The faces of POTUS

A reader has sent me this image of the presidents of the USA.

POTUS

Advertisements

56 Responses

  1. Magic!

    …or should that be black magic!

  2. A very colourful image…but this “black thing” is wearing very thin in my opinion.

    I see symbolism reigns supreme…enjoy.

  3. Love it. I am very surprised how very low key the black thing has been..as in hush, hush not to be mentioned. But yes, finally Obama had a bit of fun. Re the puppy for the girls (due to allergies/asthma of the eldest) – would love to have a shelter dog but like me they’re mostly mutts. Well said.

  4. Let’s not forget that the majority of ‘white voters’ favoured the McCain/Palin ticket. As for:

    “I see symbolism reigns supreme…enjoy”

    Indeed! Particularly when it applies to white voters. Clearly Obama was the most intelligent of the candidates but he still couldn’t win the white vote. As for Palin, even Hitchens couldn’t stomach her.

    She actually thought that Africa was a country not a Continent. Unbelievable. The US already had a village idiot but the white voters were still prepared to entertain another.

    Talk about white racists being symbolic. A good insight scaper!

  5. Palin is now denying that Nature, and she is saying she is being misrepresented, even her supposed $150.000 clothes buying (and it turns out to be much more than that) was not her but just the campaign giving then to her.

    She and her supporters are desperately attempting to rewrite a history that is only weeks old as they want her running for the next race.

  6. adrianofnowra | November 8, 2008 at 9:01 pm

    “Palin is now denying that”

    Really. As Mandy said:

    “he/she would say that” ( A liberal translation Lol.

    “as they want her running for the next race”

    “They’ – certainly not the hard heads in the GOP.

    The truth is, she will now be under ongoing close scrutiny and the fact is that she doesn’t have the intellectual capacity nor the advisors to survive the next four years.

    It’s now clear that Bush didn’t have that intellectual capacity as well but at least he had Karl. Lol.

    Obama must be ecstatic at the prospect.

  7. Well regardless of the new format, some things never change. I for one am amazed at how obsessed the rest of the world is with race. Here you have a candidate who finally has been able to transcend it and still some refuse to look past it. Let us move on shall we folks, or are we going to go through the same kind of celebration for the 1st Asian, Indian, Native American, Mexican etcetera that reaches the highest office in the US. Really, for those who try to represent themselves as “progressive” many seem stuck in the struggles of the mid 60’s. Obama has moved past race, now why don’t all the guilt ridden “white folks” give it a try! I do find it amusing that even with the election a thing of the past we have some still trying to describe all those that voted for McCain as racist. I guess sexism is acceptable by that logic then. Absolutely asinine but I must admit, feels like old times on this site. Anybody know how Tim is doing with the California “Gay Marriage” vote going the way it did? Appears the high turn out from the African American community were the deciding factor? Quite a paradox if you ask me.

  8. Sparta (and I really mean this) – we are happy that you have found us here at the blogocrats. By having more minds that make us think, we can all learn.

  9. Hello Sparta,

    I’m with Joni: glad you found us and welcome.

    I’m very disappointed with Prop 8 result in California particularly as 70% who voted yes were African-Americans*. One would’ve thought they would be a tad more sensitive to another minority seeking equal rights.

    *I watched the election coverage on MSNBC for about 6 hours the other day. Not being fully conversant with political correctness in the US, I couldn’t help noticing that whites referred to African-Americans as, well, African-Americans while African-Americans only used the term whites. Is that some kind of double-standard?

  10. Hey there Sparta
    I’d also like to say welcome.

  11. Good morning everyone, and welcome sparta…

  12. Good morning Reb

  13. Hi Hex, I’ve just been reading about the discovery of plans for auschwitz and some of the work by people who maintain that it was all a hoax. (I’ve posted the links on the weekend thread).

  14. G’day, Sparta, nice to have you on board, again!

    You would have missed my post earlier this week to remind everyone that the USA AfroAmerican population is 12+% and white is 76%, means an awful lot of whites voted for Obama…

    …we’re not all “guilt ridden”, but some of us have grown up with the history of the ’50’s and ’60’s in our faces…

  15. “that the USA AfroAmerican population is 12+% and white is 76%”

    reminded me of an interesting page I came across this week:

    US white population a minority by 2042: census bureau

  16. Hello Sparta. I concur, it’s wonderful to have you here. I see your point re those who voted for McCain not necessarily being racist. I guess that people who refused to vote for Obama for the sole reason being Obama’s color need to reconcile this within their own consciences.

    However, I do believe that a black man’s elevation to President of the United States is something worth celebrating. I honestly feel that this has happened at least 2 decades sooner than I thought it would happen and when it eventually did, it would be a Morgan Freeman type rather than a young skinny bloke.

    And yes I would celebrate equally should any person from the groups that you mention were elected. Now all that we need is the 1st gay President :))

  17. But min – how do we know that we have not already had the 1st gay president?

    You can hide your sexuality.

  18. “Now all that we need is the 1st gay President”

    There are arguments for that having occurred once or twice including Lincoln himself:

    Was Lincoln Gay?

    If we use Kinsey’s one in ten formula then perhaps there have been four gay/bi presidents.

  19. Another was James Buchanan:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Buchanan#Personal_relationships

    Of course, this is all speculation (or wishful thinking on the part of gay activists).

  20. Here’s another view of the prezs:

  21. Ok joni..any hints.

  22. #15. Sans Blog | November 9, 2008 at 10:05 am

    reminded me of an interesting page I came across this week:

    US white population a minority by 2042: census bureau

    More interesting stat I read somewhere that at sometime in the not too distant future there will be no white populations anywhere because of interracial marriages and other races birthrates being so much higher than whites.

    It’s a boast of the Hispanics in the US they will eventually out breed the whites to insignificance.

  23. “By having more minds that make us think, we can all learn”

    I couldn’t agree more and thanks for the warm welcome folks! Thanks to scaper and Human D for directing me towards the site. I must admit, I was a bit reluctant to post here as I wasn’t sure my rather traditional/old fashioned sensibilities would be welcomed but once again you guys surprise me. The election is over and though I didn’t vote for the winner I must admit, I hardly feel the country will suffer under his leadership. The rhetoric aside, McCain is an honorable man and nothing like GW despite the dire warnings of some. In the end I simply could not vote against a man that has sacrificed more for his country than most of Congress put together. However, Obama is my president now and I can only hope he will lead with the same passion that so moved my fellow countrymen to vote in the numbers they did. I read an article today about an African-American man who now states that he wishes to be known as an American only. If this sentiment becomes widespread and turns out to be the only legacy an Obama presidency leaves behind it will have been more than I ever could have hoped for. Regardless, the future does seem a bit more colorful now, no pun intended!

  24. More interesting stat I read somewhere that at sometime in the not too distant future there will be no white populations anywhere because of interracial marriages and other races birthrates being so much higher than whites. adrianofnowra | November 9, 2008 at 10:55 am

    Hey that’s my family :)) 1st grandie..a little girl to be born sometime in the next 4 weeks is 1/4 Torres Strait Islander.

    I’m not sure that this is the original, but it sounds (from memory) very much like it.
    http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=4HHT_V294Co

  25. “More interesting stat I read somewhere that at sometime in the not too distant future there will be no white populations anywhere because of interracial marriages and other races birthrates being so much higher than whites.

    It’s a boast of the Hispanics in the US they will eventually out breed the whites to insignificance.”

    adrian, I think that Hispanic and other races birthrates will diminish as their health, access to decent contraception, education and wealth improve and they enter middle classdom.
    I think this particularly applies to women who, when given the choice prefer not to be baby production lines. 🙂

    Nice to “see” you again, Sparta.

  26. The Black president thing is important and is symbolic to many African American’s – it shows them that nothing is out of reach for them and levels the playing field. I heard an interview this week with a young bloke from Chicago who actually said that Obama being elected president had made him pull up his pants and wear his belt tighter – if this isn’t symbolic of some greater pride in one’s self as a black man in it’s at least an improvement for fashion.

    That said, had I the opportunity to vote, I wouldn’t have voted for Obama because he was Black or Hilary because she was a woman or McCain because he was a ‘War Hero or was white. I would have voted for Obama because I think he is a smart choice and his policies reasonably sound (or at least more so than McCain). I actually admire McCain as a man but don’t like his policies or the Republican Party’s alignment with the Christian Right. IMO religion plays too large a part in US politics and this then feeds through into their foreign relations as well – why issues like abortion, gay marriage or position on creationism have any role to play in choosing who should be in control of the country, and override factors such as international, economic, health, defence policies is completely beyond me.

  27. Dave55 | November 9, 2008 at 3:05 pm

    Loud applause.

    And as a note to African/Australians..American urban rap does not have to be a role model.

    My thoughts entirely. I have read many inputs about how Palin was made a joke of due to jealousy from the leftie Feminists. Are you girls all jealous of a successful, fabulously attractive woman? I think that it could have been Albrechtsen who even related..cos she’s married to a spunky hugely attractive man (whatever takes your fancy)..has it all. What’s the matter with you, is it just because she is from the right?

    Well yes, that’s it. It’s because she is from the right. How far from missing the point….

    This person is a cheat, a thief (the clothing mega dollars robbed from much needed Republican funds) and not only but also loves to kill and gut threatened species. Nope, not jealous. I just don’t like her. Palin’ into insignificance in my opinion.

  28. For Tom:

    Senator Obama may attempt to reward his support from the trade unions by appointing Andy Stern, of SEIU, as labour secretary. Mr Stern was an early supporter of Senator Obama when other unions backed Hillary Clinton.

    http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24624367-401,00.html

  29. adrian, re my comment @25, I don’t have any stats to back up what I said re high birthrates among Hispanics etc, but once Anglo and other European types joined the middle class, their birthrates seem to have declined. I take as evidence our former treasurer urging us to have one for each person and one (or more) for the country. lol

  30. You raise a good point though Jane and one that the UN has been pushing for a long time now.

    Many people blame the increased global population on the poor breeding like rabbits and some have suggested they should be forcibly chemically sterilised before receiving aid from wealthy nations.

    This overlooks the fact well known to the UN that the high birthrates amongst the poor is a survival mechanism. Too much stuff to go into the limited space here but very basically; 8 kids, half will die before five years old, survivors can work at home (fields/domestics/baby minding) from eight and in the labour force from 10 – 12 earning money for the family. Another two will die before 15/16. Two to three will go onto adulthood. This allows both parents to keep working except for the mother in the relatively short periods she is giving birth.

    The only way, apart from mass sterilisation of the planet, to bring down birthrates is to get rid of poverty, a pogrom the UN has been running for quite a while. The very wealthy because of the costs involved rarely have more than two children and a good proportion only ever have one.

    Another interesting thing to come out of the UN’s fight against poverty as a means of stabilising the world population growth. If the wealthiest 5% of the planet gave up 5% of their wealth to help the poor in meaningful work they could raise the bottom 20% of the world to just above poverty which would stabilise world population growth.

    Also another fact is that a working class that is not poverty stricken tends towards democracy of its own accord, which is why Pakistan is such a big worry at the moment and yet another challenge left to Obama from a failed neocon Bush administration failure.

  31. Dave, he is half black, half white and nothing will change that fact regardless of the BS I read!

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/06/obama-birth.html

  32. Adrian

    The only way, apart from mass sterilisation of the planet, to bring down birthrates is to get rid of poverty, a pogrom the UN has been running for quite a while. The very wealthy because of the costs involved rarely have more than two children and a good proportion only ever have one.

    Research has shown that education, particularly the education of females, is the most effective way to reduce birth rates. Of course education also has many other benefits as well and these are likely to contribute to improved economic conditions.

    The graph in this link is quite starting in showing how the different levels of education of females affects birth rates
    http://www.aag.org/Education/center/cgge-aag%20site/Population/lesson3_page2.html

  33. Well that link you post doesn’t back you up. One poster states he is 50% white, 43.75% Arab, and 6.25% black, unless you are tying in the Arab as black?

    It matters not one iota what the actual mix of his racial heritage is (which is a stupid concept anyway and as I have stated elsewhere at a time in the future everyone will be partially black, Arab or Asian).

    Look at the graphic at the head of this thread and look at every picture and video footage of Obama, do you see a black man or a white man?

  34. I see an American, full stop!!!

    If you see him as black, then that’s your problem.

  35. scaper

    I know that – but he is still dark in colour and most people view him as being black. For many people, him being voted in as POTUS is a powerful symbol of empowerment. If that helps motivate black americans (and latinos, asians etc) to aim higher then I think that is a good thing. Do I think that it means American has gotten over a lot of it’s racism?- who knows – at the end of the day – the vote was about 46% – 52% and we don’t know what the prime motivating factors were in either of those voting figures. What it does show is that a person who appears black and has a black father from Africa, has Hussein as a middle name and a surname similar to a Terrorist can be voted in as POTUS and that does demonstrate that these superficial things are not insurmountable obstacles for a person in the US.

  36. No scaper because if you showed a picture of an unknown Obama to all the world and ask them to describe him there would be very few, in fact probably none, that would say he was half white and half black, almost unanimously they would say they were looking at a black man, and most would say an African black man missing his Arab lineage.

    When the entire world is a light chocolate brown colour as is predicted then people will say they see a nothing more than a person.

  37. Obama will always be blacker under a Liberal Australian government…

  38. reb

    LOL

  39. Jane | November 9, 2008 at 4:15 pm Re high birthrates among Hispanics. It could be a Catholic thing much the same as the warnings of doom ’60’s Australia being taken over by Italians.

    But yes as per 3rd world countries, as women are allowed education, then the birth rate decreases. As infant mortality rates are addressed, so does the birth rate decrease. For example, Australia even to mid last century…have 6 children knowing that at least 2 will not survive babyhood, that another 2 might succumb (and didn’t hubby and I have problems with spelling this one) to diseases such as polio, measles and influenza. And so with a bit of luck you might have 2 children survive to adulthood to help on the farm and to support you in your old age…that’s if you’re lucky.

  40. Gee, Condaleezza Rice is real black if that is what you call it and so is Colon Powell…but I suppose these people are not politicians.

    What about these people?

    http://www.blackrefer.com/politicians.html

  41. adrianofnowra | November 9, 2008 at 5:08 pm Excellent point. Yes…Min pauses for thought. One might be for example 1/10th colored but treated as black due to the color of one’s skin when one is 9/10ths white.

    Hubby is 1/4 Italian (grandpa Coloretti came to Australia circa 1912 and was a Rat of Tobruk) and hubby still gets called a WOG or is mistaken for a Maori.

  42. scaper

    I don’t get your point. For the people posting here I doubt that colour has much of a bearing on their votes or the way they treat others. However, that does not mean that racism doesn’t occur out there and that other people aren’t as colour blind as us. I would think that the vast majority of people of colour or (obviously) different ethnicities to us white folk have experienced at least some racism against them in Australia (for example, I recall Lekhini mentioning an experience only last year that she experienced). For these people, the fact that Obama is black in appearance is VERY important because it means that this racism isn’t so prevalent that it can stop you doing whatever you set your mind to. This (I think) is all that Adrian and the others here are alluding to when we draw attention to the chromatical fact that Obama is black.

    And yes, you are right that black people have been voted into positions of power in the US however you will find that these people represent constituencies with a high percentage of African/Americans or are from the more progressive states. As for Condi and Powell – both are very competent people and were appointed to their positions by Bush (or Rove). Both provide aspirational targets for black Americans but not to the extent of Obama being voted in as POTUS.

  43. My point is that he is just as much anglo saxon as this black thing, and the colour of his skin is a non issue as far as I’m concerned.

    He has even referred to himself as a mongrel.

    Never been into this racial crap!

  44. Fair enough – and I’m of the same view, but there are people who aren’t and for those affected by these prejudiced view, the election of Obama is symbolic. That is the point I have been trying to make. Whether Obama is black white or brindle means SFA to me, as does his religios views (unless the latter starts affecting his broader policies)

  45. Dave, I have a lot of admiration for this man but sense this symbolism as a negative, I could be wrong on this.

  46. adrian @30 & Min @39, yes. In countries where there is very little social security infrastructure, people have to have large families because of high infant mortality and because their male children are their superannuation, which is why it’s so imperative for them to have lots of children, preferably male.
    Min, the RC thing would have a great bearing on the large family deal. But even so, once they move up in the world, so to speak, family sizes decrease. We should be pumping resources into them as fast as we can lick to reduce global population and demands on the poor old planet.

  47. scaper – you may be right on the symbolism thing but I hope not. I don’t even think that Obama sees it as symbolic – historic yes but not necessarily symbolic.

    I do think that Obama will be criticised, like Rudd, for not delivering all the change people hope that his election will bring, and for not bringing it in overnight. Have patience people, change will come but with the US defecit what it is, it may take some time.

  48. Yay! Sparta, welcome.

    I think you’re right about McCain, kudos for his concession speech; it seemed to cut a few uncomfortable party strings for him. Obama would be hard pressed to willfully excel Bush in damaging the US’s reputation abroad more than he has. I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on Palin sparta.

    For me it is naught to do with Obama’s half black/half white ancestry. To be honest, anyone that the quasi-spiritualist Oprah fawns over usually draws my suspicion but Obama is clearly intelligent & seems to comprehend nuance rather than just the law of the jungle. I hope he governs well for you but he will certainly land in a sh!tstorm that would test the best of any man/woman.

    I think the reverse-racism thing is largely now being used as a conservative talking point to blur the magnitude of the repudiation of the last 8 years.
    Much like here, after Howard’s demise, the deposed government (ie the Libs) seem to focus on everything apart from their own obvious arrogance & hubris (which lead to their defeat) rather than soulsearch & correct themselves in the public eye. Much is made of media bias but most people aren’t that easily influenced, surely?
    Bush & Cheney had it coming; baseball bats with nails so to speak.

  49. Min @ 39 Every sperm is sacred.

  50. Hi Sparta, good to see you again.

    I’ve got a sister-in-law in Chicory Hills, Chicago. She tells me the exuberance in Obama’s hometown is unprecedented.

    I notice you’re in McCain’s state of AZ. I gather he’d be popular there. What’s the mood like at the moment?

  51. I cannot for the life of me figure out why people still cling to the notion that we will ever be able to abolish poverty? I have had this discussion before with joni and Tim in the past but I have yet to see any system throughout mankind’s existence that has even come close to abolishing poverty. They too mentioned education as a ladder and after pondering the concept a bit I am persuaded to say it is a step in the right direction. Capitalism has been very successful in bringing people more “stuff” but since the concept of poverty is a Western construct anyway perhaps one should ask how we should define it first before we take on the grand scale of abolishing it? Not too long ago providing the basics was enough now a large percentage of the West’s “impoverished” are obese! I made the analogy before, do you think a tribesman in the heart of the Amazon knows he is impoverished; most likely not until somebody with good intentions comes along and informs him of his standing. When you get down to it, many of my countrymen who consider themselves impoverished have plenty of food on the table or access to it, running water and cable TV for god’s sake. What more do we need?The problem is they see that guy who has more “stuff” and they feel they have somehow been cheated or that there is some conspiracy preventing them from attaining the same amount of “stuff”.

    In the 3rd world, yes basic sustenance is an issue but simply throwing food and money at that situation lends itself to more suffering as we now see taking place on a regular basis in Africa. Many of world’s most impoverished nations cling to 15th century social structures that our modern Western constructs like poverty, simply do not apply too. Throughout mankind’s history when populations out grew their resources we migrated to new fertile lands but there simply isn’t any balance now. Firstly, there are no new lands to migrate to. True, the number of children birthed has historically been a tool in which families improved their odds of survival but this is a tool applicable to egalitarian societies of old and even then we had those that lived better because of what they could provide that other’s couldn’t. The Chief ate better than the rest because he knew how to keep them all fed. What is the point in having more children today if you can’t feed them or yourself without aide from the West? No jobs, no lands to tend, tell me what since it makes? I simply don’t believe many women are still having children for such reasons but that their social structures forbid any forms of birth control or the ability to say no! Nobody benefits, except maybe Angelina Jolie or Madonna and the fortunate child. Why give your child away if you had them as a survival mechanism to begin with? It is a convenient delusion to say that those in the 3rd world are breeding simply as a survival mechanism but human instinct needs no reason. In any of these regions you will find thousands willing to give their children away for a price or for the promise they will be cared for so let’s get past the land of OZ folks.

    If we are going to continue to delude ourselves and drop scarce aide, further compounding the growing suffering, into an ever growing global populous without expecting any accountability then we will only continue to create more starving children. Providing a “depot shot” as a condition in which to receive the aide to feed the family already there is hardly draconian. It is just common sense and would go a lot further in a short time to at least controlling the “root problem” instead of compounding it. Throwing resources at the “symptoms” when we know what the “disease” is, is not only incompetent it is criminal in itself. How does the saying go, “Give a man a fish and feed him for a day, teach him how to fish and feed him for a lifetime”? Well unfortunately at this rate teaching will even soon be useless if we no longer have fish to catch!

  52. You make a couple of wrong assumptions there Sparta.

    First you equate obesity as a sign of not being impoverished when in a lot of cases it is a sign of poverty being the direct result of people only being able to afford fat saturated cheap junk food. Healthy food is mostly costly so it is not surprising that the wealthier a person is the better they eat and exercise and the healthier they are.

    Your second point is in using Amazon tribesmen when they aren’t even used in the equation of poverty. A healthy tribe eking out a living and having done so for thousands of years is not factored into the poverty line. On the other hand an Amazon tribe that has had its habitat destroyed and now ekes out a living on a pittance wage working for a large multinational company is counted as impoverished.

    The breeding for survival is a well established long known fact and not a convenient delusion as you put it. The parents give away a child for financial or food gain because they know they can produce another in a relatively short time. Children to them a are a renewable resource and the historical reasons you give for having lots of children have not gone away in this day and age.

  53. Adrian,

    Well again, exactly how we define poverty is something that needs to be redefined in itself. Would those starving in other parts of the world be better off or worse off with a Burger King around the corner and a minimum wage job from an evil corporation? Besides, one does not become obese from a poor diet alone as a sedentary lifestyle is the biggest contributor to the pathogenicity; must be nice to be impoverished in the West, comparatively speaking. You’re telling me rice and beans by the pound are more expensive or perhaps just not as convenient in the West? I believe most suffering in other parts of the world would be just fine with a super sized meal and a TV, don’t you?

    “the equation of poverty”

    Why do you think that is exactly? Why are we applying such a construct/equation to regions of the world where it also has no bearing and then say it is to blame? It is convenient to use the analogy of a big bad corporation coming in and “destroying” habitat but many regions of the world need no convenience of ghoul or goblin as in many cases it is simply their neighbors who are the actual impediment.

    “The breeding for survival is a well established long known fact and not a convenient delusion as you put it. The parents give away a child for financial or food gain because they know they can produce another in a relatively short time”

    Kind of makes my point don’t you think? The food gain you speak of is in large part being supplied by the West in the form of “food drops” these days so again are we just going to continue the cycle of allowing “breeding for financial gain”? Even Al Gore acknowledges the exponential growth in the human population (a phenomena never before seen in our specie’s existence) is perhaps one of our biggest impediments as a species and for the planet but still many refuse to address the root of the problem and instead blame “poverty”

    “Children to them a are a renewable resource”

    Um, so we should continue to provide the nourishment in which such barbarity can be perpetuated without demanding something different? I would say breeding for survival has become obsolete much like the modern definition of poverty is redefined every 30-40 years.

    It is all well and good to blame “poverty” for the world’s misery but it is merely a distraction and way to avoid addressing reality. It gives our politicians something to feel good about and say they have accomplished something by using tax payer funds to provide global welfare, nothing more. Politically correct for sure but that is all. I and many others (like the UN) simply offer a practical solution to this growing dilemma but many still cling to the failed theories of the past even in the face of reality. What else would you call this if not delusional?

    http://www.nationalgeographic.com/eye/overpopulation/overpopulation.html

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/381827.stm

  54. Adrian,

    Well again Adrian, exactly how we define poverty is something that needs to be redefined in itself. Would those starving in other parts of the world be better off or worse off with a Burger King around the corner and a minimum wage job from an evil corporation? Besides, one does not become obese from a poor diet alone as a sedentary lifestyle is the biggest contributor to the pathogenicity; must be nice to be impoverished in the West, comparatively speaking. You’re telling me rice and beans by the pound are more expensive or perhaps just not as convenient in the West? I believe most suffering in other parts of the world would be just fine with a super sized meal and a TV, don’t you?

    “the equation of poverty”

    Why do you think that is exactly? Why are we applying such a construct/equation to regions of the world where it also has no bearing and then say it is to blame? It is convenient to use the analogy of a big bad corporation coming in and “destroying” habitat but many regions of the world need no convenience of ghoul or goblin as in many cases it is simply their neighbors who are the actual impediment.

    “The breeding for survival is a well established long known fact and not a convenient delusion as you put it. The parents give away a child for financial or food gain because they know they can produce another in a relatively short time”

    Kind of makes my point don’t you think? The food gain you speak of is in large part being supplied by the West in the form of “food drops” these days so again are we just going to continue the cycle of allowing “breeding for financial gain”? Even Al Gore acknowledges the exponential growth in the human population (a phenomena never before seen in our specie’s existence) is perhaps one of our biggest impediments as a species and for the planet but still many refuse to address the root of the problem and instead blame “poverty”

    “Children to them a are a renewable resource”

    Um, so we should continue to provide the nourishment in which such barbarity can be perpetuated without demanding something different? I would say breeding for survival has become obsolete much like the modern definition of poverty is redefined every 30-40 years. Most child birth would be avoided if possible.

    It is all well and good to blame “poverty” for the world’s misery but it is merely a distraction and way to avoid addressing reality. It gives our politicians something to feel good about and say they have accomplished something by using tax payer funds to provide global welfare, nothing more. Politically correct for sure but that is all. I and many others (like the UN) simply offer a practical solution to this growing dilemma but many still cling to the failed theories of the past even in the face of reality. What else would you call this if not delusional?

    http://www.nationalgeographic.com/eye/overpopulation/overpopulation.html

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/381827.stm

  55. OK then the the impoverished in America (which has a lot at the moment) and in all Western countries should also be sterilised along with those in third world countries. No one should get handouts from governments, domestic or international.

    There you go all solved.

    Yet again you say breeding for survival has become obsolescent yet how come rich Western nations on the whole have declining, slow or stagnant birth rates whilst impoverished nations have dramatically increasing birth rates.

  56. “OK then the the impoverished in America (which has a lot at the moment) and in all Western countries should also be sterilised along with those in third world countries. No one should get handouts from governments, domestic or international.There you go all solved.”

    I am not sure why you keep pushing the sterilization thing? Suggesting or initiating birth control campaigns is hardly sterilization Adrian. It would certainly go much further in the short and long term in stemming the suffering that massive unsustainable growth has caused.

    “Yet again you say breeding for survival has become obsolescent yet how come rich Western nations on the whole have declining, slow or stagnant birth rates whilst impoverished nations have dramatically increasing birth rates.”

    Did you read any of the BBC stuff? It is hardly just my feelings on the matter. Well since I obviously failed in getting my point across, my apologies, it is becoming obvious that the 95% of human growth that is taking place in the 3rd world is due in large part to the massive aide campaigns in the form of medicines and food. The global welfare phenomenon really took off in the 1960’s and also coincides with massive population increases in the 3rd world. No I am not saying as human beings we let fellow humans suffer but we are inadvertently creating much of the harm through are good intentions. When the sustenance we provide just goes to creating another child that will grow up impoverished and suffering; only to eventually bring kids of their own into the same misery, seems fairly obvious.

    In the West our birth rates decline due to: individuals having less kids, no kids and widely available access to birth control measures (contraception, abortion, “the pill”). Do you really think some mother in a refugee camp in Zimbabwe is looking to have more children out of a survival mechanism when she can barely feed the 3 she already has, with no father around? No jobs for them, no field to tend? Not to mention, rape is rampant in Africa and women simply have little if any rights or ability to say no! Sorry, if I give me fellow human in the 3rd world more credit. A simple non-invasive shot into the buttocks brings down the risk of bringing more suffering into world by 99% for 3 months per woman. It gives women some semblance of empowerment where currently they don’t have any. We could spend a fraction of the current amount that goes into perpetuating the current crisis and actually see a benefit to all. Imagine that?

    Put it this way Adrian, you will never abolish poverty. There will always be those who are more valued for a skill, talent etcetera in society than others and inadvertently they will always have more stuff. In turn you will always have people that feel they are owed “stuff” because of their lot in life. Socialism is dead (even socialism had haves and have not’s!) and Capitalism is not without its flaws but it is has proven to be the best system of generating wealth and stability. Perhaps it is time we as humans stop wasting time, treasure and lives on failed theories and rhetoric that sounds humanistic but really produces no results. I put forward a practical measure that is clearly measurable in real terms and you cling to abolishing a bogey man. Even more ironic, we have created mass populations that now flock to our shores for those minimum wage jobs, Burger Kings etcetera only to find out that despite all they now have they are officially classified as “poor” in their new home which only creates a new form of discontent. Before it was just about attaining a meal etcetera and suddenly a refugee from the Sudan feels he should own a 300,000 dollar house and big screen. Rather ironic wouldn’t you say?

    So I would be interested in hearing your arguments as to why my theory isn’t sound and yours is? Nice to debate with you again by the way!

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: