> I think I see where we're probably
> disagreeing. You're talking about India now
> - it has problems now, and will have
> problems if things don't change.

Well yeah. That's why I keep saying DRASTIC changes.

> I'm talking about a possible future, if
> things DO change in a certain way. That is,
> a large population is not a problem, IF
> certain things can occur. I think that's the
> real source of our difference on this
> topic....

Certain thing. Is the difference.

I am saying it's population and their class structure. Cease the rampant breeding and remmove the class structure and the country can start getting its act together, slowly.

You see the population as no problem and think somehow the overstrectched resources can be magically made to fit the rapidly growing population, and that "education" will solve the day.

Your "solution" is already being tried and it just ain't working.

That's why I said to ask, "How can we hurt India?" and take each thing as far as you can.

Trying to give them technology - even if their huge debts are just wiped clean - does not help them overcome their "population is breeding faster than the available resources can handle" problem.

I know you don't want to admit it, for some reason. So think of it in these two ways...

1: Country A goes to war and millions of its citizens flee for a neighboring country not at war. The war-free country is overwhelmed. Their infrastructure cannot handle this new bunch of people and so they (the war free country) call for help.

This is the same as an exploding population in India. The infrastructure cannot handle the population growth.

2: Imagine Australia suddenly undergoing a population explosion. Where everyone who is able suddenly gets pregnant. In nine months time we will have maybe an extra million people in the country out of nowhere.

The hospitals cannot cope. The women who were working will have to leave the work force if even only briefly.

See the strain this creates?

You may say, Australia can plan for it. And maybe Australia can. But India is under these strained conditions now. How do they plan for even worse conditions?

The answer is, they can't.

> If things don't change with India, then I
> agree, it's a big problem. However, there is
> the potential to change (as with any person
> or country) - though of course, those
> changes may not occur.

Of course there is a potential to change. But in India's case... it is DRASTIC change that needs to take place. Their entire society is currently not conducive to such change.

> I'm also using "education" in a
> broader sense than school/university
> education. For example,
> "education" in the way I mean
> could also mean learning the harm of slash
> and burn farming. That's a type of
> "education" - since it's learning
> some new knowledge.

That is nice in theory. And it is the same reasoning which has been always used under these conditions.

Fact is... tradition rules with these people. They farm how their parents farmed, and their grand parents farms.

This is the basis of the stories of broken down tractors sitting and rusting in the fields. The cow doesn't break down or need to be refueled all the time.

Trying to mix new world technology with old world thinking doesn't go. And trying to change their thinking with "education" has shown not to work. So why keep doing it?

> Finally, is any part of China really on the
> brink of starvation?

Yes.

Michael Ross.