by OLD1953 » Wed Nov 24, 2010 12:49 pm
Hi John,
I think perhaps we've got a bit of noise in the comm channel, at least where I'm concerned, because I certainly believe many wars have started over food, historically. The Vikings raided for food and money to buy food. Russia has been aggressive forever, because their weather is dreadful and you cannot get reliable harvests in Russia, year over year. Of course many wars start over food or things that lead to possession of food, trade routes and so forth. (I've always wondered about the Children's Crusade, and whether they were marching, at least in part, because of lack of food at home.)
Currently, North Korea is attacking South Korea and it's pretty obvious, they want another bribe of food and fuel to make them stop.
And several other nations moving towards war now are short of food. It's very likely WWIII will break out in Asia, which is a rather small area to be supporting over half the humans on Earth, nearly four billions. Of course they have food problems.
So I've no problem with the statement that many wars begin due to food pressures, though I'd argue about "all wars". Europe certainly had internal wars after the black death cut back the population, and they were able to support a larger population just decades earlier. True, their food production declined because the number of farmers available declined, but the potential was still there.
My objection to your invocations of Malthus spring from other reasons. Firstly, Malthus said that all societies would reproduce to starvations edge. This is not the case in the modern world, Malthus cannot explain the birth rate declines in Italy, Japan, etc. Any such decline is flatly contrary to Malthus. Since I know you are aware of this, and even mentioned it in the linked article, you are modifying Malthus and that's my second issue, which is that either you haven't explained the modifications or I haven't understood them.
In any event, the reasons for the population increase in Muslim countries is clear to me, probably because I've spent a good deal of time here (currently in Iraq). The Muslim countries are using their oil money to fund enormous welfare systems, which essentially pay natives to have children. They do not undergo economic hardship from large families to the relative degree (in discussing social conditions, all things are relative to your nearest neighbors) that families in the West do from having large numbers of children.
The very high birthrate in the UAE, for example, is easy to explain. Just read this:
http://emirateseconomist.blogspot.com/2 ... state.html
The impact from large numbers of children is muted or nonexistant in such conditions.
The other reason for high birth rates is high death rates. The higher the death rate rises, the higher the birth rate rises. One might even predict an increase in birth rates in the US as the death rates go up as the baby boomers age. High birth rates in Africa must be balanced against high death rates, and though the population will generally increase over time in such conditions, the birth rates alone are insufficient data to use to estimate the rate of change of population growth.
Took a couple of days thinking this over before I replied, so I think I said what I wanted to say.
Hi John,
I think perhaps we've got a bit of noise in the comm channel, at least where I'm concerned, because I certainly believe many wars have started over food, historically. The Vikings raided for food and money to buy food. Russia has been aggressive forever, because their weather is dreadful and you cannot get reliable harvests in Russia, year over year. Of course many wars start over food or things that lead to possession of food, trade routes and so forth. (I've always wondered about the Children's Crusade, and whether they were marching, at least in part, because of lack of food at home.)
Currently, North Korea is attacking South Korea and it's pretty obvious, they want another bribe of food and fuel to make them stop.
And several other nations moving towards war now are short of food. It's very likely WWIII will break out in Asia, which is a rather small area to be supporting over half the humans on Earth, nearly four billions. Of course they have food problems.
So I've no problem with the statement that many wars begin due to food pressures, though I'd argue about "all wars". Europe certainly had internal wars after the black death cut back the population, and they were able to support a larger population just decades earlier. True, their food production declined because the number of farmers available declined, but the potential was still there.
My objection to your invocations of Malthus spring from other reasons. Firstly, Malthus said that all societies would reproduce to starvations edge. This is not the case in the modern world, Malthus cannot explain the birth rate declines in Italy, Japan, etc. Any such decline is flatly contrary to Malthus. Since I know you are aware of this, and even mentioned it in the linked article, you are modifying Malthus and that's my second issue, which is that either you haven't explained the modifications or I haven't understood them.
In any event, the reasons for the population increase in Muslim countries is clear to me, probably because I've spent a good deal of time here (currently in Iraq). The Muslim countries are using their oil money to fund enormous welfare systems, which essentially pay natives to have children. They do not undergo economic hardship from large families to the relative degree (in discussing social conditions, all things are relative to your nearest neighbors) that families in the West do from having large numbers of children.
The very high birthrate in the UAE, for example, is easy to explain. Just read this:
http://emirateseconomist.blogspot.com/2007/10/uae-welfare-state.html
The impact from large numbers of children is muted or nonexistant in such conditions.
The other reason for high birth rates is high death rates. The higher the death rate rises, the higher the birth rate rises. One might even predict an increase in birth rates in the US as the death rates go up as the baby boomers age. High birth rates in Africa must be balanced against high death rates, and though the population will generally increase over time in such conditions, the birth rates alone are insufficient data to use to estimate the rate of change of population growth.
Took a couple of days thinking this over before I replied, so I think I said what I wanted to say.