$100 laptop is run by scam artists
7
Please please please steer clear of these dum dums
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30766
The idiots making it are claiming GNU/Linux is 'bloated'.
WTF*&%^(@!!!!!
Does this chairman know what bloat means?
Has he ever tried say DSL before foaming at the mouth
like a world class idiot??
Or has he ever built a distro from minimal
distros or gound up even? And just put in
enough software to fit his vision of non-bloat?
I don't think so!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Its a complete scam operating out of MIT in the USA
to con foreign governments, particularly poor ones,
into parting with money and then start blaming everybody
else for their own failures.
In any case a $150 fully operational GNU/Linux
computer is already on sale in India with a 15 inch
monitor, 128Mb RAM, 40Gb HD and CD running Linux
with a Via mboard, with video, sound, LAN, USB, parallel
and serial port, mouse and keyboard. It also boots from USB if you
happen to have a $5 worth of 64Mb USB boot stick and put DSL on it.
These MIT idiots from USA should be told to fsck off in no
uncertain terms. They will at the very best deny millions
of children proper computer education by stealing millions
of dollars from poor countries.
Colin Day
>
> In any case a $150 fully operational GNU/Linux
> computer is already on sale in India with a 15 inch
> monitor, 128Mb RAM, 40Gb HD and CD running Linux
> with a Via mboard, with video, sound, LAN, USB, parallel
> and serial port, mouse and keyboard. It also boots from USB if you
> happen to have a $5 worth of 64Mb USB boot stick and put DSL on it.
>
Details?
Colin Day
Ray Ingles
> The idiots making it are claiming GNU/Linux is 'bloated'.
> WTF*&%^(@!!!!!
Well, I agree that's a bit strong, but it's not clear exactly what he's
trying to do. Perhaps he's referring to squeezing the kernel and all
the executables they need into the 512MB of flash onboard? They might do
better to build off something like the Alphasmart Dana:
http://www.alphasmart.com/products/dana.html
It's harder to program for, but the Palm OS can squeeze a lot of
functionality into a *tiny* amount of storage.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"Meddle not in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are quick
to violence, and have no need for subtlety." - Anonymous
Linonut
> $100 laptop is run by scam artists
> Please please please steer clear of these dum dums
> http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30766
>
> The idiots making it are claiming GNU/Linux is 'bloated'.
> WTF*&%^(@!!!!!
Something is nonsensical here. How could Negroponte be this far into
the project without match up his specs and Linux requirements? And how
could he not know about the extreme tailorability of Linux?
I smell something fishy, and it is probably the author of that article.
--
Kreegah! Bundolo Microsoft bolgani!
Dean G.
7 wrote:
> $100 laptop is run by scam artists
> Please please please steer clear of these dum dums
> http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30766
>
> The idiots making it are claiming GNU/Linux is 'bloated'.
> WTF*&%^(@!!!!!
>
> Does this chairman know what bloat means?
> Has he ever tried say DSL before foaming at the mouth
> like a world class idiot??
>
> Or has he ever built a distro from minimal
> distros or gound up even? And just put in
> enough software to fit his vision of non-bloat?
>
> I don't think so!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Its a complete scam operating out of MIT in the USA
> to con foreign governments, particularly poor ones,
> into parting with money and then start blaming everybody
> else for their own failures.
>
> In any case a $150 fully operational GNU/Linux
> computer is already on sale in India with a 15 inch
> monitor, 128Mb RAM, 40Gb HD and CD running Linux
> with a Via mboard, with video, sound, LAN, USB, parallel
> and serial port, mouse and keyboard. It also boots from USB if you
> happen to have a $5 worth of 64Mb USB boot stick and put DSL on it.
Does it also happen to run on 2 watts of power ? No ? Then it is as
useless for the intended application as a teaspoon is for large scale
excavation. Also, the system you are speaking of would be less reliable
in the intended environment. Does the 15 inch monitor work even in a
light rain ? No ? No good.
What is the MTBF for the 40GB (or did you really mean 40Gb ?) HD ? Does
it have the mesh networking that the OLPC Laptop offers ? Simply put,
the computer you are talking about is not only more expensive, but not
good enough for the purpose at hand. Your computer WOULD be a waste of
money.
Dean G.
rapskat
I agree. Something about this whole thing appears very suspicious. Like
how they stated they plan to go with Linux and yet still are working with
M$ to develop a version of WinCE to run the device.
From the tone of the article, it sounds as if this project is not even in
the production phase as of yet, and yet previous announcements made it
seem as if they were already cranking these things out (no pun
intended...oops, no more crank either).
Finally, I just don't get the uninformed comments about Linux at all. I
have a complete version of DSL loaded on a 128M SD media card (with plenty
room to spare) and it boots up a complete desktop with various apps and
lots of functionality. These units are slated to have 4X that amount!
Being as DSL is a distro aimed at various hardware configs so has to
have different drivers and whatnot to support this variety - it makes
absolutely no sense that Linux is called "bloated" when it could be
trimmed down even more since it will be running on one simple architecture
and only needs enough to support that homogenous hardware.
There's certainly nothing else about that machine to warrant those
comments. 500Mhz/128M is plenty for a decent Linux system.
--
rapskat - 18:36:48 up 1 day, 22:13, 1 user, load average: 0.66, 0.22, 0.16
"First rule: Never sweat the petty things, or pet the sweaty things."
Jim
erm... well, it is the Inquirer. About as trustworthy as Fox or CNN.
7
Well, an abacus runs on less power.
It appears these MIT dum dums want to market an abacus
to the world's poorest for rip off price of $100.
> Then it is as
> useless for the intended application as a teaspoon is for large scale
> excavation. Also, the system you are speaking of would be less reliable
> in the intended environment. Does the 15 inch monitor work even in a
> light rain ? No ? No good.
>
> What is the MTBF for the 40GB (or did you really mean 40Gb ?) HD ? Does
> it have the mesh networking that the OLPC Laptop offers ? Simply put,
> the computer you are talking about is not only more expensive, but not
> good enough for the purpose at hand. Your computer WOULD be a waste of
> money.
>
> Dean G.
Total rubbish.
The world is not as poor as you imagine.
Generators exist, fuel exists, food exists.
The thing that doesn't exist is the charity to distribute
all that wealth to the needy.
Stealing $100 from the poor for an abacus is not charity AT ALL.
7
Google for 10,000 Rupee computer.
Dean G.
7 wrote:
> The world is not as poor as you imagine.
Many people in this world are very poor, particularly in Sub-Saharan
Africa.
> Generators exist, fuel exists, food exists.
Many people in Sub-Saharan Africa do not have access to an electric
grid. In a related note, Ferrari 430's exist where I am at, but I do
not have access to one. Also, if you haven't been paying attention to
the news recently (oh, say the last three or four months), you may have
missed the fact the Africa is suffering from famine conditions do to
drought, war, and swarms of locust and grasshoppers.
> The thing that doesn't exist is the charity to distribute
> all that wealth to the needy.
Bullshit. The project has already raised $29 million to do just that.
> Stealing $100 from the poor for an abacus is not charity AT ALL.
It will not take $100 from the poor, and if you had bothered to do even
the most rudimentary research on the subject, you would already know
that. But obviously, you speak from ignorance, not only on this point,
but on all the others as well.
Dean G.
Dean G.
That would make the computer closer to a $225 computer than the $150
you mentioned. (Today's exchange rate it 44.57 Indian rupees to the US
dollar.)
Dean G.
7
That was nearly a year ago and prices have tumbled since then
and you can put together same system for about $150,
though you would be hard put out to locate the same
VIA mboards and lower spec components right now.
7
>
> 7 wrote:
>
>> The world is not as poor as you imagine.
>
> Many people in this world are very poor, particularly in Sub-Saharan
> Africa.
>
>> Generators exist, fuel exists, food exists.
>
> Many people in Sub-Saharan Africa do not have access to an electric
> grid.
Which is why I told you the world is not as poor as you imagine.
You seem to cling to old outdated ideas of poverty being equated
with access to electricity. I doubt anyone knows what electricity
is Sub-Saharan Africa, for if they did, they would buy generators.
> In a related note, Ferrari 430's exist where I am at, but I do
> not have access to one.
Which does not make you poor by any standard.
> Also, if you haven't been paying attention to
> the news recently (oh, say the last three or four months), you may have
> missed the fact the Africa is suffering from famine conditions do to
> drought, war, and swarms of locust and grasshoppers.
Which is why I told you from the BEGINNING the world is not as poor
as you imagine. There is plenty for all, its just charity to share
that is lacking.
>> The thing that doesn't exist is the charity to distribute
>> all that wealth to the needy.
>
> Bullshit. The project has already raised $29 million to do just that.
Who cares what the project has ammassed?
It makes no difference to the poor!!!
I told you from the BEGINNING the world is not as poor
as you imagine. There is plenty for all, its just charity to share
that is lacking.
>> Stealing $100 from the poor for an abacus is not charity AT ALL.
>
> It will not take $100 from the poor, and if you had bothered to do even
> the most rudimentary research on the subject, you would already know
> that. But obviously, you speak from ignorance, not only on this point,
> but on all the others as well.
Yes it will.
I'm running Linux from floppy drive.
Therefore it is proven that the whole project is a scam.
> Dean G.
Mark Kent
Dean G. <dgutt...@4ecp.com> espoused:
>
> 7 wrote:
>
>> The world is not as poor as you imagine.
>
> Many people in this world are very poor, particularly in Sub-Saharan
> Africa.
>
>> Generators exist, fuel exists, food exists.
>
> Many people in Sub-Saharan Africa do not have access to an electric
> grid. In a related note,
Oh for pete's sake, the whole point of this stuff is that it's powerable
from sustainable/local power sources. Why do you think the Baygen radio
was invented?
How do you think you get power to the whole country? You need to
EDUCATE THE PEOPLE!
You need a cluebat.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
<StevenK> I can usually supress the feelings that tell me to crash
tackle a girl into the bushes
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 20:43:38 +0000, 7 wrote:
>
> Who cares what the project has ammassed?
> It makes no difference to the poor!!!
> I told you from the BEGINNING the world is not as poor
> as you imagine. There is plenty for all, its just charity to share
> that is lacking.
Hate to break it to you, but that's simply wrong.
There are two major failings with such notions. The first is in vastly
overestimating production (or underestimating consumption) levels; the
second is failing to examine long-term effects.
Take the short term effects. You say there's plenty for all. Okay, let's
look at food. Just food. Exactly where is this food coming from?
Keeping in mind that we're talking about literally billions of people
living on subsistence diets; more, in fact, than are eating well.
Basically, food production is going to have to triple just to get the
world average to rise to adequate food supplies. Who pays for this? It's
not the ones getting the food; they have no money. You? Me?
It's going to have to be you and me; there's nowhere else for the funding
to come from. If production - and distribution, storage, etc - is going
to have to triple, but the recipients aren't paying the extra costs, we're
going to. Maybe you like the idea of paying three bucks for a banana; I
don't.
That aside, you're not actually going to be feeding the world's population
by doing this; you'll be feeding *today's* world population.
Ever noticed how in a lot of the dirt-poor regions, they breed like
rabbits? There's a reason for it. If you're a subsistence farmer, if you
have to live off what you can scrounge or what you can raise in
low-quality land, you need all the help you can get. Since you can't
afford to hire the help, you breed it. Better still, your offspring will
stick around and support you when you're old and feeble, while hired help
won't. It's in your best interests to have as many offspring as possible,
especially since you know at least some of them won't make it.
So take your new-found food supply, the one *I* get to pay for with my
three-dollars-a-banana price hikes, deliver the food into the hands of
those who need it most, and all you're going to get is a population
explosion which will keep going to the limits of the entire world's
ability to produce food for it - instead of 3 billion people living on the
brink of starvation, you'll have 13 billion in that boat.
You *cannot* solve the problem of hunger by providing food. You also have
to re-train the entire population into sustainable population practices -
but doing so is going against thousands of years of ingrained experience
which has taught them, as a society, that the best, surest, most reliable
way to ensure survival is to breed, breed, and breed some more. In short,
you need to go heads-up against a basic survival trait and win, beat it
entirely out of the entire population, or you're going to just make an
already bad situation infinitely worse.
Is there plenty for all? That is a *very* doubtful proposition in the
first place. Even if we grant it, however, it does not solve anything;
spreading it around is, in fact, very likely to simply increase the
population until there isn't enough. It is a basic premise of subsistence
populations that they expand to where the resources will support them - at
subsistence levels. While there may be enough to go around today, this
only means you're going to have more people in the same boat come tomorrow.
So explain how you're going to "spread the wealth", without ramping up
prices for those of us already paying for things, distribute the wealth to
those you think are in need of it and do so without causing the inevitable
population increase such distribution, by the nature of the affected
populations, is going to bring. In short, how are you going to do this
without making an already bad situation worse?
Lobo
<kbjar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>[snips]
>So explain how you're going to "spread the wealth", without ramping up
>prices for those of us already paying for things, distribute the wealth to
>those you think are in need of it and do so without causing the inevitable
>population increase such distribution, by the nature of the affected
>populations, is going to bring. In short, how are you going to do this
>without making an already bad situation worse?
>
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 02:55:48 +0000, Lobo wrote:
>
> http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/about_what_is_fairtrade.htm
Sorry, this explains how you're going to get wealth into the hands of
subsistence farmers without wildly upsetting the local balance and
actually increasing the problem how, exactly?
Mark Kent
Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjar...@gmail.com> espoused:
How does paying the farmer a reasonable price for his produce upset a
local balance? The buyers for produce are almost inevitable from rich
countries, and they drive a rotten bargain, keeping the margin for
themselves. Fairtrade addresses that. How is that not clear?
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
The philosopher's treatment of a question is like the treatment of an illness.
-- Wittgenstein.
tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com
>
> Well, an abacus runs on less power.
> It appears these MIT dum dums want to market an abacus
> to the world's poorest for rip off price of $100.
have a laptop with 266 Mghz CPU and 64 MB of RAM and I find it
quite usable. I even run OpenOffice on it (it is just a bit
slow to load initially).
> Total rubbish.
> The world is not as poor as you imagine.
> Generators exist, fuel exists, food exists.
> The thing that doesn't exist is the charity to distribute
> all that wealth to the needy.
> Stealing $100 from the poor for an abacus is not charity AT ALL.
As I understand it, governments and NGO's are buying these computers
and GIVING them to schools in underdeveloped areas. Where is this
stealing you speak of?
Thad
JEDIDIAH
> begin oe_protect.scr
> Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjar...@gmail.com> espoused:
>> [snips]
>>
>> On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 02:55:48 +0000, Lobo wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/about_what_is_fairtrade.htm
>>
>> Sorry, this explains how you're going to get wealth into the hands of
>> subsistence farmers without wildly upsetting the local balance and
>> actually increasing the problem how, exactly?
>>
>
> How does paying the farmer a reasonable price for his produce upset a
> local balance? The buyers for produce are almost inevitable from rich
> countries, and they drive a rotten bargain, keeping the margin for
> themselves. Fairtrade addresses that. How is that not clear?
>
So the dirt farmers are going to get ahead by catering to cash
crop demands of the 1st world? That't just plain stupid. Farmers in the
3rd world need to start working to ensure that their societies can just
plain ignore people from other countries that would shamelessly take
advantage of them. Capitalism simple doensn't need external do gooders
in order to bootstrap economies.
We need to stop meddling and they need to seek to fend for
themselves either individually or as a collection of similar, like
minded nations.
--
It is not true that Microsoft doesn't innovate.
They brought us the email virus.
In my Atari days, such a notion would have |||
been considered a complete absurdity. / | \
Kelsey Bjarnason
> begin oe_protect.scr
> Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjar...@gmail.com> espoused:
>> [snips]
>>
>> On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 02:55:48 +0000, Lobo wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/about_what_is_fairtrade.htm
>>
>> Sorry, this explains how you're going to get wealth into the hands of
>> subsistence farmers without wildly upsetting the local balance and
>> actually increasing the problem how, exactly?
>>
>
> How does paying the farmer a reasonable price for his produce upset a
> local balance?
We're talking subsistence farming, here. People who can't produce enough
for *themselves*, never mind for export. Since the fairtrade deal cannot
have any relevance whatsoever to such people, my question stands.
Lobo
wrote:
>On 2006-04-07, Mark Kent <mark...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> begin oe_protect.scr
>> Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjar...@gmail.com> espoused:
>>> [snips]
>>>
>>> On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 02:55:48 +0000, Lobo wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/about_what_is_fairtrade.htm
>>>
>>> Sorry, this explains how you're going to get wealth into the hands of
>>> subsistence farmers without wildly upsetting the local balance and
>>> actually increasing the problem how, exactly?
>>>
>>
>> How does paying the farmer a reasonable price for his produce upset a
>> local balance? The buyers for produce are almost inevitable from rich
>> countries, and they drive a rotten bargain, keeping the margin for
>> themselves. Fairtrade addresses that. How is that not clear?
>>
>
> So the dirt farmers are going to get ahead by catering to cash
>crop demands of the 1st world? That't just plain stupid.
No it's not. How much would you charge if *you* were growing bananas.
Or sugar. Or coffee. Or...
The current wealth of the first world has come from cheap labour and
cheap raw materials from the third world.
> Farmers in the
>3rd world need to start working to ensure that their societies can just
>plain ignore people from other countries that would shamelessly take
>advantage of them. Capitalism simple doensn't need external do gooders
>in order to bootstrap economies.
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Poverty.asp
.....
Poverty is the state for the majority of the world’s people and
nations. Why is this? Is it enough to blame poor people for their own
predicament? Have they been lazy, made poor decisions, and been solely
responsible for their plight? What about their government? Have they
pursued policies that actually harm successful development? Such
causes of poverty and inequality are no doubt real. But often less
discussed are deeper and more global causes of poverty.
Behind the increasing interconnectedness promised by globalization,
are global decisions, policies, and practices. These are typically
influenced, driven, or formulated by the rich and powerful. These can
be leaders of rich countries or other global actors such as
multinational corporations, institutions, and influential people.
In the face of such enormous external influence, the governments of
poor nations and their people are often powerless. As a result, in the
global context, a few get wealthy while the majority struggle.
These next few articles and sections explore various poverty issues in
more depth:
.........
> We need to stop meddling
The following is an example of a multinational company, United Fruit
Company, "meddling" using politcal force. It is the least
incriminating document I could find.
http://www.mayaparadise.com/ufc1e.htm
I stopped buying Chiquita bananas years ago.
http://www.geocities.com/~virtualtruth/chiquita.htm
(as I did Granny Smith apples and wine from South Africa)
> and they need to seek to fend for
>themselves either individually or as a collection of similar, like
>minded nations.
I agree. Some the largest and most profitable corporations in the US
need to start "fending for themselves". The US government should stop
giving handouts to their *farmers*. Smells of corporate welfare to me.
http://www.ewg.org/farm/region.php?fips=00000
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=lang_en&newwindow=1&rls=GAPB%2CGAPB%3A2005-09%2CGAPB%3Aen&q=us+subsidies+corn+cotton+2005&btnG=Search
Is Starbuck's Coffee doing enough?
http://www.starbucks.com/aboutus/csr.asp
Check out your local Starbucks for "Fair Trade Coffee". If you don't
think they are living up to their promise you can send a free fax
here.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/starbucks/downloads.cfm#fax
One of the reasons I have chosen open source software is because it
can level the playing field between the haves and the have-nots. It
takes the power away from large monopolies such as Microsoft by
reducing the cost of entry into this new technology.
Lobo
Trade is required. No community can supply all it's needs and must
trade for things it cannot produce. I grow bananas and coffee and
sugar. You make clothing. He produces metal pots and steel shovels.
They produce heating and lighting oil. Others make equipment for us to
communicate and trade with each other.
We all want and need what others have. How much is my labour worth?
Yours? His? Their's? Others? This is where fair trade comes in.
Indigenous peoples were and still could be if the first world would
have left their means to do so alone. But we haven't. We used the
third world to become rich over the last 500 years.
Multinationals have come and convinced (paid off) local governments to
allow them to take over vast stretches of fertile land to convert into
monocultures such as cotton. This in turn required large quantities of
fertilizer and herbicides which must be purchased from multinationals.
Machinery (bought from multinationals) is brought in which reduces the
workforce. Money is lent to these poorer countries by the world banks
so they could "get in the game".
Fewer workers are then required. And because it is seasonal work,
thousands of indigenous people are then displaced from the very land
upon which they had subsisted for thousands of years.
You can't eat cotton.
Here's a prime example of unfettered capitalism gone insane:
http://www.democracyctr.org/bechtel/
7
Sorry to break it to you, but this is just rubbish.
Take one example.
Shell stole/continue to steal billions from Nigeria.
Give one of those billions back, and all your $100 laptop problems
and Dafur etc would disappear.
> So explain how you're going to "spread the wealth"
Just one billion from just one example is enough.
There are thousands of such examples.
Africa has some 700 million people, yet its land mass
is bigger than China, India and Europe put together with
mineral and other resources to match.
Its all 'stolen' by corrupt western governments
to feed the first world. They fund all the man made
disasters in Africa, from wars to famine.
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 17:48:51 +0000, Lobo wrote:
>>We're talking subsistence farming, here. People who can't produce enough
>>for *themselves*, never mind for export. Since the fairtrade deal cannot
>>have any relevance whatsoever to such people, my question stands.
>>
>
> Trade is required.
No, it's not. A certain dimwit around here is suggesting it's all just a
matter of sharing the wealth. This completely fails to grasp some basic
realities of the situation.
> No community can supply all it's needs and must
> trade for things it cannot produce.
Good. When your principle source of wealth is your crops, and your
principle crop is rocks, pray tell what you're going to trade?
> I grow bananas and coffee and sugar.
Good. A lot of folks *cannot* do this, as their conditions aren't
sufficient to pull this off, not in volumes they can afford to sell
elsewhere.
> We all want and need what others have. How much is my labour worth?
Zero, if you're in that boat, since you are producing nothing which _can_
be sold, aren't in a situation where your work could be put to better use,
and you lack the skills necessary to do much else.
> Yours?
Mine's worth a fair bit. Then again, it's based on a highly
technologically advanced economy and environment where my skills,
hard-won, are rewarded for the value they provide. In short, they're
marketable.
> Indigenous peoples were and still could be if the first world would have
> left their means to do so alone. But we haven't. We used the third world
> to become rich over the last 500 years.
The third world has been dirt poor long before we ever got into the mix.
> You can't eat cotton.
Nor dirt, the principle crop of millions worldwide.
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 17:04:25 +0000, Lobo wrote:
>> So the dirt farmers are going to get ahead by catering to cash
>>crop demands of the 1st world? That't just plain stupid.
>
> No it's not. How much would you charge if *you* were growing bananas.
> Or sugar. Or coffee. Or...
Or nothing. You fail to grasp a very basic point: if these people *could*
raise viable cash crops, they would have been doing so, instead of living
on the brink of starvation for the last umpteen centuries.
Try to grasp this concept: it is not that they don't want to raise such
crops, it is that they *cannot*.
While you're at it, try to grasp this one: helping them do so doesn't
actually help them. They need food crops first, to feed themselves, but
all that means is they can now support a larger subsistence population.
You've still failed to demonstrate how to solve the first problem without
smacking headlong into the second.
> The current wealth of the first world has come from cheap labour and
> cheap raw materials from the third world.
Which is absolutely irrelevant; there simply aren't enough jobs to hire
two and a half billion third worlders. Nor enough available wealth to pay
them anything meaningful if we did. Nor enough checks and balances on
population to stop that two and a half becoming twelve and a half, leading
us right back to where we are *now*, just with *more* starving bodies.
> In the face of such enormous external influence, the governments of poor
> nations and their people are often powerless. As a result, in the global
> context, a few get wealthy while the majority struggle.
This, of course, fails to deal with the underlying issue - why are the
poor nations poor in the first place? Oh, right... because they lack the
resources necessary to build wealth. Like, say, food, for starters.
John Bailo
> Or nothing. You fail to grasp a very basic point: if these people *could*
> raise viable cash crops, they would have been doing so, instead of living
> on the brink of starvation for the last umpteen centuries.
Wrong. Often they were steered from basic subsistence farming which
included diverse foods, rotation of crops and so on, and pushed to raise
cash crops, whose markets rose and then bottomed, sending them into
bankruptcies that disrupted land ownership, farm tools and generational
knowledge.
> Try to grasp this concept: it is not that they don't want to raise such
> crops, it is that they *cannot*.
No, they did once. They were turned into "commodities marketeers" and then
left high and dray.
> While you're at it, try to grasp this one: helping them do so doesn't
> actually help them. They need food crops first, to feed themselves, but
> all that means is they can now support a larger subsistence population.
Just like they used to.
--
Texeme Textcasting
John Bailo
> Zero, if you're in that boat, since you are producing nothing which _can_
> be sold, aren't in a situation where your work could be put to better use,
> and you lack the skills necessary to do much else.
Wait a minute.
How many Europeans, Americans, Russians and so on are producing "subsistance
crops"? How many of them are working on PCs and deriving money from the
global economy which they then use to buy food?
The whole point of tying people into the global web via computing is they
can leap frog having to "grow crops" into running commerce on the web.
If a Dane, who lives in the middle of a suburb, can go and run an
e-business, then why not an African, who might be able to sell his artwork,
or accounting skills, or specialized metal tools?
Why do we have to typecast these people as incapable of participating and
deriving an income from the web when they've never had contact with it?
Why should we assume that they must go through a "manual labor" stage, each
and every one of them, when we ourselves would never think of doing such a
thing?
--
Texeme Textcasting
Lobo
<kbjar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>[snips]
>
>On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 17:04:25 +0000, Lobo wrote:
>
>>> So the dirt farmers are going to get ahead by catering to cash
>>>crop demands of the 1st world? That't just plain stupid.
>>
>> No it's not. How much would you charge if *you* were growing bananas.
>> Or sugar. Or coffee. Or...
>
>Or nothing. You fail to grasp a very basic point: if these people *could*
>raise viable cash crops, they would have been doing so, instead of living
>on the brink of starvation for the last umpteen centuries.
Why can't they raise viable cash crops? What is stopping them?
>Try to grasp this concept: it is not that they don't want to raise such
>crops, it is that they *cannot*.
Why not? Who is stopping them?
>While you're at it, try to grasp this one: helping them do so doesn't
>actually help them. They need food crops first, to feed themselves, but
>all that means is they can now support a larger subsistence population.
Therefore less people starve?
>You've still failed to demonstrate how to solve the first problem without
>smacking headlong into the second.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.
>> The current wealth of the first world has come from cheap labour and
>> cheap raw materials from the third world.
>
>Which is absolutely irrelevant;
It IS relevant. The third world countries were used by western empires
for centuries to increase wealth in those empires. That was the very
purpose of empire building.
> there simply aren't enough jobs to hire
>two and a half billion third worlders. Nor enough available wealth to pay
>them anything meaningful if we did. Nor enough checks and balances on
>population to stop that two and a half becoming twelve and a half, leading
>us right back to where we are *now*, just with *more* starving bodies.
Malthus (1798) did not take into consideration that population growth
flattens out with education and prosperity.
>> In the face of such enormous external influence, the governments of poor
>> nations and their people are often powerless. As a result, in the global
>> context, a few get wealthy while the majority struggle.
>
>This, of course, fails to deal with the underlying issue - why are the
>poor nations poor in the first place? Oh, right... because they lack the
>resources necessary to build wealth. Like, say, food, for starters.
The underlying issues are many.
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/PovertyAroundTheWorld.asp
Lobo
<kbjar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>[snips]
>
>On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 17:48:51 +0000, Lobo wrote:
>
>>>We're talking subsistence farming, here. People who can't produce enough
>>>for *themselves*, never mind for export. Since the fairtrade deal cannot
>>>have any relevance whatsoever to such people, my question stands.
>>>
>>
>> Trade is required.
>
>No, it's not. A certain dimwit around here is suggesting it's all just a
>matter of sharing the wealth. This completely fails to grasp some basic
>realities of the situation.
>
>> No community can supply all it's needs and must
>> trade for things it cannot produce.
>
>Good. When your principle source of wealth is your crops, and your
>principle crop is rocks, pray tell what you're going to trade?
How about if your principal crop is rocks with diamonds or gold or
silver in them? How about oil? Most of this comes from third world
countries.
>> I grow bananas and coffee and sugar.
>
>Good. A lot of folks *cannot* do this, as their conditions aren't
>sufficient to pull this off, not in volumes they can afford to sell
>elsewhere.
The multinationals do a good job of producing coffee and cotton and
sugar in massive quantities. They even use the very same land the
peasants used to farm on.
>> We all want and need what others have. How much is my labour worth?
>
>Zero, if you're in that boat, since you are producing nothing which _can_
>be sold, aren't in a situation where your work could be put to better use,
>and you lack the skills necessary to do much else.
>
>> Yours?
>
>Mine's worth a fair bit. Then again, it's based on a highly
>technologically advanced economy and environment where my skills,
>hard-won, are rewarded for the value they provide. In short, they're
>marketable.
Ever heard of outsourcing. Third world countries are producing
engineers and IT technicians at rates many times greater than first
world countries. Give them about 10 years.
BTW, multinationals are not patriotic entities. They will go where
they can get the best deal. Of course, many countries will cry "foul".
>> Indigenous peoples were and still could be if the first world would have
>> left their means to do so alone. But we haven't. We used the third world
>> to become rich over the last 500 years.
>
>The third world has been dirt poor long before we ever got into the mix.
England was poorer than India at the beginning of the British Empire.
>> You can't eat cotton.
>
>Nor dirt, the principle crop of millions worldwide.
That very same dirt is what was used to make the cars and ships and
cities and guns of the first world when we ran short and our wages
became too high. So we started taking their dirt and sold it back to
them - value added of course.
Tim Smith
rapskat <rap...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree. Something about this whole thing appears very suspicious. Like
> how they stated they plan to go with Linux and yet still are working with
> M$ to develop a version of WinCE to run the device.
It's even weirder considering that the reason they gave for turning down
Steve Job's offer of free OS X for it was that a fully open source
system was a requirement, so that the recipients could modify the system.
If WinCE is acceptable, then why not OS X?
--
--Tim Smith
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 05:59:53 GMT,
Lobo <n...@here.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 01:07:55 GMT, Kelsey Bjarnason
><kbjar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>[snips]
>>
>>On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 17:04:25 +0000, Lobo wrote:
>>
>>>> So the dirt farmers are going to get ahead by catering to cash
>>>>crop demands of the 1st world? That't just plain stupid.
>>>
>>> No it's not. How much would you charge if *you* were growing bananas.
>>> Or sugar. Or coffee. Or...
>>
>>Or nothing. You fail to grasp a very basic point: if these people *could*
>>raise viable cash crops, they would have been doing so, instead of living
>>on the brink of starvation for the last umpteen centuries.
>
> Why can't they raise viable cash crops? What is stopping them?
>
<boggle> because they're starving to death, and nothing worth exporting
grows there maybe?
>>Try to grasp this concept: it is not that they don't want to raise such
>>crops, it is that they *cannot*.
>
> Why not? Who is stopping them?
>
because they are too busy trying to survive in marginal land, producing
not quite enough food to eat.
>>While you're at it, try to grasp this one: helping them do so doesn't
>>actually help them. They need food crops first, to feed themselves, but
>>all that means is they can now support a larger subsistence population.
>
> Therefore less people starve?
no, because people locked into that kind of culture/society respond to
extra food, by having extra kids, which eat the extra food... pretty
standard ecological boom/bust cycle, only with people instead of
rabbits, or goats.
>
>>You've still failed to demonstrate how to solve the first problem without
>>smacking headlong into the second.
>
> I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.
that's pretty clear.
>
>>> The current wealth of the first world has come from cheap labour and
>>> cheap raw materials from the third world.
>>
>>Which is absolutely irrelevant;
>
> It IS relevant. The third world countries were used by western empires
> for centuries to increase wealth in those empires. That was the very
> purpose of empire building.
It's not relevent to the problem at hand. Kelsey is pointing out that
simply handing cash over, doesn't work. The oligarchs get rich, the poor
stay starving, until they've had enough and revolt (with much bloodshed)
and install a *different* "Supreme Leader" and then they repeat the
cycle.
Education is the answer, not free food.
>
>> there simply aren't enough jobs to hire
>>two and a half billion third worlders. Nor enough available wealth to pay
>>them anything meaningful if we did. Nor enough checks and balances on
>>population to stop that two and a half becoming twelve and a half, leading
>>us right back to where we are *now*, just with *more* starving bodies.
>
> Malthus (1798) did not take into consideration that population growth
> flattens out with education and prosperity.
>
*after* education and prosperity, about a generation after.
>>> In the face of such enormous external influence, the governments of poor
>>> nations and their people are often powerless. As a result, in the global
>>> context, a few get wealthy while the majority struggle.
>>
>>This, of course, fails to deal with the underlying issue - why are the
>>poor nations poor in the first place? Oh, right... because they lack the
>>resources necessary to build wealth. Like, say, food, for starters.
>
> The underlying issues are many.
> http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/PovertyAroundTheWorld.asp
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEOI1/d90bcYOAWPYRAhKeAJ9lW+lgZ3cwdm6YT5yLpZu7kx3JJgCeNByE
Xn0T4EP6DuraVS5uCvwFtbk=
=1TIk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Noise proves nothing. Often a hen who has merely laid an egg cackles
as if she laid an asteroid.
-- Mark Twain
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 05:59:53 +0000, Lobo wrote:
>>Or nothing. You fail to grasp a very basic point: if these people *could*
>>raise viable cash crops, they would have been doing so, instead of living
>>on the brink of starvation for the last umpteen centuries.
>
> Why can't they raise viable cash crops? What is stopping them?
The land they're on, the lack of everything from reliable water to usable
fertilizers. Might be nice if you stopped to realize the entire world is
*not* quite the same as rural America.
>>Try to grasp this concept: it is not that they don't want to raise such
>>crops, it is that they *cannot*.
>
> Why not? Who is stopping them?
The land they're on, the lack of everything from reliable water to usable
fertilizers. Might be nice if you stopped to realize the entire world is
*not* quite the same as rural America.
>>While you're at it, try to grasp this one: helping them do so doesn't
>>actually help them. They need food crops first, to feed themselves, but
>>all that means is they can now support a larger subsistence population.
>
> Therefore less people starve?
No, *more* people do. Instead of 5,000 in a village living on the brink
of starvation, you end up with 15,000 in the village, on the brink of
starvation.
>>You've still failed to demonstrate how to solve the first problem
>>without smacking headlong into the second.
>
> I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.
Because you persist in assuming that because *some* places allow for
productive farming, therefore *all* places do.
>>> The current wealth of the first world has come from cheap labour and
>>> cheap raw materials from the third world.
>>
>>Which is absolutely irrelevant;
>
> It IS relevant.
Not in the slightest. They were poor before Westerners ever arrived,
because the land simply does not offer them the basic materials to eke out
a halfway decent living, let alone turn a profit.
> The underlying issues are many.
Starvation being the primary one, one you've failed completely to address.
Population explosion in the face of increased food supplies being the
secondary one, another one you've completely failed to address.
Care to try *thinking* about these things, rather than spewing irrelevant
bullshit about the horrible white man?
Lobo
<kbjar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>[snips]
>
>On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 05:59:53 +0000, Lobo wrote:
<snip>
>> The underlying issues are many.
>
>Starvation being the primary one, one you've failed completely to address.
I will re-insert a link which you've failed to address.
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Poverty/Hunger.asp
......
We often hear about people’s desire to solve world hunger, or to be
able to feed the world and help alleviate the suffering associated
with it.
However, meaningful long-term alleviation to hunger is rooted in the
alleviation of poverty, as poverty leads to hunger. World hunger is a
terrible symptom of world poverty. If efforts are only directed at
providing food, or improving food production or distribution, then the
structural root causes that create hunger, poverty and dependency
would still remain. And so while continuous effort, resources and
energies are deployed to relieve hunger through these technical
measures, the political causes require political solutions as well.
......
>Population explosion in the face of increased food supplies being the
>secondary one, another one you've completely failed to address.
I addressed it very well in the links I posted (which you conveniently
snipped).
http://www.globalissues.org/EnvIssues/Population.asp
...........
Many of us have grown up learning and being told that 6 billion is too
much and this "over population" is primarily impacting the planet's
ability to cope. But is that really the case? Sure, the planet is
facing incredible stress. But how much of that is due to large
populations, and how much is based on other factors, such as how we
choose to live, how we produce, consume and waste our resources? The
poor are numerous, but as we shall see, consume far less resources of
the planet, for example.
........
>Care to try *thinking* about these things, rather than spewing irrelevant
>bullshit about the horrible white man?
I would suggest that is *you* who is "spewing irrelevant bullshit".
Nowhere did I say "white man". If you wish to use a pejorative, use a
more appropriate term: "The Man".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man
"The Man" is a slang phrase associated with the counterculture and
used to describe higher authority. This "Man" does not usually refer
to a specific individual as such, but instead to the government,
leaders of large corporations and other authority figures; its meaning
is pejorative. The Man is colloquially defined as the figurative
person who controls our world. The Man is also often used as a symbol
of racial oppression.
....
BTW, your ad hominem attack does not strengthen your arguments.
Read the following site and do some *thinking* based on real
knowledge. The views you are presenting in this thread are simplistic
to the extreme. They not only serve to maintain the status quo but
exacerbate the problems facing the world at this time.
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/
# Trade-Related Issues
* Causes of Poverty
* Third World Debt
* Free Trade
* Corporations
* Consumption and Consumerism
* Sustainable Development
* Fair Trade
# Geopolitics
* Arms Control
* Arms Trade
* Conflicts in Africa
* Energy Security
* International Criminal Court
* The Middle East
* War on Terror
* Foreign Policy
* Military Expansion
* Children, Conflicts and the Military
* Crisis in Chechnya
* The Need for NATO
* NATO and Kosovo
* Crisis in East Timor
# Human Rights Issues
* Human Rights and Justice Issues
* Mainstream Media
* Racism
* Women’s Rights
# Environmental Issues
* Biodiversity
* Climate Change and Global Warming
* Genetically Engineered Food
* Human Population
* Natural Disasters
* Nature and Animal Conservation
# Health Issues
* Global Health Overview
* Disease; Global Killers
* AIDS
Lobo
wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 05:59:53 GMT,
> Lobo <n...@here.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 01:07:55 GMT, Kelsey Bjarnason
>><kbjar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>[snips]
>>>
>>>On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 17:04:25 +0000, Lobo wrote:
>>>
>>>>> So the dirt farmers are going to get ahead by catering to cash
>>>>>crop demands of the 1st world? That't just plain stupid.
>>>>
>>>> No it's not. How much would you charge if *you* were growing bananas.
>>>> Or sugar. Or coffee. Or...
>>>
>>>Or nothing. You fail to grasp a very basic point: if these people *could*
>>>raise viable cash crops, they would have been doing so, instead of living
>>>on the brink of starvation for the last umpteen centuries.
>>
>> Why can't they raise viable cash crops? What is stopping them?
>>
>
><boggle> because they're starving to death, and nothing worth exporting
>grows there maybe?
I was playing "devil's advocate" in an attempt to get a less
simplistic answer. ;-)
>>>Try to grasp this concept: it is not that they don't want to raise such
>>>crops, it is that they *cannot*.
>>
>> Why not? Who is stopping them?
>>
>
>because they are too busy trying to survive in marginal land, producing
>not quite enough food to eat.
One of the reasons many of the poor are on marginal land is because of
displacement. (Again I was playing devils' advocate.)
>>>While you're at it, try to grasp this one: helping them do so doesn't
>>>actually help them. They need food crops first, to feed themselves, but
>>>all that means is they can now support a larger subsistence population.
>>
>> Therefore less people starve?
>
>no, because people locked into that kind of culture/society respond to
>extra food, by having extra kids, which eat the extra food... pretty
>standard ecological boom/bust cycle, only with people instead of
>rabbits, or goats.
The west, which has a gross surplus of food, has responded in the
climbing rate of obesity and NOT a higher birth rate. History has
shown, time and again, that humans do not respond to the boom/bust
cycles as do rabbits or goats or any other animal once they attain
relative prosperity and education. These two are key points that must
be addressed.
One of the factors from "the law of unintended consequences" of having
a surplus of food is obesity. This is actually starting to decrease
life expectancy in western countries. It is something that Malthus
never took into consideration.
Humans have evolved within the boom/bust cycle of nature. They have a
genetic makeup that allows them to readily store food (in the form of
fat) during times of plenty in order to draw upon in lean times. This
is more apparent in indigenous peoples as they have more of the
genetic variants that predispose them to store energy as fat rather
than burn it off as heat. People with this genetic variant allowed
them to survive and therefore pass on this trait more than those
without it.
>>>You've still failed to demonstrate how to solve the first problem without
>>>smacking headlong into the second.
>>
>> I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.
>
>
>that's pretty clear.
Mr. Bjarnason appears to be saying that there is no way out. That it
is a closed cycle that is completely at the mercy of Malthusian logic.
I beg to differ and put forth links in that thread in an attempt to
show the fallacy of this.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/malthus.html
....
Malthus was a political economist who was concerned about, what he saw
as, the decline of living conditions in nineteenth century England. He
blamed this decline on three elements: The overproduction of young;
the inability of resources to keep up with the rising human
population; and the irresponsibility of the lower classes. To combat
this, Malthus suggested the family size of the lower class ought to be
regulated such that poor families do not produce more children than
they can support. Does this sound familiar? China has implemented a
policy of one child per family (though this applies to all families,
not just those of the lower class).
.....
>>
>>>> The current wealth of the first world has come from cheap labour and
>>>> cheap raw materials from the third world.
>>>
>>>Which is absolutely irrelevant;
>>
>> It IS relevant. The third world countries were used by western empires
>> for centuries to increase wealth in those empires. That was the very
>> purpose of empire building.
>
>
>It's not relevent to the problem at hand. Kelsey is pointing out that
>simply handing cash over, doesn't work. The oligarchs get rich, the poor
>stay starving, until they've had enough and revolt (with much bloodshed)
>and install a *different* "Supreme Leader" and then they repeat the
>cycle.
>
>Education is the answer, not free food.
I heartily agree.
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Poverty/FoodDumping.asp
Food Dumping [Aid] Maintains Poverty
....
In the industrialized northern countries, we instinctively believe
that food aid is a very worthy cause and many do their utmost to
genuinely help in this field. Web sites like the hungersite.com allow
you to simply click a link and thereby donate food to someone in need
in a developing country. However, there is more to it that selecting
on a link.
In fact, if priority is not placed on the political root causes of
hunger, sites like this may unwittingly contribute to the harm that
has already been inflicted on the poor in developing countries because
the poor countries will remain dependent. (Providing free food in
emergency situations of course is usually welcome, but we are
concerned with systemic root causes of hunger in non-emergency
situations here as some one sixth of humanity goes hungry each day in
non-emergency situations.)
.....
>>> there simply aren't enough jobs to hire
>>>two and a half billion third worlders. Nor enough available wealth to pay
>>>them anything meaningful if we did. Nor enough checks and balances on
>>>population to stop that two and a half becoming twelve and a half, leading
>>>us right back to where we are *now*, just with *more* starving bodies.
>>
>> Malthus (1798) did not take into consideration that population growth
>> flattens out with education and prosperity.
>>
>
>*after* education and prosperity, about a generation after.
You have to make a start sometime....
>>>> In the face of such enormous external influence, the governments of poor
>>>> nations and their people are often powerless. As a result, in the global
>>>> context, a few get wealthy while the majority struggle.
>>>
>>>This, of course, fails to deal with the underlying issue - why are the
>>>poor nations poor in the first place? Oh, right... because they lack the
>>>resources necessary to build wealth. Like, say, food, for starters.
>>
>> The underlying issues are many.
>> http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/PovertyAroundTheWorld.asp
Open Source software will allow many of the third world countries to
"leap-frog" into the 21st century. Computer technology has created a
revolution in manufacturing that has surpassed any that have come
before. All this in a time span of only 25 years.
Who knows what the world will be like 10-20 years from now. Maybe
North America and Europe will become the main suppliers of food for
the world and the third world will become the main suppliers of
technology and value added? At present rates of exchange between the
two commodities, the first world will be in for a lot of problems.
Ooops.... that is *already* occurring and at an exponential rate.
We are in for some interesting times ahead.
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Sun, 09 Apr 2006 16:48:40 +0000, Lobo wrote:
>>> The underlying issues are many.
>>
>>Starvation being the primary one, one you've failed completely to address.
>
> I will re-insert a link which you've failed to address.
On the contrary; I have addressed it. Here, I'll point it out to you
*again*.
> However, meaningful long-term alleviation to hunger is rooted in the
> alleviation of poverty, as poverty leads to hunger.
Poverty does lead to hunger. This is well known. What you're failing to
grasp is a basic fact: that in the presence of hunger, providing either
food or wealth simply leads to *more* hunger, when dealing with
subsistence populations.
They key factor of subsistence is this: the population will expand to the
limits of the food supply to maintain them at a subsistence level.
There's a reason for that. Several, actually, but one main one; it is by
breeding like rabbits that the subsistence family ensures the best
possible chances of survival.
Sure, give them food. Sure, give them the money to buy food. Either way,
the food supply increases, and the population increases right along with
it, until you're back in the same place you were before, just with a lot
*more* people living on the brink of starvation.
Oh, and yes, I did say "give". Not "trade for". These people have
nothing of value to trade, or they'd already be eating better, not living
on the brink of starvation. It is precisely because they can neither
raise productive crops nor produce wealth on their own that they are poor
in the first place.
> If efforts are only directed at
> providing food, or improving food production or distribution, then the
> structural root causes that create hunger, poverty and dependency
> would still remain.
As I've pointed out to you several times, yet you've failed to deal with
it each and every time.
> And so while continuous effort, resources and
> energies are deployed to relieve hunger through these technical
> measures, the political causes require political solutions as well.
Political solutions may help somewhat, but it is *social* issues which are
the real problem. You know, little things like umpteen centuries of
ingrained experience which tells them the best way to survive is to breed
like rabbits. It's a survival trait, and you're going to be going
head-to-head with it. You have to eliminate that trait out of the
population before any attempt to raise them from subsistence can ever hope
to be effective, other than in the microscopically short term. Yet for
some reason, you've not bothered to explain how you're going to even
attempt to remove a survival trait out of the entire population. Wonder
why that is?
>>Population explosion in the face of increased food supplies being the
>>secondary one, another one you've completely failed to address.
>
> I addressed it very well in the links I posted (which you conveniently
> snipped).
No, you didn't. Not once. Your quote below demonstrates your complete
inability to grasp what's being said to you:
> http://www.globalissues.org/EnvIssues/Population.asp ...........
> Many of us have grown up learning and being told that 6 billion is too
> much and this "over population" is primarily impacting the planet's
> ability to cope.
Six billion is not and never has been the issue I've repeatedly asked you
to deal with, now is it? No, it isn't. Nor is overpopulation on a
global scale - though it's entirely likely that, using your half-baked
approach, it *will* become a problem, a point I've noted. Try paying
attention.
> But is that really the case? Sure, the planet is facing
> incredible stress. But how much of that is due to large populations, and
> how much is based on other factors, such as how we choose to live, how
> we produce, consume and waste our resources? The poor are numerous, but
> as we shall see, consume far less resources of the planet, for example.
No freakin' kidding. The poor consume less - wait for it - because
they're poor. They can't even afford to eat at a decent level, let alone
buy color TVs, cars and the like.
> Read the following site and do some *thinking* based on real knowledge.
Thanks, but I have. I've presented you, repeatedly, with failings in your
basic concept, not a single one of which you've dealt with. For that
matter, you've even been unable to figure out what those issues *are*,
despite having had them hand-fed to you, repeatedly - witness your
bringing up the "six billion", when the context is the expansion of
_local_ subsistence populations.
Once again, how about you stop letting web sites do your thinking for you,
and engaging your reasoning ability? How about showing you can at least
figure out what's right in front of you, by, say, at least responding to
the actual subject, rather than some complete irrelevancy?
Here, I'll recap, so that you don't have to try to actually figure out
what's been said, since that's obviously too much of a challenge for you:
1) Many people live by subsistence farming
2) They have neither wealth, nor the means to create it
3) Infusing food or wealth into such an environment does not make the
average person wealthier; it simply allows the environment to support
more people at the same poverty level
4) You've failed to explain how you're going to get wealth into the
environment
5) You've failed to explain how you're going to do this *without* running
afoul of point 3
6) You've confused local population explosions with global overpopulation,
based your arguments, apparently, on global issues while ignoring
local, regional issues
7) You've got nothing to offer, apparently, but web links which you,
apparently, don't understand well enough to know what they mean
Any chance you're *ever* going to stop dancing and actually deal with
those points?
Lobo
<kbjar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>[snips]
>
>On Sun, 09 Apr 2006 16:48:40 +0000, Lobo wrote:
<snip>
>> Read the following site and do some *thinking* based on real knowledge.
>
>Thanks, but I have. I've presented you, repeatedly, with failings in your
>basic concept, not a single one of which you've dealt with. For that
>matter, you've even been unable to figure out what those issues *are*,
>despite having had them hand-fed to you, repeatedly - witness your
>bringing up the "six billion", when the context is the expansion of
>_local_ subsistence populations.
I have repeatedly posted links that deal with the root causes of
*both* global and local hunger.
>Once again, how about you stop letting web sites do your thinking for you,
>and engaging your reasoning ability? How about showing you can at least
>figure out what's right in front of you, by, say, at least responding to
>the actual subject, rather than some complete irrelevancy?
>
>Here, I'll recap, so that you don't have to try to actually figure out
>what's been said, since that's obviously too much of a challenge for you:
>
>1) Many people live by subsistence farming
A very large number of people have been pushed off of and denied
rights to aboriginal lands that allowed them to live as subsistence
farmers.
>2) They have neither wealth, nor the means to create it
They had and still have much of the world's real wealth. Their wealth
was taken from them by colonial powers who used it to increase the
wealth of their own burgeoning populace. A cursory study of European
empire building using third world countries as a source of wealth
shows this. The English in India. The French and Dutch in the East
Indies. The Spanish in Latin America. All the European countries in
Africa. The US in the middle east and Latin America.
>3) Infusing food or wealth into such an environment does not make the
> average person wealthier; it simply allows the environment to support
> more people at the same poverty level
Infusing wealth in the form of education and basic health care (and
food to cover crisis) will allow them to catch up to the first world.
>4) You've failed to explain how you're going to get wealth into the
> environment
You don't put wealth *into* the environment. The environment is where
wealth originates. Unfortunately, the multinationals do not enter into
their books the true costs of the wealth they *produce*. ie damage to
the environment or damage to the social structures and well-being of
the indigenous peoples. This has occurred over centuries of abuse.
>5) You've failed to explain how you're going to do this *without* running
> afoul of point 3
You are putting too much emphasize on Malthus' misjudgments.
Prosperity and education play a vital role in breaking the cycle.
Witness China's "one child" policy, so often decried as evil by the
religious west, is now very much accepted by the more prosperous
Chinese.
>6) You've confused local population explosions with global overpopulation,
> based your arguments, apparently, on global issues while ignoring
> local, regional issues
Here's one of hundreds I could point out. The Baka had a stable,
relatively healthy subsistence lifestyle until their means to do so
was impaired by external forces from the west. They are
hunter-gatherers and rely on a natural forest for their livelihood.
Their forest is being destroyed in order to supply the west with
exotic woods for items only the rich can afford.
http://www.rainforestfoundationuk.org/s-Baka%20Rights%20and%20Mapping%20-%20Cameroon
Baka Rights and Mapping, Cameroon
....
Quality of life of Baka, Bakola and Bagyeli people is closely linked
to the well-being of the forest and its resources, and, more
crucially, their ability to access them. Legal rights to subsistence
activities are often abused by authorities, and they have very few
further rights to the forests in law, and no official tenure over
their ancestral forest lands. They have thus become increasingly
impoverished and are rarely recognised by the authorities leading to
social and economic marginalisation, and extreme vulnerability.
....
>7) You've got nothing to offer, apparently, but web links which you,
> apparently, don't understand well enough to know what they mean
If you would have read the sub-links as well, you would realize your
view point is rather simplistic.
>Any chance you're *ever* going to stop dancing and actually deal with
>those points?
I have. Things are not as simple as you make them out to be.
The cause of most of the misery in the world at present is from human
greed. If there is one *human trait* that needs to be modified, it is
this one.
BTW, human greed is also a trait that enabled a particular society to
pass on their genes. By hoarding excess in times of plenty and denying
others in times of scarcity, they were better able to survive. These
are no longer valid reasons.
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Sun, 09 Apr 2006 21:39:46 +0000, Lobo wrote:
>>Thanks, but I have. I've presented you, repeatedly, with failings in your
>>basic concept, not a single one of which you've dealt with. For that
>>matter, you've even been unable to figure out what those issues *are*,
>>despite having had them hand-fed to you, repeatedly - witness your
>>bringing up the "six billion", when the context is the expansion of
>>_local_ subsistence populations.
>
> I have repeatedly posted links that deal with the root causes of
> *both* global and local hunger.
You need a web site to explain to you that people are hungry because they
don't have enough food? Good goat. Engage brain.
Lobo
Not any more for about 11,000,000 people. Another 90,000,000 and the
States will be even for 100 years of using military and political
power in Central and South America in the service of the
multinationals to become rich.
BTW, the web is a good way to educate yourself. You should try it.
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
WTF does this mean? it makes no sense to me. Can you restate?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEO9gYd90bcYOAWPYRAu7sAKDKm27uQUiO9Xb8ZUcjv20oUVyY2ACeKQiA
t6XMdKnqdkzYZGmDdVU8+S4=
=sCDQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
You sound reasonable... Oops, time to up my medication
Mark Kent
Jim Richardson <war...@eskimo.com> espoused:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 05:59:53 GMT,
> Lobo <n...@here.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 01:07:55 GMT, Kelsey Bjarnason
>><kbjar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>[snips]
>>>
>>>On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 17:04:25 +0000, Lobo wrote:
>>>
>>>>> So the dirt farmers are going to get ahead by catering to cash
>>>>>crop demands of the 1st world? That't just plain stupid.
>>>>
>>>> No it's not. How much would you charge if *you* were growing bananas.
>>>> Or sugar. Or coffee. Or...
>>>
>>>Or nothing. You fail to grasp a very basic point: if these people *could*
>>>raise viable cash crops, they would have been doing so, instead of living
>>>on the brink of starvation for the last umpteen centuries.
>>
>> Why can't they raise viable cash crops? What is stopping them?
>>
>
><boggle> because they're starving to death, and nothing worth exporting
> grows there maybe?
>
As this started on a discussion of fairtrade, it's quite clearly that
crops worth exporting grow there, the problem is that the farmers lack
the economic might to negotiate with western buyers.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Editing is a rewording activity.
Mark Kent
>
> On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 17:04:25 +0000, Lobo wrote:
>
>>> So the dirt farmers are going to get ahead by catering to cash
>>>crop demands of the 1st world? That't just plain stupid.
>>
>> No it's not. How much would you charge if *you* were growing bananas.
>> Or sugar. Or coffee. Or...
>
> Or nothing. You fail to grasp a very basic point: if these people *could*
> raise viable cash crops, they would have been doing so, instead of living
> on the brink of starvation for the last umpteen centuries.
They haven't been, in the main. For many of these people, the 'brink of
starvation' is a relatively recent phenomenon. It is timed fairly
closely with the rise of the current 'western' powers, in fact.
>
> Try to grasp this concept: it is not that they don't want to raise such
> crops, it is that they *cannot*.
You need to consider economics - what stops them from being able to do
so. Have you ever met a supermarket buyer? They're interesting people,
but very, very focussed. They care not one jot if a farmer cannot
afford to meet a price, they just go to the next one who can.
When you have a false buyer's market, in this case, the purchasing power
of a major western country, all held in the hands of perhaps four
people, one for each major supermarket, then how do you think a small
farmer can negotiate? The answer is that he cannot.
Fairtrade has provided an alternative route for such farmers where they
can sell their crops in such a way that they can /share/ the margin,
rather than the margin all being taken by the supermarket.
If you look at supermarket margins at all, you'll see why this is so.
It's just basic economics - nothing to do with the location of farmers -
we see the same problems arising here, in the UK, with the /same/
supermarkets, too. Many farms are going out of business as they cannot
afford to supply the supermarkets. The food is increasingly imported,
at even /lower/ rates, so we, in the west, eat the food grown in the
poor countries, paid for at a price which ensures that the poor country
farmers cannot possible escape poverty.
>
> While you're at it, try to grasp this one: helping them do so doesn't
> actually help them. They need food crops first, to feed themselves, but
> all that means is they can now support a larger subsistence population.
Doh! They need /cash/ crops, in order that they can buy what they need.
And the need to be paid a fair price for them. To be honest, we'll
probably, as a matter of economic inevitability, see the rise of large
cooperatives of farms, as has happened here in the past, for the same
reasons. Capitalism is totally greedy and totally without conscience,
so that if one set of farmers is driven to starvation, the buyers will
merely seek others in another country.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Mark Kent
Lobo <n...@here.com> espoused:
It does need people to have a basic understanding of economics, though.
It would be useful for some of our regulars to study the reality of
supply chains and margin, and to see how monopolies form and the impact
they have on margin, markets, and supply chains.
Unfortunately, in the US, this whole area has become as politicised as
science, so there is little real understanding of it, any more than
there is understanding of things like global warming. Naturally, this
serves the major interests there very well.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Lobo
wrote:
A study of the history of international trade between the first world
and the third world countries would show how trade has been
overwhelmingly slanted in favour of the multinationals from the first
world.
The multinationals are primarily concerned with the "bottom line" -
ie. profit for the shareholders. Their modus operandi is to sell for
as high a price as possible, obtain raw materials as cheap as possible
and pay the least wages to produce their goods as possible.
But, an interesting change is occurring. What they used to do in
second and third world countries, they are now doing in the first
world. This is the effect of the current push for *open* trade. (Not
to be confused with *fair* trade.)
>Unfortunately, in the US, this whole area has become as politicised as
>science, so there is little real understanding of it, any more than
>there is understanding of things like global warming. Naturally, this
>serves the major interests there very well.
The average American worker is beginning to feel the effects of this.
Multinationals pay allegiance to no country when it comes to making a
profit. I hope the Americans have got their wake-up call by now but
the spin I see going on within their government is making me dizzy.
As a close neighbour of the US with full access to their media, I can
state that their coverage of world events is woefully inadequate. It
usually consists of 3-5 minute "sound bites". Most of their media is
self-focused on the US.
One of the best media marketing tools I've seen in the US used for
squashing debate is the slogan "If you're not with us, you are against
us" and Bush's more recent incarnation "If you are not with us, you
are with the terrorists". (Too bad that Tony led you guys down the
garden path with that one.)
Very few Americans have heard the truth of their government's
involvement in the Americas as the regular news media was hoodwinked
for propaganda purposes for many years.
They do not have easy access, as we do, to the BBC, CBC (Canadian
Broadcasting Corp), ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corp), the Canadian
History Channel, as well as other non-aligned independent media
outlets such as TVO (TV Ontario) and those in France and Germany.
A recent example from the UK:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4861320.stm
....
Analysis: How the US 'lost' Latin America
As the BBC begins a special series on Latin America, Newsnight
presenter Gavin Esler gives his view on the region's leftward trend
and its changing relationship with the US.
There is trouble ahead for Uncle Sam in his own backyard. Big trouble.
....
In pursuit of American interests, the US has overthrown or undermined
around 40 Latin American governments in the 20th Century.
.....
Here's one from Canada currently being shown on TVO:
http://www.blackcoffeemovie.com/thefilms.html
....
Throughout the series BLACK COFFEE we explore the powerful themes
that run through coffee's history:
1) colonialism and injustice,
2) community and social bonding,
3) revolution,
4) environmental degradation, and
5) international business and politics.
.....
Lobo
<war...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 13:27:47 GMT,
> Lobo <n...@here.com> wrote:
<snip>
>> Not any more for about 11,000,000 people. Another 90,000,000 and the
>> States will be even for 100 years of using military and political
>> power in Central and South America in the service of the
>> multinationals to become rich.
>>
>
>WTF does this mean? it makes no sense to me. Can you restate?
The US (and other Western powers) have been meddling in Central and
South America's affairs in the service of the (mostly) American
multinationals. This has caused many thousands of deaths and worsening
living conditions for the poor in the name of unchecked capitalism.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4861320.stm
....
Analysis: How the US 'lost' Latin America
As the BBC begins a special series on Latin America, Newsnight
presenter Gavin Esler gives his view on the region's leftward trend
and its changing relationship with the US.
There is trouble ahead for Uncle Sam in his own backyard. Big trouble.
....
In pursuit of American interests, the US has overthrown or undermined
around 40 Latin American governments in the 20th Century.
.....
There are more checks on capitalism in the US (although this is
lessoning at a phenomenal rate recently). Can you imagine the uproar
in the United States if their water supplies would be privatized?
Well, that's what the WTO and IMF (completely controlled by
multinationals with their control over governments) tried to do.
http://www.democracyctr.org/bechtel/the_water_war.htm
BOLIVIA’S WAR OVER WATER
This memory of horrific abuse and the theft of wealth across the sea
was not lost on the Bolivian soul when, in the 1980s and 1990s, the
World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) decided to make
Bolivia a laboratory for their own modern experiments in global
economics. Using the contemporary tools of economic power –
holding up loans, aid, and debt relief – the Bank and IMF influenced
and outright coerced the Bolivian government into selling or leasing
its public enterprises into corporate hands. One by one the Bolivian
government sold or leased off the national airline, the railroad, and
the electric company, often with disastrous results. The Chilean
purchaser of the railroad dismantled it for parts and shut it down.
....
Mark Kent
There's a viewpoint that unencumbered capitalism will solve the world's
ills. Unfortunately, all the evidence shows that strong government is
essential, as capitalism has no conscience.
Wonder what the Bolivians will do now that they have no railway left?
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
VICARIOUSLY experience some reason to LIVE!!
Mark Kent
I don't confuse it at all... The concern I have is balancing the needs
of the people (government) against the needs of business (capitalism).
What's not all that well understood is that the trendy pseudo-economics
pushed by many politicians is often just playing with the lives of the
world's poorest. I'm not in any way anti-capitalist, but I equally find
the idea of a world run by a few multi-nationals fills me with
revulsion. What? Oh? It's happening now..?
>
>>Unfortunately, in the US, this whole area has become as politicised as
>>science, so there is little real understanding of it, any more than
>>there is understanding of things like global warming. Naturally, this
>>serves the major interests there very well.
>
> The average American worker is beginning to feel the effects of this.
> Multinationals pay allegiance to no country when it comes to making a
> profit. I hope the Americans have got their wake-up call by now but
> the spin I see going on within their government is making me dizzy.
It's been quite interesting to see the anti-Indian racism springing up
here recently. Multinationals care about themselves, which is
absolutely fine, of course, but they shouldn't be expected to be the
world's conscience, as they'll fail at that.
>
> As a close neighbour of the US with full access to their media, I can
> state that their coverage of world events is woefully inadequate. It
> usually consists of 3-5 minute "sound bites". Most of their media is
> self-focused on the US.
I've travelled to the US loads, and even more to Canada, so am familiar
with what is presented in the media there. We also get fox, cnn,
msnbc/cnbc and so on here as well, so we can do a direct comparison.
>
> One of the best media marketing tools I've seen in the US used for
> squashing debate is the slogan "If you're not with us, you are against
> us" and Bush's more recent incarnation "If you are not with us, you
> are with the terrorists". (Too bad that Tony led you guys down the
> garden path with that one.)
Tony had little support for this, indeed, there were huge demonstrations
across London against this war. It's never been backed, /but/, as there
has been no viable opposition, he's got away with it (at least, so far).
>
> Very few Americans have heard the truth of their government's
> involvement in the Americas as the regular news media was hoodwinked
> for propaganda purposes for many years.
>
> They do not have easy access, as we do, to the BBC, CBC (Canadian
> Broadcasting Corp), ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corp), the Canadian
> History Channel, as well as other non-aligned independent media
> outlets such as TVO (TV Ontario) and those in France and Germany.
We don't get ABC here, although I can get Radio Australia on the radio
(obviously :-)
>
> A recent example from the UK:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4861320.stm
> ....
> Analysis: How the US 'lost' Latin America
>
> As the BBC begins a special series on Latin America, Newsnight
> presenter Gavin Esler gives his view on the region's leftward trend
> and its changing relationship with the US.
>
> There is trouble ahead for Uncle Sam in his own backyard. Big trouble.
> ....
> In pursuit of American interests, the US has overthrown or undermined
> around 40 Latin American governments in the 20th Century.
> .....
>
> Here's one from Canada currently being shown on TVO:
>
> http://www.blackcoffeemovie.com/thefilms.html
> ....
> Throughout the series BLACK COFFEE we explore the powerful themes
> that run through coffee's history:
> 1) colonialism and injustice,
> 2) community and social bonding,
> 3) revolution,
> 4) environmental degradation, and
> 5) international business and politics.
> .....
We have a legal requirement here for television broadcasters to present
'balanced' views. This means that if any story is covered, then there
must be at least two opposing views presented. For mainstream news and
detailed news analysis, it's usually done on the spot, although often
one of the parties does decline, but the BBC will always indicate that
this occurred. For very detailed documentaries, then they might cover
different views in different programmes, but the overall coverage has to
be balanced.
I see a lot of complaints about the BBC, but I've spent enough time
elsewhere to appreciate just how good they are :-)
Picked up an excellent CBC radio production of Midsummer Night's Dream
last christmas in Canada, btw - took a bit of finding - but got it in
the end...
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |