I wonder what you would say if you were that starving child? Would you feel it is best to just die from lack of food because of the long term benefits of doing so?
That's a fallacy. "Free food" does not create more starving children. Whilst some famines are caused by over-population, it is far more likely that they are caused by other factors such as genocide campaigns, civil wars, refugee flows and episodes of extreme violence and state collapse.
Of course, if your solution to the "starving children" problem is to let them die of starvation, then you indeed have a final solution. And what a solution!
I am interested in where you are coming from. Personally, I would hate to look a starving child in the eye and deny them food to keep them alive. I would hate to look their parents in the eye and tell them that because they have four children that they aren't worthwhile keeping alive and they should drop dead from malnutrition.
So I do get it. My question remains the same - what would you say to a starving child? Or their parents as the child lay dying?
Free food almost certainly causes more starving children in any country whose main religion/culture demands "be fruitful and multiply".
> Whilst some famines are caused by over-population, it is far more likely that they are caused by other factors such as genocide campaigns, civil wars, refugee flows and episodes of extreme violence and state collapse.
It's also likely that all those other factors are greatly exacerbated by overpopulation, if not outright caused by it. Jared Diamond's book Collapse makes just that argument for the Rwandan Genocide event. Wikipedia: "Diamond theorized that population pressure was the main cause of the genocide. ... Rwanda's population density in 1990 was 760 people per square mile, one of the highest in the world. The population grew at over 3% a year. By 1985 all the land except the national parks had been cultivated."
> My question remains the same - what would you say to a starving child? Or their parents as the child lay dying?
If I was personally involved then I'd have a hard time not giving aid, even as I was confident I was making the problem worse in the long run. These age-old questions show the reason we insulate our leaders from problems on the ground, the better to allow them to make decisions that do the greatest good.
How do you know that limiting food aid would have the desired effect of limiting population growth? Do you think that people stop having sex just because their children die? I would argue that high population growth is a consequence of excessive mortality rather than the cause. This is evident in the drop in birth rate that tends to accompany development. This has even happened in countries that have traditionally objected to contraception (Italy).
You can search for the article "Why Foreign Aid Is Hurting Africa", which says "Aid is an unmitigated political, economic and humanitarian disaster." I can't prove that aid including its free food form contributes to population growth. I'm confident that it does from my studies.
> This is evident in the drop in birth rate that tends to accompany development.
I would argue that development follows a dropping birth rate, not the other way around. Poor people with 4+ kids can't contribute to development or otherwise improve their future. They're too busy each day focusing on basic survival. Unlike many African countries, Italy solved their cultural/religion problem. Now they largely ignore the Catholic Church on contraceptive issues.
That is fundamentally just misanthropy. Peoples actions are based on free will, and are often logical if you take the time to understand the world from their point of view. A subsistence farmer with no pension scheme has an economic imperative to have lots of children. It is insane to suggest that letting our farmers children die is going to change that. Children are a consequence of sex, not religion or culture. Do you want me to draw you a diagram to explain how it works?
If your diagram can explain away the fact that Utah consistently has the US's highest birth rate, then yes. Children largely are a consequence of religion/culture in many parts of the world. The parents use their free will to do what religion/culture has told them is good to do.
The subsistence farmer who has lots of children to help him dooms his kids. What's insane is enabling farmers to do that by saving their kids and nothing else. Since it's economic the farmer may well have even more kids to do even better economically.
So only those with a religion that does not encourage many children (or those with no religion) should be fed? If so, let's take it further - should we actively go around refusing food to those who want large families?
No one should get free food except temporarily for events that can't be reasonably predicted / planned for. No other conditions need apply. Doing otherwise does more harm than good.
You have pretty much repeated that in every comment of yours in this thread. Hope we all could have a healthy discussion without gross generalizations and prevent Ycombinator HN from turning into another r/atheism.
Including the word "religion" and asserting a position on it via gross generalization is two things. Going through the thread it is just a shame to find you repeat the same mantra (no pun intended) over and over in the every comment without providing a substantial source or proof to back it up. In other words just like a typical discussion you find over at r/atheism.
