The United states gives birth to appr. 4 million babies each year since the 90's. "As of 2007, the average birth rate for the whole world is 20.3 per year per 1000 total population, which for a world population of 6.6 billion comes to 134 million babies per year." Approximately 62 million people die each year. We all know where most of the people are born, and we know western countries bear less children than the third world countries due to same reasons why sexual diseases spread, and due to of course, cultural differences. Same places around the world are the heeps of the death toll too.
In a country like mine, the people are ageing. We're basically becoming extinct if we continue like this. The people rather build a career than a family. A lot of children were born after the war, and they're currently dropping like dead leaves. Basically in everyway, we're encouraged to breed. To provide the country with homebrew workers that'll make sure Finland stays the way it has been. Others point out the need of taking in immigrants more than what we do (which is very few), to make up the loss of population.
But as a globally orianted person as I am, I can't help but thinking all the overcrowding that is going on. And about how seflish it would seem to bring a child to this world. And this really puts me down, because locally, or nationally this would be a blessing, kind of, but globally, we'd be doing nothing good but bringing more mouths to feed, more resources directed to this place of ours and more wearing off the planet. Someone once told me there's no act that's more selfish than wanting to have a baby of your own, when the world's full of those you could take as your own and help, those a bit less fortunate.
Though is the world actually giving back at us at this point? Over the past few years we've seen some heeps in the rates that indicate death. We had the Boxing day tsunami -04, which we all remember for taking care of 350 000 people. We had the New Orleans tornado a few years back, though it only killed ~1,5 thousand people it did wake some people up. Now I guess everyone's read about the happenings in Myanmar that have taken the lives of around 100 000 people so far, increasing. I thought this was worth considering but couldn't borther. Not until I heard about the earthquake in China which in 2 days has exceeded to killing tens of thousands of people. http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/0,1518,552782,00.html http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/0,1518,552839,00.html . Sorry about the language, I only read German news nowadays.
Then...
Everyday I see families pass me by on the street. Women carrying tiny babies in their hands and people smiling. It's spring I know. My sister is 23 and everyone keeps teasing her with the idea of having children, and she told me she hates the idea of having babyfever at this point, as she's one of those career oriented people. My brother's girlfriend has babyfever too. We tested it out, asked her if she would love to hold a baby in her hands for a while or to have one around. She was not as against this idea as my brother would have hoped, though I hope they're not getting one soon. Damn, I think I'm having one too. Though it's not the same here. I just feel, that during the winter I feel like strangling all the crying infants in the bus, while at this point they all just seem like cute little things running around and playing. What could be more perfect? Well, we're not having a baby just yet, my girlfriend doesn't want to stretch her.. well, you know, stomach. But the feeling is in the air. The pressure is in the air.
The pressure actually comes from two poles. First of all, the country needs us, but then, the world really doesn't. Or is it really so, that the world has decided to take back the births in Europe by killing some unfortunate? Because almost 200 000 casualties for the first 4 months of 2008 are quite a lot, and I don't see this number going down any time soon. We're basically killing ourselves with our politics and habits. The thing is just, we're killing everything off at the same time. You might think blowing yourself off would be all ok, but the rest that dies along might disagree. But having a baby and bringing it to this world? A lot of people think about it right now, as spring is clearly the season when most babies are put into making. I know love can cover up for the lack of global solidarity, but what about the feelings before having a baby? Should they be as contradictory as they are, and should it really be considered as selfish as it is at the moment? And is it just local nationalists speaking when they're saying countries like Finland need to have more babies of their own? Also, do you believe the world will cope as it is trying? Like a body defending against a virus that's taking over it.
Tuomas, it should never be thought of as selfish to have a baby. I understand your conflicting thoughts but you should never think of your offspring as digits.
There are babies being brought into this world by people with no access to birth control. There are some women who have babies to receive a bigger welfare check. It's a sad fact. But your baby is one that will have access to education and resources that could help this world. He/she wouldn't be a burden on anybody (except maybe you at 3 in the morning ) :)
You're in a healthy relationship. My parents didn't even have one of those. Have a baby. Why not? The last thing the human race needs is *exclusively* unwanted babies of unprepared parents.
These are just estimates based on census data/past figures, but the results are pretty sobering. Especially check the counter by day where it registers over twice as many births as deaths, which is a sign of a global overpopulation trend.
http://www.poodwaddle.com/clocks2.htm
My wife is due to give birth to our first baby this July. She has wanted a baby since she was 13. Some people want to be astronauts, some famous game designers, my wife wants to be a mother, and now she is very close to seeing her wildest dream come true.
The decision to have children was a no-brainer for my wife, but I wasn't so sure at first. I tend to weigh the situation before making a decision like that, and after a lot of thought, I decided I wasn't getting any younger, and I was ready to be a father. We began trying, and by the next month, we discovered that we were going to be parents.
In making this decision, we didn't factor in global population. We didn't worry about children without parents, or couples unable to have children. Our decision was based solely on our own desire to procreate, and whether we had the resources in order to raise a child. There is nothing more natural than wanting to pass on your own blood. It's ingrained into our very being, and it's stronger than concerns over global population.
It's a boy, and we're naming him Lucas. Add one digit to the population count.
Feel lucky that your parents didn' t had the same ideas than you...
Most people who claim that having a baby is selfish seem to come into two categories:
1. People without kids who don't like that their taxes pay benefits to families with children
2. People without kids who are being pressured into having a baby by their partner
There does seem to be a noticable lack of people saying having a baby is selfish in this category:
3. People who have actually themselves adopted children
Draw your own conclusions...
The thing about overpopulation is that it would also be a disaster if the birth rate became too low. There's no chance of that occurring any time soon, globally, but I don't think anyone really thinks it is a good idea for there to be zero births. See the movie "Children of Men" for that scenario!
I think the funniest thing about this argument is about how pro-lifers say that "over 10 million people die every year through abortions" like it's a bad thing. And then you realise, if it weren't for abortions the whole world would be packed.
Anyway, the thing that really pisses me off is when privileged, upper-middle-class white people (specifically Americans with their SUVs and food courts) bitch about how bad they've got it with rising gas prices, and illegal immigrants, and over-population. I don't know if any of you have been to Africa, but those ads on T.V. are true. They are actually out there, and are actually starving to death on a daily basis.
People don't realise this. They think they do, but they don't. It's not like when you skip breakfast because you're running late and then your stomach is grumbling by lunchtime. These people are dying.
It's actually terrible. There are these pencil-thin kids everywhere, and they follow around white people the whole day, just hoping that you'll feel sorry and share your lunch with them. There were a couple times on that trip I nearly cried...
Hi Tuomas,
My wife had two kids (boy and girl) when we decided to have another one.
We thought about all those things you mentioned, money, work, it's only normal and couples should think before taking that important step.
One thing we never thought was global population!
Think about it, as we speak (or write) kids in Africa are dying. It's a fact.
Now, if you really care about it, and have no strings attached to you (kids, family in need) why don't you join the Red Cross? Or any other organizations that help those situations?
When you want a child, you want him to be better than you. And that means progress and evolution.
Also, when you have a child, all things that confuse your brain become clear. You find your ultimate goal. Your quest starts the day your child is born.
The Quest of Life.
Emerald: I posted the same time you did, but I guess both posts get related :)
Quote from: Emerald on Tue 13/05/2008 11:22:53
I think the funniest thing about this argument is about how pro-lifers say that "over 10 million people die every year through abortions" like it's a bad thing. And then you realise, if it weren't for abortions the whole world would be packed.
You're right. There's nothing funnier than a murdered baby!
And you're so right about killing people helping overpopulation. Why not drop hydrogen bombs on the 100 largest cities in the world, and we can get rid of more than a billion, even better!
Quote from: Emerald on Tue 13/05/2008 11:22:53
Anyway, the thing that really pisses me off is when privileged, upper-middle-class white people (specifically Americans with their SUVs and food courts) bitch about how bad they've got it with rising gas prices, and illegal immigrants, and over-population. I don't know if any of you have been to Africa, but those ads on T.V. are true. They are actually out there, and are actually starving to death on a daily basis.
My friend, that' s a very common way of thinking, since it' s on the international left manifesto, but it has a problem... It's not true. It' s not "Greedy America" or "the Capitalism" or "Colonialism" which has take the third world to where they are. You only need to know a bit of history to realise that the problems of the third world starts just when the colonialism ends, and those countries abandon the protective umbrella of the Colonial contries to become independant, which might have not been a problem itself, but then majoritary become communist dictadures. Just take a glance to those countries' flags and you' ll easily locate lots of stars, hammers and sickles and even a Kalashnikov, as a show of the "new horizons" that those countries took.
Saying that those countries have been "overexploitated" by the first world is quite common, but it's a lie as well, since those countries majority decided to break with any kind of commercial exchange with he first world and align with the USSR. No commercial exchange, no possible overexploitation.
Just take a look to India, Cuba, Iraq (Pre Gulf war, if you want, I don't mind...), Egypt, North Corea, Vietnam and the black Africa Countries. Compare those with Countries which chose to go on being close to the West Countries and accept the laws of free market as Singapur, South Corea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Taipei, Israel and Japan... See the difference?
In Cuba, Palestine, Zaire, people does not have hungry because "America is Evil". In those countries people is hungry because their leaders, auto-declared "socialists" or "communists" have entered in the list of the 20th biggest fortunes in the world... In North Corea the people dies of famine while his leader has started an armamentistic war that the contry can' t afford... and the list goes on.
Inneficient economical politics is what takes those coutries to the situations and nothing else.
I think EuroAmerican protectionism also makes a difference, Nacho.
Less than 0.5 % compared with the other reason, you must agree...
Oh well, now you said I must...
Oh, come on, I thought you were kidding, you can' t be serious.
Do you really mean that if a governor in, let' s say, Pennsylvania, says that cheaper coal coming from Zaire is not good for the american economy and forces the President to ban it, that' s going to seriously affect Zaire' s economy?
What happens with the other 197 counties of the world? Do you really mean that all the countries from the first world do have a systematic program to ban certain products coming from the third world?
I don' t think so... and "now you said it..." doesn' t work for me, sorry.
Have you gone to a toy store lately? Take a look to the labels. China, India, Bangladesh... When an economy from the third world gets opened to free market the first world happily go there to stablish factories where the workers are less paid than in their original contries (but are still better paid than the average worker of that coutry). Everybody is benefited. Many counties, Polan, Spain, Taiwan, Czech Republic, etc have been benefited of that.
Saying that "The first world does not buy my timber/wool/coal/rice, ergo, I am poor" is silly. No product has been overally banned by "the first world".
Quote from: Nacho on Tue 13/05/2008 12:39:19
My friend, that' s a very common way of thinking, since it' s on the international left manifesto, but it has a problem... It's not true.
That's a very typical Westerner way of looking at things, isn't it? Statistics, economics, and cold hard logic.
"Dude, sure, it sucks, but according to my calculations there's nothing we can do to help. It's
their government's fault."
So, you get to stay all happy and complacent and shit, talking about how unfair the world is while you munch on your bacon double-cheese burger and curly fries.
"What do you want me to do, send all my money to Africa? The government just takes most of it anyway."
So? This isn't about you changing the world with your 5 bucks a month, this is about principles. It's about realising that you're goddamn lucky you don't have to drink out of malaria-infested mucky ponds every day.
America spends enough money on porn each year to run a small country in itself. How fucked up is that? There's no excuses for that sort of inequality...
And Nacho -- what the hell are you talking about "problems start when the colonialism ends"? Most of the first world countries were colonies at some point, including America.
Quote from: Nacho on Tue 13/05/2008 15:05:31
Do you really mean that all the countries from the first world do have a systematic program to ban certain products coming from the third world?
Effectively, yes. Agricultural subsidies and more blatant forms of tarriffs mean that not only do American and European farmers not have to worry about cheaper foreign imports, but if they have a surplus, it gets dumped on the world market and destroys the price that third world countries can get for it. It's not a ban: if you really want to import very expensive stuff from the other side of the world you can, but who would want to?
Quote from: Nacho on Tue 13/05/2008 15:05:31
Do you really mean that if a governor in, let' s say, Pennsylvania, says that cheaper coal coming from Zaire is not good for the american economy and forces the President to ban it, that' s going to seriously affect Zaire' s economy?
The point of exploitation here is taking advantage of the price, whereas it would be more than justified for them to pay the full market value as we go down that road. Of course changing the provider to another won't help, the truth is, that these third world countries are just another rival as the other providers, and they are used because they don't demand as much. Damn, if Finland had lower paychecks, Nokia would still be Finnish. But it goes to other places to point out the corruption the rides the global policies. Instead of taking advantage of other people one should in fact work with them.
Oh, and it's Congo since 1971. And Yes, Congo is run by a corrupt clan leader who provides extreme coal supplies in exchange for weapons. This all dates back to the civil war. I had a reason to learn about the situation in Congo some months back. The mines that way are owned by the goverment and you are right about the totalitarism being what brings these countries to despair. And frankly I'm not sure what to think about outside interfering since in a way, everyone should be aloowed their national independency. But as we see here, The Republic of Congo is going the right direction after the previous elections, as long as the market world allows it. Basically the situation there would be something the Nato would ultimately have terminated already, had it not been for their interest to keep the corruption alive. And that's unacceptable, even on a global selfish spectrum
About the topic again. I'm aware that you suggest that I have a baby. It's not anything immidiate, we're 21 and 19, hardly the age you want to reproduce in. But I do like children, considering I have a little sister and a brother, in the primaryschool age at the moment, and I have always wanted kids, I've even thought of names at times. But isn't it kind of like global ethics that we're discussiong here related to ones personal sense of what's morally right. You see, I completely understand how a natural thing can't be considered bad, but I can as well see how the birthrate has grown to worrying numbers. And isn't it kind of like eating, sure, making it safe would mean cutting back on something that is part of you naturally, but overdiong it leads to global heartdiseases and starvaton on some sides.
I do know insects don't control their productivity, and they're wider in number than we ever will be. Though still, the way a human reproduces has come to represent that of a parasite, and it's really a more common opinion than you'd first think. I'd love to see people considering this option instead of telling me to go for it, to give the discussion a wider purpose. If we should not be vary of reproducing, then why is the earth going to be filled with people who are close to starvation and why is there no more room for even more species that are beginning to depend on the human race?
Emerald... I don't know if you had the answer pre-preppaired or something, because there is NO WORD in my post implying that "We can' t do nothing, it' s their government' s fault". Maybe you have learned the manifesto so well that you go on repeating it no matter what they say to you?
Of course it' s their government' s fault, but there' s something we can do. Restrict tariffs, impland a micro-credit system for their governments and people, build factories in that countries taking the advantage of the low salaries they ask (compared with the salaries of the workers in the origin country), aid that countries to implement a democratical free market system...
Basically what people like you refuse to do, hypocritically conforming to give them a few crumbs in spite of recognising that free market works and communism not.
Fortunatelly this is changing, and the Peace Nobel has gone this year to someone who has become inmenselly rich giving micro credits in India (but also helping millions of people to start a business and get a life, becoming wealthy enough to pay that micro credits back)
Everyone wins, just the opposite to communism, which is "everybody is equally... poor. Except the Party commissioners, of course"
SSH. Tariffs are something that is becoming more and more rare in Western counties. They have never been really popular in capitalist counties, but sometimes some governments like to populistically keep some minority sectors of the economy with tariffs in the import goods or with subsidies. In Spain that minority sectors are Coal and Shipyars. I am sure each West country has a couple of sectors that are being over protected of the foreign competition, but I repeat... THAT never TAKES a COUNTRY to POVERTY, since that country is free to sell their products in any other contry, or market (let's remember that those countries that "we shed to poverty" had 20 years ago half of the world to commerce with, and they were not specially wealthy)
So, basically, if you are a baker who owns a bakery in a neighbourhood with 200 people, and 5, 7, or 10 of that guys say you that they preffer to eat their own crappy home made bread than yours, what you gotta do it sell the bread to the other 195, 193 or 190 guys.
If you don' t sell a bread and you get no money in your safe it' s not because of those 5, 7 or 10 guys, it' s probably because your boss is a corrupted "communist" with 100 or 200 USD in Switzerland.
EDIT: And to prove that Westers counties are open to commerce, you just gotta consult the trade balance of those countries, which is majority negative (they import more than export)
You do realise, that the ways you are speaking of are clearly not communism but corruptions made by it's name. The original point of communism makes no-one porr due to money not being a factor. If the leader chooses to have his possessions, then he is a capitalist and opposed to the communist ideology.
It's true it's not directly our fault, as much as it is the government's fault there. But you should consider that at the time of colonialism those countries didn't exist. They were concured, divided into countries with a pane and a straight line. Look at Maroc and Algeria. The countries were taken advantage of, left behind in development on purpose. The European countries had no resources in keeping up a whole continent, but as we reach their time in independency, the countries remain behind in technology, with the original use of them as the only product on the market with a stable ground under it. And these banana republics will remain like that.
Nacho, if you knew a bit of history (like you insist you do) then you might also be aware that the total lack of political or economic infrastructure that occurs when decolonisation consists of upping sticks and running away (the Congo is probably the best/worst example of this) also completely destroys these third world countries. No wonder they have military governments in power - they are the only viable institutions left!
Additionally, you seem to be insisting that every decolonised country is somehow "communist"? Military dictatorships, mostly, I believe. Not communist.
Colonialism severely damaged many of these countries, keeping their economic development at a level where it was entirely based on exports (to feed the manufacturing economies of the first world countries), basically enslaving their economies to a point where all they can do is produce raw materials for export to the detriment of growing food for their own people (Angola, Mozambique). I think arguing that "well we left and then they fucked it up!" is very ignorant. We, the citizens of the ex-colonial powers must recognise the problems that were set in motion due to the pasts of our own countries and do what we can best to help them.
I agree that the brits are the worst de-colonialists ever... But I mean, it was not like one day they awoke and said "Man, I feel cool today, I think I am going to de-coloniate this country".
No.
Some of those countries took the colonialistic countries to their limits to gain that independence. As you know a bit of history there' s no need of me to quote what the independists made in the middle orient, Africa and Orient to become "free". You must be aware of that.
As you are a sensible person, you' ll agree with that it was logical that those colonists countries didn' t want to know anything about those "new countries" that showed such levels of hate to them. Again, that doesn't explain why they are still poor... They still have the rest of the world to commerce with.
To put it in a simply (and excessive simplist) example: You are in your parents home, and if they treat you reasonbly well. You decide that you want to be independent, and you start to behave as a complete dickhead, so some day, they, tired of your attitude, they give you what you want. Independence.
What you claim those parents should have done, Becky, is them to go on visiting their rebel kid house, clean it, make the beds, pay the butane, buy the food, cook, pay the electricity, pay the contibution to the building owners, buy the food and look for a job in his place.
No... Sorry. Independence is Independence, with full letters.
And Tuomas, you just gotta take a look to the map of communist/socialist/countries of lower economy freedom of the world and you' ll easilly detect that they are also corrupted and/or dictadures. Because Socialism is not the cool "Money is not a factor" sentence that you said, but "directing every aspect of the Country from the government".
Quote from: Nacho on Tue 13/05/2008 18:16:21
Fortunatelly this is changing, and the Peace Nobel has gone this year to someone who has become inmenselly rich giving micro credits in India (but also helping millions of people to start a business and get a life, becoming wealthy enough to pay that micro credits back)
Bangladesh.
I...don't have anything else to add. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that we went from "Don't make babies!" to "Colonialism, Capitalism and Communism".
Ouch... yeah, thanks. I was looking for the article, and quoted by memory.
Yes, I have been extensively studying the decolonisation processes of many countries this year. I had an exam three hours ago on it. I have to say that you really do not understand the situations at all, expecially if you think that the British were somehow so much worse than the French (Algeria anyone?) or the Belgians (leaving 30 graduates to fill 3,000 administrative positions - nice one!). I'm not going to continue this conversation, because the whole process of decolonisation and the interaction between the independence movements and the colonising powers is so much more complicated than "rebel teenager and his parents" and for you to insist that upping sticks and just leaving somehow rids the ex-imperial powers of all responsibility for their current situation, you are very misguided.
FYI, this is the bit where you have it all wrong:
QuoteTo put it in a simply (and excessive simplist) example: You are in your parents home, and if they treat you reasonbly well.
Better to how they treated themselves, that' s for sure...
Oh, one thing... What is the contrary to "reasonable well" in your oppinion? Do you agree with me that an option could be "irrationally bad"? Do you really think that live in colonies was "irrationally bad". I don' t think so, sorry. We can' t really see a clear example, because colonies were over lot of decades before, but the situation in colonies was not like in the "Uncle Tom' s cabin" panorama you want to paint, but more of a Hong Kong compared to London. A
Aye, I'm sure that the Incas saw the Spanish taking their gold just like their mum and dad... ;)
In many countries, the leaving colonials did they best they could. Not very good, but hard to see how they could have done otherwise given the fact that they were already an occupying power. Mountbatten was a prime chump but its also hard to see how the whole India process could have gone any other way than it did.
Nacho, to take your bakery analogy. The baker tries to sell his bread to the manor house, who have their own bakery. They only want their own bread, and always have loads left over which they sell off for less than cost to the villagers. So not only can't the baker sell to the Manor, but the price of bread in the village is forced so low that his bakery isn't viable.
Oh, a joke about a the history of a Country that I don' t feel as mine and the wink emoticon, I was missing it.
Again, for 100th time... Spanish american conquest was made by Castileans, Andalucians and Extremenians. My origins are Basque and Catalan which were not Spain in that period.
And I was born in a city that was Islamic in that time...
So, go on making jokes about Spain, those bullets will miss if I am the target.
About the "baker"... Do you have data about a massive ban from ALL the countries of the Fist world to a certain product? I think you are not going to find them, since it does not exist. Tariffs and subsides make the A product of the First world county to be "protected" from the B product of the "third world" country, so the first world country population consumes A product in spite of "B", but the protective procedures do not affect the "B" product towards third countries, since the protectionism is made into deficitary products that wouldn' t surive without the protectionism. "I won' t allow the neighbourhood ' s baker to sell bread in my home, because my bread is shit and his is awesome, and if my children taste it they won' t ever eat mine". What does those actions affect to the possibility of that baker to sell that bread in OTHER homes? In nothing, except if those other houses make a common league not to buy bread to the neighbourhood' s baker.
You are not putting examples of an "A" product that is better and cheaper than "B" product, not of protectionism.
I must say to this, that if you, Nacho, really wish to be on that side, you will see it's a lonely side to take in the long run. But as much as were all agreed against you, this is really not the place or the thread to discuss and argue this as it's not directly connected. And I'd wish we'd keep in the topic as long as it's alive.
I don' t really agree 100% with what I posted, ;) but fearing that, AGAIN in this forums, the "we suck" opinion was going to be the only one to be told I had to show the other side of the coin (That the Third World had something to see with where they are now)
I think my opinion is quite clear, and I will allow this thread back to topic, Tuomas.
Back to topic. I won't even go to what half the thread is about, but stick to the original topic, sorry.
I somehow fail to see how having a kid is selfish. Or rather for the reasons that Tuomas mentions. I have 2 children which I hope I'm raising right! (I'm teaching them spelling early, so they won't be like me later on in life, first of all! ;D) At least I try to. I hope that my kids will do good. I hope that my income later on in life will be possible to support more than me and my family. I won't get into the idea that I should not have children in order to do more "good". I am doing "good" as I stand today!
All of Europe is suffering from lack of births. At least the uk, the whole of scandinavia, Greece and other countries are (so maybe not "all of europe", ok... :p) I would argue that it's better to start educating India and China to stop having children (and btw, China is having the law of 1 child, still, I know for a fact. What is not widely known perhaps is that the law does not "kill" the 2nd child, but the family (parents) get a penalty. Further what is also not known is that abortions are illegal in China, but everyone favours a boy in the family. Ergo they won't tell you the sex of the baby before birth, because of the chance of having an illegal abortion anyway (and a dangerous one at that), because you know the baby is having the wrong sex!!!!
As far as I'm concerned: I can handle my family, I won't have them suffer. Above that I can also offer to the society and make sure (as much as possible) that my kids will do that as well. I'm lucky, I know that and I never forget it. But at least I feel responsible enough to have kids. Someone with Aids having a kid, someone who is suffering from famine having a kid, someone who can't support having a kid feels... irisponsible rather than selfish. Then again there is always the chance of adoption, which should be considered. But this applies to organised societies rather than some famine and war hit country somewhere in Africa for example...
I'm apparently selfish for not wanting children, other people are selfish for wanting children! I guess we're all selfish because we want what makes us happy, right? :)
Quote from: Nacho on Tue 13/05/2008 20:06:11
Oh, a joke about a the history of a Country that I don' t feel as mine and the wink emoticon, I was missing it.
Again, for 100th time... Spanish american conquest was made by Castileans, Andalucians and Extremenians. My origins are Basque and Catalan which were not Spain in that period.
Err, most of the boats the Spanish used to GET to South America were crewed and built by the best seamen of the age... the Basques. Columbus and Magellan are well documented as having loads of Basques with them and it was a Basque who was actually in charge of the boats that completed the first circumnavigation at the end, as Magellan had died in the Pacific.
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Basque_explorers_and_conquistadores
Catalonians:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pere_Fages_i_Beleta
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaspar_de_Portolà _i_Rovira
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pere_d%27Albern%C3%AD_i_Teixidor
Probably, but you were talking about gold stealing (And probably tried to introduce to the reader the genocide concept as well, which is quite serious thing to garnish it with a wink emoticon)
Apparently you fix it all with that... I don' t know if if works with everybody, personally, I think it' s quite tiring.
;)
Gold stealing, conquest, genocide and anything related with any aspect of management in the new world did not involve Basques or Catalans at any level.
Unless you think that the lumberjack wich cuts wood which finally works for making the butts of a Kalashnikov is guilty of the deaths caused by that weapon (Basques made boats, the ones Pizarro used to cross the Atlantic, ergo Basques killed the Incas!!!) That's a, let' s say it softly, "dubious" argument.
Nacho, you said that the natives conquered by colonials saw them as parents. I mocked that, with the smilie. How you can read that as me belittling genocide, I have no idea. Enough non-sequitirs, please.
As for Basques and Catalans not being in charge, here's a few quotes from Wikipedia:
Quote
Don Pedro Fages Beleta (Catalan: Pere Fages i Beleta) (1734â€"1794), nicknamed El Oso, was a soldier, explorer, and the second Spanish military Governor of New California from 1770 to 1774, and Governor of the Californias from 1782 to 1791.
Fages was born in Guissona, Lleida province, Catalonia
Quote
Gaspar de Portolà i Rovira (1716 â€" 1784), a soldier, governor of Baja and Alta California (1767â€"1770), explorer and founder of San Diego and Monterey. He was born in Os de Balaguer, province of Lleida, in Catalonia
Quote
Pere d'Albernà i Teixidor (January 30, 1747 â€" March 11, 1802) was a Catalan soldier who served the Spanish Crown for almost all his life. He developed the major part of his military career in the Viceroyalty of New Spain. It is especially remarkable his role in the military history of New Spain, in the Spanish conquest and colonization of the Pacific Northwest in the 1790s, and his later proclamation as interim governor of California in 1800.
Quote
Lope de Aguirre (c. 1510 â€" 27 October 1561) was a Spanish Basque conquistador in South America.
Quote
Juan de Garay (1528 â€" 1583) was a Spanish conquistador. Garay was born in Orduña, in the Basque Country. He worked and fought for the Spanish Empire, first in the Viceroyalty of Peru, and then at the Viceroyalty of the RÃo de la Plata. He was governor of Asunción
Quote
Miguel López de Legazpi (1502 - August 20, 1572, Manila), also known as El Adelantado (The Governor) and El Viejo (The Elder), was a Spanish conquistador who established the first colony in the Philippine Islands in 1565. Born in 1502, Miguel López de Legazpi was the youngest son of Don Juan MartÃnez López de Legazpi and Elvira de Gurruchátegui. He was born to a noble family and lived in the small town of Zumárraga, in the Basque province of Guipúzcoa
The whole "Basques and Catalonians were innocent" line sounds like Nationalist propaganda. You get exactly the same thing here in Scotland "Oh yes, it was the English who went and killed natives and built the empire" despite the fact its a load of codswallop.
Curiously, no one of those had something to see Cortés and the Aztecs, which was what you mentioned on first place...
Some of them are "only a few centuries" away of the facts, some others "only a few thousand of miles" away of the facts.
You do what in Spanish is called "move sticks"... Basically replying with something that has nothing to see with the original debate in an attempt to divert the attention. I say that protectionism in "A" countries can' t affect the whole economy of a "C" country because protectorism is just a pack of measures to avoid foreign competence inside of the "A" contry and it' s not overall price determinant for the rest of the world, and you change and say that "Goods produced in A countries are chaper, so products produced in C countries can' t compeate with them"... which has nothing to see with protectionism.
I say "Catalans and Basques had nothing to see with Spanish policies in the New World"
And you told me that "Basques made boats"
After some hours, you realise how "weak" that argument is, and google for some catalans and basques that, effectivelly, were, fought of lived there... It' s impossible to discuss with you.
So, I am going to try to make a short brief, and reply:
A) Can protectionist measures from an A country avoid the products of a C country to be sold in the rest of the world?
B) Had Catalonia or the Basque Country as nations had something to see in the conquest of America?
Hi to all,
it's been a great thread so far, baby killing, Bush is the Devil, Globalization, America 1420, wow!
Well I have to say that I agree on most of Nacho conclusions.
Here is my opinion on the last post:
A- yes, it is called an embargo;
B- no, there was a Spanish king back then, and he was a mean dude;
Quote from: miguel on Wed 14/05/2008 13:01:20
Hi to all,
it's been a great thread so far, baby killing, Bush is the Devil, Globalization, America 1420, wow!
Well I have to say that I agree on most of Nacho conclusions.
Here is my opinion on the last post:
A- yes, it is called an embargo;
B- no, there was a Spanish king back then, and he was a mean dude;
Embargo... a word that has never been quoted by SSH, but will probably be adopted by him because of the weakness of his arguments.
Now, can you quote an example of one (or severall) countries of the First World forcing all the countries in the rest of the world not to buy a certain good produced in a country of the Third World? (For example, America forcing ALL THE REST OF THE WORLD not to buy a certain item or commerce with Cuba)
Was the weight of that good so important in the overal economy of the third world so important that this economy has been struggled till poverty?
Thanks.
Quote from: Nacho on Wed 14/05/2008 10:51:31
Gold stealing, conquest, genocide and anything related with any aspect of management in the new world did not involve Basques or Catalans at any level.
Quote from: Nacho on Wed 14/05/2008 12:51:03
Curiously, no one of those had something to see Cortés and the Aztecs, which was what you mentioned on first place...
Some of them are "only a few centuries" away of the facts, some others "only a few thousand of miles" away of the facts.
Quote
You do what in Spanish is called "move sticks"... Basically replying with something that has nothing to see with the original debate in an attempt to divert the attention.
*cough*
Every time I prove something you say wrong, you try and claim that it wasn't what you are trying to say. Tell you what, let pretend I agree with everything you say, because I can't argue with someone who can't even admit when he's been blatanly proved wrong
Me neither... And, whereas I replied your questions one by one, you are still moving sticks not to reply to the first one I made 20 posts above.
Ah, it's over, time to vote!
Vote A if you feel like SSH has won the argument.
Vote B if you think, that Nacho lost the fight.
Personally I vote B
Quote from: Nacho on Wed 14/05/2008 13:07:54
Now, can you quote an example of one (or severall) countries of the First World forcing all the countries in the rest of the world not to buy a certain good produced in a country of the Third World? (For example, America forcing ALL THE REST OF THE WORLD not to buy a certain item or commerce with Cuba)
The 1963 U.S. embargo was reinforced in October 1992 by the Cuban Democracy Act (the "Torricelli Law") and in 1996 by the Cuban Liberty and Democracy Solidarity Act (known as the Helms-Burton Act) which penalises foreign companies that do business in Cuba by preventing them from doing business in the US. The justification provided for these restrictions was that these companies were trafficking in stolen U.S. properties, and should, thus, be excluded from the United States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_Cuba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_Cuba)
googled and took first:example (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D02E7DF1E39F93AA15756C0A960958260)
I think that makes atleast some difference compared to a situation were no embargo would be in place.
EDIT: Oh yeah and to response to the original question: I think that well thought out babies are always good, if you can yourself provide for them. What is not so good is the mentality in some of the third world countries, that you make seven children so that one of them makes it to old age to take care of you (in some African countries). Or when in other countries some people use their daughters like money when they hit puberty through prostitution or simply selling them (parts of Africa and Asia).
Overpopulating the earth is stupid. That's what we as humans are doing right now. There's just simply not enough resources (as I understand) to continue this way. If we were to make every third world country rise from the "swamp" through industrialization we would be in hell of a jam when all of the world would be polluting the nature around them. There's some interesting documentaries at what is the ongoing expense for China. It's not pretty what the companies are doing to their country, but who cares as long as the money keeps coming (this includes local authorities who turn the blind eye, when it comes to pollution from local companies).
Bad example. The US did not FORCE the rest of the World not to commerce with Cuba...
Cuba had all the communist world (which was half of the world, in that period) to commerce with. Why Cuba is now poor? Because of the embargo? Partially. Mostly because communism does not work and because Castro is a corrupt.
Still, that American measures "promoted to struggle Castro' s regime", are not very succesfully, since lots of Countries invest in Cuba. "Clinton warning 3 foreign companies over investments in Cuba" is not the complete ban I mentioned, and apparently, and according to SSH is what "has something to see" in how the Third World is now.
Yeah I wasn't agreeing with the fact that Cuba didn't have trading partners. I just said things would be better for Cuba if USA wouldn't breath down his neck. Cuba's economy went down south in 1989-1993 mainly because of the fall of Soviet Union and Cuba lost a lot of trade and Soviet aides because of that.
Pixel Perfect, ever thought about the fact that families used to be much bigger than they are now? I mean first world families and not third world ones.
The reason of that being so was that a bigger family provided more working arms. People lived in the country, so the more the work the more the products they could get from the land.
Small families are a modern thing and there are several reasons, city life is one of them.
See, in Africa and in Asia (some countries, of course) you don't have a choice, you just try to get to the next day.
Also, selling children for prostitution is an awful thing, so is slavery on the diamond mining and other situations, but remember that misery bring the worst on a human being.
And what if it was you, in their situation. Would you be the one that stood before them with a different way of seeing things, would you be the one to have morals?
Or would you be just like the others?
I definitely agree with that that in some cases it's fighting for survival, but at the same time in some cases it's pure greed. Also whatever the reasons is behind multiplying, it's definitely making it worse for everybody else, which means that more people will die. Also in this cycle the nature gets it's share because of overfarming (I don't know if this is the right word) and deforestation. I would propably do whatever it takes to survive too, so I'm not saying that I'm anything better.
I never implied you said that PP , I understand what you mean, but the problem is that me and you think first country like.
I guess being on the verge of famine must be an horror that I have no ability to write about it.
I can only imagine the pain of a african mother that has nothing to give to her starving son.
You're right about measures needed to be made though. But those countries are geographicaly very far. It's like they aren't real most of the time.
The world is changing. The world we learned on primary school, nice and full of hope isn't true. And we can be glad we can stand behind a screen and write about it. It's our freedom that we must protect and fight for.
We must fight to remain free, fight for our families not to ever be caught in situations we can't control.
QuoteThe reason of that being so was that a bigger family provided more working arms.
This is, in fact, not the primary reason for large families in the not-so distant past; the primary reason was the considerably higher death rate of both infants and women from childbirth complications, in addition to illnesses like cholera, measles, the flu, and pneumonia which medically we can provide defense against today but took a much greater toll on the young and old populations of the past.
Justifying a large family in this day and age is far more difficult, provided you're not living in a country wracked by disease.
Human beings tend to be very self-centered when it comes to what they want without regard to the greater good -- just look at global waste production from non-biodegradable product packaging -- and our solution in most cases is to bury/hide the problem rather than to combat it with some kind of reasoned, logical debate and behavior.
I say those days are numbered.
Let me put it this way, then:
rural communities tend to have bigger families,
rural Portugal until the beginning of the 90's was like that,
The Azores (Açores) are plagued by misery due to rudimentary fishing boats, lack of fish, etc..., but you find huge families , with the kids (10years- ) already saying they will be fishermen when they grow up.
Across Europe, on recent 1st world countries you'll find situations just like this one.
People don't think: we'll get sick, let's have babies! They do think: I'm not able to provide enough food and I need help.
The cultural part of it is very important as well. Tell somebody that using a condom is a sin and he might believe you.
The genetic part plays an important role here as well. Women can procreate once in a year. And if the species is in dangerous you bet they will. You will not find infertility problems in 3rd World Africa.
Also, how can we tell our kids not waste food, always swith off the TV, and so on, if we are constantly bombed with consumerism every single second of our life?
If I have time, I can spend hours and hours on the net, and I'm not thinking about global warming!
Someone mentioned a senate around the forums and I believe it is the only solution for modern life.
There are times when people (me included) need strong measures, need to be forced not to do things and forced to do other things.
The problem here is that the human mind is corrupt by nature and that is the reason no ideology ever survived long.
Our times need actions, fast!
We let the guys that think to analyse it after.