 to the odd aid organisation based on my mood. So I refuse to talk, and talk, and talk, with the objective of... what was the score in the footy yesterday.

The first post on here reminds me of when I was about 10 and thought the world was much more simple.

Sure the Single Mother chastizers and self congratulatory achievers and market worshipers come up with their own cliches (Do-gooder being a good one), but the payoff of the 'woe is me aren't we all so bad' lot ('Except I'm not quite so bad because I'm not really that rich and I have short showers'), to me is much more self-serving, with the irony of having the appearance of altruism. It really irks me.

I mean the right can appear heartless, but so can a parent denying a child a lolipop. I see the far right as people with a strong inner parent, the far left with a strong inner child. I aim for that inner adult.

What can or is really going to be done in all this agonising over the less well off. How intellectually lazy to come up with the usual Midnight Oil type cliche of social conscience, the lamenting of American imperialism and oh the humanity think of the children! I'm achieving the same (ie zero) while refusing to blow my altruist horn.

Get a life.

Smile.

Go bowling!

Nobody is impressed with all this chatter and noise.

A person who aims at nothing
is sure to hit it.

You're not aiming Foxy, you're talking.

Or, grandstanding really.(Blatantly so now!)

See, it takes more character to admit you're doing nothing. To admit to having no control over it at all. To throw away such delusions. All the noise is a distraction to the truth that you live in the life of luxury compared to these people you patronise and you're attempting to attain social capital by pointing it out. It's all very convenient isn't it.

I have to courage to admit I am indifferent to the suffering of the third world, as is evidenced by my actions, which I'll wager don't differ significantly from yours. (Apart from the noise and chatter) .

As I am indifferent to anything as I lovingly look into my beautiful daughters' eyes, and the world is a bloody fantastic place.

I don't want to swap places with third world kiddies. I could, and so could you. I would swap places with my daughters if they were suffering.

What will your little talkfest here achieve but for a bit of light entertainment for the chattering classes. Maybe it will get your heart pumping and have some physical positives.

I have more class than to use suffering kiddies for an entertaining chat. I'm sure they're all really comforted that those with the luxuary to sit around and post crap on the internet 'care' enough to throw out a few 'ideas' that have been done to death. For entertainment. Noice!

'I get a bit weary of the Princes peering out of the palace windows pontificating on the parlous state of humanity while simultaneously gobbling up all the goodies of the world...shaking their heads and fingers while indulging in gluttony. It's the West's standard hypocrisy.'

Poirot.

Beautifully put. But that's exactly what you're doing!

Or like 'travellers' complaining a site has too many tourists. You ARE a tourist.

Just because you have a back-pack not a suitcase with wheels doesn't make you more virtuous or authentic. It actually makes you MORE of a cliche!

I see one side of the argument thinks it's ok to live a life that exploits others as long as you declare it all the time, but I reckon those who don't feel the need for that cathartic self flagellation with the convenient pay off of social capital to be more honest.

I mean, do you all try not to tread on ants? Do you go to dinner parties and bemoan the ants that you have recklessly trodden on your whole life? DO you regale us with all the kosher methods of avoiding ant masacre?