I've noticed a common trend throughout these world issues threads: they all cause senseless arguments. Now is the time when the world needs UNITY, and we sit here squabbling with each other over issues that will turn irrelevant in the end. I don't care what you say about this, but it had to be said.
With peace the world will suffer. The world will be far more over-populated therefore everyone would start starving from lack of food when the world keeps reproducing humans.
Wars account for a tiny proportion of the world death rate. You can thank poverty for that.
As an aside, we have the resources to sustain the entire world population. It's just problems with efficiency of distribution and disparity that prevents it from occuring.
With peace the world will suffer. The world will be far more over-populated therefore everyone would start starving from lack of food when the world keeps reproducing humans.
Starvation is the natural method of population control. If there is no war and humans are starving, our species is successful
Wars will never end.
Bullshit.
Chinas 1-child rule. We could enforce it.
The one child rule doesn't work. Male children are preferred under this rule causing a disparity in the male:female ratio of children.
It's just problems with efficiency of distribution and disparity that prevents it from occuring.
Problems cause by CAPITALISM.
Just thought I'd throw that out there
Feeding the Sudanese isn't profitable at the moment.
Capitalsm is a recipriocal system, so that statement's not completely without merit. However I think it's important to take into account that there definitely are the resources to feed the world, and not that it isn't proftable, but as a system, the world economy is actually quite allocatively inefficient. For al Friedman or Hayek would claim, the market mechanism is certainly not totally reliable.
The implications of this are that resource allocation should be improved by government intervention, but that's not leading onto socialism either, which subsidises food prices to keep them low for the people, which in turn discourages farmers, kind of defeating the point, ie., to feed the world populus.
Despite the fact there would not be 'wars' in the technical sense, there would be no end to social conflict. Without any governments to provide security for their citizenry, I think it's pretty safe to say levels of violence would increase. If the factor of nationality was eliminated people would find other reasons to kill each other.
China has problems taking care of its elderly because they don't have enough youngerly (yes I just said youngerly ) to care for them properly. And China's population won't start to decrease until the year 2048 anyway at the current rate.
Most of Eastern Europe's population is decreasing which is something that many Americans don't know. In Africa you have to have 13 children because 11 of them will die of aids and 1 will get eaten by a tiger. Canada's population is only maintained by immigration because the average Canadian family has less than 2 children.
