Europe submits voluntarily

[DrZoidberg]

There has never once been a famine in modern history (ie the last 400 years) that was not caused by political or military interference. 'Overbreeding' has not ever once been the cause of a famine.

In the case of the 1943 Bengal Famine, Wikipedia says:

Proximate causes comprise localised natural disasters (a cyclone, storm surges and flooding, and rice crop disease) and at least five consequences of war: initial, general war-time inflation of both demand-pull and monetary origin; loss of rice imports due to the Japanese occupation of Burma (modern Myanmar); near-total disruption of Bengal's market supplies and transport systems by the preemptive, defensive scorched earth tactics of the Raj (the "denial policies" for rice and boats); and later, massive inflation brought on by repeated policy failures, war profiteering, speculation, and perhaps hoarding. Finally, the government prioritised military and defense needs over those of the rural poor, allocating medical care and food immensely in the favour of the military, labourers in military industries, and civil servants. All of these factors were further compounded by restricted access to grain: domestic sources were constrained by emergency inter-provincial trade barriers, while access to international sources was largely denied by the War Cabinet of Great Britain. The relative impact of each of these contributing factors to the death toll and economic devastation is still a matter of controversy. Different analyses frame the famine against natural, economic, or political causes.

The region was densely populated, but it was perfectly capable of avoiding famine before and after, even when population had recovered back above the pre-famine level, with no significant changes in agricultural practices. It was prevented from doing so for political and military reasons - ie it was entirely the fault of the British, who set in place the conditions that caused it to occur, and who refused to take the necessary steps to mitigate those conditions once it became clear that people were starving.

The same is true of every famine - it is always blamed on 'overpopulation'; and a detailed look at the causes finds that population was far from the most important contributing factor, while a look at the aftermath usually finds future populations higher than those at the onset of famine, without any repeat of the disaster despite the only changes being political and military.

The sheer inhumanity of letting people die to bring the population down to a sustainable level would be vile even if it were effective - but in every case where famine has reduced populations, the population has recovered and then exceeded the previous level WITHOUT CAUSING FAMINE.

Famine was sadly common in the first half of the 20th Century; and rare but occasionally severe in the second half. Famine has basically ceased to exist in the 21st Century. Meanwhile, populations have massively increased in all of the areas where famine used to occur.

Every shred of actual data says that the hypothesis that famine is due to high population numbers, high population densities, or rapid population increases is WRONG. But it refuses to die, because it is an excellent excuse for not doing anything about the problem.

People who espouse this excuse are either too badly informed to have an opinion, and should refrain from expressing one; Or are vile scumbags who need a serious attitude adjustment; Or both.

Famine is the result of a lack of access to food, not a lack of food in itself

Remember when a racist English pastor once said that the Irish Potato famine was a result of the Irish being too stupid and uneducated to regulate their own numbers and that the famine was just nature taking it's course, and further that any effort to alleviate the famine was defying the natural order?

What.

A.

Scumfuck.

Do you -really- want to be compared to that man, LP?

There was a lack of potatoes caused by Potato Blight which destroyed the crops. Famine a severe shortage of food, such as crop failure but can also be due to overpopulation.

There was a lack of potatoes=/=There was a lack of food.

The British Empire had plenty of food, it also had plenty of money. They could have resolved the problem caused by crop failure but they didn't. They actively chose to let people (Their own subjects) suffer and die for no reason. So again, the food was there, just nobody wanted to offer it and the few who did were actively halted by the people who wanted the Irish to starve.

Evil. And the fact that you can't see that says much about you btw.

Yup. Ireland shipped just as much crops to England as they had always done. Ireland had plenty of crops. So did England. The potato blight caused the problem to begin with. But the famine was caused by the British government. No Irishman had to starve. The mistreatment of the Irish was just beyond the pale.

 

[bilby]

There has never once been a famine in modern history (ie the last 400 years) that was not caused by political or military interference. 'Overbreeding' has not ever once been the cause of a famine.

In the case of the 1943 Bengal Famine, Wikipedia says:

Proximate causes comprise localised natural disasters (a cyclone, storm surges and flooding, and rice crop disease) and at least five consequences of war: initial, general war-time inflation of both demand-pull and monetary origin; loss of rice imports due to the Japanese occupation of Burma (modern Myanmar); near-total disruption of Bengal's market supplies and transport systems by the preemptive, defensive scorched earth tactics of the Raj (the "denial policies" for rice and boats); and later, massive inflation brought on by repeated policy failures, war profiteering, speculation, and perhaps hoarding. Finally, the government prioritised military and defense needs over those of the rural poor, allocating medical care and food immensely in the favour of the military, labourers in military industries, and civil servants. All of these factors were further compounded by restricted access to grain: domestic sources were constrained by emergency inter-provincial trade barriers, while access to international sources was largely denied by the War Cabinet of Great Britain. The relative impact of each of these contributing factors to the death toll and economic devastation is still a matter of controversy. Different analyses frame the famine against natural, economic, or political causes.

The region was densely populated, but it was perfectly capable of avoiding famine before and after, even when population had recovered back above the pre-famine level, with no significant changes in agricultural practices. It was prevented from doing so for political and military reasons - ie it was entirely the fault of the British, who set in place the conditions that caused it to occur, and who refused to take the necessary steps to mitigate those conditions once it became clear that people were starving.

The same is true of every famine - it is always blamed on 'overpopulation'; and a detailed look at the causes finds that population was far from the most important contributing factor, while a look at the aftermath usually finds future populations higher than those at the onset of famine, without any repeat of the disaster despite the only changes being political and military.

The sheer inhumanity of letting people die to bring the population down to a sustainable level would be vile even if it were effective - but in every case where famine has reduced populations, the population has recovered and then exceeded the previous level WITHOUT CAUSING FAMINE.

Famine was sadly common in the first half of the 20th Century; and rare but occasionally severe in the second half. Famine has basically ceased to exist in the 21st Century. Meanwhile, populations have massively increased in all of the areas where famine used to occur.

Every shred of actual data says that the hypothesis that famine is due to high population numbers, high population densities, or rapid population increases is WRONG. But it refuses to die, because it is an excellent excuse for not doing anything about the problem.

People who espouse this excuse are either too badly informed to have an opinion, and should refrain from expressing one; Or are vile scumbags who need a serious attitude adjustment; Or both.

Famine is the result of a lack of access to food, not a lack of food in itself

Remember when a racist English pastor once said that the Irish Potato famine was a result of the Irish being too stupid and uneducated to regulate their own numbers and that the famine was just nature taking it's course, and further that any effort to alleviate the famine was defying the natural order?

What.

A.

Scumfuck.

Do you -really- want to be compared to that man, LP?

There was a lack of potatoes caused by Potato Blight which destroyed the crops. Famine a severe shortage of food, such as crop failure but can also be due to overpopulation.

No, it can't. Or at least it never has been.

During the entire period of the Irish famine, Ireland was a net exporter of food.

The Irish didn't eat potatoes because they were not growing anything else; they ate potatoes because they were the only crop allowed for domestic consumption by the English landowners. Everything else was earmarked for overseas markets.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Unpleasant as it seems he's right. When the root problem is overbreeding the correct answer to famine is to let them starve. If you provide aid you increase the size of the problem until at some point the aid will no longer be provided--and now you have even more people starving.

You only address famine when it's due to crop failure or other short term disaster.

There has never once been a famine in modern history (ie the last 400 years) that was not caused by political or military interference. 'Overbreeding' has not ever once been the cause of a famine.

Sub-saharan Africa. It's clearly the result of a population above the carrying capacity, coupled with said overpopulation leading to practices that cause desertification.

 

[bilby]

There has never once been a famine in modern history (ie the last 400 years) that was not caused by political or military interference. 'Overbreeding' has not ever once been the cause of a famine.

Sub-saharan Africa. It's clearly the result of a population above the carrying capacity, coupled with said overpopulation leading to practices that cause desertification.

Nonsense.

The (in)famous 'Live Aid' famine in Ethiopia occurred when population was about one third of today's population in that country - the cause was civil war. Ethiopia today still has lots of poor people, but no famine. And even the poverty is less pronounced than it used to be, which (if your thesis were true) should be impossible:



Clearly Ethiopia is overpopulated

Today, the only areas in Africa where famine is either present or anticipated by the World Food Program are Northern Nigeria and Somalia.

The food shortages in Somalia and South Sudan were caused by conditions that also affected Kenya and Ethiopia, but only Somalia and South Sudan had famine - in both cases again due to civil war; The shortages in Northern Nigeria are due to the conflict between Christianity and Islam in that region - The cause in both cases is warfare, not population.

Sub-Saharan Africa as a whole has seen a massive (roughly threefold) increase in population in the last thirty years, and at the same time has seen the end of famine, apart from those two cases I mentioned above, largely due to the end of various conflicts, wars and revolutions.

There are a HUGE number of organizations, including (but not limited to) several UN agencies, and several dozen charities (including some of the world's largest) who have a vested interest in giving the impression that sub-Saharan Africa remains a basket case on the verge of collapse, where immediate and massive intervention is essential to prevent catastrophe. But the reality is that things are improving very fast in that part of the world (albeit from a very low base), and that the lifestyle enjoyed by today's Africans is, for the vast majority, significantly better than that experienced by their parents. This information is little publicized, as it benefits nobody for the news to get out to the North American and European donors with the deep pockets; But it is out there if you look for it.

Your example isn't even an example of famine at all; Much less of famine caused by overpopulation. Your opinion is three decades out of date and/or based on imaginary events; and where the events are real, their causes are clearly and demonstrably not 'overpopulation'.

Do you have any ACTUAL examples of famine caused by overpopulation (in sub-Saharan Africa, or elsewhere), that are not just vague hand-waving in the general direction of a large fraction of an entire continent where you fondly imagine that things must be dire?

 

[angelo]

Comparing Churchill to Hitler is like comparing the warlord, terrorist, paedophile founder of Islam to Jesus Christ!
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29701767

Let's see... Hitler murderd 10 000 000 in concentration camps. Churchill let 3 000 000 starve to death in India. He was a journalist during the Boer war, but didn't think joining the British army would risk people thinking he was biased. As a journalist he sat in a Boer concentration camp, put there by mistake. He then escaped and defended the concentration camps. The camps didn't have enough sanitation, so were in effect death camps. Hundreds of thousands of Boers died in them. What more... he was involved in genocides in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He bragged about murdering the natives. In India the British rulers, and Churchill did their best to create animosity between the Muslims and Hindus, to make it easier to rule. That damage is incalculable. Not to mention Africa. When the Brits took over they removed social structures that had evolved over hundreds of years and made them all dependent on a centralized government. Do you think Churchill did anything to help fix that policy? Nope, instead he helped making it even worse.

I'll give you that Hitler tried harder in murdering people. But Churchill was about as vile. At least he wasn't an antisemite. That's always something.

Do you still wish to compare Hitler with Churchill after the former murdered up to 20 million in Russia alone. Churchill saved the Western World from Hitler and his regime which were mostly incarcerated as war criminals after the war! No war crimes were ever established against Churchill or his government.

 

[LordKiran]

Let's see... Hitler murderd 10 000 000 in concentration camps. Churchill let 3 000 000 starve to death in India. He was a journalist during the Boer war, but didn't think joining the British army would risk people thinking he was biased. As a journalist he sat in a Boer concentration camp, put there by mistake. He then escaped and defended the concentration camps. The camps didn't have enough sanitation, so were in effect death camps. Hundreds of thousands of Boers died in them. What more... he was involved in genocides in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He bragged about murdering the natives. In India the British rulers, and Churchill did their best to create animosity between the Muslims and Hindus, to make it easier to rule. That damage is incalculable. Not to mention Africa. When the Brits took over they removed social structures that had evolved over hundreds of years and made them all dependent on a centralized government. Do you think Churchill did anything to help fix that policy? Nope, instead he helped making it even worse.

I'll give you that Hitler tried harder in murdering people. But Churchill was about as vile. At least he wasn't an antisemite. That's always something.

Do you still wish to compare Hitler with Churchill after the former murdered up to 20 million in Russia alone. Churchill saved the Western World from Hitler and his regime which were mostly incarcerated as war criminals after the war! No war crimes were ever established against Churchill or his government.

A genocidal madman is a genocidal madman. What's a few million between them, really? Is being compared favorably to Hitler really supposed to be some kind of defense for the man? Just imagine if he had his way immediately following the conclusion of WW2. In Truth churchill was no less a threat to world peace than anyone else at the time and he had to go once he outlived his usefulness.

 

[bilby]

Do you still wish to compare Hitler with Churchill after the former murdered up to 20 million in Russia alone. Churchill saved the Western World from Hitler and his regime which were mostly incarcerated as war criminals after the war! No war crimes were ever established against Churchill or his government.

A genocidal madman is a genocidal madman. What's a few million between them, really?

"The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of a million is a statistic" - Joe Stalin.

 

[LordKiran]

A genocidal madman is a genocidal madman. What's a few million between them, really?

"The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of a million is a statistic" - Joe Stalin.

Well, I guess he wasn't really wrong...

 

[DrZoidberg]

Sub-saharan Africa. It's clearly the result of a population above the carrying capacity, coupled with said overpopulation leading to practices that cause desertification.

Nonsense.

The (in)famous 'Live Aid' famine in Ethiopia occurred when population was about one third of today's population in that country - the cause was civil war. Ethiopia today still has lots of poor people, but no famine. And even the poverty is less pronounced than it used to be, which (if your thesis were true) should be impossible:

View attachment 13083

Clearly Ethiopia is overpopulated

Today, the only areas in Africa where famine is either present or anticipated by the World Food Program are Northern Nigeria and Somalia.

The food shortages in Somalia and South Sudan were caused by conditions that also affected Kenya and Ethiopia, but only Somalia and South Sudan had famine - in both cases again due to civil war; The shortages in Northern Nigeria are due to the conflict between Christianity and Islam in that region - The cause in both cases is warfare, not population.

Sub-Saharan Africa as a whole has seen a massive (roughly threefold) increase in population in the last thirty years, and at the same time has seen the end of famine, apart from those two cases I mentioned above, largely due to the end of various conflicts, wars and revolutions.

There are a HUGE number of organizations, including (but not limited to) several UN agencies, and several dozen charities (including some of the world's largest) who have a vested interest in giving the impression that sub-Saharan Africa remains a basket case on the verge of collapse, where immediate and massive intervention is essential to prevent catastrophe. But the reality is that things are improving very fast in that part of the world (albeit from a very low base), and that the lifestyle enjoyed by today's Africans is, for the vast majority, significantly better than that experienced by their parents. This information is little publicized, as it benefits nobody for the news to get out to the North American and European donors with the deep pockets; But it is out there if you look for it.

Your example isn't even an example of famine at all; Much less of famine caused by overpopulation. Your opinion is three decades out of date and/or based on imaginary events; and where the events are real, their causes are clearly and demonstrably not 'overpopulation'.

Do you have any ACTUAL examples of famine caused by overpopulation (in sub-Saharan Africa, or elsewhere), that are not just vague hand-waving in the general direction of a large fraction of an entire continent where you fondly imagine that things must be dire?

Actually the Ethiopian starvation was designed by the dictator Mengistu. It wasn't a natural disaster. It was genocide. Evidence surfaced after the fall of Mengistu's dictatorship.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Let's see... Hitler murderd 10 000 000 in concentration camps. Churchill let 3 000 000 starve to death in India. He was a journalist during the Boer war, but didn't think joining the British army would risk people thinking he was biased. As a journalist he sat in a Boer concentration camp, put there by mistake. He then escaped and defended the concentration camps. The camps didn't have enough sanitation, so were in effect death camps. Hundreds of thousands of Boers died in them. What more... he was involved in genocides in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He bragged about murdering the natives. In India the British rulers, and Churchill did their best to create animosity between the Muslims and Hindus, to make it easier to rule. That damage is incalculable. Not to mention Africa. When the Brits took over they removed social structures that had evolved over hundreds of years and made them all dependent on a centralized government. Do you think Churchill did anything to help fix that policy? Nope, instead he helped making it even worse.

I'll give you that Hitler tried harder in murdering people. But Churchill was about as vile. At least he wasn't an antisemite. That's always something.

Do you still wish to compare Hitler with Churchill after the former murdered up to 20 million in Russia alone. Churchill saved the Western World from Hitler and his regime which were mostly incarcerated as war criminals after the war! No war crimes were ever established against Churchill or his government.

WTF...!?! With this logic it's ok to murder or rape somebody, as long as you prior to this saved someone else's life. The fact that he led Britain against Hitler doesn't make him less of a white supremacist. No war crimes were established against Churchill because winners write the history. In Europe we gave Churchill a free pass because we're grateful of the war effort. But just ask anybody in India or Africa what they think.

WW2 was a war fought between powers who all were racist as fuck. All out racism. While I'm happy that our racists fought for democracy. They weren't the good guys. Good guys seem pretty damn absent from WW2.

 

[angelo]

Good guys absent from WW2? What about Roosevelt and the Marshall Plan which probably saved millions of European people from starvation?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Good guys absent from WW2? What about Roosevelt and the Marshall Plan which probably saved millions of European people from starvation?

Again... USA had racial segregation going until the 60'ies. In WW2 both sides were overtly racist as fuck. What about racial segregation isn't evil, in your mind?

The Marshall plan, while a great thing to do, doesn't magically whitewash segregation. I'll use the same example. You can't rape somebody just because you earlier saved a life. That's not how morals work. Each act has to be judged in isolation. Marshall plan = yay... great going guys. Racial segregation = booooo

 

[angelo]

Good guys absent from WW2? What about Roosevelt and the Marshall Plan which probably saved millions of European people from starvation?

Again... USA had racial segregation going until the 60'ies. In WW2 both sides were overtly racist as fuck. What about racial segregation isn't evil, in your mind?

The Marshall plan, while a great thing to do, doesn't magically whitewash segregation. I'll use the same example. You can't rape somebody just because you earlier saved a life. That's not how morals work. Each act has to be judged in isolation. Marshall plan = yay... great going guys. Racial segregation = booooo

What about the racial segregation happening right now in muslim majority countries towards Kafirs?
Why is that convielantly ignored?

 

[LordKiran]

Again... USA had racial segregation going until the 60'ies. In WW2 both sides were overtly racist as fuck. What about racial segregation isn't evil, in your mind?

The Marshall plan, while a great thing to do, doesn't magically whitewash segregation. I'll use the same example. You can't rape somebody just because you earlier saved a life. That's not how morals work. Each act has to be judged in isolation. Marshall plan = yay... great going guys. Racial segregation = booooo

What about the racial segregation happening right now in muslim majority countries towards Kafirs?
Why is that convielantly ignored?

Why is your response to questions to deflect toward something else?

 

[whichphilosophy]

What about the racial segregation happening right now in muslim majority countries towards Kafirs?
Why is that convielantly ignored?

Why is your response to questions to deflect toward something else?

It is giving a similarity. Westerners have largely dropped racism and other forms of. Many but not all Muslim societies have. Those who are more liberal are discriminatory in many areas.

 

[LordKiran]

What about the racial segregation happening right now in muslim majority countries towards Kafirs?
Why is that convielantly ignored?

Why is your response to questions to deflect toward something else?

It is giving a similarity. Westerners have largely dropped racism and other forms of. Many but not all Muslim societies have. Those who are more liberal are discriminatory in many areas.

No, it was a whataboutism.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Why is your response to questions to deflect toward something else?

It is giving a similarity. Westerners have largely dropped racism and other forms of. Many but not all Muslim societies have. Those who are more liberal are discriminatory in many areas.

No, it was a whataboutism.

It's a matter of fact.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Clearly Britain's Justice system is tainted by the EU.
We cannot even deport a career criminal.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...nal-wins-80k-payout-beingunlawfully-detained/

A "prolific and violent offender" has won £78,500 damages from the Home Office for being unlawfully detained.

Somali Abdulrahman Mohammed, 39, came to the UK in February 1996 when he was 17 and has spent much of the last two decades in and out of custody, largely for serious criminal offences.

He has also been detained pending deportation as a foreign criminal, and claimed damages for false imprisonment relating to three periods of detention totalling 445 days.

Assessing damages in London after the Home Office conceded liability, Deputy High Court Judge Edward Pepperall said that as a 13-year-old, Mohammed suffered "unimaginable barbarity" in Mogadishu at the outbreak of the civil war.

He was tortured by armed men and had since suffered moderately severe post-traumatic stress disorder.

On arriving in the UK, he soon found himself mixing in bad company and became a "habitual and violent criminal", most notably being sentenced to two different four-year terms for robbery.

 

[bilby]

Clearly Britain's Justice system is tainted by the EU.
We cannot even deport a career criminal.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...nal-wins-80k-payout-beingunlawfully-detained/

A "prolific and violent offender" has won £78,500 damages from the Home Office for being unlawfully detained.

Somali Abdulrahman Mohammed, 39, came to the UK in February 1996 when he was 17 and has spent much of the last two decades in and out of custody, largely for serious criminal offences.

He has also been detained pending deportation as a foreign criminal, and claimed damages for false imprisonment relating to three periods of detention totalling 445 days.

Assessing damages in London after the Home Office conceded liability, Deputy High Court Judge Edward Pepperall said that as a 13-year-old, Mohammed suffered "unimaginable barbarity" in Mogadishu at the outbreak of the civil war.

He was tortured by armed men and had since suffered moderately severe post-traumatic stress disorder.

On arriving in the UK, he soon found himself mixing in bad company and became a "habitual and violent criminal", most notably being sentenced to two different four-year terms for robbery.

Being a criminal - even a career criminal - does not strip a person of their rights, or allow governments to ignore the law when dealing with them. The practice of literally making offenders 'outlaws' ceased in England long before the European Union was ever thought of. It basically ceased in 1214 with the Magna Carta, although some cases of outlawry continued into the later medieval period.

As usual, the morons are clamouring for the abolition of the entirety of English law, because they feel that one person was not treated harshly enough. Why they blame the EU rather than Magna Carta is unclear; it most likely has to do with them being morons.

 

[angelo]

Clearly Britain's Justice system is tainted by the EU.
We cannot even deport a career criminal.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...nal-wins-80k-payout-beingunlawfully-detained/

A "prolific and violent offender" has won £78,500 damages from the Home Office for being unlawfully detained.

Somali Abdulrahman Mohammed, 39, came to the UK in February 1996 when he was 17 and has spent much of the last two decades in and out of custody, largely for serious criminal offences.

He has also been detained pending deportation as a foreign criminal, and claimed damages for false imprisonment relating to three periods of detention totalling 445 days.

Assessing damages in London after the Home Office conceded liability, Deputy High Court Judge Edward Pepperall said that as a 13-year-old, Mohammed suffered "unimaginable barbarity" in Mogadishu at the outbreak of the civil war.

He was tortured by armed men and had since suffered moderately severe post-traumatic stress disorder.

On arriving in the UK, he soon found himself mixing in bad company and became a "habitual and violent criminal", most notably being sentenced to two different four-year terms for robbery.

The man has every right to claim compensation, after all he's a muslim, and Kaffirs must pay dhimmi!