Guided Missile

I'm amazed that this view is given the time of day by so many well meaning people, who are generally rich (in a global sense) and really mean that population control should be applied to the poor. The theory was popularised over two hundred years ago, by, surprise, surprise, an economist. It's known as the Malthusian theory. As you know, I love graphs and here's the one that underpins this immoral philosophy. For those interested, the intellectual great-grandfather of this position was the British economist Thomas Robert Malthus, who in 1798 (in "An Essay on the Principle of Population") and subsequently in 1820 (in "Principles of Economics") compared the principle of our resources’ finiteness to the dynamics of human population growth (the underlying argument, however, we already find in Aristotle’s thinking). Formulated into a mathematical law, Malthus posed it as an inescapable necessity for man to fatefully obey a law of unlimited multiplication, while the resources needed for such "geometric" (“exponential”) growth of mankind do not grow in the same proportions. These develop only "arithmetically" (“linearly”). According to Malthus, such an unrestricted increase means that at some point the available food is no longer sufficient to feed the earth's population, so that frequently corrective events in the form of illnesses, misery, wars, and death must occur that limit the growth of the human population and thus maintain the necessary balance. That he used an economic and sociological theory as a basis for concrete moral judgments, to the effect that poor people are starving and dying for a good reason, has repeatedly brought him strong criticism, so that today he finds himself placed in the line of anti-humanistic thinkers (who at his time, however, had significant political influence: his overpopulation theory led to the “Poor Law Amendment Act” in England of 1834, in which the support of those in need in England experienced massive cuts). This theory is regularly regurgitated by rich countries to impose on poor, most notably India, where it was used in the most inhumane means of social engineering. How did India escape the Malthusian graph? Technology, obviously, as an economist like Malthus is hardly likely to be in a position to foresee what the scientists were capable of. The Green Revolution was a set of research technology transfer initiatives occurring between 1950 and the late 1960s, that increased agricultural production worldwide, particularly in the developing world, beginning most markedly in the late 1960s. The initiatives resulted in the adoption of new technologies, including high-yielding varieties (HYVs) of cereals, especially dwarf wheats and rices, in association with chemical fertilizers and agrochemicals, and with controlled water-supply (usually involving irrigation) and new methods of cultivation, including mechanization. All of these together were seen as a 'package of practices' to supersede 'traditional' technology and to be adopted as a whole. In 1961, India was on the brink of mass famine. Norman Borlaug, an agronomist that pioneered the Green Revolution, was invited to India by the adviser to the Indian minister of agriculture Dr. M. S. Swaminathan. Despite bureaucratic hurdles imposed by India's grain monopolies, the Ford Foundation and Indian government collaborated to import wheat seed from the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT). Punjab was selected by the Indian government to be the first site to try the new crops because of its reliable water supply and a history of agricultural success. India began its own Green Revolution program of plant breeding, irrigation development, and financing of agrochemicals. India soon adopted IR8 – a semi-dwarf rice variety developed by the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) that could produce more grains of rice per plant when grown with certain fertilizers and irrigation. In 1968, Indian agronomist S.K. De Datta published his findings that IR8 rice yielded about 5 tons per hectare with no fertilizer, and almost 10 tons per hectare under optimal conditions. This was 10 times the yield of traditional rice. IR8 was a success throughout Asia, and dubbed the "Miracle Rice". In the 1960s, rice yields in India were about two tons per hectare; by the mid-1990s, they had risen to six tons per hectare. In the 1970s, rice cost about $550 a ton; in 2001, it cost under $200 a ton. India became one of the world's most successful rice producers, and is now a major rice exporter, shipping nearly 4.5 million tons in 2006.Thus India was largely freed from the famine and scientists were largely responsible. Norman Borlaug said of environmental lobbyists:

You should man up and admit you make sh!t up, loser. Now back on ignore. Why the f*** I took you off, I'll never know. "Berate the EU for protectionism and tariffs in trade with China?" WTF???

Yeah, but then that's a figment of your imagination, isn't it? Find the post from "a couple of months ago" where I was "banging on about how great free trade with China was" and I'll change my user name to Katie Hopkins. Sh!t, I'll even dress up as Katie Hopkins and post an image.

The bitterness is strong in this remainer....

My top three: Trump elected POTUS Leicester win the Premier League Keith Richards is still alive in 2020

The lawyers are off and running: Just the start...

We obviously won't exit on WTO terms, will we, because Germany won't allow it? You and your remainer mates, unlike the current Government under Boris, haven't got a clue about negotiating from a strong position. Relax, snowflake, Boris will continue to play a blinder and a FTA will be cooked up by the end of the year. The more we say that an exit under WTO terms will be a disaster for the UK, the less likely we will get a decent deal from the EU mafia. A WTO exit wouldn't be great, but compared to the damage already done to the world economy by corona virus, tariffs on goods and services don't mean a thing. The world order has changed and the end of large trading blocs and globalisation are dead, as are car and air transport. Keep up, Timmy...

....and as if by magic, the following article appears in the Telegraph: They must be reading my posts...

We know you're an African anglophobe, Gavyn, but I would have thought you would have shown a bit of gratitude to a country that gave you everything. Actually, no I wouldn't. Resentment of the old colonial master, is strong in you.

We obviously won't exit on WTO terms, will we, because Germany won't allow it? You and your remainer mates, unlike the current Government under Boris, haven't got a clue about negotiating from a strong position. Relax, snowflake, Boris will continue to play a blinder and a FTA will be cooked up by the end of the year. The more we say that an exit under WTO terms will be a disaster for the UK, the less likely we will get a decent deal from the EU mafia. A WTO exit wouldn't be great, but compared to the damage already done to the world economy by corona virus, tariffs on goods and services don't mean a thing. The world order has changed and the end of large trading blocs and globalisation are dead, as are car and air transport. Keep up, Timmy...

I'm speechless...

Mummy, who would be affected most by the UK trading on WTO terms with the EU?

I clearly stated that the US traded with the EU under WTO terms, not that "the EU and US have no trade deals". For an example of the US trading "sensibly" with the EU on WTO terms, read the article below, grow up and apologise: Trading under WTO terms with the EU was a sensible choice by Trump, I would say...

We voted out. We've left. If we rejoin there will be the prospect of a massive coronavirus bill to participate in. It's only complicated if we follow your strange logic that when we leave, we will somehow not be able to trade with the US or the EU. I'm saying that at worst, the EU tariffs may cost us around 5% on our exports. I assume you realise that we are a net importer from the EU and tariffs will thus affect the EU more than us. As for trade with the US, we are a net exporter and are trading position with the US will be barely affected when we leave, as, to repeat, the EU does not have a FTA with the US, but falls back on WTO rules in the event a specific bilateral trade agreement doesn't cover the goods/services in question. Leaving the EU without a trade deal on the 31st December, 2020 is not complicated, the alternative is. It is democracy in action, so suck it up and stop crying....

It wasn't wrong, but I've pedant proofed it, as follows:

So, we are facing the greatest threat to the World economy for, some say, 300 years. There is talk of 35% drop in the GDP of the UK due to corona virus. The prospect of trading on WTO terms with the EU and any threat that may pose to the UK economy pales into insignificance. I mean, the EU deals with the US on WTO terms and the average tariff imposed for 5,018 products is 5.25%. Big effing deal....

Out of the blue, a phone call from the club this morning. What did they want? To find out how I was doing and to update me on what they think was going to happen for the rest of the season. Didn't try and sell me a season ticket for next year and sounded genuinely interested in what I thought. Did anyone else get a call? I think the club and players have been classy throughout this covid 19 situation. Saints through thick and thin for me, win or lose.

The only person Trump should worry about on a Democratic ticket is Bill Gates. Hell, I'd vote for him.

Trump leads the world out of the darkness. Great move last night...

....and useful idiots like me will vote for him and he'll have 4 more years, just like useful idiots like me voted for Boris, to a 80 seat majority. Democracy is great, isn't it and the bonus is the results p!$$ geniuses like you off so much... Suck it up, buttercup and get used to Trump and Boris.

....and who pays for the WHO...? [TABLE=class: cms_table_outer_border, width: 500, align: left] [TR] [TD]United States of America[/TD] [TD]14.67%[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation[/TD] [TD]9.76%[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]GAVI Alliance (aka Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation)[/TD] [TD]8.39%[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland[/TD] [TD]7.79%[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Germany[/TD] [TD]5.68%[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]European Commission[/TD] [TD]3.3%[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Japan[/TD] [TD]2.73%[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Italy[/TD] [TD]0.54%[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]France[/TD] [TD]0.5%[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Wellcome Trust[/TD] [TD]0.28%[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]China[/TD] [TD]0.21%[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] China? 0.21%? Really? No, over 40% of the funding for the WHO comes from the US, together with their capitalist running dogs, Bill Gates and the UK....

The above post confirms that you are a total weirdo. I'd stick to your normal porn site haunts, mate. You make f*** all sense on here. And don't quote Gavyn, please. The last thing we need is another rambling post from that socialist, African, anglophobic, windbag...

Meanwhile, breaking news in the Telegraph, that well known Trump mouthpiece:

No, sh!t-for-brains, the WHO was obsessed with the ongoing fight to combat larvae based diseases in emerging African nations, thus relieving "40 million people from infection, preventing blindness in 600 000 people, and ensuring that 18 million children were born free from the threat of the disease and blindness. In addition, 25 million hectares of abandoned arable land were reclaimed for settlement and agricultural production, capable of feeding 17 million people annually." The Marxist WHO are now more obsessed with international travel and trade. Still, I think that's enough of responding to pond life....

You, mate, are a waste of bandwidth.