Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul M
If they want to give up the vast bulk of their wealth, I'm here, ready to receive it.
|
Yeah but you're not ill are you?
---------- Post added at 21:02 ---------- Previous post was at 20:55 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maggy J
Agreed! If more children survive infancy in the 3rd world because of better healthcare and better disease control then parents maybe persuaded to limit the size of their family.
|
What you mean like they've been persuaded to use condoms to avoid aids over the last 40 years? I'd wager that poverty and hunger are the biggest causes of illness and premature death so what's the point of more children surviving illness unless the causes (direct and indirect) of that illness are addressed?
Having for numerous generations believed that large families are the way to go (for whatever reason) I don't see that attitude changing any time soon, regardless of how many survive childhood. What I do see is a self fulfilling prophecy of population growth creating more demand for food, water and other resources.
Maybe a better approach would be to reward those who don't have large families...