Has The Population Bomb ... Fizzled ?

[Bonam]

I never said we had to live in PERFECT equalibrium. Of course that's impossible. You obviously didn't read what i said. Here it is again:

You're still talking about equilibrium, perhaps with some small oscillations around it (i.e. sometimes growing a bit, sometimes shrinking a bit). I agree that "massive" growth is not needed, but some rate of growth, even relatively slow, is needed.

That's one of the craziest, most egotistical things i've ever heard!

Wow. Not worthy of a comment.

Yes, it is apparent we disagree on the relative importance of humanity in comparison to other species in the environment. If you had to choose between the extinction of humanity and the extinction of 1 million other species on Earth, which would it be? I know for me the answer is simple. That you view my position as "crazy" is merely a difference in values.

I have no idea, i'm no expert on the history of civilizations. What civilization are you worried about? North American? Western? All humanity?

All of the above.

Take a cue from nature itself. There are countless animal species that are many millions of years old, even hundreds of millions of years old. Sharks are over 400 million years old. Have sharks continued to grow in numbers all that time? Of course not. If they had, they would have completely overrun the oceans in vast numbers, likely eating all their prey into extinction by now, thus destroying themselves. Sharks have obviously found some semblance of balance in the ecosystem in order to sustain their existence without permanent population growth.

Yeah sharks found some semblance of balance. And now another species make soup out of their fins and hunts many of them to near extinction. Clearly this equilibrium strategy didn't work for them so well. Anyway, kind of a ridiculous comparison obviously. Sharks do not create technological civilization, humans do. Such civilization is what I am talking about.

You obviously have great faith in humanity's ability to harness technology to sustain themselves. I'm much more skeptical. In the period of the greatest technological advancements in human history ie: since the Industrial Revolution, humans have managed to use these advancements to inflict an amazing amount of harm to their own environment

And yet in that same period we were able to use technology to increase the amount of humans that could be sustained from around 700 million to around 7 billion, a tenfold increase. This trend will continue.

and our current rate of consumption of natural resources & damage to the environment is unsustainable.

Which only shows the need for the development of new technologies that are more sustainable (many of which already exist).

99% of all species that have existed on the earth have gone extinct.

99.99999% of all species have not formed technological civilizations.

We'll see if humans adapt & change their current course of selfish unsustainability or suffer the fate that the other 99% of species have.

Yes, yes we will.

[WIP]

I don't think anybody is advising nations to stop population control. I think that the point is that it's inevitable.

No, population reduction is not inevitable...except for the final crash when a population has exceeded available resources.

There has been a slight reduction in population growth rates since the peak in the 1960's, but there has been an increase in the reproductive age demographic, which will likely mean a doubling of world population in less than 50 years. Combine that with the continued increase in resource consumption, and it's a matter of when, not if, there is a worldwide Easter Island type of crash awaiting civilization. The only chance of avoiding disaster is to reduce population and consumption.

[WIP]

First, let me just say that i do think overpopulation is a big problem, and overall, world resources & the environment will have difficultly sustaining an ever-booming global population. However, as i've already stated, i agree with Ghost that hunger is a distribution problem and a money problem, not an overpopulation problem.

The problems go way beyond distribution and money. The Green Revolution was a temporary stopgap that ended famines in India and some other Third World nations, but the agriculture system of hybrid plants, oil-based fertilizers and large irrigation projects, is taking a toll by depleting top soil and using up available water resources. The fight for clean water will be bigger than the competition for oil in a few years.

The worst fallout of the Green Revolution is that it inspired a business-as-usual attitude that birth control programs could be scrapped, and a big factor in reducing the effectiveness of the U.N. programs was the unusual collaboration of the Roman Catholic Church, the Organization of Islamic Countries, and U.S. Republican administrations beginning with Reagan and ending with Bush, to defund abortion and condom distribution programs. It's not directly related to this issue, but it needs to be mentioned as a side point that Stephen Harper's government is stepping in place of the Republicans, by offering aid to maternal health programs that offer nothing for family planning and ban the abortion option for women....may he rot in hell.

So now, along with environment policy, we have yet another reason to be ashamed of our Government's conduct on the world stage. Stephen Harper is doing his part to ramp up Third World population problems, all so he can have an opportunity to win more support from religious fanatics.

[WIP]

That's not my position at all, which you'd know if you'd been paying attention. I am simply talking about technological reality. The Earth can support many more people than it presently does. We have hardly begun to tap the vast amount of energy available from a variety of sources (nuclear, solar, etc). Essentially limitless quantities of water can be obtained from the oceans through desalination. Food, if fertile surface farmland is scarce, can be grown hydroponically. Genetic modifications can allow for vast increases in yields. This technology is already all readily available, and already in use, and will continue to be used more.

For one who frequently comments on the dangers of the demographic trends that you see in white areas of the world, as you do lictor, you'd think that you would see the equal or even greater danger if humankind as a whole enters that same demographic trend. Humanity's only long term hope for survival is continued growth and expansion, eventually beyond Earth. If instead we enter an era of global population decline, it will signal our inevitable extinction.

You are living in fantasy land if you think there is room for more people and more resources to plunder. We are part of an ecosystem that requires more than hybrid plants to function. The rate of extinctions so far have already severely degraded the biosphere, and there will be a population reduction one way or another, whether those with expansionist dreams are ready for it, or not.

Note that I make no mention of "superdeveloped" countries, socialist paradises, or anything of the like. The third world will remain a worthless hellhole for some time, until and unless they can manage to progress from their own effort and merit. But that does not mean that the Earth's carrying capacity is limited to a few billion, it simply means that not every nation is capable of utilizing technology to appropriately scale its carrying capacity.

That is the crap dished out by gangster capitalists who are trying to figure out how to plunder what's left of Third World resources. The IMF and World Bank have set up a system of finance that deliberately bankrupts most Third World nations and then uses their debts to extract favourable commercial terms for large multinational corporations. The coming food crisis is already inspiring large agribusiness firms to buy up large tracts of land in Africa.

The end result is that Colonial Age never ended; only the political structures of colonialism. So, all greedy libertarians, especially Ayn Rand fans, have no credibility in their self-reliance rhetoric on the world stage. They have a moral obligation to redress the wrongs that have been done to the poorest and most vulnerable regions of the world, even though it will never likely be a legal obligation.

In my view, people who advocate for an end to population growth or indeed for population decline are asking for nothing more than the end of the human race.

Do you think the Earth is just going to keep on expanding to accommodate a growing human population? Otherwise this is totally absurd.

[Bonam]

You are living in fantasy land if you think there is room for more people and more resources to plunder. We are part of an ecosystem that requires more than hybrid plants to function. The rate of extinctions so far have already severely degraded the biosphere, and there will be a population reduction one way or another, whether those with expansionist dreams are ready for it, or not.

We are not part of the ecosystem; we control the ecosystem and engineer it to produce that which we want it to produce. A significant portion of the Earth's land surface has already been modified by humans to better suit human civilization, and this process will only continue. I'm sure you're right that the biosphere has in some sense been degraded by this process, certainly many species have been lost. But will this lead to reductions in human population? I see no reason to believe that is the case. Human populations have been growing exponentially even as other species have been dying out.

That is the crap dished out by gangster capitalists who are trying to figure out how to plunder what's left of Third World resources. The IMF and World Bank have set up a system of finance that deliberately bankrupts most Third World nations and then uses their debts to extract favourable commercial terms for large multinational corporations. The coming food crisis is already inspiring large agribusiness firms to buy up large tracts of land in Africa.

Buncha emotional nonsense. Businesses seek to make profits and will do so internationally, employing millions of people in the process. Boo hoo.

The end result is that Colonial Age never ended; only the political structures of colonialism. So, all greedy libertarians, especially Ayn Rand fans, have no credibility in their self-reliance rhetoric on the world stage. They have a moral obligation to redress the wrongs that have been done to the poorest and most vulnerable regions of the world, even though it will never likely be a legal obligation.

Nope. The only people who can (or should) improve the lot of the people living in the "poorest" regions of the world are the people that live there, themselves. As for Ayn Rand fans, they, most especially, do not feel the "moral obligation" of which you speak. More pragamatically, all our past meddling in the area has come to no good end. The moral obligation argument that you put forth, that we have to go into Africa and build stuff there and teach the people there how to do stuff is just more of the same imperialist nonsense that you so like to denounce. The best, and most moral, thing to do is to leave the place alone.

Do you think the Earth is just going to keep on expanding to accommodate a growing human population? Otherwise this is totally absurd.

The Earth doesn't need to expand. We just need to continue finding ways to utilize what is there more efficiently. We have not tapped even a tiny fraction of the available energy or physical materials on this planet.

[Michael Hardner]

No, population reduction is not inevitable...except for the final crash when a population has exceeded available resources.

There has been a slight reduction in population growth rates since the peak in the 1960's, but there has been an increase in the reproductive age demographic, which will likely mean a doubling of world population in less than 50 years. Combine that with the continued increase in resource consumption, and it's a matter of when, not if, there is a worldwide Easter Island type of crash awaiting civilization. The only chance of avoiding disaster is to reduce population and consumption.

I think it's more than slight.

from this wiki page the annual growth rate fell from 2.2 to 1.2 per cent from 1963-64 to 2002.

In 1990 the world's women, on average, were giving birth to 3.3 children over their lifetimes. By 2002 the average was 2.6, and by 2009, 2.5. This is marginally above the global replacement fertility of 2.33. This fall has been accompanied by a decline in the world's population growth rate and in the actual annual population increase.

[lictor616]

We are not part of the ecosystem;

ahagahhhahahaahahaahh!!!

woow, thank you, disqualified, next

[WIP]

We are not part of the ecosystem; we control the ecosystem and engineer it to produce that which we want it to produce. A significant portion of the Earth's land surface has already been modified by humans to better suit human civilization, and this process will only continue. I'm sure you're right that the biosphere has in some sense been degraded by this process, certainly many species have been lost. But will this lead to reductions in human population? I see no reason to believe that is the case. Human populations have been growing exponentially even as other species have been dying out.

Many other species before us have grown exponentially before they became extinct; and we do not control all of the variables regarding our environment. We are collectively, about to discover shortly, the limits of the Green Revolution. If your notion that we can disregard the on-going mass extinction going on around us, as long as we have our hybrid plants and oil-based fertilizers had any basis in fact, attempts to create artificial biospheres, like the Biosphere Two experiments, would not have been such colossal failures. The most disturbing aspect of their inability to control simple ecological functions, such as maintaining optimal atmosphere levels, was that they could not figure out the reasons for continual failures when the biosphere was sealed. This is not only a bad omen for a race that carelessly and ignorantly disregards the health of the planet's biosphere, it is a crippling blow to the dream of long space voyages and permanent space colonies!

Buncha emotional nonsense. Businesses seek to make profits and will do so internationally, employing millions of people in the process. Boo hoo.

The recent revelations that BP interfered with the Libyan terrorist held in a Scottish prison, indicates that corporate culture is worse than amoral, it is psychopathic. The actions of BP fit the pattern of abuses of multinational oil companies who set up shop in places like Sudan, even while in the middle of genocide. Corporations should be severely restricted in their power and influence, as the U.S. Founding Fathers intended. The problem today is that they are the ones wielding the power, and right wing fools that have elevated greed and avarice to a moral virtue, are big reason for the twisted thinking that corporations should be free of government restrictions and taxes. Libertarians are mindlessly supporting the monsters who are destroying our world.

Nope. The only people who can (or should) improve the lot of the people living in the "poorest" regions of the world are the people that live there, themselves. As for Ayn Rand fans, they, most especially, do not feel the "moral obligation" of which you speak. More pragamatically, all our past meddling in the area has come to no good end. The moral obligation argument that you put forth, that we have to go into Africa and build stuff there and teach the people there how to do stuff is just more of the same imperialist nonsense that you so like to denounce. The best, and most moral, thing to do is to leave the place alone.

Loaning large sums of money to Third World dictators and demanding harsh terms for later repayment, which usually includes a demand that resource companies be allowed in to plunder their natural resources and buy up large tracts of land, is not "leave the place alone." It is just a ruse by libertarians to wash their hands of any ethical obligations to others. I should add that the ecological damage done by Western nations heavy use of fossil fuels, is another example of interfering with impoverished nations -- since there is only one atmosphere, and it covers the globe. So far, the most damaging effects from man-made climate change have occurred in the equatorial regions, where the poorest live, and have made the smallest contribution to the rise in greenhouse gases.

The Copenhagen Climate Summit was supposed to address this problem by reducing Western contributions and compensate poor nations for damage done and assist them to develop without having to go the coal/oil route already traveled. Needless to say, collective selfishness led by propaganda from the oil industries scuttled any serious action on any of these issues, and the summit was a waste of time.

The Earth doesn't need to expand. We just need to continue finding ways to utilize what is there more efficiently. We have not tapped even a tiny fraction of the available energy or physical materials on this planet.

It's not a problem that will be solved by finding more sources of energy.

[Bonam]

Many other species before us have grown exponentially before they became extinct; and we do not control all of the variables regarding our environment. We are collectively, about to discover shortly, the limits of the Green Revolution. If your notion that we can disregard the on-going mass extinction going on around us, as long as we have our hybrid plants and oil-based fertilizers had any basis in fact, attempts to create artificial biospheres, like the Biosphere Two experiments, would not have been such colossal failures. The most disturbing aspect of their inability to control simple ecological functions, such as maintaining optimal atmosphere levels, was that they could not figure out the reasons for continual failures when the biosphere was sealed. This is not only a bad omen for a race that carelessly and ignorantly disregards the health of the planet's biosphere, it is a crippling blow to the dream of long space voyages and permanent space colonies!

How was biosphere 2 a failure? The experiment was carried out, people lived inside it at length, and much data was gathered about what worked and what remained a problem. [

The recent revelations that BP interfered with the Libyan terrorist held in a Scottish prison, indicates that corporate culture is worse than amoral, it is psychopathic. The actions of BP fit the pattern of abuses of multinational oil companies who set up shop in places like Sudan, even while in the middle of genocide. Corporations should be severely restricted in their power and influence, as the U.S. Founding Fathers intended. The problem today is that they are the ones wielding the power, and right wing fools that have elevated greed and avarice to a moral virtue, are big reason for the twisted thinking that corporations should be free of government restrictions and taxes. Libertarians are mindlessly supporting the monsters who are destroying our world.

Corporations employ millions of people and provide the resources and energy that we require to maintain our civilization. You can comply about their morality all you want but they are necessary and will continue to be so. Mom and pop start-up businesses cannot operate on the scale that corporations do, cannot provide us with the resources and jobs that we need. To exploit resources that require vast capital expenditures, entities with large amounts of capital are needed. Since having vast amounts of capital allows one to spend some of it on advertisement, lobbying, etc, corporations will by their very nature have some measure of power. Now, the extent to which they can affect politics can be modified by various regulations (i.e. in regards to lobbying and campaign finance), and this should definitely be explored to come to some fine balance where corporations do not wield excessive power over society at large. However, simply harping on how they are evil and immoral and shouldn't exist is not helpful.

Loaning large sums of money to Third World dictators and demanding harsh terms for later repayment, which usually includes a demand that resource companies be allowed in to plunder their natural resources and buy up large tracts of land, is not "leave the place alone." It is just a ruse by libertarians to wash their hands of any ethical obligations to others. I should add that the ecological damage done by Western nations heavy use of fossil fuels, is another example of interfering with impoverished nations -- since there is only one atmosphere, and it covers the globe. So far, the most damaging effects from man-made climate change have occurred in the equatorial regions, where the poorest live, and have made the smallest contribution to the rise in greenhouse gases.

Look at your very first words. Loaning money to third world dictators. Guess what, a loan is a transaction with two sides. It is the dictator (or any other kind of third world leader) who decides to take on the loan. It is their choice. Western banks/nations simply make such loans available (in some cases), it is the decision of the potential borrower whether they want to take a loan or not, whether to accept the repayment terms or not.

When a person maxes out their credit card and carries a huge balance and is paying 20% interest, guess what, it is the person's fault, they made a dumb decision. The credit card company was simply providing a service, with clearly stated terms that the borrower agreed to. The case of international borrowing is exactly analogous. If you're in debt with sh*tty repayment terms, it's because you decided to take on such debt.

The Copenhagen Climate Summit was supposed to address this problem by reducing Western contributions and compensate poor nations for damage done and assist them to develop without having to go the coal/oil route already traveled. Needless to say, collective selfishness led by propaganda from the oil industries scuttled any serious action on any of these issues, and the summit was a waste of time.

Massive additional wealth transfer from the world's successful nations to third world hellholes ruled over by dictators was not approved? Can't say I'm sad.

It's not a problem that will be solved by finding more sources of energy.

And why not?

[Moonlight Graham]

Yes, it is apparent we disagree on the relative importance of humanity in comparison to other species in the environment. If you had to choose between the extinction of humanity and the extinction of 1 million other species on Earth, which would it be? I know for me the answer is simple.

Very tough hypothetical question to ponder. If the extinction of the 1 million other species was our fault then i'd probably choose us to go extinct. If it's simply an "us or them" question, then maybe i'd choose us to live, i don't know. 1 million is a hell of a lot of species.

We are not part of the ecosystem; we control the ecosystem and engineer it to produce that which we want it to produce.

A pretty ridiculous statements. Tell any biologist that we aren't part of the ecosystem and they'd likely all laugh. Millions of organisms crawling around us both inside and outside our bodies rely on us, and in many cases us on them. A mosquito sucks on our blood to feed itself and its young. And we of course rely on many different plants and animals for survival.

And no we don't "control" the ecosystem. We can shape and influence parts of it, but control it entirely is ridiculous. We are at the mercy of the ecosystem for our survival, and our technology cannot remove that fact. If all plant-life on this planet were to die humans would die from lack of oxygen or CO2 poisoning or some other scenario, hard to know which would come first. The point is that we would die & couldn't stop it.

[Bonam]

A pretty ridiculous statements. Tell any biologist that we aren't part of the ecosystem and they'd likely all laugh. Millions of organisms crawling around us both inside and outside our bodies rely on us, and in many cases us on them. A mosquito sucks on our blood to feed itself and its young. And we of course rely on many different plants and animals for survival.

And no we don't "control" the ecosystem. We can shape and influence parts of it, but control it entirely is ridiculous. We are at the mercy of the ecosystem for our survival, and our technology cannot remove that fact. If all plant-life on this planet were to die humans would die from lack of oxygen or CO2 poisoning or some other scenario, hard to know which would come first. The point is that we would die & couldn't stop it.

You are right, I misphrased my statement. Our control over the ecosystem is incomplete, I agree, but it is extensive. Thousands of species hang on the edge of extinction, kept alive by human conservation efforts, others perish due to our actions. Forests stand where we declare them protected, and are cut down for wood elsewhere. The genomes of plants are re-engineered to better suit our needs as crops, fish are bred in hatcheries, livestock on farms, far away from their natural origins. Species of viruses and bacteria that once plagued humankind have been all but eradicated, while other new strains evolve by selection factors created entirely by human actions. The very climate of the world hangs in the balance, dependent on human action or inaction; the glaciers and ice-sheets from Antarctica to the North Pole are ours to melt or to preserve. And all that is only the beginning. Our power over Earth ever waxes. With the rapidly developing fields of genetic engineering, biotechnology, and nanotechnology, our control will become ever more pervasive in the coming decades.

[ToadBrother]

you're clearly an idiot... you cant even answer the simple question of WHY it is desirable to get more people!

and Rome fell when it made citizens out of the most people, at the time when it was densely populated...

everything you say is cooked up in your own mind..

Rome fell because of the bad luck of standing in the way of the first major migratory shifts coming out of the Asian Steppe. You'll note the Eastern Empire held on a lot longer, until it got nailed by a lethal combination of another wave of invaders out of Asia, and probably just as bad, fellow Christians invading it, robbing it blind and setting up their Latin Empire.

In other words, you're full of crap as usual.

[Jack Weber]

Rome fell because of the bad luck of standing in the way of the first major migratory shifts coming out of the Asian Steppe. You'll note the Eastern Empire held on a lot longer, until it got nailed by a lethal combination of another wave of invaders out of Asia, and probably just as bad, fellow Christians invading it, robbing it blind and setting up their Latin Empire.

In other words, you're full of crap as usual.

Mincing words again,Toadster?

[lictor616]

Rome fell because of the bad luck of standing in the way of the first major migratory shifts coming out of the Asian Steppe. You'll note the Eastern Empire held on a lot longer, until it got nailed by a lethal combination of another wave of invaders out of Asia, and probably just as bad, fellow Christians invading it, robbing it blind and setting up their Latin Empire.

In other words, you're full of crap as usual.

actually Rome fell because of the nationalization of hundreds of thousands of north africans... or at lest the downfall followed the same time frame....

[bloodyminded]

Corporations employ millions of people and provide the resources and energy that we require to maintain our civilization. You can comply about their morality all you want but they are necessary and will continue to be so.

The point isn't that there shouldn't be corporaitons, it's that they should behave better.

You take moral stances all the time, as does everyone. And yet you have here achieved a remarkable disconnect: morality isn't for the rich and powerful, it's for everybody else; personal responsibility stops applying once you have achieved requisite levels of financial achievement. (Also political power, since corporations wield a lot of this as well...totally unelected, of course.)

So wealthy and powerful entities are to be held to lower moral standards than everybody else. For...some reason, unstated.

However, simply harping on how they are evil and immoral and shouldn't exist is not helpful.

Leaving "shouldn't exist" aside, the denunciations of them can be extremely helpful...in fact, crucial. Public outrage has made an enormous difference.

For example, I am forever being informed that WalMart has tremendously improved both its sweatshop operations and its treatment of employees. I'm told this by its defenders, who evince the same strange hypersensitivity to criticism of corporations that you display above. Now, it is in fact true that WalMart has made some improvements (how much is open to debate, true enough); but this is precisely and only because of public outrage, and activists "harping" about how immoral the company is. As they have become highly sensitive to Public Relations, the outrage over their immoral behaviour has led directly to the changes that we are asked to appreciate.

So what is "not helpful" is quietism, of keeping one's mouth shut. THAT is extraordinarily unhelpful.

Look at your very first words. Loaning money to third world dictators. Guess what, a loan is a transaction with two sides. It is the dictator (or any other kind of third world leader) who decides to take on the loan. It is their choice. Western banks/nations simply make such loans available (in some cases), it is the decision of the potential borrower whether they want to take a loan or not, whether to accept the repayment terms or not.

Dictators are obviously different from representative governments. In no way can we claim that "the people" have taken on these loans (which are rarely used for the public good anyway), like we can at least argue for Canadian or American debt.

When a person maxes out their credit card and carries a huge balance and is paying 20% interest, guess what, it is the person's fault, they made a dumb decision. The credit card company was simply providing a service, with clearly stated terms that the borrower agreed to. The case of international borrowing is exactly analogous. If you're in debt with sh*tty repayment terms, it's because you decided to take on such debt.

Again, the dictator took on the debt, not the people...and the situation is usually that the people have to pay back the debt after the dictator is gone (and meanwhile, they are often under brutal debt-reduction schemes simultaneously, demanded by the rich countries who would never, ever propose such schemes for themselves).

The dice are clearly loaded.

Edited July 18, 2010 by bloodyminded

[bloodyminded]

del

Edited July 18, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Moonlight Graham]

...Loaning money to third world dictators. Guess what, a loan is a transaction with two sides. It is the dictator (or any other kind of third world leader) who decides to take on the loan. It is their choice. Western banks/nations simply make such loans available (in some cases), it is the decision of the potential borrower whether they want to take a loan or not, whether to accept the repayment terms or not.

When a person maxes out their credit card and carries a huge balance and is paying 20% interest, guess what, it is the person's fault, they made a dumb decision. The credit card company was simply providing a service, with clearly stated terms that the borrower agreed to. The case of international borrowing is exactly analogous. If you're in debt with sh*tty repayment terms, it's because you decided to take on such debt.

You have a point. Yes the developing countries knew the terms of the deals (well, i assume). However, developing countries got many of the loans at dirt-cheap rates when rich countries were eager to invest money in the 60's and 70's, and especially after the oil price boom of 1973 and oil-rich countries to find ways to invest their new riches. But the developing countries then got screwed when the same rich countries they borrowed from dramatically jacked up interested rates (led by the U.S.) to curb economic inflation in the early 80's, late 70's.

You can make the argument the developing countries should have known the risks, but they further got screwed when they had to accept exploitive terms by the rich countries in order to restructure any repayment terms or accept loans or aid in the first place.

If the industrialized world wants to bring the developing countries into the global capitalist system and demand or force them to accept neo-liberalization trade/economic policies, they at least should make the policies fair and equal to what the rich countries have to give the developing countries a hope in hell of competing & thriving instead of getting raped for their markets, resources, and cheap labour.

[Sir Bandelot]

If the industrialized world wants to bring the developing countries into the global capitalist system and demand or force them to accept neo-liberalization trade/economic policies, they at least should make the policies fair and equal to what the rich countries have to give the developing countries a hope in hell of competing & thriving instead of getting raped for their markets, resources, and cheap labour.

A level playing field is not in the interests of the empire. In fact is contradicts it. Whats needed to make it work is lots of disadvantaged little people at the bottom, working hard and giving their all for the ones near the top. Kinda like an ant colony

[Bonam]

You have a point. Yes the developing countries knew the terms of the deals (well, i assume). However, developing countries got many of the loans at dirt-cheap rates when rich countries were eager to invest money in the 60's and 70's, and especially after the oil price boom of 1973 and oil-rich countries to find ways to invest their new riches. But the developing countries then got screwed when the same rich countries they borrowed from dramatically jacked up interested rates (led by the U.S.) to curb economic inflation in the early 80's, late 70's.

You can make the argument the developing countries should have known the risks, but they further got screwed when they had to accept exploitive terms by the rich countries in order to restructure any repayment terms or accept loans or aid in the first place.

If the industrialized world wants to bring the developing countries into the global capitalist system and demand or force them to accept neo-liberalization trade/economic policies, they at least should make the policies fair and equal to what the rich countries have to give the developing countries a hope in hell of competing & thriving instead of getting raped for their markets, resources, and cheap labour.

Look these are sovereign nations we are talking about. They can pursue any policy they wish. If the loans are so crushing, they can default on their loans and refuse to pay them, if they accept the consequences of it being more difficult to borrow in the future. They can close their borders to foreign corporations if they feel they are being "raped" by them and encourage the growth of their own businesses to utilize these resources instead. If globalization is not to their liking they can go it alone and build their own economies, and rejoin trade with the outside world when they are in a more favorable position. Perhaps such policy changes would not go over well in a few high profile nations, who might face some sort of reprisals, but the vast majority of African and South American nations could pursue any such policy changes and not fear any serious reprisals.

You can keep laying the blame on the developed world and its corporations, but the reality is that sovereign nations have the power to dictate what goes on within their territories. If they steadfastly refuse foreign corporations from operating there, then those corporations will not operate there. Some conspiracy theorists might bring up Iraq or something as an example of where the US went in and took over a country just to let its corporations operate there, but again, such a thing would not happen in most other countries, so they can do what they want.

All these countries need is some good leadership, on the part of their own people, and they can make a path for themselves regardless of what designs foreign nations may or may not have upon them.

[bloodyminded]

Some conspiracy theorists might bring up Iraq or something as an example of where the US went in and took over a country just to let its corporations operate there, but again, such a thing would not happen in most other countries, so they can do what they want.

I agree it's an oversimplification, but a "conspiracy theory"?

Try this fringe conspiracy theory on for size: The US and its allies attacked Iraq from a noble desire to spread liberty throughout the world....

Now that's a conspiracy theory!

[bebe]

I agree it's an oversimplification, but a "conspiracy theory"?

Try this fringe conspiracy theory on for size: The US and its allies attacked Iraq from a noble desire to spread liberty throughout the world....

Now that's a conspiracy theory!

That's a joke ... right?

[bebe]

Look these are sovereign nations we are talking about. They can pursue any policy they wish. If the loans are so crushing, they can default on their loans and refuse to pay them, if they accept the consequences of it being more difficult to borrow in the future. They can close their borders to foreign corporations if they feel they are being "raped" by them and encourage the growth of their own businesses to utilize these resources instead. If globalization is not to their liking they can go it alone and build their own economies, and rejoin trade with the outside world when they are in a more favorable position. Perhaps such policy changes would not go over well in a few high profile nations, who might face some sort of reprisals, but the vast majority of African and South American nations could pursue any such policy changes and not fear any serious reprisals.

You can keep laying the blame on the developed world and its corporations, but the reality is that sovereign nations have the power to dictate what goes on within their territories. If they steadfastly refuse foreign corporations from operating there, then those corporations will not operate there. Some conspiracy theorists might bring up Iraq or something as an example of where the US went in and took over a country just to let its corporations operate there, but again, such a thing would not happen in most other countries, so they can do what they want.

All these countries need is some good leadership, on the part of their own people, and they can make a path for themselves regardless of what designs foreign nations may or may not have upon them.

Good leadership ... instead of the ones installed by the CIA. Agreed.

Unfortunately, the green-eyed greed monster raises its head and snaps at the CIA bait ... despite the wishes of the people.

not fear any serious reprisals.

??

Study up on Chavez and Venuzuela sometime, and their resistance to US imperialism.

[Bonam]

not fear any serious reprisals.

??

Study up on Chavez and Venuzuela sometime, and their resistance to US imperialism.

Yeah, Chavez is still leader of Venezuela, Venezuela has not been invaded, and does not face any serious international economic sanctions. This being despite its resistance to "US imperialism", and not just quite resistance, but public and vocal opposition to US leadership and policies on an international stage.

That being said, Chavez is not what I had in mind by "good leadership".

[bebe]

Yeah, Chavez is still leader of Venezuela, Venezuela has not been invaded, and does not face any serious international economic sanctions. This being despite its resistance to "US imperialism", and not just quite resistance, but public and vocal opposition to US leadership and policies on an international stage.

That being said, Chavez is not what I had in mind by "good leadership".

Last August Venezuela froze relations with Colombia after the U.S and Colombia signed an agreement to install seven U.S military bases in Colombian territory. Colombia, with one of the few right wing governments left in South America, and a strong supporter of U.S policy, is of strategic importance to the U.S’s interests in South America.

http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/5499

Unlike other leaders who succumb to personal greed and sell off their country's resources to enrich a few, Chavez is holding firm against US CIA/corporate invasion.

What is your idea of "good leadership" in developing countries?

Edited July 19, 2010 by bebe

[Bonam]

Last August Venezuela froze relations with Colombia after the U.S and Colombia signed an agreement to install seven U.S military bases in Colombian territory. Colombia, with one of the few right wing governments left in South America, and a strong supporter of U.S policy, is of strategic importance to the U.S’s interests in South America.

Unlike other leaders who succumb to personal greed and sell off their country's resources to enrich a few, Chavez is holding firm against US corporate invasion.

What is your idea of "good leadership" in developing countries?

Leadership that leads to economic growth and prosperity and raises the nation from being "underdeveloped" to the "developing" stage and then reaches "developed". My criticism of Chavez and why I'd say he's not a good leader is his socialist and authoritarian tendencies, which are unlikely to result in real economic prosperity in my estimation.