Click for some eye-rolling goodness. Why didn't I realize that abortion is the obvious solution to global warming?
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
It's true that having a child (or any additional child) is about the best way to increase "your" footprint on the environment - especially in terms of greenhouse gases. I think the runners-up (for regular people) are lots of airplane rides and eating meat.
The eating meat bit is one of the reasons (out of many) that I roll my eyes at people who eat locally (only) because of the carbon costs of transportation.
Posted by Wonder Dog (Member # 5691) on :
Never mind that a 3rd (or...*gasp*... a 4th!) child could grow up to do some terribly important research that could drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions...
Besides being horrible little consumers, children can also become positive resources for changing how live - we just have to start them off in the right direction.
Also, this plan only makes sense if you track high-consuming vs. low-consuming kids. If my family uses hand-me-downs, keeps a garden, uses public transit, telecommutes, and stays close by as the kids leave home, can I have one more? Pretty please?
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Wonder Dog - but you have to consider all of the future generations that will potentially exist because of that third kid!!! Think of how many generations of grubby carbon emitters you'll be creating with one senseless, selfish act.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I'm sympathetic to this guy insofar as I know that 'sustainable population growth' is unavoidably going to have to be capped and no longer become growth.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
...I think I'm going to sit this one out rather than risk offending some perfectly nice poster who happens to have five kids.
I'll just say that, intellectually at least, ZPG appeals to me.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wonder Dog: Never mind that a 3rd (or...*gasp*... a 4th!) child could grow up to do some terribly important research that could drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions...
Those parents shouldn't have had the first two, then.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
All joking aside, this idea keeps reminding me of the movie Idiocracy. I actually know someone who was motivated to have a child by that movie. And I kinda understand her reasoning.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
It seems to me that population caps, in some form, are inevitable. The more of us there are, and the more we damage the planet, the fewer resources are left over to engage in the one thing - extra-terrestrial colonization - that could conceivably prolong our growth.
This is, with any luck, further in the future than I hope to live.
Posted by Wendybird (Member # 84) on :
I find it sad how little modern society seems to value its children.
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
Does this mean I can finally get rid of my sister since she's the third? She definately takes up way too much space in the house Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
Everybody knows that a third child is always Hitler.
Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
ZPG can be nothing but a farce without worldwide buy in.
Personally I'm waiting for bird flu or SARS or something else to wipe out a couple hundred mill. I'd say we're overdue.
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
Well, either we make a conscious effort to curb population growth or eventually the population will decline when we reach a global carrying capacity. The former might actually be better in the long run.
Posted by Wonder Dog (Member # 5691) on :
Jhai - how do you know that 3rd will spawn more "grubby carbon emitters"? Why not let the 3rd exist on the off chance they'll save the world, and if things get bad, we can just sterilize the next generation! :0)
My problem with the "no more kids for you" line is that it makes these assumptions:
a) kids will be competing for the same resources we do (land, carbon-based fuels, plastic, etc).
b) on average, kids will end up using more resources than they free up.
c) because we're pretty confident that a) and b) won't change, you shouldn't have kids.
So when someone says "no more kids 'coz we're running out of X", they're basically pitting their confidence in their resource production and consumption predictions against the biological, social and (sometimes) moral drive to procreate.
[ February 02, 2009, 11:49 PM: Message edited by: Wonder Dog ]
Posted by Wonder Dog (Member # 5691) on :
neo-dragon: who gets to decide what "global carrying capacity" is? When do we assume that we can't get any better at managing Earth's resources and make the call to legislate wombs?
[ February 03, 2009, 02:23 AM: Message edited by: Wonder Dog ]
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wonder Dog: neo-dragon: who get's to decide what "global carrying capacity" is?
Um... Nature!
You can only do so much managing. Whether it's 15 billion people, 50 billion, or 100 billion, sooner or later there's got to be limit. All I'm saying is that currently the world's population in increasing. One way or another it must stop doing so eventually; either through conscious actions or by the natural effects of over population in an environment. Choosing to have fewer children now is probably better than having millions die from starvation or disease some number of generations in the future.
Does that mean abortions left and right? No. My parents decided that they only had the means to support a household with two children, so they just had two children. To the best of my knowledge they managed to accomplish this without aborting any. I know that accidents happen and I'm not saying that it's time for any drastic laws, but I do think that family size will become a matter of social responsibility in the not so distant future.
Posted by Wonder Dog (Member # 5691) on :
quote: Choosing to have fewer children now is probably better than having millions die from starvation or disease some number of generations in the future.
That makes sense to me - assuming that you are confident this will occur in your child's lifetime. Of course, that logic makes the assumption that the child's life up to their agonizing death by global pandemic isn't worth the pain of agonizing death.
I'm cool with family size becoming an aspect of social responsibility (in fact, I would argue that it already is) - I take issue with those that say their definition of social responsibility is the only right one for everyone everywhere.
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
So why don't we all have 15 kids? I mean, why stop before then? Child #15 has a right to exist? Sure, most of us don't have a home big enough for 15 children or the means to feed that many, but hey, maybe #15 will be the next Bill Gates and solve our financial problems anyway. Oh, but wait... #16 might cure cancer, so we can't stop at just 15 after all.
Posted by Wonder Dog (Member # 5691) on :
Well, I'm assuming you and Mrs. neo-dragon have decided how many kids works for you. It's your family - it should be your decision. If you think it'll take 15 kids to get the kid you want, go nuts!
I'm not going to tell you how many kids you should or shouldn't have - but I will insist that I have the right to decide (with my partner) how many kids I have. Let me weigh the factors involved in having a child myself - inform me, educate me, but don't act like you have the right to tell me how to reproduce.
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
That's not my intention. I just don't like the whole, "each unborn child could have had a wonderful and productive life" argument, because sooner or later we draw the line for our own reasons (personal or social) or nature draws it for us. There will always be children that could have been born.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I wonder if the same people who want everyone to have as many kids as they want are also comfortable with the idea that the greater the world population, the more downside for the poor.
The tighter resources get, the greater distance between the rich and poor. It's the poor people who have to face the brunt of the consequences.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
Yeah, because during the middle ages they had way more people than we do now.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
Well, to be fair, resources were much tighter in the middle ages.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wendybird: I find it sad how little modern society seems to value its children.
Some of us are concerned with population growth precisely because we value children - along with everyone else.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Wonder Dog, Actually, the assumptions go more like this:
a) There are limited resources on Earth.
b) The human population on Earth will grow until it is either constrained naturally or artificially.
c) A naturally constrained human population would be very likely to experience greatly increased famine, disease, and conflict.
d) The sacrifice of artificial population constraint through enforced* family planning is preferable to that scenario.
*I don't personally think we're at that point yet. But it may be necessary sometime this century if population projections are accurate.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
Oh come on, this is a forum full of SciFi fans. You should all be expecting colonization of other planets.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Population limits itself naturally when women are empowered to choose their family size. The U.S. and most Western nations would have declining populations were it not for immigration. The obvious answer is that we empower women all over the world to choose their family size. Then populations will slowly decline until our society becomes alarmed at how small the population is (I'm thinking about 1-3 billion is plenty) and begins offering incentives to have and raise children.
Eventually I see us being something like elves... long-lived to immortal, rarely falling in love, rarely having kids, every child cherished by the entire community. I think that will be a good thing when it happens.
Posted by Wonder Dog (Member # 5691) on :
See, I can agree with c) and d) (from Juxta's post), but I would argue against those who say we're getting "very close" to those limits. I'm one of those idealists who believe that humans are much more adaptable and intelligent than we think, and that we should be teaching ourselves to share our resources with more equality.
I'd rather we re-evaluate and curb our resource consumption than say we can't change how we consume. My moral outlook is such that I'd rather have more kids and consume less. (Some may argue that this isn't possible - but what data are they basing that on?)
I do agree that it's rational to say that the Earth cannot support infinite people - I just think we're being awfully short-sighted when we tell people not to have kids because we think we're doing the best we can with resource management right now.
And as for the poor bearing the brunt of overpopulation - if that really is the case, I would argue that it's an indication that we lack the will as species for true equality and unity. That is something we change, if we want it bad enough.
And I don't think everyone should have big families - but if I choose to, don't assume I'm a selfish Earth-hating global-warming-is-a-myth type guy.
[ February 03, 2009, 02:26 AM: Message edited by: Wonder Dog ]
Posted by Wonder Dog (Member # 5691) on :
Also - I agree with Tatiana that we need to be doing more to empower all women to be able to choose their family size. Hopefully these empowered women will let their partners have some input into the decision, as well... :0)
Okay, scifi question: If we feel like the entire universe could be home to humanity in some form, are we justified in filling it? Or does uninhabited space have its own special worth?
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
The question, I think, is twofold. The first part is whether we can empower women quickly enough to curb population growth before it is curbed naturally and painfully. The second part is whether we can raise the standard of living in such a way that it doesn't exacerbate the problem along the way. China, for example, is building a new coal-fired power plant a week. Raising the standard of living across the globe will mean nothing if raising that standard contributes to lowering the Earth's production capability.
And for your scifi question, I wouldn't be interested in space. It's just the rocks I'd like. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm crossing my fingers and hoping that the same year we figure out how to end world hunger, and thus ensure unlimited food resources for our growing population, will also the first year we send a colony ship to Mars.
I can see the campaign slogans now: "Mars: nature's relief valve!"
Other than that, even if we don't enact laws, they'll die anyway, either from starvation, or war for competition over resources, or the next big disease that wipes out 5-10% of the population. Nature steps in from time to time to do what we refuse to.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
How do we come to the conclusion that having unlimited children is an unalienable right, or a moral requirement?
Do I have the same right to use up any resource as much as I feel I'd like to use? Do I have the moral imperative to keep all my faucets running non-stop? If I buy carbon offsets, can I pour used engine oil into the bay?
How many resources am I entitled to, vs. how many resources are other people entitled to?
Posted by Wonder Dog (Member # 5691) on :
What, you don't think it would be cool to subsist solely on interstellar hydrogen, living in the vast, cold distances between star systems? It would be like living in rural Canada during the winter, only much more elegant...
So: Is telling women to curb the amount of children they choose to bear because children increase your carbon footprint an effective strategy for empowerment? (I don't think so, but I'm not a woman and I don't think I need empowering.)
As for raising the world's standard of living in a green way, I have much more faith in economic competition and innovation than restrictive breeding guidelines. I'd be interested to see any research that lets us compare the trends and outcomes of each approach, though...
Posted by Wonder Dog (Member # 5691) on :
MightyCow (vs. Wonder Dog! Fight!), I don't think people are entitled to any base amount of resources besides what they need to meet their basic human rights. I do think we could put in a ton more effort and be far more creative with how we use our resources to meet those basic human rights.
Having unlimited children is not an unalienable right. Being allowed to choose how many children you do have may pretty close to unalienable, though. And if we decide it isn't, then at least we should have generous limits on adoption and other forms of multi-family child rearing.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
Keep your hands off my body. The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation. Women's choice.
If we have fought bitterly over the issue of the right of women to bodily autonomy, I will be appalled and disgusted if we turn around and go back to telling them what they can and cannot do, reproductively. If the woman down the street has the right to an abortion, I have the right to have another child.
You can call me irresponsible, short-sighted, and small. You can sneer and call me names, if it makes you happier. But under no circumstances will I accept legal coercion as to how many children I decide to have. I will fight that tooth and claw.
Edit: What I'm trying to get at is there's no room for double standards. Abortion rights are predicated on a woman's inalienable bodily autonomy. If someone now says "except when I think it's a bad idea," the emperor starts looking naked. No one, in North America, can legally coerce a woman into having a child she doesn't want. The corollary is that no one can force a woman to use birth control or have an abortion.
[ February 03, 2009, 08:54 AM: Message edited by: Eaquae Legit ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:c) A naturally constrained human population would be very likely to experience greatly increased famine, disease, and conflict.
This is a bad assumption. In developed countries, the high economic cost of an additional child is a major constraint to human population that typically does not involve famine, disease, or conflict.
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
I don't see anything in the original article indicating that the author believes the government should -force- women to have fewer children or more abortions. I see a (fairly calm, well-tempered) article that makes two points: 1) that environmental groups should attempt to persuade people, in particular their members, to voluntarily limit family size, and 2) that the government should make contraception and abortion available to those who desire but cannot afford them.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Keep your hands off my body. The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation. Women's choice.
If we have fought bitterly over the issue of the right of women to bodily autonomy, I will be appalled and disgusted if we turn around and go back to telling them what they can and cannot do, reproductively. If the woman down the street has the right to an abortion, I have the right to have another child.
You can call me irresponsible, short-sighted, and small. You can sneer and call me names, if it makes you happier. But under no circumstances will I accept legal coercion as to how many children I decide to have. I will fight that tooth and claw.
Firstly, if there are rights involved, the man has an equal choice as well.
Secondly, there is no broad right to bodily autonomy. There are plenty of things you cannot legally do to your own body.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
I was responding more to the tone of the thread, where a couple people implied that they'd support such measures.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
The problem with legally or socially restricting the number of children a parent has is that the punishment falls upon the innocent child.
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: Population limits itself naturally when women are empowered to choose their family size. The U.S. and most Western nations would have declining populations were it not for immigration. The obvious answer is that we empower women all over the world to choose their family size. Then populations will slowly decline until our society becomes alarmed at how small the population is (I'm thinking about 1-3 billion is plenty) and begins offering incentives to have and raise children.
Eventually I see us being something like elves... long-lived to immortal, rarely falling in love, rarely having kids, every child cherished by the entire community. I think that will be a good thing when it happens.
I think that many western nations have low birth rates, but I don't think it is true for the US. I will have to dig for some facts.
I also think that most women want to have kids. If more men would step up to the plate and provide, women would have less pressure to help with finances...
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
We have a higher birth rate than most first-world countries, but we still maintain a positive population growth through immigration, IIRC.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
There's a pretty amusing and on-topic visualization of family size and life expectancy versus time here TED link
Its a few minutes into the presentation.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wonder Dog: neo-dragon: who gets to decide what "global carrying capacity" is? When do we assume that we can't get any better at managing Earth's resources and make the call to legislate wombs?
An empowered United Nations that can actually RULE and not just occasionally write a stern letter.
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
According to this site (Fertility rate by country - Is this the best stat to use? It seems straightforward -> 2.0 is stable, anything above 2.0 is positive growth, anything below 2.0 is negative growth - not counting immigration of course) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_fertility_rate
2008 estimates india = 2.76 world = 2.61 mexico = 2.37 usa = 2.10 france = 1.98 uk = 1.66 australia = 1.78 china = 1.77 canada = 1.57 germany = 1.41 italy = 1.30 japan = 1.22
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Eaquae Legit: Keep your hands off my body. The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation. Women's choice.
If we have fought bitterly over the issue of the right of women to bodily autonomy, I will be appalled and disgusted if we turn around and go back to telling them what they can and cannot do, reproductively. If the woman down the street has the right to an abortion, I have the right to have another child.
You can call me irresponsible, short-sighted, and small. You can sneer and call me names, if it makes you happier. But under no circumstances will I accept legal coercion as to how many children I decide to have. I will fight that tooth and claw.
Edit: What I'm trying to get at is there's no room for double standards. Abortion rights are predicated on a woman's inalienable bodily autonomy. If someone now says "except when I think it's a bad idea," the emperor starts looking naked. No one, in North America, can legally coerce a woman into having a child she doesn't want. The corollary is that no one can force a woman to use birth control or have an abortion.
good thing that people generally are quiet when under sleeping gas when their ovaries are being removed.
The needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many, this isn't an equal rights matter, certainly males will also be sterilized as well should extreme circumstances call for extreme solutions. Basically it will come down to this:
1) Either the world collectively realizes (ooh s***) and voluntarily limits the number of children it gets or:
2) The Government will by this time be empowered to enforce it.
or 3 if were lucky:
3) FTL travel to space colonies.
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
2.0 isn't quite stable, because it doesn't take into account the number of children who die before they're old enough to reproduce. To quote elsewhere on Wikipedia:
"Sub-replacement fertility is a total fertility rate that is not high enough to replace an area's population. In developed countries sub-replacement fertility is below approximately 2.1 children per woman's life time, but the threshold could be as high as 3.3 in some developing countries because of higher mortality rates."
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Or those who choose not to reproduce when they become old enough.
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
Right, that, too.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
All this talk of reducing the number of children by first world countries makes me laugh. It is quickly followed by "but we still maintain a positive population growth through immigration" by 3rd World populations who have no concept of limiting birth. Usually they come from countries whose religious mandates (Muslims for Europe and Latin Catholics for North America) expect or insist on large families. What happens is not a reduction in the numbers of people on the Earth, but a reduction in those who want to reduce.
This is, by the way, besides the point of the legality of it for the United States under the Constitution. I don't believe it is constitutional, but since the constitution has become only a piece of paper with scribbles on it who knows how possible it might be? I have to agree that those who propose it are often the same ones who have fought so hard under abortion to limit what women can do with their womb.
Posted by String (Member # 6435) on :
I'm not overly concerned with overpopulation. Their really isn't anything to worry about. It's all a big fuss over nothing. Next time you're on a plane, flying over a big city, look at all the surrounding country. We have not even begun to run out of space for people or garbage, and as far as carbon and green house gases go, who cares, that is a bunch of alarmist crap too. Global warming and overpopulation are nothing but the secularists version apocalyptic B.S. Ooooooh the world is going to end, either Jesus comes back on a white horse shooting lasers out of his mouth, or the earth catches on fire because people drive too much oooooh. Anyone read the population bomb?
Same thing will happen to all of Al Gores Nobel prize winning predictions. Alarmist crap, all of it.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by String: Next time you're on a plane, flying over a big city, look at all the surrounding country. We have not even begun to run out of space for people or garbage,
Much of that open country is being used to raise food. It isn't space for people or garbage that is going to be a limiting factor to population growth, it's resources
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Uh, the US has 745 million acres of forested land - roughly 30% of the nation's land. While there are obvious benefits to keeping that forested land, raising food isn't one of them.
Posted by paigereader (Member # 2274) on :
If you put a limit on how many kids you can have, you have to put a limit on how long old people can live. Then if you didn't have kids you get to live as long as you want. =)
Posted by String (Member # 6435) on :
So grow chicken and beef in a lab.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The world (much less the US) isn't particularly close to running out of space for food, either. For a bit of reasonable (albeit point) evidence, India is a net food exporter. And that's with fairly inefficient farming techniques.
Obviously food isn't the only resource, but it is the one you (edit: dkw, of course) mentioned. The world, even with current farming techniques and practices, could probably grow food for at least ten billion people. With more aggressive planting of more efficient crops and less space for meat, it could support far, far more.
Most of the 'doom and gloom' predictions I've seen for the world's carrying capacity make the estimate based on other resources than food. And the low estimates completely ignore substitutes (for instance, for plastics based on petroleum).
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: Uh, the US has 745 million acres of forested land - roughly 30% of the nation's land. While there are obvious benefits to keeping that forested land, raising food isn't one of them.
Yes but most of that is too dry to use for anything else. In fact, lately it is too dry to grow trees.
Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
This thread keeps making me think of this prophecy by Joseph Smith, so I decided to include it, since there are LDS people on this forum.
And yes, I recognize that this is a religious belief and not a scientific fact, so I don't quote it as evidence in this argument. I quote it as something interesting relating to the conversation. However, being someone who believes Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, I do believe this to be true, if he indeed said it. The only qualifier I add is that we can't know 100% that he said this, because it was reported by a third-party:
Joseph Smith is reported to have said in Nauvoo that “the time would come when none but the women of the Latter-Day Saints would be willing to bear children (Joseph Smith as quoted by, Lillie Freeze, Women’s Exponent, Young Women’s Journal, [1891], 2:81).
Posted by Futch (Member # 11946) on :
The day this country starts limiting things like how many children we can adopt is the day I find a different country. In any case, I plan to adopt as many children as I can financially and emotionally support.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by Futch: The day this country starts limiting things like how many children we can adopt is the day I find a different country. In any case, I plan to adopt as many children as I can financially and emotionally support.
Did the article (or someone in this thread) bring up adoption? I agree that limiting how many children people can adopt (besides not letting people unfit adopt) would be a sad, sad thing.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by String: So grow chicken and beef in a lab.
That doesn't solve the problem. Even if you are growing chicken and beef in a lab, they have to have nutrients to grow. They have to have a source of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and a variety of minerals as well as an energy source in order to grow.
On this planet, the two largest of those demands (carbon and energy) are met by the photosynthesis which uses light energy from the sun to reduce CO2 from the air and make carbohydrates that serve as both a source of carbon and energy for all other living things.
In order to make that process work, you have to have a large area of the planet available to collect enough sunlight. There is no way around that.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Equeae Legit, There's no double standard. I'm talking about a hypothetical scenario in which the Earth's resources are stretched to the absolute limit. In this case, I think having too many children would not only be short-sighted and selfish, but would require resources that someone else needed to survive. I think everyone agrees that the right to life trumps with the right to choose, but in most current abortion situations, I don't see any competing right to life. You can disagree, but I don't think what I've said is internally inconsistent.
For what it's worth, I do not want to tell anyone how many children they can have. What I want even less, however, is for anyone to live in a world where competition over resources is so fierce that is significantly harms the quality of life for the entire planet, human and non-human alike. Like Wonder Dog, I have great faith in human innovation and invention. I truly hope we can achieve some kind of global balance. Unfortunately, I also have great faith in human appetite, and I don't think the global population has several hundred years to stabilize birth rates the way developed countries have.
EDITED for speeling, lol.
[ February 03, 2009, 06:02 PM: Message edited by: Juxtapose ]
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:c) A naturally constrained human population would be very likely to experience greatly increased famine, disease, and conflict.
This is a bad assumption. In developed countries, the high economic cost of an additional child is a major constraint to human population that typically does not involve famine, disease, or conflict.
Forgive me, but I don't see how that contradicts what I said. I think what you're talking about could easily happen concurrently with the famine, etc.
Posted by Week-Dead Possum (Member # 11917) on :
You know, as a possum in this man's world, I get very annoyed at humans who refuse to use that very simple tool between their ears.
I'm referring to the hair, of course.
But seriously folks. A few basic complaints about all the theories and speculation posted so far, which mostly amount to a list of folk beliefs about population growth.
A) The idea that we will continually develop new technologies to cover for our past mistakes (analogous to an earlier comment about that 3rd child being the next big genius) has been disproved by history. Only 7 centuries ago, civilization was brought to its knees by the Bubonic Plague. A century ago, it nearly happened with the Flu. We do not keep ahead of our problems. We survive catastrophes, but that "survival" is not what one imagines when one positivistically suggests that a third child may be the ticket to a better tomorrow. Basic reasoning would suggest that in a world where we rely on that third child, there will be many more third children... many many many more. Our problems will be amplified, and diversified. Population growth introduces new pressures in both positive and negative ways, and depopulation does the same thing. Any 9th grade world history text makes it plain that the Black Death paved the way for the rise of empires, art, and high culture in the west. Until just about that time, China was poised to become the world's dominant nation- but that never happened. The Black Death is part of the answer: increased food production before the plague meant that following the plague, even though more land lay fallow, there was an increased supply of food, which introduced a greater demand for trade goods, higher education, and a higher living standard. Bang: the rise of the west. (And the rise of BELGIUM..... :angry:) So in that case, your theory has been shown to have a major hole- a depopulating event spurred human progress in a new direction, because of a change of major societal and economic forces.
B) Overpopulation is impossible. Ok, you'll laugh, you'll tell me that's stupid, that of course some places are overpopulated. That's true! But the thing is, globally, human beings have never been in danger of overpopulation. There is no danger from overpopulation*. Why? Societies that reach a certain birth rate, combined with a certain life expectancy and a certain standard of living, naturally adapt to a pattern of life which maintains either zero, or slightly negative growth. The population only ever goes up a little bit if the standard of living increases or decreases dramatically. If things stay the same, the population stays the same. It's easy to see why: market forces, such as the number of available jobs in a stable economy will naturally limit the progression of individual careers, encouraging the delay of family-making to a later age (this phenomenon has had a HUGE effect on the Czech populace in the last 20 years, btw). When there are no advantages and only disadvantages to having children, the population as a whole chooses to have fewer children, and at a later age. As the generation gaps get bigger, the population may decrease too far. If this happens, more jobs become available, people get them sooner, and have bigger families. The only reason this cycle doesn't yet have an effect in America (it already does in some places, like SF) is because we have a steady inflow of immigrants. That's fine. It does artificially increase our economic output, which increases our demand for jobs, which then artificially increases our job advancement expectations, which in turn increases our family size, but this is temporary. Immigration is not forever. As soon as our population becomes to large or grows too fast to support this trend, even in the face of cheap labor, the cycle peaks and begins to reduce itself, which forces immigrant labor back into other job markets, and we slowly return to an equilibrium. America is just caught right now in the middle (or the latter part) of the upswing.
*In fact, the swelling of the population to above a sustainable size is necessary to put pressure on that population to increase output, to innovate, and to seek new opportunities for advancement. It encourages war, which encourages technological development. It also insulates the human population against natural disaster, even as it encourages that disaster (and war) by breading disease and resentment between large groups of people.
So, basically, that third child may be the next Einstein, but as tired as the trope is, he may be the next Hitler (a 4th child). Your problems multiply almost as fast as you do. The state of the world's population lives on that knife's edge between progress and excess- between destruction and salvation.
But one thing we need not worry about is overpopulation.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
Possum, Regarding B) - is your claim essentially that, because populations reach an equilibrium point with regard to societal and external factors, there is no danger of overpopulation?
What exactly do you mean by 'overpopulation'?
In my view, 'overpopulation' is not an endpoint, but rather speaks to the population passing a threshold whereby a new equilibrium must be found.
For example, if a small fishing community increases in size leading to an increased demand for fish, so overfishing occurs leading to a fundamental change in that ecosystem. In response to this, food is more scarce so the population decreases until it re-equilibriates with the new reality. One can argue that overpopulation lead to the destruction of an ecosystem and a dramatic change in the lifestyle of the community.
Posted by Week-Dead Possum (Member # 11917) on :
One would have to accept as a given that this change in the ecosystem is "destruction" in the sense of an enduring loss. But practically speaking, the depletion of a small fish population encourages a growing population of people to either move, or produce different kinds of food.
If you look back into prehistory, there is evidence that South America was once the treasure of the Earth when it came to species diversity. There were, a short time ago, more diverse, and more large (and very large) creatures, predators and prey both, living in South America than anywhere else in the world. There were ground sloths two stories tall, and giant mammoths, bigger than anything that has walked the rest of the earth in a million years. The virgin lands of the Americas were protected from us, and from Neanderthals and other intelligent hunters until recent history, possible as soon as 12,000 years ago. Human beings destroyed all that very quickly, but it was not an enduring loss.
Unfortunately, disaster and setback are part of the equation- but in the long run, human beings have a track record of self improvement, and in recent years, astonishingly rapid self improvement. So the population does not just increase until it inflicts damage on itself or the surroundings- it experiences manifold damage and growth. Fish populations dry out, people move, fish populations recover, (even if it takes a million years). Natural selection applies to the human effect on the environment too- the only trick is to try and make sure nature never selects us for extinction.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
What is valuable? Is the only thing that you regard as valuable the non-extinction of the human (possum?) race?
If, on the other hand, you want your children to grow up enjoying a similar lifestyle to that which you enjoyed (e.g. fishing from the example in the previous post), or perhaps you find something intrinsically valuable about wildlife, one might wonder what can be done to prevent the damage occurring.
What do you mean be 'not an enduring loss?' The mammoths and giant sloths are still gone, as are the giant marsupials of Australia? (I take it you mean humankind adapted and subsequently thrived in spite of these losses. If one attaches some value to these creatures, then obviously the loss is enduring.)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I'm not overly concerned with overpopulation. Their really isn't anything to worry about. It's all a big fuss over nothing. Next time you're on a plane, flying over a big city, look at all the surrounding country. We have not even begun to run out of space for people or garbage, and as far as carbon and green house gases go, who cares, that is a bunch of alarmist crap too.
"Informed" attitudes like these are why I'm pretty certain that we're not going to handle overpopulation the easy way.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
The easy solution is just to do nothing, then when all our naturally arable land will be all desertified (real word?) and we won't be able to grow anything and then we'll all starve.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Look on the bright side: if we keep culturing drug resistance in pathogens, we might have a pandemic act as a quicker means by which to reduce pressure on available farmland.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Fortunately for us, I'm nearly 100% certain that this will never actually become a problem. The chances that we'll wipe out a large portion of the world population before we reach whatever carrying capacity the earth actually has are pretty good, and the larger the population, the better they get.
It's a self-regulating system. If we choose not to regulate it ourselves, it will regulate for us.
Posted by String (Member # 6435) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:I'm not overly concerned with overpopulation. Their really isn't anything to worry about. It's all a big fuss over nothing. Next time you're on a plane, flying over a big city, look at all the surrounding country. We have not even begun to run out of space for people or garbage, and as far as carbon and green house gases go, who cares, that is a bunch of alarmist crap too.
"Informed" attitudes like these are why I'm pretty certain that we're not going to handle overpopulation the easy way.
Thanks, buddy glad to know you think I'm ignorant. But the fact is, the only reason most people that believe in an eminent threat from green house gases or overpopulation is because it is repeated all the time in most media outlets. Ask a geologist what he thinks about man caused global warming, and why his ideas are not represented in the discussions in the media. It's sociology 101 you think it is a problem because you are told to.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
If anything, the media has impeded awareness on climate change by vastly overstating the amount of disagreement in the scientific community.
String, I'll see your geologist and raise you a climatologist.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: "Informed" attitudes like these are why I'm pretty certain that we're not going to handle overpopulation the easy way.
Oh, that depends on your definition. Arguably, "massive population die-off" is the very picture of easy. Preventing it, now...
All else aside, we're starting to experience problems with the availability of fresh water now. And the agricultural techniques which enable us to maintain our planet's current population require massive amounts of fresh water, to the point that many underground aquifers are going dry. In short, we are currently in a non-sustainable system.
Posted by String (Member # 6435) on :
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: If anything, the media has impeded awareness on climate change by vastly overstating the amount of disagreement in the scientific community.
String, I'll see your geologist and raise you a climatologist.
So which is more reliable? Whose research is right, whose conclusions are right? Anybody can make a decent case for most positions on most issues and arguments by choosing which facts they build their case around. I disagree with you that the media has impeded awareness through overstating the dissent in the scientific community over the causes of global warming, and remind you that an entire movie exaggerating the affects of global warming and cherry picking data to support it's conclusion just got all kinds of press not too long ago. The other day I was listening to NPR and heard someone equate the level of disagreement in the scientific community over global warming's causes with the evolution/creationism argument. Is that overstating?
Posted by Futch (Member # 11946) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai:
quote:Originally posted by Futch: The day this country starts limiting things like how many children we can adopt is the day I find a different country. In any case, I plan to adopt as many children as I can financially and emotionally support.
Did the article (or someone in this thread) bring up adoption? I agree that limiting how many children people can adopt (besides not letting people unfit adopt) would be a sad, sad thing.
oops, I meant how many children we can have. sorry for the confusion. And I agree with you wholeheartedly.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: It's a self-regulating system. If we choose not to regulate it ourselves, it will regulate for us.
This is what scares me the most. Currently, many nations in the world are stable enough to ask the question "How should we control our population growth?"
But if world population continues to grow, ecosystems and the natural support structure continues to deteriorate, temperature continues to rise, and stresses on political and social structure increase, the issue of population control will fall by the wayside of survival.
We will stop thinking about it, population will keep rising, and at some point (I don't know what this point is) the self-regulating system will start its self-regulation, and we'll have absolutely no control.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:So which is more reliable? Whose research is right, whose conclusions are right?
These kinds of questions can often be difficult to answer. There are some rough guidelines that I find very useful, though. They're things like:
Lend credence to experts.
Lend more credence to experts speaking on a subject most closely related to their field of research.
Lend even more credence to a consensus of such experts.
So, there may be a consensus among geologists that the Earth is not getting warmer, or that it is, but not by man-made causes, but I'll trust the climatologists over them (albeit with increased reservations). I am, however, unaware of any such consensus.
Also, if you're charging the vast majority of the climate science community with cherry-picking data, that's pretty serious. I sincerely doubt you have the evidence to back that up.
Regarding An Inconvenient Truth, it is my understanding that, excepting some minor errors, the movie accurately portrayed the scientific consensus at the time it was released. If anything, the models predicting climate behavior have grown more dire since.
quote:My analysis of news articles published in national and regional newspapers, wire services, and newsmagazines between December 2007 and June 2008 suggests that for most reporters covering this story, the default role was that of stenographer -- presenting a nominally balanced view of the debate without questioning the validity of the arguments, sometimes even ignoring evidence that one side was twisting truth.
(bolding mine)
Posted by Starsnuffer (Member # 8116) on :
quote:The problem with legally or socially restricting the number of children a parent has is that the punishment falls upon the innocent child.
Uh, no it doesn't, because there is no child to be punished.
quote:My moral outlook is such that I'd rather have more kids and consume less.
And how, exactly, do you plan on doing that? Less than what, specifically? Obviously if one could have 4 children and still consume the same amount of energy as a family with 2 children there is nothing for anyone to be upset about, but that is just preposterous to claim to be possible. The children have to eat, and presumably be transported from time to time in vehicles, have lights turned on that would otherwise be off did they not exist... etc.
Of course it'd be fine if having more kids consumed no more energy, but it does.
I don't know. I just can't help but feel that if families that do have many many kids could provide better for fewer kids, almost regardless of their wealth situation.
As an aside, does anyone know if, when someone goes to a sperm bank to be artificially inseminated, do they get to see a genetic/personal breakdown of the person whose sperm they're receiving. Can they choose to pick a hobo or a Nobel laureate?
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Starsnuffer:
quote:The problem with legally or socially restricting the number of children a parent has is that the punishment falls upon the innocent child.
Uh, no it doesn't, because there is no child to be punished.
Uh, yes it does because if the rules are broken, there is a child.
Exhibit A: Ender Wiggin.
While his existence was perfectly legal because the IF requested Theresa and John Paul have another baby, Ender still was treated socially as if his parents broke the law (which they did, according the Shadow series, the timing of the requisition was rather convenient). Look at Stilson and the other jerks in Ender's first grade class. Third turd, anyone? Ender was so fearful of these kids, he committed manslaughter one in his efforts to scare kids out of bullying him in the future. Heck, Graff was able to manipulate Ender into going into space by telling him that without his monitor, his mom would get dirty looks in the grocery store for having three kids, ergo he should probably leave home to make it easier for her. And the port traumatized Ender buys it.
While the entire scenario above happens to be a creation from the 80s by some guy named Orson Scott Card, I suspect all of us here find the plight of that particular third child compelling.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
This is sort of besides the point in question, but I sort of think that three children would be a more reasonable limit anyway. It'd impact fewer people, and would probably achieve the desired results.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
But that would still be growth. The more logical choice would be one.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmer's Glue: But that would still be growth. The more logical choice would be one.
It would be growth if all couples actually had three children. Many would have one or two or none. Obviously some statistical data is necessary to determine if a limit of three would actually reverse population growth.
If we are ever forced to limit personal freedom like that, it should be done in the least restrictive way possible.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Thanks, buddy glad to know you think I'm ignorant. But the fact is, the only reason most people believe in an eminent threat from green house gases or overpopulation is because it is repeated all the time in most media outlets. Ask a geologist what he thinks about man caused global warming, and why his ideas are not represented in the discussions in the media. It's sociology 101, you think it is a problem because you are told to.
I'll go ahead and tell you that the only way that this relates to 'sociology 101' is if, by 'sociology 101,' you are implying this concept as a facet of amateurish pseudo-sociological layman conceptualization.
The rest of your position is similarly buttressed by ignorance. Even if we give the statement "the only reason most people believe in an eminent threat from green house gases or overpopulation is because it is repeated all the time in most media outlets" it doesn't change what you get when you talk to people who believe in an eminent threat from global warming because they are qualified experts in the field of climatology and who have spent their life studying and falsifying the data.
When asked, the vast, near-total majority of them will agree, from their educated standpoint, that it is indeed an 'eminent' (?) threat. Something which is very much real.
It is from this consensus and the resulting controversy on the future of the human race that the media issue is derived!
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)