be made to live the way we live, whatever the cost. It would have been immoral for us to leave them alone, just as it would be immoral for us to leave them alone now. Much better to send them food to maintain them in a state of perpetual starvation than to let their populations decline to a point where they can live within their own resources.
Elaine . I suspect that would be the typical reaction.
Daniel . What would God do, if we stopped feeding them?
Elaine . God?
Daniel . God wouldn't let them starve, would he?
Elaine . Based on past performance, I think he would. He hasn't intervened in human affairs in a long, long time.
Daniel . God would let them starve, but we have to be better than God. We are better than God, which is why it's so appropriate that we should rule the world.
Elaine . Yes. I can see why this woman thought you were the most obscene person she'd ever met.
Daniel laughs. We Martians are fiends... Let's move on. I hope we're finished with these issues for good.
Elaine . There's one more I have to bring up, because people keep bringing it up to me .
Daniel . Okay.
Elaine . It goes something like this. If population is a function of food availability, then why is it that the developed nations, in which food is plentiful, have the lowest growth rate — and sometimes a zero or negative growth rate — while undeveloped nations, in which food is scarce, have higher growth rates?
Daniel [ sighing ]. Yes, of course, there's that one. This represents a kind of misdirection called "changing the subject." Have I said anything connecting growth rate to food availability?
Elaine [ after thinking for a moment ]. Not that I recall.
Daniel . I've said only that the population of any species will grow if more food becomes available to it, and our population is currently growing by about seventy-seven million every year. That may not sound like much, but I once took the trouble to do some research, and found that this is equivalent to the combined populations of Canada, Australia, Denmark, Austria, and Greece. Every year.
Elaine . That's impressive, when you put it that way.
Daniel . The fact that it's growing at a faster rate in some places than others is beside the point. The point is that the human population is steadily growing because we're steadily increasing food production.
Elaine . I see that.
Daniel . The reason why growth rates differ in developed and undeveloped nations has nothing to do with food availability. It has to do with family economics. In developed nations having a multiplicity of children is a burden, no matter how abundant food is, whereas in undeveloped nations it's a blessing, no matter how scarce food is. Do I need to explain why this is so?
Elaine . No, I don't think so. In developed nations it costs a lot of money to raise children, and they're not expected to contribute anything to family income. In undeveloped nations it costs little to raise children, and they generally contribute a lot to family income.
Daniel . I'm sure you realize that we don't consume all the food we produce in the United States.
Elaine . Of course. I assume we export huge amounts of it.
Daniel . So this food isn't being turned into human biomass in the United States. Since it's not here, it can't be used for that purpose.
Elaine . Right.
Daniel . So what's happening to it?
Elaine . It's being turned into human biomass in other parts of the world.
Daniel . So while we're not interested in increasing our own population, we're very interested in producing surplus food to support population growth elsewhere.
Elaine . True. [ After thinking for a bit. ] But when this business of growth rates is brought up, one of the points that people make is that when currently underdeveloped nations reach our level of prosperity their growth rates are likely to go down just the way ours has.
Daniel . And at that point population growth will be negligible.
Elaine . That's right.
Daniel . All right. We need a
Elaine . I suspect that would be the typical reaction.
Daniel . What would God do, if we stopped feeding them?
Elaine . God?
Daniel . God wouldn't let them starve, would he?
Elaine . Based on past performance, I think he would. He hasn't intervened in human affairs in a long, long time.
Daniel . God would let them starve, but we have to be better than God. We are better than God, which is why it's so appropriate that we should rule the world.
Elaine . Yes. I can see why this woman thought you were the most obscene person she'd ever met.
Daniel laughs. We Martians are fiends... Let's move on. I hope we're finished with these issues for good.
Elaine . There's one more I have to bring up, because people keep bringing it up to me .
Daniel . Okay.
Elaine . It goes something like this. If population is a function of food availability, then why is it that the developed nations, in which food is plentiful, have the lowest growth rate — and sometimes a zero or negative growth rate — while undeveloped nations, in which food is scarce, have higher growth rates?
Daniel [ sighing ]. Yes, of course, there's that one. This represents a kind of misdirection called "changing the subject." Have I said anything connecting growth rate to food availability?
Elaine [ after thinking for a moment ]. Not that I recall.
Daniel . I've said only that the population of any species will grow if more food becomes available to it, and our population is currently growing by about seventy-seven million every year. That may not sound like much, but I once took the trouble to do some research, and found that this is equivalent to the combined populations of Canada, Australia, Denmark, Austria, and Greece. Every year.
Elaine . That's impressive, when you put it that way.
Daniel . The fact that it's growing at a faster rate in some places than others is beside the point. The point is that the human population is steadily growing because we're steadily increasing food production.
Elaine . I see that.
Daniel . The reason why growth rates differ in developed and undeveloped nations has nothing to do with food availability. It has to do with family economics. In developed nations having a multiplicity of children is a burden, no matter how abundant food is, whereas in undeveloped nations it's a blessing, no matter how scarce food is. Do I need to explain why this is so?
Elaine . No, I don't think so. In developed nations it costs a lot of money to raise children, and they're not expected to contribute anything to family income. In undeveloped nations it costs little to raise children, and they generally contribute a lot to family income.
Daniel . I'm sure you realize that we don't consume all the food we produce in the United States.
Elaine . Of course. I assume we export huge amounts of it.
Daniel . So this food isn't being turned into human biomass in the United States. Since it's not here, it can't be used for that purpose.
Elaine . Right.
Daniel . So what's happening to it?
Elaine . It's being turned into human biomass in other parts of the world.
Daniel . So while we're not interested in increasing our own population, we're very interested in producing surplus food to support population growth elsewhere.
Elaine . True. [ After thinking for a bit. ] But when this business of growth rates is brought up, one of the points that people make is that when currently underdeveloped nations reach our level of prosperity their growth rates are likely to go down just the way ours has.
Daniel . And at that point population growth will be negligible.
Elaine . That's right.
Daniel . All right. We need a
Similar Books
