FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Watch out, all you thirds! (Page 0)

  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Watch out, all you thirds!
Tresopax
Member
Member # 1063

 - posted      Profile for Tresopax           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ambyr
Member
Member # 7616

 - posted      Profile for ambyr           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tresopax
Member
Member # 1063

 - posted      Profile for Tresopax           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Eaquae Legit
Member
Member # 3063

 - posted      Profile for Eaquae Legit   Email Eaquae Legit         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I was responding more to the tone of the thread, where a couple people implied that they'd support such measures.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
theamazeeaz
Member
Member # 6970

 - posted      Profile for theamazeeaz   Email theamazeeaz         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The problem with legally or socially restricting the number of children a parent has is that the punishment falls upon the innocent child.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
lobo
Member
Member # 1761

 - posted      Profile for lobo           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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...

Posts: 571 | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ketchupqueen
Member
Member # 6877

 - posted      Profile for ketchupqueen   Email ketchupqueen         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We have a higher birth rate than most first-world countries, but we still maintain a positive population growth through immigration, IIRC.
Posts: 21181 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
lobo
Member
Member # 1761

 - posted      Profile for lobo           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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

Posts: 571 | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ambyr
Member
Member # 7616

 - posted      Profile for ambyr           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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."

Posts: 650 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jhai
Member
Member # 5633

 - posted      Profile for Jhai   Email Jhai         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Or those who choose not to reproduce when they become old enough.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ambyr
Member
Member # 7616

 - posted      Profile for ambyr           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Right, that, too.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Occasional
Member
Member # 5860

 - posted      Profile for Occasional   Email Occasional         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
String
Member
Member # 6435

 - posted      Profile for String   Email String         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With 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. 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?

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

Same thing will happen to all of Al Gores Nobel prize winning predictions. Alarmist crap, all of it.

Posts: 278 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
dkw
Member
Member # 3264

 - posted      Profile for dkw   Email dkw         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jhai
Member
Member # 5633

 - posted      Profile for Jhai   Email Jhai         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
paigereader
Member
Member # 2274

 - posted      Profile for paigereader   Email paigereader         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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. =)
Posts: 204 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
String
Member
Member # 6435

 - posted      Profile for String   Email String         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So grow chicken and beef in a lab.
Posts: 278 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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).

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Artemisia Tridentata
Member
Member # 8746

 - posted      Profile for Artemisia Tridentata   Email Artemisia Tridentata         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Marlozhan
Member
Member # 2422

 - posted      Profile for Marlozhan   Email Marlozhan         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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).

Posts: 683 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Futch
New Member
Member # 11946

 - posted      Profile for Futch           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.
Posts: 2 | Registered: Feb 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jhai
Member
Member # 5633

 - posted      Profile for Jhai   Email Jhai         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Juxtapose
Member
Member # 8837

 - posted      Profile for Juxtapose   Email Juxtapose         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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 ]

Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Juxtapose
Member
Member # 8837

 - posted      Profile for Juxtapose   Email Juxtapose         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Week-Dead Possum
Member
Member # 11917

 - posted      Profile for Week-Dead Possum           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 79 | Registered: Jan 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
natural_mystic
Member
Member # 11760

 - posted      Profile for natural_mystic           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Week-Dead Possum
Member
Member # 11917

 - posted      Profile for Week-Dead Possum           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 79 | Registered: Jan 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
natural_mystic
Member
Member # 11760

 - posted      Profile for natural_mystic           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.)

Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.
Posts: 15419 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
T:man
Member
Member # 11614

 - posted      Profile for T:man   Email T:man         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.
Posts: 1574 | Registered: May 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.
Posts: 15419 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MightyCow
Member
Member # 9253

 - posted      Profile for MightyCow           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
String
Member
Member # 6435

 - posted      Profile for String   Email String         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.
Posts: 278 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Juxtapose
Member
Member # 8837

 - posted      Profile for Juxtapose   Email Juxtapose         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sterling
Member
Member # 8096

 - posted      Profile for Sterling   Email Sterling         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
String
Member
Member # 6435

 - posted      Profile for String   Email String         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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?
Posts: 278 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Futch
New Member
Member # 11946

 - posted      Profile for Futch           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.
Posts: 2 | Registered: Feb 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The White Whale
Member
Member # 6594

 - posted      Profile for The White Whale           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 1710 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Juxtapose
Member
Member # 8837

 - posted      Profile for Juxtapose   Email Juxtapose         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

This article is about a study on the US media coverage of global warming.
Actual study here.
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)
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Starsnuffer
Member
Member # 8116

 - posted      Profile for Starsnuffer   Email Starsnuffer         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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?

Posts: 655 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
theamazeeaz
Member
Member # 6970

 - posted      Profile for theamazeeaz   Email theamazeeaz         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Juxtapose
Member
Member # 8837

 - posted      Profile for Juxtapose   Email Juxtapose         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elmer's Glue
Member
Member # 9313

 - posted      Profile for Elmer's Glue   Email Elmer's Glue         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
But that would still be growth. The more logical choice would be one.
Posts: 1287 | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
aspectre
Member
Member # 2222

 - posted      Profile for aspectre           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/2009/02/08/
or at
http://picayune.uclick.com/comics/nq/2009/nq090208.gif

Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Juxtapose
Member
Member # 8837

 - posted      Profile for Juxtapose   Email Juxtapose         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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!

Posts: 15419 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2