[Previous entry: "Foreign prisoners paid £500,000 in compensation for extra detention (UK)"] [Next entry: "UK government considers making it ILLEGAL to call Jews "Nazis""]

07/23/2009: ""We who dominate the world economy may become irrelevant""

If current trends continue, the United Arab Emirates, for example, will double its population in just 15 years. And places as diverse as Sierra Leone, Eritrea, Afghanistan and Kuwait aren't far behind.

What this means for us - aside from the developed countries' unique problem of who'll do all the work and pay the taxes when the baby boomers are put out to pasture - is, broadly speaking, one of two scenarios. If the many countries that are struggling today do manage to succeed, we who now dominate the world economy will become increasingly irrelevant. And that's the best outcome we can hope for. Because if the others don't do well, if so many remain so poor, we can expect to be increasingly resented and even violently targeted.

So what's the best response for those of us who live, at least for now, in the countries that dominate the world economy? Should we try to haul these guys up to our level of wealth, or something approaching it? Or should we hold them down to make it harder for them to gain the upper hand over us?

[ The planet can't cope with the present level of consumption. You have probably heard the Live Aid slogan "Make Poverty History". Well the truth is that the accurate slogan should be "Make Wealth History". And this article makes it clear that we face being vastly outnumbered by people who hate every fiber of our being. ]

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/fp/Canada+must+focus+birth+rate/1803721/story.html

Replies: 3 Comments

on Thursday, July 23rd, Bubonic philanthropy said

I disagree. People in the developing world should never have been colonized and given Western technologies in the first place. Their numbers would then have been sustainably managed by the good Earth's own systems as it was for so long already.

on Thursday, July 23rd, Hardcore Realist said

There is a third option.

Poor people in other countries make more pollution because of their stupidity and inability to manage there own lives thus not dealing with emissions and waste. The best thing to do for them would be to genocide them. That Hitler guy was a genius ahead of his time. Why do these christian/marxist leftist types not understand that you can raise a low life only so far until they prove their worth in merit on their own? I say too hell with the late night commercials with silly images of mud children in dumps. Let nature and death squads take their course and wipe out the inferior races that are incapable of high culture and contribute nothing and create nothing except crime, waste and ugliness. Heil Hitler!!!

on Thursday, July 23rd, Bubonic philanthropy said

Live Aid is right. Human history, the mostly unrecorded majority, is a tale of material poverty relative to the modern Western standard of excesses. However, obliterating the natural world is not a long term way out of poverty for humanity. It does create an opportunity for Live Aid managers and supporters to briefly congratulate themselves, though. I'm sure Mother Theresa would be proud of them, for what little it's worth in the larger picture.