Monday, May 03, 2010

It's not too many mouths causing starvation. It's too many assholes.


Lilliput said...


Its not only about food - its about space and territory. We are like animals in the way we like to have space and without it we become a bit deranged - will there ever be a time for you when its too overpopulated?

Also - why are at least 50% of Americans feeling like their land is full up and don't want to have any more immigrants. That goes the same for the Brits here too.

GrannyGrump said...

If it's lack of space that makes people "deranged", why is Singapore so much more peaceful than Sudan?

You need a certain population density to spur economic growth. Once you reach that population density and that degree of economic security, people voluntarily cut back on their family sizes.

It's when we start trying to dick around with it, and treat people like stray animals that need to be spayed and neutered, that we contribute to, rather than alleviate, misery.

Lilliput said...


This is too easy - Singapore is a 1st world highly western civilised country - with a surprisingly high abortion rate. Its very regimental in culture and legal system - everybody plays the game and I don't even think you can chew chewing gum!

Above is an excellent article on how many and possible reasons for abortion in Singapore. Suffice to say - the population will decrease.

The Sudan, is a very tribal not very western civilised country with very little if any abortion provision. There is high child mortality, huge amount of conflict over land and resources due to no rule of law. Children are often used as soldiers - and I'm sure are left in the field to die.

Now you tell me whats the more humane option here?

GrannyGrump said...

The issue isn't whether Singapore is Utopia. And I believe I wasn't exactly arguing for Sudan being Utopia.

I'm pointing out that a certain population density is necessary for prosperity, and that once a civilization achieves prosperity the people there will voluntarily cut back on population growth. It's imperialistic -- not to mention appallingly racist -- to take the "There are too many of those black and brown and yellow people" attitude and enforce reduced birthrates on them. The old "White man's burden" is suddenly very chic under its new guise.

Lilliput said...


Where you get the racism from my comment I don't know. You mentioned Singapore and Sudan and I replied using those examples - it just happens that the people's there are black and yellow.

All I'm trying to prove is that reproductive choices are a huge reason behind the prosperity of a nation. First comes reproduction control then comes prosperity.

And who exactly is enforcing reduced birthrates?

GrannyGrump said...

The racism isn't in your comment, Lil. It's in the whole Population Control mindset. That there are WAY too many of those brown and black and yellow babies.

Like many population alarmists, you put the cart before the horse. You see the poverty and blame it on the number of people, instead of on the real causes -- which are typically political. Limiting births VOLUNTARILY comes AFTER prosperity. Without the right population density, prosperity will never come. And it's Population Control alarmists going to countries that don't have potable water or basic antibiotics, shoving Pills and condoms and vacuum aspiration abortion kits at people. "Just die off, okay?" is the message.

Lilliput said...


Maybe I'm missing your point. Can you please define for me what is prosperity and how do we know how many people are required to achieve it?

Maybe I'm not seeing where you are coming from?

Is there an example of a place with the right population level to reach prosperity

GrannyGrump said...

There's a tipping point on population where the population becomes dense enough for the economy to tip past sustenance to wealth generation. I read about it years ago. You have to have enough people to see your goods and services to.

Lilliput said...


How is that helpful at all? Where in the world due you see not enough people for wealth generation? The most densly populated places in the world are some of the poorest. What's stopping them from wealth generation is lack of education and technology. In the meantime we are decemating our natural resources. I know it doesn't matter to you but to me the fact that animals are going extinct due to lack of territory to make space for more humans is a tragedy.

I don't care if they are white, black, yellow, mixed or alien!

GrannyGrump said...

Most densely populated countries, with per capita income ranking (where available):

1. Monaco (19)
2. Singapore (30)
3. Matla
4. Maldives (101)
5. Bahrain (52)
6. Bangladesh (165)
7. Vatican City
8. Barbados (57)
9. Nauru
10. Mauritius (68)

Mean ranking: 70
Median ranking: 57

Ten least densely populated countries:

192: Mongolia (167)
191: Namibia (115)
190: Suriname (109)
189: Iceland (10)
188: Botswana (84)
187: Australia (27)
186: Mauritania (170)
185: Libya
184: Canada (11)
183: Guyana (130)

Mean ranking: 91
Median ranking: 109

The top ten most densely populated countries are significantly less poor than the ten least densely populated counties.

GrannyGrump said...

Now let's try it in the other direction.

Richest countries, with population density ranking where available:

1. Luxembourg (44)
2. Bermuda
3. United States (142)
4. Norway (165)
5. Liechtenstein (36)
6. Channel Islands
7. Switzerland (43)
8. Denmark (61)
9. Ireland (113)
10. Iceland (189)

Mean density ranking: 99
Median density ranking: between 61 and 113

Ten poorest countries, with population density ranking where available:

1: Sierra Leone (84)
2: Malawi (71)
3. Tanzania (130)
4. Burundi (34)
5. Dem. Rep.of Congo (147)
6: Guinea-Bissau (129)
7: Ethopia (102)
8: Rep. of Congo (176)
9. Madagascar (141)
10. Rep. of Yemen (128)

Mean population density ranking: 114
Median population density ranking: 128-129

Again, the poorest countries having lower population densities than the richest countries.