Food, inflation & social stbility

I would imagine that in some communities there would be armed militias if they are organized, somewhat homogenized and small enough (I envision a sort of balkanization). The closed communities for the very wealthy is a given mostly because they would be able to afford to pay for (or feed) armed security. But I don't think a sterilization program would go down so well nor would I trust how they whom they would consider for sterilization. For sterilization to be considered you would need a full-on police state system in which case you would lose all of your basic freedoms and remain in service to the State (if there is a functioning State). What I believe would happen is a lack of a functioning State and a violent balkanization.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What I said was: "I have long advocated that free or very low cost food be made available which contains a long duration birth control agent. " That is far from a sterilization program as after ceasing to eat the drug laced food for a few months you would be fertile again. No one is choosing you for sterilization, but being very poor may make you chose to eat the low cost food which contains the birth control drug. It would be a way for the poor, who often don't want another child but can not afford chemical birth control or routine use of condoms, to at least space the births farther apart.

In many third world countries, women have no choices, but must have unprotected sex and often contract diseases. Thus, I would also want them to have easy access to the soon to be marketed Vita Gel. I have owned stock in Starpharma, for years - (ADR is SPHRY - Now worth more than triple what I paid for it and it is one of my largest holdings. I have mentioned it in posts years ago.)* More about it at: WWW.starpharma.com It probably will be provided free by governments as way to reduce medical cost in poor countries and is very simple to use even hours before sex so man need not know woman has protected herself. This simple vaginal cream prevents infections by all STDs, including AIDs, but is not a birth control and is safe as "non-invasive" (does not enter the blood or body's interior). It works more mechanically than chemically as cream has specially engineered nano-particles that bind to the infectious STD agents making it impossible for them to enter the body.

---------------
* I will die still holding it, so my heirs get to mark up the cost basis.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

@Billy T

Sorry mate, you're right, I misread your post.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

" In Louisiana, water poured over a century-old levee, flooding 12,000 acres of corn and soybeans despite farmers' frantic efforts to shore up the structure. ...

The Corps of Engineers is considering whether to open the Morganza spillway, which would flood thousands of homes and acres of farmland along a 100-mile stretch in Louisiana but take the pressure off levees and help to protect Baton Rouge, New Orleans and the oil refineries in between. A decision is expected in the next several days. ..."

Today from: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110512/ap_on_re_us/us_mississippi_river_flooding

This is addition to the 500,000 acres of freshly planted corn and other crops intentionally flooded by blowing up levees last week. Noted in post 20, by the WSJ. The worst part is that the tax payers will no doubt end up paying high prices for this corn and beans, by not eat any of it.

 

Most reasonable people would understand that presenting people with a choice between being able to afford to eat, and being fertile, is effectively the same thing as a program of forced sterilizations of the poor.

In which case, why not just make said cheap food out of dead poor people? Would save the rest of us on the costs of subsidizing it. Shit, why not just cut out the middle-man and round poor people up into labor camps? Why not bring back slavery? Why not just exterminate them wholesale, if you go in for that sort of social darwinism?

 

No it is very different as not permanent nor selection by some government committee. In fact, by not having more kids for several years and eating wholesome but low cost food all that time, their economic situation is very likely to improve greatly compared to their current alternatives, which trap them in deep poverty for life and often produce slightly brain damaged children due to inadequate nutrition in the most critical early development years. - I.e. the present system often extends deep poverty for generations but five years with income greater than expense may provide a way up into the lower middle class.

I will not comment on your "solvent green" suggestion or other related coercion ideas, but to note that they are YOUR suggestions, not mine.

There is already too much economic coercion of the poor and this has been true since the industrial revolution needed a surplus of low paid factory workers. If you look at who is typically the most opposed to unions, free birth control (or abortions) for the poor who can not afford more children, you will find mainly well off Republicans and other people who employ the poor, even if only as maids or yard men, and not as factory workers.

 

I must say, although your ideas seem unorthodox and unfair at first analysis, I could support them if the alternative methods that are currently employed are stopped immediately.

Circulating Testosterone Levels in Skeletal Fluorosis Patients

FERTILITY EFFECTS OF SODIUM FLUORIDE IN MALE MICE

I would hypothesize that the water is treated in such a manner in advanced nations so that the poor (and middle classes) already have their fertility much reduced without their consent. . .

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

??? Just a suspicion. What do the statistics of the past half century say? Is there a decline in fertility in the advanced nations of the world??? Doesn't one wonder why bottled water was marketed to the upper classes starting in the sixties, seventies, etc.? Even now, the upper classes know which brands to buy, and which brands contain fluoride. . . .

If you were in a store and were to buy water for your HEALTH, do you know which brand has sodium flouride in it and will cause all sort of health problems including decreased fertility?

 

Thanks. Most just have a thoughtless knee jerk reaction against my suggestion. Some actually want there to be many poor competiting with each other for jobs to hold wages down. I.e. they enjoy a higher living standard on the backs of the poor. They oppose unions, free birth control (and abortions) for the poor.

In urban areas the distribution (to 1 in 8 now) of food stamps, etc. could be stopped – replaced by depots with birth control drug laced low cost wholesome food available to registered, qualified people only. Unfortunately the current system can be abused with the food stamps traded for alcohol or even illegal drugs. So stopping that is an additional benefit of my plan, not mentioned in my prior post.

 

post was moved here: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=98057

 

Given that the need to eat is permanent, and there is no requirement of "(individual) selection by some government committee" for something to qualify as a "program of forced sterilizations," I can't say that reply impresses me in the slightest.

They are my parodies of your suggestion, intended exactly to highlight the vicious social darwinism apparent in such, which you seem to think you can sweep under the rug with a few hand-waves about "government committees" and contrasts with "evil Republicans."

That's essentially the definition of "poor."

It was true a long time before that. Many thousands of years, in fact.

Indeed. I'm all for free birth control for everyone. Just not with the condition that one must take it if one wants to be able to afford to eat. That's nasty and wrong, and scarsely any more respectful of the poor, despite all the paternalism. Individuals have a basic right to make their own decisions about reproduction that outweighs any of your concerns about social engineering.

 

Yes it is. So I have moved your post here: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=98057 It is post 200 and my reply is 201 there.

 

"... About 25,000 people and 11,000 structures could be in harm's way when the Morganza spillway is unlocked for the first time since 1973, but diverting the river water will help take the pressure off levees downstream. Easing the strain on the river walls helps make sure the river doesn't flood more populated cities like Baton Rouge and New Orleans, and the numerous oil refineries and chemical plants along the lower reaches of the Mississippi. ..."
From: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110514/ap_on_re_us/us_mississippi_river_flooding

In addition to many land crop farms, the flood will free many farmed catfish, but most will die when they are washed into the Gulf of Mexico's salt water. This will add to the rising cost of food in the US. I am not sure, but think the agricultural production from the area to be flooded is greater than the 500,000 acres intentionally flooded by blowing up levees last week. Noted in post 20, by the WSJ. (This mainly agricultural land supports 25,000 people.) The worst part is that the tax payers will no doubt end up paying higher prices because of this loss of food and yet not eat any of it.

Later by edit:
CNN says 8000Km^2 may be flooded. 1Km^2 =247.105 acres so that is 1,976,840 acres or approximately four times larger new area that may be flooded and a lot more homes destroyed than in the more sparsely populated upper Mississippi river land.

 

That is because you are with a knee-jerk reaction against and not even trying to understand that the birth control laced low cost food program is a new ALTERNATIVE - a choice not now available.

No one is compelled to apply for it and anyone who does and is accepted to become a registered user, can leave at any time. - Cancel their registration, resume getting food stamps and become fertile a few months later. Staying registered is however a way to avoid unwanted children, and brain damage to your younger children, which can never be repaired later. That saving in food cost also gives the poor at least the possibility, they do not often now have, to climb into the lower middle class, even to become tax payers. Ironically, they would then be expelled from the program - have their registration cancelled.

While food cost for the well off typically is a few percent of their income it can be 50% of the income of many who would be accepted into the program. If the average food price reduction is 80% at the system's depots, then that is 40% boost to their income. More important is that their kids will get wholesome food and not be brain damaged or hungry when they go to school. At least for the children this may be a way to escape from the cycle of generational deep poverty.

I can understand that many well of in the community really want to have a surplus of dim-witted workers seeking jobs as maids, yardmen, or janitors in office building, or at the car-wash, etc. but it seems to me to be possible to at least offer an alternative to the current destructive system.

 

Things ain't looking good: Watch brief video at http://www.moneyshow.com/video/video.asp?wid=6941&t=3&scode=015362

 

I'm 46 and have never seen so much rain here in the Midwest.It's basically rained everyday since late March to early April.We had a few dry and warm sunny days but very few,mostly cold and wet.To wet for farmers to start planting yet.It's looking bad all over for corn and beans as well I'm sure other commodities too.

 

Interesting thread, relating the politics of food to the many factors that a lot of folks may not be aware of. Media is not going to give us all of the facts because they have a mandate for managing population reaction and won't be wanting to start panic buying and hoarding, which as has been pointed out, are not the solutions, as we are all in this together. I wouldn't be able to fill my belly watching my neighbors starve.

Unfair food and resource distribution has been with us since recorded history, but it's now starting to come to our attention because it's finally on our own doorstep, actually quite entrenched, and with an increasing population, loss of agriculture lands and unpredictable weather patterns, I don't see much chance for improvement looming.

I have worked in the retail grocery sector for the last six years and I have watched package sizes shrink while prices rise and with the surge in fuel prices of late, prices even on core products are creeping upwards.

Oh yes, we are 1300 miles (approx 2000 km) up the Alaska Highway and all of our food is trucked in save for a bit of local produce and a bit of organic farming.

Interesting concept regarding a temporary birth control product in food, as long as such was by choice of the participants and the effects are proven to be safe and reversible. Some potential in such a thought, have to contemplate it further. Possibly like safe injection sites; they don't solve the problem but they do make it safer for those so afflicted and saves a considerable drain on our emergency medical services, which like most other services, can't keep up.

Everybody has to eat, so I would be expecting a lot more folks to be applying their talent toward finding viable solutions.....

 

Untrue - my reaction is reasoned and principled, and it is irrelevant whether this is a hypothetical suggestion or an existing program.

I'll thank you for apologizing for insulting me in this way, for never again advancing such spurious, prejudicial characterizations of my (or anyone else's) motives and understandings ever again, and for engaging in some serious introspection about whether you ought to resign your duties as a moderator if you cannot refrain from such contemptable behavior.

Right, just like no one is compelled to eat.

And the only cost is that you can no longer afford to eat. Sounds like a free, fair choice all right.

Why not just spend the money giving free birth control to any poor people that want it? Why link it to the affordability of food? That's draconian and paternalistic - offensive, on its face. A program of forced sterilizations of the poor, by another name.

Exactly - the people in question cannot afford to eat, without this assistance. Making that assistance conditional on a birth control regimen, is thus exactly a program of forced sterilization of the poor. It means the poor cannot breed, unless and until they cease to be poor. That is a repulsive exercise in social darwinism, that you ought to be ashamed to propose in public.

If the most important thing is for poor children to get good nutrition, then linking the provision of such to a mandatory regimen of birth control is unacceptable. Spend the money feeding the poor children, and not on trying to control the reproductive choices of poor adults.

Indeed - we can give food assistance and free birth control and family planning, to the poor. We don't need to make the one conditional on the other. That just guarantees that we feed fewer poor kids than we could have, with a given budget.

And what you really need to understand, is that almost everyone in the community - not just the well-off - really don't want to live in a society where their reproductive choices are dictated by government social engineers, but instead are matters of personal conscience and self-determination. Go live in China if you want some unaccountable bureaocrat deciding who can and can't have kids.

 

In order for it to genuinely be "by choice of the participants," they would also have to have the option of equally-priced food without any such contraceptive additives. In which case, why put the additives in the food at all? Why not just give free birth control to those who want it? This would actually be much better, since you could properly control the dosage and select appropriate chemicals for each person. And you'd avoid feeding adult doses of birth-control hormones to children and males.

It's a repellent idea in principle, and an inane one in practice.