Display:
We have the means...to immediately carry out rapid population reductions in a targeted, yet thorough fashion.  For whatever reason, though, most people don't seem too enthused with the idea.
Some want the result, are willing to accept the means, but don't want to go down in history as monsters.  So such rapid, targeted population reductions will be the result of "situations that got out of hand before the international community had the time to react" or some such.  This is what happened in Rwanda in a low tech operation.  Clinton regrets not having done more, but, in truth, he was dealing with a hostile congress that did not want him to be seen as bringing off a humanitarian coup by application of effective military force and other possible actors had their own agendas and inhibitions.

There seem to be a number of "leaders" perfectly willing to play the monster if they are not stopped.  And there is no shortage of others, with cleaner hands, who will find themselves unable to act effectively in a timely manner, as in Darfur.  Another problem is governments that effectively committ slow rolling genocide against their own population, as with North Korea or Burma.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sat Dec 6th, 2008 at 06:22:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Once again, because it's apparently necessary to point this out.

And for good measure:

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Sat Dec 6th, 2008 at 07:41:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
... but its evidently not Rwanda that is the example, nor having a kleptocracy collapse into civil war next door in the DRC, or hosting a three decade long war in Afghanistan ..

... it would seem that the low technology reduction would be more further east in the Eurasian continent, in that country that looks like a Chicken and which is progressing rapidly through a demographic transition.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Sat Dec 6th, 2008 at 10:02:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks, nanne.  Very informative graph and map.  One conclusion seems to be that chaos begets fecundity.  So we have a rationale even more compelling than morality alone.  

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sun Dec 7th, 2008 at 12:58:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, though I do not know if it is more compelling. Morality factors into reality, it affects decisions being made. Not to go into theology, most people at least want to think of their actions as moral. You have to anticipate this when drawing up policies. If an amoral policy seems much clearer and more effective than a moral policy that's slow and fuzzy, it's probably because you've kept some factors out of the equation.

(this maxim can be applied to economic policy to great effect, I expect)

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Sun Dec 7th, 2008 at 08:37:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
most people at least want to think of their actions as moral.
A corollary of what I call "The First Law of Narcissism:"  Everyone wants to think well of themselves and will go to amazing lengths to do so.  Unfortunately our powers of rationalization even enable folks like Robert Mugabe and George Bush to think well of themselves.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Mon Dec 8th, 2008 at 03:24:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series