This comment is so ridiculous that one wonders how a two-legged creature possessing the semblance of a brain could make it.

Are you trying to tell us that a billionaire works a thousand times harder than a millionaire? That he works a million times harder than some poor peasant who makes only a thousand Euros a year? That an American banker works hundreds of times harder than a Bolivian farmer who toils from dawn to dusk? Or that an entertainer works hundreds of times harder than a mathematician grappling with problems no one has solved before?

It really is a pity that few read the classics any more. In Aristotle’s ‘Politics’ the secret of wealth is revealed – and it doesn’t take a genius to discover it. For as the Greek philosopher noted, after explaining how the philosopher Thales made a killing by hiring wine-presses in advance:

‘the way to make money is to get, if you can, a monopoly for yourself. Hence we find that states also employing this method when they are short of money: they secure themselves a monopoly.’

I could easily point to any number of plutocrats to prove my point about monopoly and market power as the means to wealth. But my favourite example remains OPEC – a collection of states that, through cooperation and the wielding of market power, has enriched itself on a scale quite unmatched in recent history. Do you think Saudis, Emiratis, Qataris and Kuwaitis became rich by working hundreds of times harder than Yemenis, Syrians, Egyptians and Tunisians? Hardly…

Sorry for the long post, but the delusion that ‘hard work = wealth’ is one that simply has to be dispelled in order to make way for a better future.

Your argument:
China: Over the last 60 years the population has gone up by almost 3 times. But GDP Per Capita has gone up by over 10 times.

GDP per capita doesn’t reflect any decrease in poverty for the poor. In many cases the rich get richer while the poor gain nothing, or worse. Those numbers are just that: numbers.

Furthermore, during this increase in GDP, China has strictly followed and implemented their One-child-per-one-family policies, and India has agressively promoted their successful Small-family-Happy-family programmes.

So even if your argument would partly be valid, it would still mean that those relatively few who have arisen out of poverty, have been able to do so because of government implemented population control measures that have resulted in small family entities.

2 reasons why I disagree:

1. Confused causality. Looking at two factors (i.e. poverty – or ‘standard of living’ and population) then linking them just because they’re both going up is not an argument. That’s probably why you have only given lots of assertions that just repeat your idea – but no evidence or reasons that actually do back it up and tell us why the two are linked.

2. Even so, it’s simply not true to say that population increase = poverty. Not sure what ‘World Population Development Graph’ you are using, but there are many significant examples that offer strong evidence aginst it. Using http://www.gapminder.org here’s a couple of different countries to consider:
China: Over the last 60 years the population has gone up by almost 3 times. But GDP Per Capita has gone up by over 10 times.
India follows almost exactly the same pattern.

The same is true of literacy rates, and in both cases populations have gone up and yet the number of people living in abject poverty has also dropped significantly.

It’s certainly not the only reason but it is clear that to decrease poverty in developing nations, regardless whether it’s financial or social poverty, one has to make aware the populace of those nations that fewer children means a better standard of living.

Easier said than done, as people do keep on reproducing, but by implementing a simple family planning policy where smaller families are given positive incentives based on reduced future negative impact on society, authorities would be able to make great progress in the struggle for more prosperity for all.

As this would generate positive benefits to the world as a whole, e.g. less deforestation and depletion of resources, developed nations should actively support them in their efforts, and increase aid based on progress made.

It’s not the only reason but it is clear that to decrease poverty in ‘developing’ nations, whether it’s financial or social, one has to make aware the populace of those nations that fewer children means a better standard of living. Easier said than done, as people do keep on reproducing, but by implementing a simple family planning policy where smaller families are given positive incentives based on reduced future negative impact on society, authorities would be able to make great progress in the struggle for more prosperity for all.

It’s not the only reason but it is clear that to decrease poverty in ‘developing’ nations, whether it’s financial or social, one has to make aware the populace of those nations that fewer children means a better standard of living. Easier said than done, as people do keep on reproducing, but by implementing a simple family planning policy where smaller families are given positive incentives based on reduced future negative impact on society, authorities would be able to make great progress in the struggle for more prosperity for all.