[squirrelicus]

Let me give him the benefit of the doubt and suggest he's not talking about direct population control. I think this is reasonable because, well, nobody suggests this.

By giving food and economic aid to African countries (the small portion that actually goes to the people after the dictator filter) we subsidize their birth rate in an unsustainable way. Specifically, if the Western counties that support them have an economic crash, for example, and become no longer able to support them, they'll be left with mouths they can't feed. Mouths they never could feed on their own. It will be a tragic loss of life.

[Nasrudith]

The thing is population growth is sensitive to needs - people reproduce more for their needs whether more farm labor or "social security". Giving people security paradoxically causes people to reproduce less if they can be sure that three survive to adulthood no need to go with eight children unless they have a farm.

Essentially humans are K/r adaptive - if they are risky they go r (quantity). If they are safer they tend to go K quality.

[icebraining]

I agree that the dependence on outside help is dangerous, but I don't see why they could never feed themselves. Africa is still a fertile continent, and it has a much lower population density than Europe or Asia.

[DoreenMichele]

If you want to understand it, read Diet for a small planet. It is famous for being a vegetarian cookbook, but that's only the last half of it. The first half is a political piece about how no country at that time was incapable of feeding its own people -- assuming they stuck to traditional local diets, had peace, etc.

Starvation is often caused by war. It is often essentially a means to beat one side without going to battle.

When aid is sent, it may rot on the docks or be resold to fatten the pockets of local corrupt politicians.

When it gets distributed at all, it is typically Western fare. You now have locals who could afford the traditional local vegetarian diet craving hamburgers and French fries that they can't afford.

When loans are given to developing countries, the need for hard currency to pay it back means locals raise beef to sell to other countries to pay the loans while people go hungry at home.

Etc

And I have just realised this book is part of why I didn't really want a handout while homeless. This book is why I understood I needed earned income of my own, not charity, and how insidious charity can be in destroying your ability to make your own life work.

[icebraining]

Thanks for the suggestion!

[mnm1]

Giving aid to counties essentially guts the local economy. Local businesses cannot compete and therefore the local economy never develops. The people become entirely dependent on outside help even when otherwise they would develop their own economy and self-sustaining systems. When you take that aid away, there is famine and death. Foreign aid is one of the biggest causes of poverty currently but slowly people are starting to realize that giving aid and gutting local economies is much worse than not giving at all. There is an excellent documentary on this on Netflix I think but the name escapes me right now. I think they even convince Bono that what he is doing is causing more harm than good (giving fish rather than teaching how to fish). It definitely is.