It would be a deterrent, assuming people are rational actors. But the field of economics (mostly bullshit anyway) is starting to realize that people don't always act in their own best interest. People like shitty food, so they will make room in their budget to get it.
This is even before considering the addictions to fat, salt, and sugar many people have.
I almost don't remember what you mean ;) Regarding overpopulation, I'm not quite sure how to approach it. It's a complex subject. I suppose I'll start with energy consumption.
http://www.cosmosmith.com/images/
The amount of energy humans consume per capita is excessively high, in comparison to survival needs. Food is often transported for hundreds or thousands of miles before consumption. Industrial subsidies keep afloat incredibly inefficient methods and transactions, which all ultimately serve to shuffle and concentrate wealth into the middlemen. All the while, most countries look at population control as inhumane, as if making progeny were a right. The graph above indicates that if our population isn't sustainable now, it will certainly be soon.
1. Reread my argument. You did not respond to it.
2. "Do with it what you will." Uh, okay. It's completely ridiculous, unless you have some way to back it up.
3. On the scale we're consuming our resources, we're far less like a predator and more like a parasite that kills its host. That would be legitimate, if there were any other hosts.
1. The idea that you can only find sufficient protein in meat is propaganda, courtesy of the meat industry. Read about the China Study for more on that, and on dairy.
2. The world would be overrun? What, chickens are going to organize and march on our capitols? Explain to me exactly what you mean by that.
3. "If they can do it, why not us?" They eat meat to survive. We eat meat because we like it, not because we need it. Humans are extremely overpopulated thanks to medicine and other lifespan-increasing advances. If we want to stay overpopulated, we need to consume less.
Please. Bullshit is entertainment done in the style of a documentary. And their research is far from reliable. I like the show, but that is not evidence.
Also, points for your first sentence. Laughable, like if I were to say, "I would disprove you thoroughly, but I know that will only make you more stubborn."
Forgot to mention they're right on about Gandhi, though, if a bit unforgiving. The guy is suddenly a hack because he's not flawless?
1. Livelihood? Who has the right to bring more children into a world that already has starving ones? I know legislating moral choice isn't moral, but I'd like to see you establish that it's a right to have biological children.
2. That's not proof, it's a gross simplification of an issue that could fill books, and it shows little knowledge of ecology. Other than that, very interesting site, and thanks for posting it.
Constitutional Monarchy is a form of government. It has little bearing on economic structure. X|
And "You see only two?" Do a little bit of research before you post, it doesn't take more than a few minutes. The responses you get on your arguments will reflect the amount of effort you put into them. If you write more like this one, all you're gonna get are flippant responses from assholes like me :P
Took the words right out of my mouth. I hope the bellicose attitudes of most of the people I run into are the products of a cultural tendency; At least that offers some avenue of escape from recurring intellectual impasses. But it's good to hear that someone gets it. I used to spend a good amount of time on this site, and I've mostly given up.
the needy get their needs from the greedy either way. Socialism says "just give the needy their needs" while Capitalism says "make them work for it".
All people have a fair chance, huh? They get what they work for? And if they don't, they're just lazy?
Just-World Fallacy.
I don't really understand your contempt for economists (or rather, economists). Are you saying members of the profession are universally untrustworthy and majorly biased?
Something to read:
http://www.huffingtonpost.
