I hope so. And better yet, it doesn't require a bone marrow donation from a genetically resistant donor.

Good. Now it is long past time to find a cure for the Herp.

Oh. I fear I've said too much.

AdolfOliverPanties: Good. Now it is long past time to find a cure for the Herp.

Oh. I fear I've said too much.

Still no cure for the Derp.

Sid_6.7: AdolfOliverPanties: Good. Now it is long past time to find a cure for the Herp.

Oh. I fear I've said too much.

Still no cure for the Derp.

There will never be a cure for the Derp. Or the Hurrr that often precedes it.

Would be a good thing. Africa could really use it...

hubiestubert: Would be a good thing. Africa could really use it...

I hate to say it, but no it doesn't. Pop problem is bad enough.

Its a good thing we live in a country that will makes sure all of it's HIV positive citizens will be able to afford the treatment.

It would be sad to live in one of those countries that would let you die because you were poor.

Just in time to save Magic Johnson.

I'm sure somehow the right wing will be offended by this too.

GAT_00: hubiestubert: Would be a good thing. Africa could really use it...

I hate to say it, but no it doesn't. Pop problem is bad enough.


But you said it anyway, huh? How miserable you must be then, you poor dear. We all feel for you.

DrBenway: GAT_00: hubiestubert: Would be a good thing. Africa could really use it...

I hate to say it, but no it doesn't. Pop problem is bad enough.

But you said it anyway, huh? How miserable you must be then, you poor dear. We all feel for you.

It's not a nice solution, but it is a problem. Without AIDS, it would just be higher. There are problems in the world where the unacceptable solution isn't always wrong. Haiti is a good one for that. The country has no industry, no money, no ability to build anything, and absolutely no cropland. All their soil has washed out to sea, and tropical soils can't grow crops, not more than 3 years after you cut down the rainforest on it. The country has absolutely zero future. It's an impossible fix without abandoning it for a century or so to let a forest at least start to grow back. So your options are to keep barely helping them and leave them at permanent subsistence level begging for UN food to live another day, move everyone off the island, or just let them die. The smarter options are 2 and 3. We've chosen 1.

So I guess Harmony Korine has to get crackin' on KIDS II.

GAT_00: DrBenway: GAT_00: hubiestubert: Would be a good thing. Africa could really use it...

I hate to say it, but no it doesn't. Pop problem is bad enough.

But you said it anyway, huh? How miserable you must be then, you poor dear. We all feel for you.

It's not a nice solution, but it is a problem. Without AIDS, it would just be higher. There are problems in the world where the unacceptable solution isn't always wrong. Haiti is a good one for that. The country has no industry, no money, no ability to build anything, and absolutely no cropland. All their soil has washed out to sea, and tropical soils can't grow crops, not more than 3 years after you cut down the rainforest on it. The country has absolutely zero future. It's an impossible fix without abandoning it for a century or so to let a forest at least start to grow back. So your options are to keep barely helping them and leave them at permanent subsistence level begging for UN food to live another day, move everyone off the island, or just let them die. The smarter options are 2 and 3. We've chosen 1.

So either exile or mass graves? Along with being sickening and dangerous, these ideas are flat out wrong. With Africa, it needs more people, not less, and the growth that comes along with it. With that, birth rates will fall as living standards skyrocket. Its already beginning to happen, with birth rates that have will fall by half, rising agriculture rates, and increased growth.

Link (new window)

With good governance, and help with AIDS, Africa will follow the pattern established in Europe, the US, and later East Asia, without resorting the unprecedented human suffering.

Eurotrip: struct: GAT_00: DrBenway: GAT_00: hubiestubert: Would be a good thing. Africa could really use it...


More people doesn't equal prosperity through economic growth. Besides, limitless growth is a stupid idea. Look how well that's worked for the civilized countries. Too much growth, take a little away and they stagnate and collapse. Africa needs to stabilize its population and then live within the boundaries of their environmental resources.

I don't know if its a stupid idea, its called the Demographic Dividend and is now responsible for the relative rise of China and India to the West, which you call stagnation. The source of stagnation, which is actually going to happen in Europe and is has happened in Japan, is ta disproportion of elderly or young dependents relying on too few in the working age population because of slumping birth rates. Despite the United States current problems, its thought that we won't encounter this, at least to such an extent, because our population will keep growing, maxing out at around 2050. And if size really is as bad as you say, how do you explain the huge economic growth rates of the worlds biggest populations?

China - 10.3%
India - 9.7%
US - 2.9% (still slow, but increasing)
Indonesia - 6.1%
Brazil - 7.5%

But you are right, more people doesn't equal more prosperity. Just look at China pre Deng Xiaoping or India during its semi-socialist days before Narashima Rao's economic reforms. There needs to be a combination of government, powerful institutions, and interactions with the international community (yes trade, but negotiated by a sensible rulers). Unfortunately Africa lacks these things in many areas, but its picking up - certainly in places like Ghana, the worlds fastest growing economy, or South Africa which show that Africa can't be thought of as just one place but a mix of wildly different situations and cultures. Besides, if limitless growth is stupid, whats the alternative?

Eurotrip: struct: Eurotrip: struct: GAT_00: DrBenway: GAT_00: hubiestubert: Would be a good thing. Africa could really use it...


More people doesn't equal prosperity through economic growth. Besides, limitless growth is a stupid idea. Look how well that's worked for the civilized countries. Too much growth, take a little away and they stagnate and collapse. Africa needs to stabilize its population and then live within the boundaries of their environmental resources.

I don't know if its a stupid idea, its called the Demographic Dividend and is now responsible for the relative rise of China and India to the West, which you call stagnation. The source of stagnation, which is actually going to happen in Europe and is has happened in Japan, is ta disproportion of elderly or young dependents relying on too few in the working age population because of slumping birth rates. Despite the United States current problems, its thought that we won't encounter this, at least to such an extent, because our population will keep growing, maxing out at around 2050. And if size really is as bad as you say, how do you explain the huge economic growth rates of the worlds biggest populations?

China - 10.3%
India - 9.7%
US - 2.9% (still slow, but increasing)
Indonesia - 6.1%
Brazil - 7.5%

But you are right, more people doesn't equal more prosperity. Just look at China pre Deng Xiaoping or India during its semi-socialist days before Narashima Rao's economic reforms. There needs to be a combination of government, powerful institutions, and interactions with the international community (yes trade, but negotiated by a sensible rulers). Unfortunately Africa lacks these things in many areas, but its picking up - certainly in places like Ghana, the worlds fastest growing economy, or South Africa which show that Africa can't be thought of as just one place but a mix of wildly different situations and cultures. Besides, if limitless growth is stupid, whats the alternative?

I really appreciate the thought-out answer instead of some assy dismissal, it's rare on nonfark sites. I guess the alternative to limitless growth is sustainable populations. The way the environment is strained these days, what with corporations rushing to see who can turn mountaintops/forests into soda bottles the fastest, I have a hard time envisioning enough time remaining for the various countries to naturally slow their birthrate as they hit prosperity/women's education/etc. Maybe if we had another couple hundred years for the world census to hit a smooth 12 billion or so before it starts to (hopefully) creep down. But I don't think we have that long before the all the easy resources are gone and the rest are polluted. Maybe if we had some superaids that only affected our elderly, that would take care of the problem.

I agree, I think timelines of these changes are key, and we will reach a tipping point where it goes one way or another. We're entering (or in) the anthropocene, where the main driver of climate change is human activity and it will present huge challenges and resource strains. The rich world now emits the lion share, population growth in the poor world has comparatively little effect,so they have room to grow, but how long will that last?I didn't mean to sound that populations are unimportant, they definately are, but the best way to limit population size is falling birth rates, mainly associated with having an economy where women can work and where they have more rights. Its hugely important that the world gets it right.