Planet-Love.com Searchable Archives

http://communities.msn.com/RandyGloria

www.sparhard.com/colombia.htm

bien hecho hombre! she is a lovely lady. you have done us all a great service by posting these photos. i have never really thought that much about mexico, but i do remember a few years ago when i was in san diego, i heard quite a lot of talk about how beautiful the ladies are in guadalajara.

now we all have proof! nice job.

i did have one chuckle at your expense, however, when i read the line about how she has 28 nieces and nephews. man 'o man, better buckle your seat belt. you know how mexican ladies like big families, especially if they come from big familes.

so, your a family man, right?

well, all i have to say is i'm jealous, and of course, congratulations!!!

aren't you the firefighter guy? have you been in wyoming, or is it under control now?

one last thing, what was your favorite town to visit outside of guadalajara? something in the hills maybe, palm trees, dry climate. hey, i never know, i might be in mexico soon!

Mike

Randy,

This sounds Malthusian to me and also anti-Catholic.  I have five brothers and sisters yet my family is not poor.  My best friend is a Catholic priest, he is Mexican American, has nine brothers and sisters, yet his family is thriving.  In Russia the birth rate is 1.14 children per family, one of the lowest rates in all the world, yet poverty exists everywhere.  Japan is one of the most densely populated countries yet it is also one of the most productive despite a lack of natural resources. The start of the industrial revolution was closely proceeded by large increases in population. These are anecdotal stories but they are true and I think they help illustrate that poverty is not as simple as your statement implies.  More people can exasperate an already bad situation but population is not the root cause of it in my opinion.  The problems of poverty are complicated for sure, the economic policies of the government are a part of it as is the generosity and willingness to share of a given community, however I think large families plays a minimal role.  

Anyway, I apologize for going off on you but I wanted to at least offer a more Catholic perspective.

El Diablo

you made some very broad generalizations, and i'm sure you enjoyed the entire hour it probably took you to write these meaningless statements, but waxing poetic doesn't really change the ecomomic realities of the world, does it?

take a little trip down south to some poverty stricken areas, find a family of 15, and then try to tell them about how "the industrial revolution was closely proceeded by large increases in population". when you are finished with your pro-cathloic speech, kick back for a few moments, take a good long look at their surroundings, and notice if your religious mumbo-jumbo actually improved their economic misfortunes.

wake up and smell the coffee, hombre. more children to feed means less money per child, and less money per child means lower a quality of life.

if some friends of yours are from big families, and they have done well financially, that's a beautiful thing. but it doesn't mean every family in the world has the same opportunities, especially if they are from a less devoloped country in the first palce.

maybe you should keep your personal religious beliefs to yourself, right were they belong!

What I was suggesting, if you read more closely is that population is not a root cause of poverty, however it is often presented as such. The causes of poverty in the modern world are much more a result of government policies than larger families, at least this is my belief.  Population can exasperate an already bad situation however the solution is to remedy the bad situation by providing an environment where people can be productive.  The economic problems in Latin America have to do with lack of infrastucture, lack of education, corruption, poor government policies and the list could go on.

I mentioned it from a Catholic perspective because quite frankly this is the religion of 95% of the people in Mexico and all of Latin America for that matter.  If their religious beliefs and traditions offend you then my apologies.

to "remedy the bad situation by providing an environment where people can be porductive" is a great idea, but is going to happen in the here and now? does it sound a little like pie in the sky to you when compared to accepting the economic realities of the modern world, and making an effort to limit (birth control) the size of one's family, keeping it in line with an economic situation?

Let's be honest, your strong reaction to the point of telling me to keep my opinion to myself, was/is based on your dislike of Catholic tradition on birth control.  You are certainly entitled to your opinion but again what I was suggesting more than anything is that the root causes of poverty are not based on population.  

In the 1980's, when Jeane KirkPatrick was our Ambassador to the United Nations, the U.S. cut off funding to U.N. agencies that were promoting population based remedies for poverty.  The new administration felt that the programs were often times more about social engineering and ideology than about helping a community within the framework of their belief structures.  As an example, the United Nations had been holding less developed Catholic countries hostage in affect, offering funds for beneficial development projects and education but not releasing the funds unless the countries accepted programs promoting artificial methods of birth control and abortion.  Interestingly enough, these programs were often opposed by the very people they were supposed to help.  Many indigenious leaders in Peru and Bolivia, viewed the programs as an attempt by the ruling class to limit the numbers of their people.  I'm not sure this is the case however I do believe the organizations to be somewhat arrogant and disrespectful of the traditions and religious beliefs of a people.  When power in Washington changed in 1992, one of the first acts of the new administration was to reverse the policy that existed before.  There was quite a lot of noise made about this in the press at that time.

Anyway, I don't want to get off on this too much as clearly this is a controversial topic.  I'm probably outnumbered by all you good Democrats and Protestants anyway.   (-:

El Diablo

I'm not sure which of you has the better idea here, but I like the way you, El Diablo, present your position.  You obviously have given this a lot of thought and you lay out the facts and your ideas without being harsh or critical.
I'm not Catholic, but as far as I'm concerned you don't have to keep your religious beliefs to yourself.  This is an open forum and religious points of view are as valid as non-religious ones.  And, by the way (to Bret), the Latin American countries are all overwhelmingly Catholic.  A little more tolerance might not hurt.

Mr. Mouse

i'll try to do better. but the point remains, families with dozens of children have less a chance of escaping poverty!

if you want to call it "anti-catholic" (el diablos's words), go ahead, that's o.k. but the point is about families, not religion.

I'm not recommending families have 15 children or anything coming remotely close.  Each family has to make this choice themself and it seems prudent to consider not only the economic needs but the emotional ones also when planning family size.  

My main point is that I don't believe population to be the problem with the economy in Latin America.  If the population were half what it is today or even a quarter, LA would still be an underdevoloped part of the world.  This is a macro view.

Don't tell anybody, but I traveled to Russia in 1999. (-: In Russia, I never saw a family with more than one child.  The life was very dark and depressing and the family life was clearly less joyful.  It was one the first things that really struck out in my mind.  The poverty in Russia, despite having an incredibly educated people, was every bit as bad as in Latin America with less mouths to feed per family.  

In Cali, most of my friends have families of three to five siblings.  They are predominately poor and so as you say there is probably less to go around.  But the people manage for the most part, the typical American might look down on their existence but by and large I think they are happy to be alive.  I mention Russia because it was such a stark contrast.  The communists were the ultimate social engineers stripping the people over time of their beliefs and their traditions.  Anyway, I prefer Latin America.

El Diablo

i prefer l.a. also. russia sucks.....peace!

Don't you know you have to do your homework, ponder "self", write letters, hire translators, go to agencies, travel to Colombia only. . . . . . .  .

Seriously, good luck with everything. On this and many forums, most agree that being able to spend extended amounts of time in LA, speaking the language etc, will be the best way to go about things. We should all be jealous that you were able to do that!

How long till you head back?

kev