[pup55]

[quote]'a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?'
'Nothing!' Scrooge replied.
'You wish to be anonymous?'
'I wish to be left alone,' said Scrooge. 'Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don't make merry myself at Christmas and I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned-they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there.'
'Many can't go there; and many would rather die.'
'If they would rather die,' said Scrooge, 'they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.

Dickens, “A Christmas Carolâ€

[0mar]

In the context of today, being a Scrooge reduces the total suffering overall.

[Guest]

A purely mathematical point of view would say say.

An ethical point of vie would have trouble, of course.
If you not causing the death, but letting it happen, are you responsible?

I must say that I would give, knowing that perhaps I will cause more suffering. That because, 1. even from an ethical poin of view, suffering is of little concern, 2. I do not believe that ethics can be justified by numbers, and 3. I cannot be held responsbile for a natural progression to which the collectivity subjects itself. Thus, if I give, I am innocent in the moment - I cannot be blamed for letting by distant brother die of starvation, and I am also innocent in the future, since the starvation in the future is a question of collectiveness, and I wont be there.

Mind you, I would have to post a sign for people to stop having children...(or promote the idea that people should turn gay which seems to be a popular and ridiculous idea in this forum. I can hera the bar talk now <Lets all do our share and start having sex with the same sex 'cause its the right thing to do!)

[MarkL]

Mathematics in action:


(source)

[pilferage]

That graph indicates the relative technological wealth wrt our ever decreasing world energy surplus...
Human's a marvelously designed machines, much better than anything we've managed to scrape together. It seems that graph is merely reflecting that notion...
the 'poor' less developed countries have less technological infrastructure so having a large population for a labor base makes sense because it's cheap and effective in those countries...
of course we take advantage by offering more technology, which only makes the situation worse, but that's another rant for another day.

[bart]

I'm not sure this discussion about Scrooge has anything to do with the real world.

The model of giving food to save starving people is no longer the dominant model. Most NGOs and enlightened foreign aid recognize the importance of supporting local people to help themselves. For example, see Mimicking Nature to Grow More. Being aware of what NGOs are doing, and contributing to an appropriate one, you can make a difference.

A further way to make a difference is to become aware of how we in the First World cause much of the suffering in the Third World. Examples:

1. Sales of arms. A highly lucrative industry for the First World, it drains the economies of the Third World and encourages wars.

2. Promoting coups, revolutions, and civil wars in Third World countries, to further First World policies. Less obviously, the First World finances political movements in Third World countries and supports dictators.

3. Globalized trade which occurs on terms unfavorable to Third World countries, in particular to the poor and disenfranchised. For example, subsidized big agriculture in America undercuts small farmers in other countries, forcing them to give up their farms and become part of the urban poor.

If one wants to emulate Scrooge, why not do it by reducing subsides to big agriculture and stopping interference in the politics of other countries? Win-win. Lower taxes and the Third World benefits.

[MarkL]

..

[pup55]

To interject one last bit of frivolity into what was once an interesting, thoughtful conversation, consider the following scenario:

Through the generosity of that fat turkey miraculously provided by Scrooge which plucks him from the jaws of death, Tiny Tim survives to reproductive age, and, like his father, Bob Cratchit, is able to reproduce and have 6 offspring. The offspring, on average, have 6 kids each per generation until 1943, when they get the message and start cutting back on the birth rate, 4 kids each in 1943 and 1963, and 2 kids each after that. This assumes all of the kids make it to reproductive age (including surviving WWI and the blitz) and no intermarrying.

By 2003, Tiny Tim would have 151,891 descendants. Alarmingly, 95% of them, or 145952, would be still alive at the present day, having been born in the last 3 generations.

So would the story have been more or less interesting if Scrooge had said, "Tiny Tim, I'm giving you this turkey so you will pull through this winter, but you have to agree to have a vasectomy so as to keep 143,000 energy-consuming people out of the population by 2003"?

Second question: would Bob, a mathematician by trade, have gone along with the plan?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_code('', '
Year Offspring Population
1843 -- 1
1863 6 6
1883 6 36
1903 6 216
1923 6 1296
1943 4 5184
1963 4 20736
1983 2 41472
2003 2 82944
151891')

[MarkL]

..

[pup55]

bump

Happy Holidays to the Forum Dwellers.

[Kylon]

The solution is to feed them food with contraceptives in them.

Contraceptive food.

Then the population can't grow, and will slowly die down to a sustainable level.

If they refuse to be responsible, they can starve.


This would cull back the population in time to a sustainable level, minimal willpower/action of humans is required on their part, and the amount of resources this would take would exponentially get smaller and smaller.

It's a win win situation.

[Ayame]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Kylon', 'T')he solution is to feed them food with contraceptives in them.

Contraceptive food.

[rogerhb]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ayame', 'I') think they especially need some in the gaza strip.

[BlisteredWhippet]

Okay, enough fantasy. The reproductive urge cannot be thwarted. The graph is flawed because the definition and distribution of the to terms change over time. If we infer that "more-developed" people are living a first world "lifestyle", the chart shows simply that this lifestyle has peaked and will go forever downward. It also does not reveal in the graph that a lifestyle, once bust, simply moves you into the percentage of the low-developed.

The economics notwithstanding, the future population growth is unsustainable.

Therefore, Scrooge's economy is perfect: he correctly links the values of prudence to economy to responsibility. The question to Scrooge is in fact not ethical in nature, it is economic. As someone correctly pointed out, NGOs and corporation set the agenda to "develop". Scrooge is an investor, nothing more, like the faceless masses of individuals dipping their hand in the cookie jar of international capitalism.

The ethical question is one of foreknowledge. If we can foretell future knowledge we are responsible for it, are we not? If I aim at a window and know the bullet will break it, I am responsible, obviously. Who is responsible, then, for the outrageously irresponsible hyperdevelopment of the third world? We are losing tropical rainforest at a rate of an acre a second. What for? Farmland.

Who is repsonsible? You? Can you stop it? How much money would it take to stop? Forget starvation, I mean stopping Development.

Ads say just 200 billion would stop world hunger. FUCK WORLD HUNGER! How much to STOP DEVELOPMENT?

Spend all the money, you say.

Deflate the currency, you say.

We simply bribe the world by collapsing the standard of living?

I think that in the final analysis, Scrooge probably would have made a significant improvement by wiping out the entire Crachett brood. 16 Saudis did us a favor by taking out 3,000, and Bush did us another favor of taking out a hundred thou or so... Chinese working on their final solution warming up the coke ovens... Russia willing to provide enough gas for a knockout blow to the Climate...

Someone, somewhere is having group sex and I wish it were me.

But the morning after is anybody's guess.

Merry Christmas

And to all, a good night.

[Ayame]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rogerhb', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ayame', 'I') think they especially need some in the gaza strip.

[MrBill]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pup55', 'T')o interject one last bit of frivolity into what was once an interesting, thoughtful conversation, consider the following scenario:

Through the generosity of that fat turkey miraculously provided by Scrooge which plucks him from the jaws of death, Tiny Tim survives to reproductive age, and, like his father, Bob Cratchit, is able to reproduce and have 6 offspring. The offspring, on average, have 6 kids each per generation until 1943, when they get the message and start cutting back on the birth rate, 4 kids each in 1943 and 1963, and 2 kids each after that. This assumes all of the kids make it to reproductive age (including surviving WWI and the blitz) and no intermarrying.

By 2003, Tiny Tim would have 151,891 descendants. Alarmingly, 95% of them, or 145952, would be still alive at the present day, having been born in the last 3 generations.

So would the story have been more or less interesting if Scrooge had said, "Tiny Tim, I'm giving you this turkey so you will pull through this winter, but you have to agree to have a vasectomy so as to keep 143,000 energy-consuming people out of the population by 2003"?

Second question: would Bob, a mathematician by trade, have gone along with the plan?

[blukatzen]

[quote="Kylon"]The solution is to feed them food with contraceptives in them.

Contraceptive food.quote]

Well, you can see the food some are eating now..GM soyfoods are doing just that.

Hereis a good article to get you started. If you google "dangers of soy food" you will come up with lots of arguments against this much "touted" *health* food.
It's also fed to cows, etc. and other animals we in turn eat for food, we not only eat soy directly, but indirectly now. It's not just just for 3rd world foodbanks, but for *us* too!
Now, doesn't THAT make you feel better?

[BlisteredWhippet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('blukatzen', '
')Contraceptive food.

...a good article to get you started. If you google "dangers of soy food" you will come up with lots of arguments against this much "touted" *health* food.
It's also fed to cows, etc. and other animals we in turn eat for food, we not only eat soy directly, but indirectly now. It's not just just for 3rd world foodbanks, but for *us* too!
Now, doesn't THAT make you feel better?