[hamdani yusuf]

Why do they want more and cleaner water and food?
Is current condition not good enough?

Are you being deliberately offensive?

I'm being thorough in identifying hidden assumptions we usually take for granted, which often becomes the source of disagreements in discussion.
Let me try to answer my own questions. I try as far as I can to avoid offending someone, though it seems to be inevitable.

They want more and cleaner water and food because they want to stay alive and thrive. Billions of years of evolutionary process has shaped their instinct, as well as ours, that way. Those who lack these basic instincts didn't survive, or won't survive for long.

[Bored chemist]

If you have a point, it might be a good idea to state it sooner, rather than later.

[hamdani yusuf]

If you have a point, it might be a good idea to state it sooner, rather than later.

I tried to apply Socratic method here.

Explore the technique known as the Socratic Method, which uses questions to examine a person’s values, principles, and beliefs.

--

Socrates, one of the founding fathers of Western philosophical thought, was on trial. Many believed he was an enemy of the state, accusing the philosopher of corrupting the youth and refusing to recognize their gods. But Socrates wasn’t feared for claiming to have all the answers, but rather, for asking too many questions. Erick Wilberding digs into the technique known as the Socratic Method.

Lesson by Erick Wilberding, directed by Draško Ivezić.

The video is related to morality especially at 1:30.

[alancalverd]

Don't ask me. Ask the starving, diseased millions who have never seen a water tap. They appear fairly regularly on TV.

Why do they want more and cleaner water and food?
Is current condition not good enough?
What can possibly be done to improve it?

They want it for the same reason that if you were drinking sh1t, watching your children die from drinking sh1t, and wondering what sort of super-humans can possibly live on fish and chips and clean beer without having to worry about whether there will actually be any fish chips or beer tomorrow, you might just aspire to a western lifestyle.

Is their defined current condition good enough for you?

What can be done to improve it? Reduce the population to a sustainable level.

An action that costs nothing and achieves everything is called an ideal solution. 

[Bored chemist]

If you have a point, it might be a good idea to state it sooner, rather than later.

I tried to apply Socratic method here.

Explore the technique known as the Socratic Method, which uses questions to examine a person’s values, principles, and beliefs.

--

Socrates, one of the founding fathers of Western philosophical thought, was on trial. Many believed he was an enemy of the state, accusing the philosopher of corrupting the youth and refusing to recognize their gods. But Socrates wasn’t feared for claiming to have all the answers, but rather, for asking too many questions. Erick Wilberding digs into the technique known as the Socratic Method.

Lesson by Erick Wilberding, directed by Draško Ivezić.

The video is related to morality especially at 1:30.

I'm aware of the idea.
At about 4 minutes in, the video points out that, to use this method, the teacher must understand the subject.
I was hoping that you might demonstrate that you do so.
But what I got was a patronising lecture.

[hamdani yusuf]

I'm aware of the idea.
At about 4 minutes in, the video points out that, to use this method, the teacher must understand the subject.
I was hoping that you might demonstrate that you do so.
But what I got was a patronising lecture.

You can point out where I got wrong, and tell me how to fix it.

[hamdani yusuf]

They want it for the same reason that if you were drinking sh1t, watching your children die from drinking sh1t, and wondering what sort of super-humans can possibly live on fish and chips and clean beer without having to worry about whether there will actually be any fish chips or beer tomorrow, you might just aspire to a western lifestyle.

Is their defined current condition good enough for you?

What can be done to improve it? Reduce the population to a sustainable level.

An action that costs nothing and achieves everything is called an ideal solution.

What is good now isn't necessarily good enough in the future.
Their current condition isn't good enough for me.
Your previously proposed solution will take time, and obviously cost something. To actually reduce population, someone has to die, either naturally, forcefully, or voluntarily.

[acsinuk (OP)]

Hamdani,
Nobody needs to die.  Chairman Mow introduced draconian measures to limit population in China which worked but was totally unfair and unnecessary.
Western nations can encourage population reduction by educating people to improve their standard of living by having small families.  They can also subsidise contraception or even arrange for free vasectomy's all of which is good.
But should they be providing free food aid to developing nations that are not tackling the over population problem head on

[Bored chemist]

Western nations can encourage population reduction by educating people to improve their standard of living by having small families. 

Are you actually so unobservant that you think it's the Western world where the population is growing?

[hamdani yusuf]

Hamdani,
Nobody needs to die. 

How can a population decrease when nobody dies?

[Bored chemist]

The only way to drop the death rate is to drop the birth rate.

[alancalverd]

What is good now isn't necessarily good enough in the future.
Their current condition isn't good enough for me.
Your previously proposed solution will take time, and obviously cost something. To actually reduce population, someone has to die, either naturally, forcefully, or voluntarily.

Everyone has to die, so no problem there. Half of the current population will be dead in the next 40 years. The trick is to reduce the population without harming or inconveniencing anyone who matters.

My calculations are based on the UK, where the population is clearly unsustainable at a decent standard of living (we import about 50% of our food)  and cannot maintain its current standard of living without burning fossil fuels.

The exchequer cost of £1000 per woman per year is much less than the cost to the taxpayer of a second child, and the increase in working fraction (i.e.the percentage of taxpayers) resulting from a reduction in birthrate guarantees a greater tax take for public works, or a reduced tax burden on the workers.

The advantage of doing it in the UK is a clear immediate need, easy calculations, a clear and defensible national boundary, and adequate public benefit systems and records to implement it and chart the effect - good experimental conditions for a demonstration project. Whether others follow is up to them.

[hamdani yusuf]

Everyone has to die, so no problem there. Half of the current population will be dead in the next 40 years. The trick is to reduce the population without harming or inconveniencing anyone who matters.

Is it a problem if they die sooner?
Is it a problem if they die later?

There is someone alive today who will live to be 1,000 years old: Why we are living longer than ever?
Researchers are getting a better understanding of the ageing process and the ways it could be slowed, halted or even reversed

https://www-independent-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/long_reads/live-longer-longevity-stem-cells-ageing-a8332701.html

How would you decide who matters, and who doesn't?

[hamdani yusuf]

I'm aware of the idea.
At about 4 minutes in, the video points out that, to use this method, the teacher must understand the subject.
I was hoping that you might demonstrate that you do so.
But what I got was a patronising lecture.

You can point out where I got wrong, and tell me how to fix it.

If you only want to learn things from someone who already understand it, you won't be an inventor. You will only be a follower.

[hamdani yusuf]

The only way to drop the death rate is to drop the birth rate.

If the birth rate can be kept at 0, the death rate will eventually drop to 0 too.

[alancalverd]

How would you decide who matters, and who doesn't?

Anyone who preaches religion is top of the list of those we can do without. Next, career politicians, i.e those who have never had a proper job or a legitimate interest in the outcome of their work. Then economists, particularly those who insist that human happiness depends on increasing economic activity. Commodity speculators and anti-vaxers. Then anyone with a Twitter following, and anyone who follows them.Not a vast number, all told, but if anyone must be harmed or inconvenienced  to achieve the desired result, these are the preferred candidates.

[hamdani yusuf]

top of the list of those we can do without.

So, if someone can be eliminated without causing collapse of society, they don't matter?

[alancalverd]

More to the point, if we got rid of priests and career politicians, stopped making decisions based on expansionist economics, and didn't reward people who gamble without investing their own money, society would actually benefit.

Ask any dog whether he would collapse or rejoice if his fleas died.

[Bored chemist]

Anyone who preaches religion is top of the list of those we can do without. Next, career politicians, i.e those who have never had a proper job

I'm not sure about the order of those two; mainly because I'm not sure I can distinguish the two groups.

[alancalverd]

A politician's motives for lying are usually obvious, and in most cases he is at least answerable to an opposition that is equally devious and incompetent. This makes him marginally less dangerous than a priest - those parasites form ecumenical councils and interfaith groups to protect themselves, whilst lying to their congregations about the dangers of dissent.