Population Control

[Edwardo Piet]

I think population control will required at times, in some places; and in some places more than others.
Depends on the countries...

All I really know of it is that China is limited to 1 child per family...considering the population I don't see this as unreasonable.

EvF

[Kyuuketsuki]

In science no debate is ever truly over. Everything remains open to question. Neither is anyone under any obligation to accept anything you say or to even try to understand anything you assert. That people do not agree with your perception does not imply they don't understand,it only implies they don't agree. To argue a person disagrees because they don't understand is an ad hominem attack,a basic logical fallacy.

Quite right ... nothing in science is held to be beyond challenge. I suppose that include the scientific method too.

IOW I believe absolutely that nothing is absolute ... er ... well ... um.

Kyu

[Edwardo Piet]

I am almost certain that nothing is absolutely absolute....

As Socrates said "I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance"

However I'd add....I don't even absolutely know that.

Bring on the mindfuck! Lol.

[g-mark]

Would it not be easier to accept there are absolutes? Why are people generally not willing to accept this concept?

[Kyuuketsuki]

Would it not be easier to accept there are absolutes? Why are people generally not willing to accept this concept?

Because absolutes are a logical /abstract concept ... they don't exist in reality. In fact the idea that science is not absolute is perhaps it's greatest strength.

EDIT: Thinking about what Ev said, I suppose it's rather more true to say that whilst absolutes may exist inductive reasoning is unable to say whether something is absolute.

Kyu

[Edwardo Piet]

There are absolutely but we don't know absolutely what they are or where they are (and we don't even absolutely know if there are any - how do we? Stuff could just shift - what CAN one absolutely know?).

I'm interested in epistemologhy - which I believe, is the 'theory of knowledge' - or the subject of the study of knowledge itself? Quite interesting I think!

Well that's me anyway.

EvF

[athoughtfulman]

The debate is over, it is time for action. You of all people must understand this.

Which debate? The one regarding over-population, climate change or the global recession?

All of them.

1. Over-population. I agree with Padraic here, that for the time being we have not reached critical mass though I think it likely that we will. The idea that we are over-populated seems rather ridiculous. How would one go about measuring it? Does one do it by landmass? If so, do we count the vast areas which are unpopulated? Do we do it by food:person ratio, then is there evidence that we are actually running out of food, or is it rather a case of most of the food being eaten by the western world?

As for the debate being over, the debate is never. Even if you can provide evidence that we are over-populated (you have so far failed to do so), the notion will always be debatable should new evidence arise. Perhaps we missed something, or perhaps we misunderstood something, and we should remain open-minded as we continue to assess the situation.

2. Climate change. There is already a thread about this, and I can tell you at least one thing and that is that the debate is far from over. People like Al Gore like to insist that the debate is over, but when was there ever a debate in the first place? First it was global warming, then it was renamed climate change, and most people believe it as fact. Again, regardless of what you believe, the debate needs to continue for the very fact that we do not have all the evidence. The latest IPCC report is based on the opinions of 5 independent scientists, not the body of work from thousands.

3. Global recession. I'm fairly ready to agree with you here, but I think it's worth mentioning that the more believe this is a recession, the worse it gets. As people tighten their spending because they believe it's a recession, more businesses shutdown, and it simply gets worse and worse. That's not to say that if we told everyone it wasn't a recession then it wouldn't be, only that perhaps it's not the smartest course of action to tell everyone how the global recession is fact.

[g-mark]

Would it not be easier to accept there are absolutes? Why are people generally not willing to accept this concept?

Because absolutes are a logical /abstract concept ... they don't exist in reality. In fact the idea that science is not absolute is perhaps it's greatest strength.

EDIT: Thinking about what Ev said, I suppose it's rather more true to say that whilst absolutes may exist inductive reasoning is unable to say whether something is absolute.

Kyu

Because we don't know one truth, does that mean there is no one truth? Is it possible we just don't understand?

Is substance constucted from matter?

Is the sun the centre of the solar system?

Is water made from H20?

Is 1+1=2?

Is saying that something 'is not' or 'untrue' or 'unable' an abslute statement? Does it not show an absolute thought?

---

The debate is over, it is time for action. You of all people must understand this.

Which debate? The one regarding over-population, climate change or the global recession?

All of them.

1. Over-population. I agree with Padraic here, that for the time being we have not reached critical mass though I think it likely that we will. The idea that we are over-populated seems rather ridiculous. How would one go about measuring it? Does one do it by landmass? If so, do we count the vast areas which are unpopulated? Do we do it by food:person ratio, then is there evidence that we are actually running out of food, or is it rather a case of most of the food being eaten by the western world?

As for the debate being over, the debate is never. Even if you can provide evidence that we are over-populated (you have so far failed to do so), the notion will always be debatable should new evidence arise. Perhaps we missed something, or perhaps we misunderstood something, and we should remain open-minded as we continue to assess the situation.

2. Climate change. There is already a thread about this, and I can tell you at least one thing and that is that the debate is far from over. People like Al Gore like to insist that the debate is over, but when was there ever a debate in the first place? First it was global warming, then it was renamed climate change, and most people believe it as fact. Again, regardless of what you believe, the debate needs to continue for the very fact that we do not have all the evidence. The latest IPCC report is based on the opinions of 5 independent scientists, not the body of work from thousands.

3. Global recession. I'm fairly ready to agree with you here, but I think it's worth mentioning that the more believe this is a recession, the worse it gets. As people tighten their spending because they believe it's a recession, more businesses shutdown, and it simply gets worse and worse. That's not to say that if we told everyone it wasn't a recession then it wouldn't be, only that perhaps it's not the smartest course of action to tell everyone how the global recession is fact.

1. You do it by measuring the resources needed to sustain the organism. If the resources are not sufficient, or it takes too much energy to extract the resources, it may be said that the organism is overwhelming it's host.

2. You will find that most Scientist & Politicians agree the debate is over.

3. The fact of a global recession is due to commercene and psychology. We have consumed too much in terms of spending money to obtain material goods. Therefore, you could tell people it is all ok, but the fact is it is not all ok.

---

There are absolutely but we don't know absolutely what they are or where they are (and we don't even absolutely know if there are any - how do we? Stuff could just shift - what CAN one absolutely know?).

1. What are you referring too when you say:

a. What they are?

b. Where they are?

c. If there are any

d. Stuff could just shift?

[athoughtfulman]

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.

[josef rosenkranz]

Hi guys
Forgive me for saying but all the debate is utterly shallow,with weak arguments and without any
palpable conclusions.
The least we could do is to underline the importance of disbelief in God ,meaning atheism or at least secularism ,as a decisive factor of stopping this so widespread conception among people that children are a blessing of God and that their birth is decided in Heaven.
The worldwide problem of population control ,which might be seen today as still not very stringent,will become in the years to come more and more frightening.
There is no peacefull solution to the explosion of population in the most near future but population control and we shall conclude that forwarding of atheism is not only a philosophical problem good for debates in academic circles,but a practical one.
The man who will take in his hands the solution of birth control will have to promote atheism as a decisive tool in his deeds.