Feeding starving population paradox

If you feed a population in an area that is starving. They will continue to live and breed in that area that could not support the original population in the first place thus making it worse.

Example.
10 people are starving because of infertile land in a local village, they are aided by another local village by being given food. The 10 people continue to live and breed with the food they are given but quickly use it up. Now there is 15 people in an area that could not support ten.

In the wild when a herd of wildabeast would be starving, the local ostriches wouldnt help them out, the wildabeast would starve and die until there are few enough to be able to live off of the land they inhabit. Or die off altogether.

Im not suggesting anything but I am surprised that this hasn't been raised before. It's basic ecology. This could've been put in many places but I threw it in here.

 

It probably has been raised before, but you are not aware of it being raised before.

I agree that humans live beyond their means. Some of us don't quite plan for the future. We decide to have children, but biology determines how may kids we have. We may only intend to have one child but end up with four.

 

isnt that why third world countries dont get any better? the US and other countries try to help by sending food and care but what does that do? they become dependent on us and have no means of creating a better way of living

 

Its like the give a man a fish......teach a man to fish proverb. Right now it seems like we are giving out alot of fish.

 

I dunno I think they would like to create a better lifestyle for themselves, but they're not capable of it.

 

I guess it's just down to where you live. War is not a good thing but it is needed to protect the land that you and your fellow men prosper on. Survival of the fittest etc...

 

i agree, im quite sure they want to create a better lifestyle, but they have no means of doing so. we supply them with what they need but they just bairly live off that, im not an expert on this but i dont believe that over in africa they have sufficient supplies and land to create large farming communities to supply the masses. just barren plains that cant support good vegitation.

 

as awful and sad as it is, there is a reason these people are starving. whether it is natural reasons, or wars, we cant just drop them food and hope for the best. its sad, but it is population control.

i was watching the Colbert Report last night and there was an invention that turns gross water into distilled water and it will help villages that have none. the humanist in me is excited and happy, but the realist is like "well, this is saving people that are just going to breed and breed and breed and the problem is only going to get worse'

its awful to think like that, but its the truth. we are in the midst of an overpopulation crisis, in a few thousand years, damn. i dont want to know what this world is going to look like

 

Well, there are many programs now that are encouraging more education than just giving food and stuff. A lot of organizations are doing things to teach people how to work land properly and set up systems to clean the water better, things like that. I was reading in a book about poverty that some of the issues before had to do with farming and people beginning to use pesticides and things because they were being taught it was better but now they're being taught organic because its cheaper, better for the land so they can use it longer.

Its easy to say that we give too much aid and they begin to become dependant on it, and its true in many situations but often, when hearing about people who go to impoverished places to help, you hear that the people want to learn to become more self-sufficient. A lot of the time, instances occur when the economy gets bad they suffer a lot more, like with the coffee industry. People can be fine working in the coffee industry when the prices are up and dont necessarily need aid but when prices drop, they begin to lose jobs or their wages go down....and then that causes need for aid...

its complicated.

 

the club of rome,,its there job organizing it and the U.N. carries out there plans.

http://www.clubofrome.org/archive/publications.php



http://www.fdrs.org/un_plan_for_population_control.html

http://fathersforlife.org/health/population_control.htm

http://www.khouse.org/articles/1997/93/

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5457

inform yourselves,,500 million is a pretty small number,you could be next...

 

Two points:
1)The carrying capasity of an area (how many folks can be feed from the local land) is frequently a question of technology rather than an inherent characterstic of the region. A village that yesterday can't feed 10 can feed 20 tommorow if a well is dug.

Los Angeles is an example, the desert that was there 200 years ago could not support the number of people that live their today, but the transportation technology allows people of LA to trade their work for food.

2) The neighboring village may want to give the staving village food so to keep the starving folks from moving in and taking their food. The wealthy village may want to keep the poor village fed just enough so that the poor folks don't take what the rich village has. They may see this food as either a defense against starving mobs or as a way to control the poor village and gain workers or soldiers.

 

I think we need to just get some condoms into these countries. It will allow people to satisfy their needs, equal out the population, and also prevent AIDS.