Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
August 14, 2012 at 12:36 am (This post was last modified: August 14, 2012 at 12:36 am by Cinjin.)
(August 13, 2012 at 11:58 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Therein lies the rub, no one would be forcing any government to kill anyone. The whole killing folks bit would remain as optional then as it is now. Why shouldn't the enforcers of this population control scheme just kill themselves to make way for a newborn? Laying aside my constant criticism of the idea of population control on the basis of faulty benchmarks - lets assume that we absolutely and unequivocally reached our limit. Leys assume that we could do no more, that we where stretched to threads. At that point, would we start enforcing this policy by violence? Well, judging by our sad history in this regard, probably. Let's be honest, we can't even seem to keep our hands out of each others pockets except by force, ultimately. Even petty crimes which do nothing to imperil humanity as a whole continue unabated. At that point (the point where we leverage force), let me ask you what would be worth saving Cinjin? In a world where human life is so many beans to be counted, what do we have to offer?
To me, the solutions we are likely to field for this problem, no matter how near or distant are so utterly dehumanizing that they leave me asking "who the fuck cares"? I could never tell someone that they just cant have another child. Couldn't bring myself to do it. I wouldn't listen if someone told me that I couldn't have another child. "The greater good" sounds awfully goddamned shitty in that scenario, definitely isn't a pitch that would work on me.
Now, as far as why people have children. It is pretty wel established that economically dis-advatanged people tend to have more children. I do recall reading about a couple of interesting programs on that front (the location escapes me but you might be able to find more info). The quote "A tree is better than a son" stuck with me from one article I read about one program. However interesting outlayers aside having a large number of offspring is still a viable survival strategy for people with nothing. Kids (despite all the common wisdom to the contrary) are cheap.
Actually, I find that sentiment totally fair. What exactly is worth saving if we are forced to kill each other to do it? I don't know. And my point with Epimethean is that I don't believe there is an answer that will keep people from breeding. I don't want to tell people to stop breeding either, but that doesn't change the fact that that is exactly what needs to happen. It's easy for us, and even easier for our grandfathers, to scoff at voluntary sterilization, but 50/60/70 years from now, those 30-something parents with 6 year olds are going to be desperate to give their offspring a future ... and it'll be too late.
I wonder if they will be saying "who the fuck cares" or if they will endorse the idea of forcing the next generation (or some other country) to cease all procreation. Probably not. Instead they'll probably just nuke the problem. It's far quicker and easier just to blame the "guiltier" parties and blow 'em off the face of the earth for the good of society.
In the end, there is no easy fix and there sure as hell is no moral right. There's only the question, do we want to save the human race at any cost? Maybe, maybe not.
There is another point I have to make though. This idea that having children is some sacred right. No one ever said that this drastic step would be easy or that it wouldn't be a major sacrifice for many people. Sorry, but surprise everybody, saving the planet isn't a walk in the park. Also, you'll notice that the only thing I've endorsed is VOLUNTEER sterilization. If you simply MUST have a child, go ahead, but do us all a favor and don't have 9 of them. You see, somebody, somewhere has to take responsibility for the future. What kind of life do you want your grandchild to have?
At any rate, I actually agree with both sides of this argument, and sometimes feel the way Ace feels: we're fucked, might as well enjoy what I can.
On the other hand, I sure would like my little boy to grow up to a planet that isn't an overcrowded dirtball where every day is a fight just to get bread and water.
(August 14, 2012 at 12:20 am)cato123 Wrote: TL;DR warning!
Modern cosmology suggests that saving the species is ultimatley futile; big rip, big freeze, big crunch...big certain death for life as we know it. These terms invoke theories regarding the end of the known universe, but say nothing of the dangers invoked by the known universe.
We know our star is middle aged; only about 4.5 billion years left, but this is not the time we, as a species, has left on the clock. Increasing luminosity of the sun suggests that in about 600 million years trees will not be possible because of their unique photosynthesis. There are other species of plants that will last a few million years more, but will this be enough for oxygen replenishment to support 'us'? This of course ignores the potential that flora and fauna will evolve to continue to supply 'us' with enough oxygen, but there is absolutely no guarantee that our symbiotic relationship ensures our future coexistence. Plants will evolve in accordance with their own natural circumstance.
The last bit of projected fact funnels our existence down to less than a billion years, despite how long we think the sun and planet will exist (yes, I took your invocation of 'saving the planet' to mean keeping it in a condition to support us. Earth will outlive us by billions of years). This has not yet accounted for terrestrial or extraterrestrial dangers to 'us'. A decent size supervolcano will make survival of our species a living hell. The same would happen if an extraterrestrial object of sufficient size impacted the Earth. In either case, the Earth will still be here, we wouldn't. The sun could send a significant coronal mass ejection our way that would render our 'modern' way of life unrecognizable and result in a significant population reduction.
My point with this is that if we are serious about the continution of the species then we have to get off this rock, but to what end? What will morality mean if we must invade other worlds to sustain our species at the expense of a more primitive lifeform? Haven't we already projected this? Much of our science fiction invokes an alien race that cares nothing about 'us', only exterminating an obvious nuisance on their way to consuming natural resources. Prime Directive be damned, our survival is more important.
This is all science fiction right now, but not unachievable. Do we ignore fellow 'third world' inhabitants? Essentially stating that you are a strain on our global resource in accordance with our ultimate goal? So much for humanity. Or?????
Do we recognize the futility of the effort of continuing the species and make everyone comfortable until the time nature will take us out?
Life is an extremely precious thing in the universe, and this will be true no matter how much we eventually find. If there's ever a point to life existing, it is to exist as long as it possibly can.
Perhaps it will be necessary one day to colonize worlds we could never inhabit today. Who knows, perhaps we'll start replacing biological parts of ourselves with artificial parts and the range of habitable worlds explodes in number, and we'll never need to disturb native life anywhere. I can be science fiction here if I want to!
I dunno, my worldview is that, if I could, I would live long enough to see humanity to the very end, whatever it is. I feel cheated that I can't do that. So, I would advocate our survival at the cost of most (but not all) other things, if last resorts forced us.
August 14, 2012 at 1:03 am (This post was last modified: August 14, 2012 at 1:21 am by Cinjin.)
Myth Video = Bull Shit.
Holy shit is that video so biased. I love how they even say that everyone in the world could have a house and a yard and live in Texas. What a fucking joke of a "documentary." They address the fact that we currently have food for the world but don't address the coming years. They say that war causes destruction of crops but do not address the fact that more starving people will create more wars. They say that our world is so balanced at 2.1 kids per woman, but don't explain why we're growing at a rate of 1 billion people per dozen years or so. They also offer up a "cap" or peak on the growth rate but offer absolutely no evidence for such a peak. This video is wishful thinking and MOST IMPORTANTLY does not even touch on the effect that billions of people have on global warming. In fact it goes as far as to say that we should focus on real problems, as if our ever escalating population is not even a factor.
Huge steaming pile of bull shit.
One thing in the video I forgot about:
They said if properly irrigated, Africa could feed the entire world. That's like being slapped in the face with obvious bull shit. Even if it was possible, how the fuck did you plan on irrigating and farming the entire continent of Africa? Hey while you're at it, why don't you pull a magic jeanie out of your ass and make him make greenhouse gases disappear. Anybody want to farm the Sahara?? Fucking bull shit video!
(August 14, 2012 at 1:03 am)Cinjin Wrote: we're growing at a rate of 1 billion people per year.
More like 1 billion every 12 or years (and the rate is declining). But your point is well taken.
(August 14, 2012 at 1:03 am)Cinjin Wrote: I call bull shit. Huge steaming pile of bull shit.
It certainly oversimplifies the situation to the point of nonsense.
Regardless of what the actual numbers are, this rock has a finite carrying capacity that we're racing towards. If we don't take some measures, voluntary or otherwise, mother nature has a way of sorting this out - usually quite unpleasantly.
I for one limited myself to one child (and only had one after much deliberation - I was originally planning on none), and have undergone voluntary sterilization.
Unfortunately, it is not in my first-world, middle-class demographic where the problems of famine and overpopulation are most urgent, and so there is little I can personally do, beyond making my own reproductive choices and giving money for aid where I can. It's a question of logistics and food distribution, and is hampered in many regions by bullshit politics (Africa, for example). Those regions will obviously be hit first and hardest.
(August 14, 2012 at 1:17 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: I for one limited myself to one child (and only had one after much deliberation - I was originally planning on none), and have undergone voluntary sterilization.
Me too CD ... 1 kid and voluntary sterilization. Cheers to us sir!
August 14, 2012 at 1:36 am (This post was last modified: August 14, 2012 at 1:40 am by cratehorus.)
(August 14, 2012 at 1:03 am)Cinjin Wrote: One thing in the video I forgot about:
They said if properly irrigated, Africa could feed the entire world. That's like being slapped in the face with obvious bull shit. Even if it was possible, how the fuck did you plan on irrigating and farming the entire continent of Africa? Hey while you're at it, why don't you pull a magic jeanie out of your ass and make him make greenhouse gases disappear. Anybody want to farm the Sahara?? Fucking bull shit video!
Not the Sahara, and not the Congo either......and not even by removing existing cities and people, it means by irrigating existing arable farmland we could feed 7 billion people
(August 14, 2012 at 1:03 am)Cinjin Wrote: They address the fact that we currently have food for the world but don't address the coming years.
it says we have eough to feed the world for the next 30 years
Quote:They say that war causes destruction of crops but do not address the fact that more starving people will create more wars.
population rates decrease as countries develop
Quote:They say that our world is so balanced at 2.1 kids but don't explain why we're growing at a rate of 1 billion people per dozen years or so.
the "rate" that the population increases, decreases over the years, eventually the rate could slowdown into the negative
Quote:I for one limited myself to one child (and only had one after much deliberation - I was originally planning on none), and have undergone voluntary sterilization.
DON'T!!! have as many kids as possible, don't beleive the hype, were going extinct!
August 14, 2012 at 1:44 am (This post was last modified: August 14, 2012 at 1:46 am by Cinjin.)
(August 14, 2012 at 1:36 am)cratehorus Wrote:
(August 14, 2012 at 1:03 am)Cinjin Wrote: One thing in the video I forgot about:
They said if properly irrigated, Africa could feed the entire world. That's like being slapped in the face with obvious bull shit. Even if it was possible, how the fuck did you plan on irrigating and farming the entire continent of Africa? Hey while you're at it, why don't you pull a magic jeanie out of your ass and make him make greenhouse gases disappear. Anybody want to farm the Sahara?? Fucking bull shit video!
Not the Sahara, and not the Congo either......and not even by removing existing cities and people, it means by irrigating existing arable farmland we could feed 7 billion people
(August 14, 2012 at 1:03 am)Cinjin Wrote: They address the fact that we currently have food for the world but don't address the coming years.
it says we have eough to feed the world for the next 30 years
Quote:They say that war causes destruction of crops but do not address the fact that more starving people will create more wars.
population rates decrease as countries develop
Quote:They say that our world is so balanced at 2.1 kids but don't explain why we're growing at a rate of 1 billion people per dozen years or so.
the "rate" that the population increases, decreases over the years, eventually the rate could slowdown into the negative
Quote:I for one limited myself to one child (and only had one after much deliberation - I was originally planning on none), and have undergone voluntary sterilization.
DON'T!!! have as many kids as possible, don't beleive the hype, were going extinct!
Sorry, none of those responses gives any credence to that bull shit video. It glosses over so many issues that it cannot be taken seriously. Population growth may slow, it may not, but at this point it will never go in reverse without a massive disaster/war/pandemic. You're kidding yourself if you think that our population isn't directly related to global warming, and lets not forget about water shortages currently all over the globe. I'll see if I can find that article from National Geographic, one moment please.
![[Image: Evolution.png]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i1118.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fk619%2Fjcincain%2FPublic%2FEvolution.png)
