RE: The Need to Breed
August 15, 2012 at 12:53 am
(This post was last modified: August 15, 2012 at 1:02 am by The Grand Nudger.)
Quote:That's quite inextricably dumb. No offense, homey. It is just seriously ridiculous. People are animals. Get over it.
LOL, none taken. What was dumb was attempting to answer a no-win when the people who asked the question wanted it to be a no-win to begin with. The scenario is as follows, we've done everything, we're ultra efficient, we have a problem. We have to many people to support with the resources available, namely food and water. We're considering population control. In an effort to brainstorm something that doesn't involve either killing people or enforcing some population control program top down I think to myself "sure are a lot of marmosets drinking water and eating food, fucking marmosets...maybe we should off them first". Ridiculous, sure, but it's an impossible scenario (for me).
Quote:Well, I would say that if we were facing imminent demise and they did so anyway, they are both.
Except that many times these extended family sizes are a direct representation of a survival strategy.
Quote:I disagree with the former. It is either to have a workforce in a farm or to collect welfare. I honestly can't think of one other reason. As for the latter, sure, but we're talking about being on the brink of a population stimulated genocide. They aren't decent if they know they are killing everyone, including their offspring.
Or....people in third world countries have tons of kids knowing that many wont survive and of those that do only one or two will find a way to support their family.
Quote:You can't use averages in this scenario. An average of one child means tons are having none and a bunch are having a bunch. Cut down on the bunch and presto! Also, I never said we need population control right now. We will when octo's kids have octo kids of their own and so on.
I can and I will, because from a global population perspective there is no difference in who has how many children so long as the numbers average out. I know you didn't say that, again, you just presented me with an opportunity. If octos kids follow the trends then they have fewer kids. Octomom is a statistical outlier. If we shifted the numbers around so that everyone had 1 kid, 1.84 or some such, then it wouldn't make much of a difference, because that's where we're at now and we still have a problem, or so I'm told.
Quote:Then how do you account for the constant rise in our population? Apparently, someone somewhere is having thirty kids a go and isn't telling you.
Longevity has a part to play, but I want to mention here that the average child per household actually decreased from the census immediately prior to the most recent one. If you're just talking about the US, we're having fewer kids, but living longer, and we do have immigration. If you're talking globally, yeah, there are folks having kids left right and center -on average even.
Quote:Yeah, they are. It certainly isn't me, or the lady in Ethiopia with one half-dead kid, or the lady in China with one male kid.
The lady in Ethiopia has 10 half dead kids, you know this...The US is in no way leading the wave of overpopulation (again, demonstrated relationship between development, prosperity, and smaller family sizes)
Quote:Well, if you think that killing off everyone Malthusian style is cool, what's the problem with population control? Did I miss your point?
Except that I don't think that's cool....
Epi, it's not that I think that the things offered are futile (at least not all of them), I'm absolutely certain that we could lower our population a great many ways if we wanted to. I think that population control is fantastically bad idea as sold, especially given the reasons it's being sold and it's perceived requirement of immediacy. That it is either ineffectual on the pleasant end, or brutally terrible on the not-so-pleasant end. I'm not just arguing that we haven't really come up with a good scheme, but that we don't really have grounds to come up with one, that other shit should be addressed before it becomes an option (because all of that other shit would have a huge effect on the problem of over-population in the first place, and given all the potential for the not-so-pleasant end, it seems prudent to exhaust other avenues first)
I would begin ransacking the world -after- all steps that don't involve forced population control have been taken. If I was unclear on that that's my bad.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
