Hi Toni,

Yes: "The low birth rates of the West and the high levels of aid they provide are correlated, but I see no causal connection between them."

Not only has Individual got it the wrong way around, if anything - that high levels of aid are a consequence of the much earlier transition in Western countries to low birth rates - and on top of that, there could be many other factors - that Western societies are affluent enough to be able to provide aid to less affluent countries, including birth control programs.

I don't know why some posters here keep promoting punitive programs, negative programs, when there are so many other alternatives to bring about lower birth rates - and they seem to vie working: more provision of education generally, especially for girls; more higher education opportunities for women; the introduction of old-age pensions systems; advances in medical services, and so on. All of these do the k=job but in a much more socially positive and supportive way.

And as you say, the growth in world population is slowing down - rapidly, in a historical sense. By 2100, as populations start to slowly decline (through too few kids being born), our descendants may have the problem of an imbalance between slightly too many old and very old people, and too few working people to provide services and pay the taxes which go towards supporting that ageing population.

I can't help the feeling that some posters here would like to see poor countries nuked if that (as they see it) is the only way to stop those bastards from having fifteen and twenty kids. That'll show 'em. Get a life, you fellas.

Joe

the growth in world population is slowing down - rapidly, in a historical sense.
Loudmouth,
I think you'll have a hard time to convince the european countries of your figures. Also, if aid is the answer then why hasn't it worked thus far ? The only outcome most un-indoctrinated everyday people can see is more & more refugees & the almost inevitable mayhem in the countries that take them in.
So far as nuking countries is concerned, that option must be revolving in your mind otherwise how could you even dream it up ?
I have stated so many times on OLO tha we should provide aid by way of commodities, not money. If that's not clear enough than it's time You start thinking instead of saying I'm getting it the wrong way round. Also, I never got a reply from anyone when I asked if they so strongly feel about foreign aid, how much extra are they willing to provide individually. I'd be quite happy to donate a wheelbarrow & a pick & shovel twice a year on top of what I already provide in Tax.
What contribution are you et al willing to make ?

individual,
The large number of migrants to Europe is the result of them fleeing conflict, not the result of a huge population increase. But hypothetically had it been the result of a huge population increase, that would have been the result of the birth rate a generation ago - it says nothing about the birth rate now.

individual,
What aid we should provide depends on what's needed, but it's rare for commodities to be what's needed.

Individual- again I generally support your position. You might take more time constructing your logic though- so you aren't as easy to attack. When you write a reply test it against the identity arguments that are commonly applied to see if it stands up. You will need to be explicit because if you're implicit they'll accuse you of conflating correlation with causation. Anyway don't expect them to ever agree with your argument- only try to use them for your own benefit. You don't need to reply straight away- Only speak if you can do better than the silence... You have my general support. :)

The problem is not logic, it's assumptions. People are wrongly assuming the population to be growing exponentially, and deliberately ignoring all evidence to the contrary.