Geneticly Modifed food aid(contraception)

[Kylonicus]

Then what if we used these forms of bacteria in fermentors?

 

Giant fermentors where we would ferment cellulose containing products, then kill the bacteria, and then provide the populace with nourishment from the fermentors.

 

The food they would eat then, might lack certain nutrients. However, these nutrients could be supplemented at a reduced cost, therefore reaching a larger number of people.

 

A solution is better than no solution at all.

[mooeypoo]

We should also look at the long-term consequences of our madeup solutions.... create a genetical disorder in the long run is also something you quite might wish to avoid.

 

~moo

[Steph]

... so, you want to sterilize people because they are poor?? its seems awfully complicated though. I have a MUCH simpler idea. why not just spray the planet with agents that would sterilize everyone. then sell some sort of antidote at about 10K a piece??

 

seriously though. You need to look it up more. it's BECAUSE of the lack of food that people make more children. if you have 8 kids, one of them is bound to survive no? and kids can work the farms, etc. also, how many kids did you great grandparents have?

[Kylonicus]

Social security is what leads to having fewer children, not just an abudance of food.

 

People want lots of kids for their old age, so that their kids will take care of them. If you give people social security, then they don't need kids for their old age. Children become a luxury, not a necessity.

 

But increasing the food supply won't change that, that much. It would increase the population per input of food more than it would decrease the number of children.

[SkepticLance]

I am staggered by the number of people contributing to this thread who are simply ignoring solid facts.

 

Population growth is slowing down.

Average kids per couple in the third world 50 years ago = 5

Average kids per couple in the third world today = 2.8 (and still dropping)

 

There is simply no NEED for compulsory contraception/sterilisation. All we need to do is provide such aid to make contraception universally available, and before we know it average kids per couple in the third world will be less than 2.

 

In fact the United Nations predicts a maximum world population of 9 billion, after which numbers will slowly fall. And this is without any extra aid.

 

http://www.un.org/popin/ is a very extensive web site with all the data you might need to comprehend this very simple fact.

[ecoli]

I am staggered by the number of people contributing to this thread who are simply ignoring solid facts.

 

Population growth is slowing down.

Average kids per couple in the third world 50 years ago = 5

Average kids per couple in the third world today = 2.8 (and still dropping)

 

There is simply no NEED for compulsory contraception/sterilisation. All we need to do is provide such aid to make contraception universally available' date=' and before we know it average kids per couple in the third world will be less than 2..[/quote']

 

Can't disagree with that. We should try and make 'planned parenthood' more socially acceptable, while we're at it. (via education). Then, overpopulation will become even less of a problem.

 

Although I think the problem will always remain somewhat in urban areas.

[Dr. Dalek]

Although I think the problem will always remain somewhat in urban areas.

 

Thats why I hate cities.

[neutrino86]

Social security is what leads to having fewer children' date=' not just an abudance of food.

 

People want lots of kids for their old age, so that their kids will take care of them. If you give people social security, then they don't need kids for their old age. Children become a luxury, not a necessity.

 

But increasing the food supply won't change that, that much. It would increase the population per input of food more than it would decrease the number of children.[/quote']

 

 

How do you intend to give them(the poor people namely) social security, let alone adequate food?...to me the former is definetly a much more complicated problem.

[neutrino86]

to be brief about the solution to this food scarcity problem faced by the ones below the poverty line...at first i believe there is enough food for everyone.its just the distribution networks are tainted by corruption...anyways if my belief is led to be false, then and anyway, i believe we must develop the agro sectors of the third world. this includes cutting tariffs and producing ration facilities to the various levels of the agro based societies based on magnitude of gross income, land possession, land fertility etc.these are things which any serious government can do whithout loss of adequate transparency.

one thing which irks me alot is that in countries like india, where the most of the population derives its essential income from agriculture, the government does least about developing it...at 6-8% growth rate and climbing, one can imagine what a fully developed agro based nation like india can attain as a growth rate....this and the fact that many of the mnc's are investing in indias booming IT sector more than the easily more potent agro sector is astounding...perhaps its time to look at these scenarios more seriously...

[Bluenoise]

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']

 

I think you're a monster

[SkepticLance]

Kylonicus.

It would appear that you are guilty of an error of interpretation.

Social security is only a symptom of an underlying principle leading to lower population growth. That is, empowerment of women. In this case, to give women the power of control over their own fertility.

 

Yes, it coincides with times of improving social security and increasing prosperity. However, there is now substantial evidence of reducing population growth in places where such social security has not happened, but where contraception is made available. Does not work, of course, when women are not permitted to use said contraception.

 

Think about it. Bearing children is bloody stressful! Very few women want to do it more than 2 or 3 times. Give them the power of control, and population growth drops.