The right to have children is fundamental however it's a right that's abused on a regular basis because people don't necessarily understand or accept all the broader, modern, social responsibilities which go with parenthood. In most countries, people are taught old, tribalistic lessons:

1. the more children you have, the stronger your group becomes
2. the more children you have, the better you'll be looked-after in your dotage

Some of this is religious, some of it cultural; all of it is damaging to humanity's chances of survival. Instead people need to be taught modern lessons but that's only likely to embed, culturally, if there are major changes to distribution of resources.

Also, we see a correlation in more educated countries between better education and smaller family size. There's plenty of evidence to suggest that this connection is causal.

No offense, Rhythm, but I find your position rather unclear. You first suggest that population control be tried as the last option after controlling all other factors of the environment, which left me puzzled. (If the point is preservation of the species, then if controlling population growth is the most effective means of preserving the species, why choose that as a last resort? If preservation of the species is not the goal, then what is?) Now you've clarified your position.... somewhat. You state that none of the population control solutions on the table are workable or fair, and you'll defer until people come up with a good population control solution.... in the midst of a conversation about finding solutions. A sort of, "Let's not try to find a solution, until we find a solution." You seem to be denigrating both the proposed solutions and any attempts to find a solution, in the absence of a bona fide self-evident solution. This seems profoundly confusing to me. How do we find solutions without trying to find solutions, through discussion, or through real world trials?

(August 14, 2012 at 7:26 am)Tiberius Wrote: Over population is not a problem for nature. If we run out of food, the population decreases until there is enough food for everyone.

As sad as it sounds, this is also the solution to foreign AID, which does more harm than good. 30 years ago, Etheopia had 1 million starving people due to food shortages. We fed them, and now they have 10 million starving people (since people who don't starve make babies). If they had been left to starve, there would be enough of them to feed themselves.

All developed countries learned this the hard way, but look at them now.

No one is ever going to give you the Humanitarian of the Year award. divi Tiberio. Not that you seem to want it.

Still, it is important to remember the maxim that "when you starve with a tiger the tiger starves last."

As has been noted above, people are not going to calmly sit there starving to death. They will make a lot of trouble on the way out.

Oh, I don't think he is suggesting that as the solution. I think what he is saying is that we are not a danger to the planet as far as op is concerned. We're just a danger to ourselves. I could be wrong, though.

Hey, facts aren't always pretty. You don't have to like them to state them.

(August 14, 2012 at 7:40 pm)Minimalist Wrote: No one is ever going to give you the Humanitarian of the Year award. divi Tiberio. Not that you seem to want it.

By giving aid to foreign countries like Ethiopia, we've killed / endangered far more people than we would have if we'd left them alone. Without aid, a lot of those million people would have died. With it, millions did die, and millions are still dying. As counter-intuitive as it sounds, "more food" isn't always the answer to the problem of "starving people". At some point, the population will just become too large for the amount of food that can be obtained.

Quote:As has been noted above, people are not going to calmly sit there starving to death. They will make a lot of trouble on the way out.

Sure, but I don't see why this means we should be helping them. We are part of the problem already; the humane thing to do would be to get their population under control.

They aren't going to see it that way.


It's part of that whole "freedom thing" you keep going on about.

No, the humane thing to do is to feed them and then help them reach sustainability.

My OP was never just about food and water though. Granted those are the essence of sustained life, but I think our population will kill our planet before we truly run out of food.

For instance:

If you add another billion people in 12 years, yes we have to feed them, but more importantly we have to spit more shit into the atmosphere with all the things they require.

More cars, more fuel, more emissions.
More factories, more products, more emissions.
More cell phones, toys, clothes, and goods of all sorts, more emissions.
More food production, more energy, more emissions.

Rhythm pointed out that a family of 10 consumes less then a family of 3. Sometimes, yes that's true, but it's certainly not an absolute by any stretch of the imagination. Also, that family of 10 ages and separates, and what use to be a family in one household does not simply become two households with two cars. It becomes 10 households with 10 cars and all the trimmings that go with it.
Regardless of whether or not we have enough food and water - the growing population is still doing irreparable harm. Yet still, there is this god-wants-me-to-have-children attitude and fuck the world, it's my right.

No, it's not. Your rights do not extend to depriving the entire future of the human race the right to exist.

Population is certainly not our sole concern, but to say that it's not even a factor is just naive and in MHO, utterly absurd.

(August 14, 2012 at 9:28 pm)Shell B Wrote: No, the humane thing to do is to feed them and then help them reach sustainability.

No... the humane thing to do would be to get them out of Ethiopia

---

Cinjin Wrote:No, it's not. Your rights do not extend to depriving the entire future of the human race the right to exist.

Yes they do. Rights are subjective, because morals are subjective.

My gods but I hate when people tell me what I have the right to do or not do

(August 14, 2012 at 6:49 pm)apophenia Wrote:


No offense, Rhythm, but I find your position rather unclear. You first suggest that population control be tried as the last option after controlling all other factors of the environment, which left me puzzled.

No problem, let me clear that up for you. First world/developed nations already engage in sort of unintentional or unconsidered population control (we have the fewest children per household on average) and it's done jack shit. In fact, the situation has become worse -by most accounts- due to the rates and quantity of consumption of first world/developed nations.

so....

Quote:(If the point is preservation of the species, then if controlling population growth is the most effective means of preserving the species, why choose that as a last resort? If preservation of the species is not the goal, then what is?)

That "if" doesn't seem to have any real world support, case in point, the situation is precisely the opposite of what we would expect. To take this further - "If, for example, the American household decided to forgo just one child (on average), that's less that one child (on average) left. That's biological and cultural suicide. Forgive me if I don't think that the solution to our problems is to will ourselves into oblivion, and certainly not to will others into oblivion.....(granted, that -would- solve our problems...all of them). On the issue of effective solutions, laying aside that we don't actually have any reason to think that this would be an effective solution (at least not in and of itself), lets imagine some other "effective solutions". I could end all poverty in the world, with enough bullets. Effective, but not a "solution", agreed? But hey, end of the day this is just my opinion on population control. I don't think it's kosher (even when we invoke the hypothetical perfect world with perfect governments stretched to their limits considering population control I still can't get behind it), others may think it is, and if there are more of them than there are of me then we have an issue eh? What do we do about that issue? Are you going to educate me? Do I seem to need education on the subject?

Quote:Now you've clarified your position.... somewhat. You state that none of the population control solutions on the table are workable or fair, and you'll defer until people come up with a good population control solution.... in the midst of a conversation about finding solutions. A sort of, "Let's not try to find a solution, until we find a solution."

I don't see any other solutions being offered up in this thread, do you? All I see is population control. Try this "Lets not tell Joe Third World he cant have any more kids until we deal with our own shit and have a leg to stand on, and further, lets not tell Joe Third World to stop having kids unless we have good metrics on our hand -which we don't-

Quote:You seem to be denigrating both the proposed solutions and any attempts to find a solution, in the absence of a bona fide self-evident solution.

Except that the only solution that's been offered up thusfar is population control, and that's all I'm taking a stance against.

Quote:This seems profoundly confusing to me. How do we find solutions without trying to find solutions, through discussion, or through real world trials?

You keep using the plural.......have we been reading the same thread?