Geneticly Modifed food aid(contraception)

[Kylonicus]

I was thinking about world hunger, and humanitarian relief, and how the more food aid we give, the greater the problem in the third world rises, and thus requires more food aid from us.

 

So I was thinking, why not simply genetically modify food that is for foreign aid to contain a contraceptive?

 

If we did this, then any population that's primary livelihood came from foreign aid, within a generation or two, would die out.

 

Then we would no longer need to send them foreign aid.

 

And if they ever became self-sufficient, and could produce their own food, then they would be able to reproduce, so long as neither they, nor their partner were consuming the GM food.

 

So if they do become sustainable, then they can have kids, if they don't, they shouldn't have kids, because those children would simply be born into a life of starvation.

 

What do you think?

[Immunologist]

I think that as the first thinker of the idea, you should be sent there to supervise the operation, no? And eat the same thing???

 

I think that you don't need to invent poisoned food, just don't provide them any if you think this way.

 

I a not a supporter of ethics, but seeing that people have ideas like that could convert me.

[ecoli]

Economically it makes sense. Realistically, you would burned at the stake for suggesting such an idea.

 

The humanist in us doth protests.

[Kylonicus]

Which is more ethical, providing people in third worlds contraceptive food so that there population isn't too large for their environment/infrastructure to support. Or feeding them a few scraps here and there, watching their population grow, and seeing them all live in absolute poverty and misery?

 

If we gave them contraceptive food, there wouldn't be too many people vs. the environment, thus not only would it be better for the people(because everyone could then have a higher quality of life, less starvation, fewer people ratio to foreign aid, more opportunity as natural resources are shared amongst fewer people) but it would also protect the environment. If there aren't millions upon millions of people starving to death, if people aren't forced to destroy the environment, they are less inclind.

 

If there were enough grazing land for cattle, so that everyone could eat meat, then people wouldn't need to clear more land. Furthermore, they wouldn't have to hunt monkeys(which is where we got HIV), and eat unsafe foods that may or may not contain horrible viruses/parasites/bacteria/diseases that would ravage the world.

 

Ultimately it's more humane to the people recieving the food, the environment, and to the rest of the world.

[insane_alien]

MMM... Genocideflakes.

[Pangloss]

the more food aid we give' date=' the greater the problem in the third world rises, and thus requires more food aid from us.

[/quote']

 

I'm not sure this premise is valid. For example, population increases are based on more than just the amount of food available, even in poor societies.

[Kylonicus]

Also, this wouldn't be genocide. Any people who could sustain themselves, could have offspring. And it wouldn't be genocide in the respect of stopping them from having kids, because, if they didn't have any food, they'd all die, and then they couldn't have kids either.

[ecoli]

Also, this wouldn't be genocide. Any people who could sustain themselves, could have offspring. And it wouldn't be genocide in the respect of stopping them from having kids, because, if they didn't have any food, they'd all die, and then they couldn't have kids either.

 

Here's a question... would the people know they wre being given contraceptives, because that changes the scenario a bit. And then there's the question of whether we could succesfully engineer crops to have contraceptives.

[Kylonicus]

Food isn't the only factor in population growth, I agree. However, people cannot have more children without food. If they don't have that much food, and then we send them food, we are enabling them to reproduce.

[Dr. Dalek]

I was thinking about world hunger' date=' and humanitarian relief, and how the more food aid we give, the greater the problem in the third world rises, and thus requires more food aid from us.

 

So I was thinking, why not simply genetically modify food that is for foreign aid to contain a contraceptive?

 

If we did this, then any population that's primary livelihood came from foreign aid, within a generation or two, would die out.

 

Then we would no longer need to send them foreign aid.

 

And if they ever became self-sufficient, and could produce their own food, then they would be able to reproduce, so long as neither they, nor their partner were consuming the GM food.

 

So if they do become sustainable, then they can have kids, if they don't, they shouldn't have kids, because those children would simply be born into a life of starvation.

 

What do you think?[/quote']

 

This is one of those situation where you just have to stop trying to logically justify something and just say to yourself, NO!

 

Which is more ethical, providing people in third worlds contraceptive food so that there population isn't too large for their environment/infrastructure to support. Or feeding them a few scraps here and there, watching their population grow, and seeing them all live in absolute poverty and misery?

 

So your logic is that our interference has caused a population problem so we need to interfere MORE!? in order to fix it.

How long did you actually think about this?

 

Also, this wouldn't be genocide. Any people who could sustain themselves, could have offspring. And it wouldn't be genocide in the respect of stopping them from having kids, because, if they didn't have any food, they'd all die, and then they couldn't have kids either.

 

Genocide; Mass-Sterilization. Six of one half dozen of the other. There close enough, besides you are treating the ability to sustain ones self as if it is and inheritable trait. People get, rich, well off, finically independent with luck as much as with skill and intelligence. People who could sustain themselves wouldn't necessary produce children who have enough money or resources to sustain themselves.

[pHoToN_gUrL]

I agree with Dr.Dalek. Your idea of poisoning the ppl in 3rd world countries is no different than putting bombs in thier cities n kill them with guns. Have u ever watched little african children n thier parents on tv? how could u ever even think of doing such a horrible thing to them? it's not thier fault they were borned in a 3rd world country...U r right to some extend, simply feeding them will NOT solve any problem, but the solution is not to get rid of them! they r human, just like me n u, each n every one of them deserves to live a full life. What we could do, however, other than only feeding them n watch thier numbers multiply, is to EDUCATE them. These ppl need education to undrestand how to build up thier own community, n how to make thier own food n to regulate thier population increase n how to minimize the spread of illnesses. They need facilities, for example hospitals, schools, factories, etc. U r right, we can not feed them for ever, so why not teach them/ help them to feed themselevs instead of destroying them further?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

They'd refuse to eat it. They already think our vaccines are a conspiracy to kill them all off, so giving them a real confirmation of our want to exterminate them (if that's what it will be construed as) will only make the situation worse.

[SkepticLance]

This whole idea is rendered pointless by an examination of the facts.

The world is not suffering population catastrophe. Population growth is diminishing fast, to the point where some "overpopulated" countries are now struggling with an underpopulating problem. eg Japan.

 

Wherever contraceptives are readily available, especially the pill, people (and especially women) will use them. 50 years ago, third world nations had an average of 5 offspring per couple. Today it is 2.8 and falling. There is no need to sneak contraceptives to them in the guise of food aid. Simply give them the contraceptive pill and they will use it.

 

The real problem today is economic and political. Corrupt politics in places such as Zimbabwe leads to poverty for the ordinary people. There is no easy fix. We need to provide economic aid, but targeted in such as way as to really help. That is no easy ask. It requires local knowledge, and local people (not local governments) to implement. It requires imagination.

[Kylonicus]

However evil you may think my idea is, it's far more evil to let people suffer to that extent.

 

And they WOULD live a full life, the people alive would live a happy and full life. This would simply prevent unsustainable growth.

 

I agree with you on the Pill, we need to make sure every woman who wants the pill can get it.

 

I know it may seem evil, but honestly, is it better to have them all starving and living unsustainably? Is it worse than them all fighting amongst each other for scraps of land, or starving to death?

 

When you look at crisis don't just think what we need to do and what we can do to make the optimal situation, think what we WILL do.

 

If the world won't expend the resources to solve this problem, then should it remain unsolved, with people living in a living hell? Or should it be solved, in a humane, but less than ideal manner?

 

OH BTW, if I couldn't support myself, and I was one of those people who shared popular views and therefore could get laid, I would want contraceptive. It would be the only responsible thing to do. To have kids and not be able to take care of them is irresponsible, regardless of whether you were/are born into a bad situation, to raise a child to inherit that bad situation is irresponsible.

 

That's one of the reason's I'm working hard to acquire wealth, so that when I have a child, that child will inherit everything he/she needs. That way I can make sure my child has all the advantages, has all the right nutrition, the best education, the best business and class opportunities, and will never have to worry about his/her future.

 

I'll probably be in my 30-40s before I get married.

[ecoli]

This whole idea is rendered pointless by an examination of the facts.

The world is not suffering population catastrophe. Population growth is diminishing fast' date=' to the point where some "overpopulated" countries are now struggling with an underpopulating problem. eg Japan.

 

Wherever contraceptives are readily available, especially the pill, people (and especially women) will use them. 50 years ago, third world nations had an average of 5 offspring per couple. Today it is 2.8 and falling. There is no need to sneak contraceptives to them in the guise of food aid. Simply give them the contraceptive pill and they will use it.[/quote']

 

sources, please.

[neutrino86]

kylonicus

 

Your idea as well intended as it may seem, seems to be a bit thick when it comes to letting nature take its course on a population that seems to be suffering from malnurishment...adaptation and evolution have made these people strong and immune to most diseases and other forms of suffering. malnurishment does not give them a reason to want to die out. no one has a right to judge whether they should die or live except god/nature. actually these people are more deseving to live than the most of us because of their adaptation to so many forms of diseases and allergens...their progeny are obviously stronger than what we can produce.

look at the physique of a healthy african man/ woman....and most of them live in unimaginable poverty, drought like conditions and disease pronedness.

wiping them out would be comiting an act of extinction of a very strong gene pool....and with the hight of genetic engineering coming closer and closer, it would be more productive to study their gene pool for enhancements in immunology.

 

one more thing...i say this out of my own experience because i live in india, a country in which 70% of its population is agro based, and due to several unjustifiable shortcomings many of this sector is a little too underdeveloped than it should be.

of these people 50 or so % live below the poverty line.except in few certain cases, when one observes these people, though they struggle to get a single square meal a day, one can obtain an honest smile or giggle from them easier than from that of a newyorker...they are happy..they are happy because their wants are much lesser than ours. it would only be an act of imagination to say they are not happy because the person quoting as such would mostly be putting himself in their position and "feeling " their pain...its not being very honest.

[mooeypoo]

Which is more ethical' date=' providing people in third worlds contraceptive food so that there population isn't too large for their environment/infrastructure to support. Or feeding them a few scraps here and there, watching their population grow, and seeing them all live in absolute poverty and misery?

[/quote']

 

It's more ethical to start educating people on the benefits of birth control, and start having the western world actually worrying about those countries instead of wars (yes, its unrealistic, but you asked which is more ethical), than to prevent those people from birthing..

 

You are essentially speaking of genocide.

 

Making sure the third world countries can't bring babies to this world is genocide in the long (or.. actually. not THAT long..) run, and no matter when, what, how, why and who, this is entirely unethical.

 

Find another solution.

 

Here's an idea:

Genetically modify food to be contain more vitamins, the be available in larger quantities (and hence cheaper), grow faster, and be more durable to natural disasters and deseases. That would help solving famine aswell.

 

~moo

[Skye]

The problem for Africa is many countries are diversifying from the dominant subsistence farming. The populations are growing in the cities while remaining static in the rural areas. The rural producers need to change from subsistence farmers to modern industrial style farmers to match the modern industrial demographics.

[SkepticLance]

ecoli

Try http://www.un.org/popin/functional/population.html

 

This has a wide range of data on population statistics around the world.

Check nation by nation. You will find that replacement rates have fallen.

 

I also have a copy of a book by Jim Peron : "The Population Myth" which details a mass of such statistics. It takes a while to put it all together, but it is worth it.

[reor]

ecoli

Try http://www.un.org/popin/functional/population.html

 

This has a wide range of data on population statistics around the world.

Check nation by nation. You will find that replacement rates have fallen.

 

I also have a copy of a book by Jim Peron : "The Population Myth" which details a mass of such statistics. It takes a while to put it all together' date=' but it is worth it.[/quote']Would you do us the favour?

 

I'm a bit disappointed by the fact that more and more pristine civilisations are becoming industrial. I think we need those. We should collaborate and provide them with education. People should be able to choose their way of life.

[SkepticLance]

reor

When someone is hungry, and sees his/her children dying of malnutrition, their special way of life rather lacks priority.

 

Lets give people the ability to feed their children first. After that, we can worry about cultural heritage.

[scicop]

What's funny is that no one brought up the notion of who are YOU to decide that people need contraception, can't deny people the right to have kids, its I guess, BIOLOGICAL BIRTH RIGHT!!! The biological definition of life includes reproduction. That is a personal desicion and a violation of personal rights. At least China, with its communist ways allowed people to have a couple kids, it didn't deny them the right to have ANY kids!.

 

I think its ok to have gov't mandated contraception as a way for SLOWING population growth, providing that people ARE allowed to have a kids.

 

I think ecoli said, you'd be burned at the stake.

[Dr. Dalek]

However evil you may think my idea is' date=' it's far more evil to let people suffer to that extent.

 

And they WOULD live a full life, the people alive would live a happy and full life. This would simply prevent unsustainable growth.

 

I agree with you on the Pill, we need to make sure every woman who wants the pill can get it.

 

I know it may seem evil, but honestly, is it better to have them all starving and living unsustainably? Is it worse than them all fighting amongst each other for scraps of land, or starving to death?

 

When you look at crisis don't just think what we need to do and what we can do to make the optimal situation, think what we WILL do.

 

If the world won't expend the resources to solve this problem, then should it remain unsolved, with people living in a living hell? Or should it be solved, in a humane, but less than ideal manner?

 

OH BTW, if I couldn't support myself, and I was one of those people who shared popular views and therefore could get laid, I would want contraceptive. It would be the only responsible thing to do. To have kids and not be able to take care of them is irresponsible, regardless of whether you were/are born into a bad situation, to raise a child to inherit that bad situation is irresponsible.

 

That's one of the reason's I'm working hard to acquire wealth, so that when I have a child, that child will inherit everything he/she needs. That way I can make sure my child has all the advantages, has all the right nutrition, the best education, the best business and class opportunities, and will never have to worry about his/her future.

 

I'll probably be in my 30-40s before I get married.[/quote']

 

Look at it this way, you are approaching the problem of these people as if you were a farmer trying to maintain a heathy number of livestock. You are not a farmer and these people are obviously not livestock!

 

malnurishment does not give them a reason to want to die out. no one has a right to judge whether they should die or live except god/nature. actually these people are more deseving to live than the most of us because of their adaptation to so many forms of diseases and allergens... though they struggle to get a single square meal a day, one can obtain an honest smile or giggle from them easier than from that of a newyorker...they are happy..they are happy because their wants are much lesser than ours.

I agree; I have always wondered if people were more skilled and tough during my grandfathers boy hood. People were ultimatly concerned with survival and work. These things, as I understand it, in the long term promote a heathier gene pool as neutrino86 has pointed out. Also in the short term people develop more skills and work ethic out of need for it, where as today people in the USA are obese and lazy.

Sometimes I think I would be happier if I had to work harder for my food, and clothes, I'd appreciate it more.

 

Also I ask that no one point out the conflict between my opinion and my signature, because I am already aware.

[Kylonicus]

Well, here is an idea I had(which I'm not the only one to have this idea, I checked, however it isn't being implemented to my knowledge) for solving most world hunger.

 

I was thinking about how there is non-toxic grass, trees, and huge quantities of other foliage which we can't eat due to the fact that they are made up of cellulose.

 

So I was thinking that we could genetically modify intestinal bacteria to produce cellulase, allowing people to convert grass, and other non-toxic foliage into a food supply.

 

I even came up with a method of doing so(this hasn't been implemented/tried it, but hypothetically it should work).

 

I'll post this in another thread.

 

Anyways, if we had cellulose digesting intestinal bacteria, we would have a virtually infinite supply of food, and it would be easier for us to grow crops, because all we would have to do is grow grass, and we'de have food.

 

The only downside is, although it increases the food supply to an extremely great degree, it wouldn't effect other vital resources, such as living space, water, mineral resources for economic development, ect...

 

So we'de still have the problem of too many people vs the resources.

[Dr. Dalek]

Anyways' date=' if we had cellulose digesting intestinal bacteria, we would have a virtually infinite supply of food, and it would be easier for us to grow crops, because all we would have to do is grow grass, and we'de have food.[/quote']

Those bacteria work for bovines na other such animals because they break down certain chemicals that animals like humans need.

Again humans are not livestock!