World Population to Surpass 7 Billion in 2011

[chloe]

population is expected to hit 7 billion later this year, up from 6 billion in 1999. Between now and 2050, an estimated 2.3 billion more people will be added -- nearly as many as inhabited the planet as recently as 1950. New estimates from the Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations also project that the population will reach 10.1 billion in 2100
These sizable increases represent an unprecedented global demographic upheaval, according to David Bloom, Clarence James Gamble Professor of Economics and Demography at the Harvard School of Public Health, in a review article published July 29, 2011 in Science.
Over the next forty years, nearly all (97%) of the 2.3 billion projected increase will be in the less developed regions, with nearly half (49%) in Africa. By contrast, the populations of more developed countries will remain flat, but will age, with fewer working-age adults to support retirees living on social pensions.

"Although the issues immediately confronting developing countries are different from those facing the rich countries, in a globalized world demographic challenges anywhere are demographic challenges everywhere," said Bloom.

The world's population has grown slowly for most of human history. It took until 1800 for the population to hit 1 billion. However, in the past half-century, population jumped from 3 to 7 billion. In 2011, approximately 135 million people will be born and 57 million will die, a net increase of 78 million people.

Considerable uncertainty about these projections remains, Bloom writes. Depending on whether the number of births per woman continues to decline, the ranges for 2050 vary from 8.1 to 10.6 billion, and the 2100 projections vary from 6.2 to 15.8 billion.

Population trends indicate a shift in the "demographic center of gravity" from more to less developed regions, Bloom writes. Already strained, many developing countries will likely face tremendous difficulties in supplying food, water, housing, and energy to their growing populations, with repercussions for health, security, and economic growth.




http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110728144933.htm

I always wonder when I watch a news show that is talking about 3rd world countries poverty and starvation issues why anyone would willingly get pregnant and pop out a half dozen kids knowing the lack of supply situation they are living in.

[J.T]

As I've said before, the solution is to use the offer of aid to get those in the third world to submit to sterilization. As it stands now, we're just artificially inflating the population and encouraging more starvation.

[fj1200]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110728144933.htm

I always wonder when I watch a news show that is talking about 3rd world countries poverty and starvation issues why anyone would willingly get pregnant and pop out a half dozen kids knowing the lack of supply situation they are living in.

Children are an asset in developing countries, they work on the farm or in the family "business" and provide security in their old age. Throw in the infant mortality rate and it's almost a necessity to have kids. The solution would be to encourage economic development in their countries, the more advanced the country is the lower the fertility rate. The older UN projections used to have the world population peaking at ~10 billion but I think they're revising the numbers.

[J.T]

Children are an asset in developing countries, they work on the farm
Not when you've had a drought for the last decade.


The solution would be to encourage economic development in their countries
Where nothing grows and there are no resources anybody wants?

There are some regions people just plain should live. Antarctica is one example. Much of Africa is another. To artificially sustain human populations in these regions is just plain stupid.

[fj1200]

Not when you've had a drought for the last decade.

Yes, the entire developing world has been in a drought for the last decade. :rolleyes:


Where nothing grows and there are no resources anybody wants?

There are some regions people just plain should live. Antarctica is one example. Much of Africa is another. To artificially sustain human populations in these regions is just plain stupid.

Who said anything about artificially sustaining anything? Your statist solution would be a global bataan death march right?

Your cherry-picking method of debating is pathetic.

[chloe]

Children are an asset in developing countries, they work on the farm or in the family "business" and provide security in their old age. Throw in the infant mortality rate and it's almost a necessity to have kids. The solution would be to encourage economic development in their countries, the more advanced the country is the lower the fertility rate. The older UN projections used to have the world population peaking at ~10 billion but I think they're revising the numbers.

If thats the solution why not put money into building there instead of just giving food water and meds or letting people starve to death?

[J.T]

Who said anything about artificially sustaining anything?
When you artificially increase the food supply without controlling population growth, you tend to artificially raise and keep the population above a sustainable level, thereby making the region even more dependent on ever more outside aid and worsening the problem of mass starvation and sickness. It's very counterproductive and quite cruel if the stated goal is to reduce suffering.


Your statist solution

You do realize that most of these regions are part of independent nation-states, right? I say most because some don't really have anything resembling a functioning State structure). Anyway, they're not part of our State.


would be a global bataan death march right?
You're kinda retarded, aren't you? My proposal in in the first reply top this thread. Make the offer of continued aid to these foreign nations contingent on the condition that those who wish to participate in the aid programs we run must enroll in a population control (sterilization) program. They can decide for themselves whether they wish to accept the conditions or seek aid elsewhere.

[LuvRPgrl]

As I've said before, the solution is to use the offer of aid to get those in the third world to submit to sterilization. As it stands now, we're just artificially inflating the population and encouraging more starvation.,

Just to be FAIR, you support sterilization for the poor in USA? Or is the right to bear children only belongs to Americans.
It seems you are giving more rights to the lower class of US residents over poor people in other countries, because comparitively speaking, the poor of America are rich compared to the people you want to sterilize, so I guess you do support extra rights for the rich.

Why not tax the rich more and use it for the worlds poor?

[chloe]

,

Just to be FAIR, you support sterilization for the poor in USA? Or is the right to bear children only belongs to Americans.
It seems you are giving more rights to the lower class of US residents over poor people in other countries, because comparitively speaking, the poor of America are rich compared to the people you want to sterilize, so I guess you do support extra rights for the rich.

Why not tax the rich more and use it for the worlds poor?

I don't believe in abortion but I don't see anything wrong with people choosing to have a vasectomy or tubes tied to prevent pregnancy.

[LuvRPgrl]

When you artificially increase the food supply without controlling population growth, you tend to artificially raise and keep the population above a sustainable level, thereby making the region even more dependent on ever more outside aid and worsening the problem of mass starvation and sickness. It's very counterproductive and quite cruel if the stated goal is to reduce suffering..
.
........When you artificially increase the MONEY GIVEN without controlling population OF AMERICAS POOR , you tend to artificially raise and keep the THEIR EXPECTATIONS OF FREEBIES above a sustainable level, thereby making the region even more dependent on ever more TAXING THE RICH and worsening the problem of mass POVERTY and sickness. It's very counterproductive and quite cruel if the stated goal is to reduce POVERTY







My proposal in ..... this thread. Make the offer of continued aid to these foreign nations contingent on the condition that those who wish to participate in the aid programs we run must enroll in a population control (sterilization) program. They can decide for themselves whether they wish to accept the conditions or seek aid elsewhere.

so, your offer to them is STERILIZE OR STARVE?

[LuvRPgrl]

I don't believe in abortion but I don't see anything wrong with people choosing to have a vasectomy or tubes tied to prevent pregnancy.

I agree, as long as they are choosing it

[PostmodernProphet]

move, you are standing on MY 2.5 square feet!........

[J.T]

,

Just to be FAIR, you support sterilization for the poor in USA?

I've said repeatedly that the best solution for all parties would be if a number of private fanciers funded a service to provide targeted demographics with financial compensation for undergoing sterilization procedures. This would benefit the poor as they not only no longer have to worry about getting and paying for birth control or the possible financial burden of an unplanned pregnancy (especially if they do not realize they are pregnant (http://tlc.howstuffworks.com/tv/i-didnt-know-i-was-pregnant) until it's too late. It, would reduce abortions (by reducing unwanted pregnancies)a nd would liberate those women who choose to participate from the shackles of their biology and ensure men they would not have to worry about being taken on Maury and suddenly being faces with 18-21 years of child support. It would reduce the number of poor families with children, thereby relieving the burden on society, and it would also help fight local population concerns and generational poverty and ghettofication. In addition, the financial compensation would go even further to help these people use that money to get out of their current situation and improve their condition.

But perhaps you don't actually care about results and solving the problem.



Or is the right to bear children only belongs to Americans.

What are you on about? Nobody said anyone had or surrendered any such rights. If you don't want to participate in the program, that's fine. nobody's forcing you to accept the conditions or the aid offered. You're free to do without or look elsewhere.

[chloe]

move, you are standing on MY 2.5 square feet!........

Don't try to Gyp me Gypsie ( learned that offensive slang in my diversity class) you only got 2.4 sq feet:laugh2:

[revelarts]

Why don't we all just kill ourselves and be done with it?
no more problems. On earth at least.

[J.T]

I don't believe in abortion but I don't see anything wrong with people choosing to have a vasectomy or tubes tied to prevent pregnancy.

And would you have any objection to a private third party offering to pay for it and provide the patient financial compensation for their downtime and/or to help them improve their condition and as a sign that they respect that they made what the third party considers a responsible and sound decision?


.
so, your offer to them is STERILIZE OR STARVE?

They're already starving. I propose we offer a real solution: alleviating the suffering of those currently hungry while also addressing the underlying problems causing the symptoms (starvation being a symptom of underlying problems), one of which is an unsustainable large population.



I agree, as long as they are choosing it


So all your faux rage above was just you being an idiot?

[J.T]

Why don't we all just kill ourselves and be done with it?
no more problems. On earth at least.

You first :thumb:

[fj1200]

If thats the solution why not put money into building there instead of just giving food water and meds or letting people starve to death?

We've put plenty of money there but without a change in control of government it would just be siphoned off by corruption. Unfortunately the implementation is not as easy as the solution.

[fj1200]

When you artificially increase the food supply without controlling population growth, you tend to artificially raise and keep the population above a sustainable level, thereby making the region even more dependent on ever more outside aid and worsening the problem of mass starvation and sickness. It's very counterproductive and quite cruel if the stated goal is to reduce suffering.

You do realize that most of these regions are part of independent nation-states, right? I say most because some don't really have anything resembling a functioning State structure). Anyway, they're not part of our State.

What are you even talking about? Why don't you actually respond intelligently :laugh: rather than blithering on after your ignorant presumptions.


You're kinda retarded, aren't you? My proposal in in the first reply top this thread. Make the offer of continued aid to these foreign nations contingent on the condition that those who wish to participate in the aid programs we run must enroll in a population control (sterilization) program. They can decide for themselves whether they wish to accept the conditions or seek aid elsewhere.

It's pretty easy to read between your lines; sterilize the black man huh?

[fj1200]

.........When you artificially increase the MONEY GIVEN without controlling population OF AMERICAS POOR , you tend to artificially raise and keep the THEIR EXPECTATIONS OF FREEBIES above a sustainable level, thereby making the region even more dependent on ever more TAXING THE RICH and worsening the problem of mass POVERTY and sickness. It's very counterproductive and quite cruel if the stated goal is to reduce POVERTY

so, your offer to them is STERILIZE OR STARVE?

It's mean to point out what a ridiculous ball of contradictions he is.

[revelarts]

You first :thumb:
No , please after you ,
you seem to more upset and concerned about the population Than I'll ever be.

[chloe]

I wouldn't have a problem with people choosing not to have kids and getting fixed not to have kids.

[fj1200]

But perhaps you don't actually care about results and solving the problem.

You haven't solved any problem all you've done is make yourself feel better. They'll still be dirt poor with zero rights and zero ability to rise and another funding source for government corruption. Until there is government change they will still be impoverished.

[J.T]

The moment you played the race card (and coupled it with a neg rep attack), you proved you have nothing intelligent to say and nothing to contribute to this thread.

You are dismissed.

[J.T]

I wouldn't have a problem with people choosing not to have kids and getting fixed not to have kids.
And would you have any objection to a private third party offering to pay for it and provide the patient financial compensation for their downtime and/or to help them improve their condition and as a sign that they respect that they made what the third party considers a responsible and sound decision?

You didn't answer the first time.

[fj1200]

The moment you played the race card (and coupled it with a neg rep attack), you proved you have nothing intelligent to say and nothing to contribute to this thread.

You are dismissed.

:laugh: You negged first and insulted first; you're such a pansy. You've already lost, must feel familiar for you though. ;)

Your love of our dark-skinned brothers is legendary. :rolleyes:

[chloe]

And would you have any objection to a private third party offering to pay for it and provide the patient financial compensation for their downtime and/or to help them improve their condition and as a sign that they respect that they made what the third party considers a responsible and sound decision?

You didn't answer the first time.

If a 3rd party offers to pay for someone to tie there tubes or get a vasectomy and the person its offered to wants to do it and chooses to I have no problem with it.

If they are stating to a starved person I will give you a bite of this sandwich but only if I can chop your balls off, I'd have a problem with it:laugh2:

[LuvRPgrl]

I've said repeatedly that the best solution for all parties would be if a number of private fanciers funded a service to provide targeted demographics with financial compensation for undergoing sterilization procedures..
So, not only do you want to tax the rich to death,but what money YOU DO ALLOW THEM TO KEEP, you are going to force them to spend on the worlds poor sterilizing them?


This would benefit the poor as they not only no longer have to worry about getting and paying for birth control or the possible financial burden of an unplanned pregnancy (especially if they do not realize they are pregnant (http://tlc.howstuffworks.com/tv/i-didnt-know-i-was-pregnant) until it's too late. It, would reduce abortions (by reducing unwanted pregnancies)a nd would liberate those women who choose to participate from the shackles of their biology and ensure men they would not have to worry about being taken on Maury and suddenly being faces with 18-21 years of child support. It would reduce the number of poor families with children, thereby relieving the burden on society, and it would also help fight local population concerns and generational poverty and ghettofication. In addition, the financial compensation would go even further to help these people use that money to get out of their current situation and improve their condition. .sounds good, but how would that improve their financial situation other than short term?


But perhaps you don't actually care about results and solving the problem..
ohh, you are so witty !




What are you on about? Nobody said anyone had or surrendered any such rights. If you don't want to participate in the program, that's fine. nobody's forcing you to accept the conditions or the aid offered. You're free to do without or look elsewhere. Not if Im starving to death, idiot

[J.T]

So, not only do you want to tax the rich to death
:rolleyes:

Easy, Chicken little. It's going to be okay. taker a xanax and sit down.

but what money YOU DO ALLOW THEM TO KEEP, you are going to force them to spend on the worlds poor sterilizing them?

What the hell are you babbling about now? Nobody's forcing anybody to do anything, Mr Beck. The NAZIs aren't coming for you and the president's not a Reptilian. Seriously, did you take your medication this morning?

[LuvRPgrl]

And would you have any objection to a private third party offering to pay for it and provide the patient financial compensation for their downtime and/or to help them improve their condition and as a sign that they respect that they made what the third party considers a responsible and sound decision??
Is there a law against that now?




They're already starving. I propose we offer a real solution: alleviating the suffering of those currently hungry while also addressing the underlying problems causing the symptoms (starvation being a symptom of underlying problems), one of which is an unsustainable large population.?
You are admitting you have the ability to help them, but you wont do it unless they sterilize.
And guess what, those people you are proposing genocide against, how many of them are caucasians?





So all your faux rage above was just you being an idiot?[/QUOTE] RAGE? what rage.? I never rage, especially not because of some dolt like you.

[J.T]

If a 3rd party offers to pay for someone to tie there tubes or get a vasectomy and the person its offered to wants to do it and chooses to I have no problem with it.

So you've given you stamp of approval to my second proposal. I'm sure fj will declare you a racist and luvr willl launch into a paranoid rant about you being a statist any time now.


If they are stating to a starved person I will give you a bite of this sandwich but only if I can chop your balls off, I'd have a problem with it
We've been offering aid for some time now and no progress has been made. All I'm saying is that these measures should be coupled with measures to actually address the underlying problems: lack of agricultural development and infrastructure, overpopulation, political strive and anarchy, disease, and cultural considerations (eg: the belief that condoms cause aids and raping virgins cures it and the rejection of American crops because religious leaders tell them that GMOs are somehow worse than starving to death and they lack an understanding of what these crops really are and how they can help them). Else we continue to achieve nothing.

[LuvRPgrl]

:rolleyes:

Easy, Chicken little. It's going to be okay. taker a xanax and sit down.

What the hell are you babbling about now? Nobody's forcing anybody to do anything, Mr Beck. The NAZIs aren't coming for you and the president's not a Reptilian. Seriously, did you take your medication this morning?

I did take my meds, thank you.
Thats your only response? pathetic

[J.T]

genocide

So not giving someone food/money/resources is genocide? Interesting concept of what genocide is. I await your response to Ron Paul's comments at the latest debate.

Or maybe you mean that giving women control over their bodies and the option to not have children is genocide? I await your thread comparing the pill to Hitler, mr Beck.

Dude, take some abilify or something.

[J.T]

I did take my meds, thank you.


Are you sure you took the right dose? I mean, you just said birth control and any attempt to deny anybody food stamps is genocide. Maybe you took the wrong pills.

[fj1200]

So you've given you stamp of approval to my second proposal. I'm sure fj will declare you a racist and luvr willl launch into a paranoid rant about you being a statist any time now.

She's neither a racist nor a statist. You...


We've been offering aid for some time now and no progress has been made. All I'm saying is that these measures should be coupled with measures to actually address the underlying problems: lack of agricultural development and infrastructure, overpopulation, political strive and anarchy, disease, and cultural considerations (eg: the belief that condoms cause aids and raping virgins cures it and the rejection of American crops because religious leaders tell them that GMOs are somehow worse than starving to death and they lack an understanding of what these crops really are and how they can help them). Else we continue to achieve nothing.

So now you understand that your solution really is nothing more than making you feel better. There might be hope for you yet.

[J.T]

Addressing the underlying problems is 'nothing more than making you feel better' :slap:

You're kinda stupid, ain't ya?

[fj1200]

Addressing the underlying problems is 'nothing more than making you feel better' :slap:

You're kinda stupid, ain't ya?

You don't even understand your own posts. You go to a "special" school don't you? Still waiting on someone else to buy your books for you?

[chloe]

So you've given you stamp of approval to my second proposal. I'm sure fj will declare you a racist and luvr willl launch into a paranoid rant about you being a statist any time now.





what's a statist? I don't think that is ethnic cleansing or racist.

[LuvRPgrl]

So not giving someone food/money/resources is genocide?.

Passive aggresive I see, Tactics of a coward. Its much more than just genocide if you have what will keep them alive
.

Interesting concept of what genocide is. I await your response to Ron Paul's comments at the latest debate..

ha. You cant even quote him. I mean, did he have a one comment debate, or am I suppose to read your mind and know what he was saying that you are pointing out?


Or maybe you mean that giving women control over their bodies and the option to not have children is genocide? I await your thread comparing the pill to Hitler, mr Beck.

Dude, take some abilify or something..
Those women dont gain any control. In fact, you are taking their ability to choose , away. Once sterilized, what choices do they have? NONE.
Before sterilization they CAN choose to get pregnant, or not, have an abortion or not.

When all else fails, mention Hitler.

[J.T]

Passive aggresive I see, Tactics of a coward. Its much more than just genocide if you have what will keep them alive

Interesting way of looking at it. So basically, by your reasoning, all Americans who have more than they need to survive are committing genocide by not giving what they have (money, food, etc) to save those children in the world who are still starving...

You're the first person in a long time I've heard actually make that claim. Of course, you have more than you need to survive and you haven't given it to those in the world who are still starving to death every day, which means you've just said you yourself are guilty of genocide.

And yet you don't seem to feel any guilt or be the least bit troubled by the fact that, according to you, you commit genocide every day.



Those women dont gain any control. In fact, you are taking their ability to choose
So letting women who don't want to have children actually make sure they don't have an unplanned pregnancy is taking away their ability to choose?

Wait, let me see if I can figure out your thinking here. If you put a dollar in front of a woman she loses all ability to think for herself, right? Women, in your mind, are mentally deficient creatures incapable of independent thought or making their own decisions if you offer them a dollar.

I hadn't pegged you for such a misogynist. Then again, I hadn't pegged you for the type to stand there and say 'I commit genocide every day', believe it, and not be bothered by it. I guess you're just a real piece of shit all around.


they CAN choose to get pregnant, or not

Do you know how biology works? No magical menu screen appears in front of them asking whether they want to get pregnant or not. Also, Planned Parenthood doesn't have too many clinics in the third world. Are you proposing we build abortion clinics around the world and encourage these women to kill their unborn children?

[J.T]

When all else fails, mention Hitler.

That is your tactic. I mean, I also thought you were a retard when you compared a woman controlling her reproduction to mass slaughter of ethnic or racial groups. At least you realize you're an retard.

[LuvRPgrl]

Interesting way of looking at it. ?
Well thank you :)

So basically, by your reasoning, all Americans who have more than they need to survive are committing genocide by not giving what they have (money, food, etc) to save those children in the world who are still starving... ?
So by your reasoning only children deserve help? I didnt know you were such a mysoginist, and hater or men.


You're the first person in a long time I've heard actually ?
Not surprising, ;you still havent answered my question previously, so its obvioius you shut your ears so you dont hear what you dont want to.



And yet you don't seem to feel any guilt or be the least bit troubled by Offering other solutions? ?Nope, not at all.


Wait, let me see if I can figure out your thinking here. ?
Yea, a little above your peanut brain.

If you put a dollar in front of a woman?
Your proposal

she loses all ability to think ?
Why would you think that?


Women, in your mind, are mentally deficient creatures incapable of independent thought or making their own decisions if you offer them a dollar.?
You are ;the one offering money to them.

I hadn't pegged you for such a misogynist.?
You're right, Im not, thanks. I think thats the only accurate thing you have said.

[J.T]

You are ;the one offering money to them..

And you're the one who thinks that robs them of anything and takes away their ability to decide whether to participate in the program or not.

Why do you think women can't think beyond 'ooh! a dollar! derder!'?

[LuvRPgrl]

That is your tactic. I mean, I also thought you were a retard when you compared a woman controlling her reproduction to mass slaughter of ethnic or racial groups. At least you realize you're an retard.
Ihr ein faggot und ein versauter Idiot sind.:laugh:

[LuvRPgrl]

And you're the one who thinks that robs them of anything and takes away their ability to decide whether to participate in the program or not. ?
not as long as they have a choice.


women can't think beyond 'ooh! a dollar! derder!'?
Hmmm, I think they can.

[SassyLady]

And would you have any objection to a private third party offering to pay for it and provide the patient financial compensation for their downtime and/or to help them improve their condition and as a sign that they respect that they made what the third party considers a responsible and sound decision?



After everyone gets sterilized JT ... how do they earn their food? And, where does the next generation come from if we do in fact help them become a productive nation? What would be the point of creating a civilization if there is no one to inherit?

[fj1200]

After everyone gets sterilized JT ... how do they earn their food? And, where does the next generation come from if we do in fact help them become a productive nation? What would be the point of creating a civilization if there is no one to inherit?

Shh, don't confuse him with the unseen costs of intervention.

[J.T]

not as long as they have a choice.

Hmmm, I think they can.
So all your faux rage earlier was what? Just you being stupid? You just spent quite some time arguing that offering them the option denies them of the choice because they lose the capacity to make that decision if you put a dollar in front of them.
Please make up your mind


After everyone gets sterilized JT ... how do they earn their food?[/qupte]
By continuing their partixipation in the program and, much as Peace Corps does now, and working to develop the area using the atural resources available.



And, where does the next generation come from
You know these regions already have plenty of children, right? That's actually part of the problem- more mouths than they can feed. You think that these children will cease to exist or stop growing if we provide them with food and medicine?

And who said anything about building anything? America's done enough nation-building. We can give them aid, the know-how, and the tools to make the best of what's possible. We can't afford to occupyevery shithoile on Earth and give them, advanced civilization, especially in regions where the land simply cannot supprt a large human population of anything more than tribal hunter-gatherers. Any attempt to do so wiuld simply squander resources that could be better used helping many more people.

if we do in fact help them become a productive nation? What would be the point of creating a civilization if there is no one to inherit?

[chloe]

Why is it our job to feed the world anyway? DO we get free drilling for oil out of this deal? :laugh2:

[J.T]

Why is it our job to feed the world anyway? DO we get free drilling for oil out of this deal?

Because if we don't, Luvr will have us all tried in the Hague for genocide :laugh:

[chloe]

Because if we don't, Luvr will have us all tried in the Hague for genocide :laugh:

Aww Luvr is a luvr not a prosecutor.

I still don't think it should be our job to feed and fight for all the countries without compensation, charities can feel free to go do missionary work there that is what they are for.

[J.T]

Aww Luvr is a luvr not a prosecutor.

I still don't think it should be our job to feed and fight for all the countries without compensation, charities can feel free to go do missionary work there that is what they are for.
So just let them starve?

[chloe]

So just let them starve?

I thought they already are.:rolleyes:

At any rate our country should get something out of it if we step in to fight someone elses war or feed there country, China ain't forgiving our debt and we got bills to pay.

Charities and religious missionaries can do all the loving donating I'd prolly go help.

[LuvRPgrl]

Because if we don't, Luvr will have us all tried in the Hague for genocide :laugh:

nahhhhhhhhh,
why try you for genocide when I can just try you for stupidity against humanity, much easier to prove

[logroller]

So just let them starve?

Have they no bread or rice; let them dine on brioche and meat.