Baby fever solutions?

[PixelPerfect]

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
googled and took first:example

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).

[Nacho]

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.

[PixelPerfect]

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.

[miguel]

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?

[PixelPerfect]

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.

[miguel]

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.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

The 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.

[miguel]

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.