Population Control

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

@Joseph

Global atheism would change exactly nothing. Human beings would still be animals whose most poweful instinct is survival ,expressed by profligate reproduction.

One of the most populous nations on earth has an atheist regime and a dominant, ingrained atheistic belief system; Confucianism.

Reproduction has little if anything to do with philosophy or religion. There IS a demonstrable correlation with intelligence,as smart people overall have fewer children.

Human overpopulation will never be problem for long. [in earth time] Like every other species,our existence on the planet is temporary. We are by no means the best adapted. It's arguable that we are the most maladapted because we are unable to survive without changing and grossly exploiting our environment in unsustainable ways.. Such a species will not survive for million of years as say sharks or crocodiles.-or cockroaches.


Your argument implies that atheism is somehow superior in some ways to theism.It isn't; atheism is not a philosophy,a moral doctrine,economic or political ideology.Atheism is a lack of belief in god(s) period. NOTHING ELSE may be inferred from that position about any individual or group of individuals.


PS: A hint:if you're going to go around accusing others of being shallow,it might be good idea to make sure you have something a little deeper to contribute.

[g-mark]

1. So where is the evidence that the resources are not sufficient to sustain our population growth?

2. Scientific debate is never over. Even if every scientist believed something one day, if new evidence arose the next day to suggest something different, they would have to change their view. As with climate change, the debate is never over, regardless of how many scientists believe in it today. Any scientist and hence any politician should be open to new evidence suggesting something other than global warming.

3. Fair enough, I honestly don't know about it to discuss.

1. http://atlas.aaas.org/index.php?part=2

2. Take the equation F=ma ( Force = Mass x Acceleration ). Is this equation true for our planet?

scientists only change their views with things they are not certain about.

Regarding Global Warming, what would you suggest is causing the increase in the Earths mean temperature?

Getting back to my original question that nobody is willing to discuss:

If you knew the problem at hand and it's consequences, would you sacrifice having children to make a difference?

This is a very interesting question and can be discussed in great depth.

[athoughtfulman]

2. Take the equation F=ma ( Force = Mass x Acceleration ). Is this equation true for our planet?

scientists only change their views with things they are not certain about.

Regarding Global Warming, what would you suggest is causing the increase in the Earths mean temperature?

IF the temp of the earth is actually increasing, I am of the opinion that it is by natural cycles. Our climate is dependent on natural cycles, as was demonstrated during the Maunder Minimum. Europe for example fell into a mini ice age (AKA the Little Ice Age) during that time, and sun spots were extremely rare. As sunspots increased, so did the temperature.

This is getting a little off topic - there is a thread in the Off Topic forums with regards to Climate Change and whether it is human caused.

Getting back to my original question that nobody is willing to discuss:

If you knew the problem at hand and it's consequences, would you sacrifice having children to make a difference?

This is a very interesting question and can be discussed in great depth.

I would be against this proposal unless there was no other option. And it would be worth investigating other people worth disposing of. If we imposed a maximum age on people, say 60 or 70, since they generally no longer work after that, we could sacrifice them since they were not as valuable to society.

But I must stress that I would only consider this if it was the one last hope. But as yet, the situation is not yet that dire, and I think there are other, more ethical measures we can take.

[josef rosenkranz]

[quote='padraic' pid='14560' dateline='1240357228']
@Joseph

[quote]Global atheism would change exactly nothing. Human beings would still be animals whose most poweful instinct is survival ,expressed by profligate reproduction.[/quote]

I have very good news for you:humans are nor animals. The decision to father a child is one of the important ones in the lives of people,insofar that the birth is not accidental or produced by violence.
Being an important decision it is conditioned by a lot of individual,social,economic,spiritual and yes also by religious factors.
The great majority of people on earth still believe in a form or other in a supranatural force which governs their life and death and also the afterdeath,called currently as God.
Not only do they believe that they know the "will of God" but also the priests of all religions make sure to intervene in their lives by interpreting this will of God.
What I'm saying is not pure philosophy but facts of live .
If you are aquinted with basic principles of the so called abrahamic religions you'll know that the commandment by God of "reproduce and multiply "is one of the most important one.The most strict about this are the Muslims.While you'll find some christian or jewish priests anyhow openminded on the matter of birth control, a muslim priest who would dare to challenge this problem could expect to be severly punished ,even in extremis beheaded.
So if you take into consideration that the majority of the population on earth believes in one of the abrahamic religions you'll come to the conclusion that ,as I said, atheism or at least secularism plays
among others, an impeding role in the growth of birth rate. I dare say that never will the government of a country be able to implement birth control so long as the religion of this country will have a decisive political role in it.

[Tiberius]

If you knew the problem at hand and it's consequences, would you sacrifice having children to make a difference?

No, but I would limit the number of children I have. Not having children is not the solution. Having less children is.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

I have very good news for you:humans are nor animals.

Did you mean "NOT"? If so,when did that miraculous change occur?

I have bad news for you:Human beings are indeed animals.That is the scientific consensus and has been for the last couple of hundred years at least.That we happen to be sentient animals capable of self examination has not made us consistently rational or reasonable either as individuals or as a species. Instinct remains our most powerful driving force.


Yes I'm familiar with the Abrahamic faiths.(I was raised Catholic and have studied both Judaism and Islam)

Your argument has some minor flaws,hardly worth mentioning really----

The two most populous nations on earth (China and India*) are not now,and have never been followers of Judaism,Christianity or Islam.

People were breeding like rabbits before any of the Abrahamic faiths were invented. China for example based its society on the essentially atheistic teachings of Confucius.The family is at the base of that system.


All religions reflect the societies which invent them,and are used to justify and control existing as well as future behaviour. The moral codes found in religions have the purpose of ensuring the survival of the group. Over time this entails the introduction an maintenance a controlling status quo. Formal religion almost always supports the established order.

*OK,there WAS the Mughal rule of India,but that was rather late.(began 1526 CE, peaked around 1700,ended 1857)

[g-mark]

If you knew the problem at hand and it's consequences, would you sacrifice having children to make a difference?

No, but I would limit the number of children I have. Not having children is not the solution. Having less children is.

ok. Didn't China already try this?

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

There was a film made in 1972 called "Z.P.G" (for Zero Population Growth)

The World government(s) declared a moratorium on ALL births,f or a full generation. The penalty was death for both parents AND the child.

To hasten the drop in world population,once a person reached 70 years of age,the only medical treatment available was a palliative care. EG diabetics could no longer get insulin.Break a leg,develop cancer or appendicitis? Too bad.

http://www.deadchannels.com/z_p_g.php

"Soylent Green" addressed the problems of overpopulation differently: By state encouraged suicide and controlled cannibalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green


The "one child policy" of the PRC has been less than an outstanding success.One outcome has been a serious imbalance in the ratio of male:female in the young adult population of China.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Child_P...Criticisms

[Giff]

I think there should be some control, parents shouldn't be allowed to get more then 1-2 children. It's vital for our enviorment and our future and we will be over populated. Some control is needed.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

I think there should be some control, parents shouldn't be allowed to get more then 1-2 children

Be fascinated to learn exactly how you would accomplish this goal in a free society. Perhaps start by rattling off the names of say 20 or 30 politicians in your country who would support such an idea.