But the world already is over-populated...

By what definition?

__________________

Well, ok, parts are. The first world is pretty ok. America is anyway, you've got plenty of space. Britain's getting pretty full atm. Europe's not too bad, but it's getting worse. Africa goes without saying, as does China and India. And Brazil. Japan's pretty full. Russia's doing ok, but they haven't got a lot of resources to support much larger populations. So, most of the world could do with a few less people for their own good. If by over-population you mean the amount of people we have resources (like food) to support, yeah, we got a long way to go because first world countries like ours swallow up huge amounts of resources that we don't really need. Hence obesity (no offence to anyone). I don't know the figures for UK, but in the US, $18 million a year is spent on pet food and $12 million would provide everyone in the world with a basic diet. The figures in UK can't tell a much different story.

__________________


Don't try and raise me. Who else will tend to the depths?

If Tokyo, Japan isn't crowded, then no where on earth is. It's just a matter of technologically supporting the population and the population itself being hardworking enough to support itself. It's readily apparent in some of the most striking divisions between high density/middle class regions of the world that are strictly divided by a readily apparent line with slums of people living in cardboard boxes. At one point, it was like that in new york city.

What you're talking about is social responsibility and regional capability of handling their population. They are still not overpopulated, the instant a society becomes overpopulated, it dies out right back to not being overpopulated anymore, how could it not? What other definition of overpopulated is there than too populated to sustain itself?
The question's you're asking is who's responsibility is it to provide for the social well being of people who are either unable or unwilling to find and use the methods made available to them for providing for themselves. The truth is, that most of the populations in africa are starving because they rejected social structures and farming techniques that WERE supporting a larger civilization, and they rejected them along with the social constructs that deserved to be rejected. Many of them are trying to return to tribal life rather than embracing advancement. How is it overpopulation when such small communities starve to death while elsewhere in the world massive and dense populations survive, even nearby locations, not just remote distant lands?

No matter what, people still have to CHOOSE to use the methods available to them to survive. And they still have to work hard to produce enough to be valuable to the world.

Every country was like that at one point in time, and no country will every truly get rid of EVERYONE who will not contribute to society. I have watched personal friends who I grew up with.. spend every day of their lives trying to do as little as possible and live off of as much work from anyone else as they could... working one month, bumming the next two, working the next, and so on...

Who should bear the financial burden of a country who hasn't evolved on its own? Should anyone be forced to do that?

__________________

I'm sure if the people starving in Africa knew of a feasible way out they'd take it. Many have family to support. There are people working fourteen hours a day for, if they get lucky, around two bucks. The people that landed them in that situation were the last generation, but this generation still suffers the consequences. It's not just a matter of choice, as you said they could be unwilling or unable. I think if we are to progress as a species we need to stop thinking as seperate countries and start behaving like one race. Which means richer countries have a duty to help those more needy. After all, the people starving on the street aren't to blame for the stupidity of the idiots running their country. Many people have lots to contribute to society, but they don't have the opportunity to do so. How many great musicians, artists, craftsmen, potential leaders have never been discovered because of some pointless massacre or famine? As people in positions of power, and as people who are, to be blunt, hogging stuff the world needs, I think we have some kind of duty to help.

The people in Tokyo don't live in an overcrowded environment because they were fortunate enough to be born in Japan.

__________________


Don't try and raise me. Who else will tend to the depths?

There's no fortune in where you're born, where you're born is what makes/ you/ /who /you/ are.

It's difficult to help /when progress that produces /plants/ that feed and save the lives of millions of people are opposed by opponents of genetic research, and when you have over-emotional and educationally stunted /individuals /crying violently opposing/ clinical/ research/ to/ create relevant medical/ advances that /keep millions alive today because it requires killing rats.

Tokyo is the densest populated space in the world, and they're fine, and it has nothing to do with it being in Japan, it has to do with innovation, productivity, education, dedication, and trade. These are things that literally any country in the world can develop over a period of time.

Point remains, technologically, we can still feed every single human alive on the planet, and the ecosystem hasn't collapsed from our very existence, so we are not overpopulated. The political, social, and economical reasons why some people starve in some parts of the world but not others when we have the ability to feed them, that's a whole other topic.

__________________

On that we agree. But I think this has gone on a bit of a tangent. To get back to the original debate of if we should support people who can't support themselves, or who don't contribute much to society, we'd have to go into morals. And they aren't easy to debate about.

__________________


Don't try and raise me. Who else will tend to the depths?

Like it or not, nations are still competing. It's not like within a 1st world country where by bringing up the well being of even our lowest citizens we are making out country a better place for everyone by making it easier for them to be productive for us. In the world view of one country to another, it's expenditure with no return at all. Quite literally a burden that IS the suffering country's responsibility.

Maybe if there weren't regimes in the world like North Korea that would violently lash out in an attempt to gain the spoils of another country's production, or blackmail the world order with whatever force it could, it wouldn't be as big of a question as to whether or not it should be done, but you're talking about serious burdens of over half the world being laid at the feet of only a few countries as though it is their ethical responsibility, and it isn't. At best what they DO do for those countries is a credit, but what they don't do is not a blemish.

__________________

No, you're right we can't be expected to provide for everyone. I'm just saying we can do a lot more to help than we have been. The Red Cross for example, I think they should be given government funding. But no, we can't take everything on.

__________________


Don't try and raise me. Who else will tend to the depths?