posted
Some of the talk in the octomom thread had me thinking.
There was a suggestion that IVF should not be available to single parents, because, in the poster's opinion, they did not make an optimum family and the children would be disadvantaged. I'd prefer not to get into that too much here (take your arguments on that over there, ladies and gentleman ).
One of my initial responses was 'Huh - even if [single parents lead to disadvantaged kids] is true, there are many things I would consider a far bigger barrier to having children.
So, if we did live in a society were reproduction was regulated, what do you think the criteria for gaining permission to reproduce (a licence, I guess) should be?
Mine would not distinguish between hetrosexual couples, same sex couples or singles. However, I'd want everyone who was allowed to reproduce to:
Have graduated from High School (or gained equivalent trade certifiaction) - I think minimum education is something that ideally should be achieved before having children.
Be able to demonstrate they can adequately support themselves and their children.
Have taken a CPR and first aid course, with the emphasis on infant and child first aid.
Have completed some standard parenting course covering feeding, infant care and parenting skills.
A couple of disclaimers.
Firstly - I don't actually agree with regulating reproduction in any way. But if, there had to be some minimum conditions, these would be mine. All are based on what I think would be best for the baby.
Secondly, #1 is only appropriate for environments were this kind of education is achievable - I'm basically talking about the developed world.
Third, a confession - as a new time Mum with a 3 month old on my lap, I pass 1,2 and 4, but not quite 3. I do know how to do CPR, but the course I did was ages ago. I meant to do a refresher before Toby was born, but didn't. Ideally, I think I should have.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But wait! Before you go regulating reproduction you've got to decide what you're gonna do with all the illegal babies that starting shooting outta people. Blenderize them? Throw 'em in a dumpster? Hope the Chinese will adopt them? Sell them on eBay?
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by imogen: [*]Have graduated from High School (or gained equivalent trade certifiaction) - I think minimum education is something that ideally should be achieved before having children. [*]Be able to demonstrate they can adequately support themselves and their children. [*]Have taken a CPR and first aid course, with the emphasis on infant and child first aid. [*]Have completed some standard parenting course covering feeding, infant care and parenting skills. [/list]
I assume that by adequate support you mean financially. What do you consider adequate? I used to date someone who thought that if you couldn't completely pay for a child to go to any college they choose that you shouldn't have children. On the other hand, some people are perfectly willing to "do without" certain things if it means they can have more children. They'll take a smaller home, a used car (or public trasit where available), second hand clothes, etc. This bullet point alone could generate a 10-page discussion!
As far as CPR and parenting classes goes -- I have never taken any CPR class (on adults or babies) and while I see why doing so would be advantageous in case of an emergency (and keep saying to myself that I'll do it when I have time), I can't honestly see why this should be a definite prerequisite for having babies.
The parenting classes I took were crap and helped not at all. The breastfeeding class I took was good but I've spoken to many, many other women whose experience was dangerously bad.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by jebus202: But wait! Before you go regulating reproduction you've got to decide what you're gonna do with all the illegal babies that starting shooting outta people. Blenderize them? Throw 'em in a dumpster? Hope the Chinese will adopt them? Sell them on eBay?
Blast them into space and teach them to save the world.
quote:Originally posted by jebus202: But wait! Before you go regulating reproduction you've got to decide what you're gonna do with all the illegal babies that starting shooting outta people. Blenderize them? Throw 'em in a dumpster? Hope the Chinese will adopt them? Sell them on eBay?
Oh no, in my hypothetical world, reproduction is completely controlled. Maybe some kind of switch that can only be turned on by the government.
Yes, it's creepy and invasive. Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by jebus202: But wait! Before you go regulating reproduction you've got to decide what you're gonna do with all the illegal babies that starting shooting outta people. Blenderize them? Throw 'em in a dumpster? Hope the Chinese will adopt them? Sell them on eBay?
Oh no, in my hypothetical world, reproduction is completely controlled. Maybe some kind of switch that can only be turned on by the government.
Yes, it's creepy and invasive.
Has this story been written yet? The Giver did the opposite.
quote:Originally posted by Christine: I assume that by adequate support you mean financially. What do you consider adequate? I used to date someone who thought that if you couldn't completely pay for a child to go to any college they choose that you shouldn't have children. On the other hand, some people are perfectly willing to "do without" certain things if it means they can have more children. They'll take a smaller home, a used car (or public trasit where available), second hand clothes, etc. This bullet point alone could generate a 10-page discussion!
I do mean financially. I think emotional support is important, but I don't know how that could ever be measured/predicted.
I'm really meaning the basics - accommodation, food and clothing. Health insurance if there isn't adequate state-provided health care. Basic educational expenses (public schools, not private) to the end of High School. Basically enough so there is no financial reason a child would be homeless, hungry, sick or uneducated.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
How about people simply request to reproduce and make a doctor's appointment to become fertile again? No questions asked. If nothing, it will stop people who don't mean to have kids from doing so. If nothing, it will prevent a large number of abortions and teens who don't want to be a parent from becoming one.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
While that would help a lot of situations, you'd still get your Nadia Suleman's being able to become pregnant - even with one, if not 8 - while not being able to support the family they already have.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Making a person be able to afford one would pretty much target minorities and anyone on the lower end of the job spectrum.....and not everyone would agree on what is and isn't necessary to raise a child correctly.
I don't see ANY way this would work at all, and would fight against anything like this, even while not agreeing with their choices.
Just like abortion. I don;t agree with it and wouldn't consider it myself, but I don't think that others should have the right to interfere in either case.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kwea, do you think that many people would not be able to afford the basics I outlined? (Accomodation, food, clothing etc). Note, I'm not talking about minimum number of bedrooms, or gadgets or anything. The kind of standards I'm thinking of, I would imagine anyone with a regular income, even at the lower end, should be able to fulfill.
[Edit - and it's not to say your plan of support couldn't include other family members' assistance.]
Christine - re your point about courses... I could cheat and say oh yes, but in my hypothetical, the course are incredibly helpful, and great, and everyone loves them. But I won't.
I would say they would have to be standardised (as I indicated), which would mean some standard and monitored content. To be quite honest, I imagine for 90% of people they would be useless - covering stuff that most people would know, or consider common sense. However, for those people who just do not have the knowledge about parenting and caring for infants (you know, the people who end up in the tragic news stories...), I think they could be useful.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kwea, would you see a need for it to work with a global population of 18 billion? 25 billion? 10 billion? There has to be some limit where population control becomes necessary.
The latest estimates I've seen project nearly 10 billion by 2050. Not many seem to project past that. Here's one from the UN in 2004 that has some projections out to 2300 (Figure 6 on page 13), with a low, medium, and high projection of 2, 9, and 36 billion.
I'd like to think that it will stabilize somewhere around 10 billion. Too much more than that and I have my doubts about the planet's ability to cope with them all.
And to have a stabilized population, there needs to be population control (or a much smaller life expectancy). Voluntary or forced, there is going to be some form of population control.
I'm also ignoring the possibility of mass emigration from the earth to other rocks in the sky.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The human organism cannot continue its current rate of growth. Realistically, we have two options. Stabilize growth, or experience a massive die-off due to having overstretched ourselves and overtaxed our available food-growing capacity through unsustainable means (which we WOULD commit to at the first sign of famine crisis). After anything approaching that point has occured, ta-da. Our take on procreation rights will have fundamentally changed.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm also ignoring the possibility of mass emigration from the earth to other rocks in the sky.
This has always struck me as a silly solution, which for some reason gets brought up in every single population debate. Even assuming we found a way to transport things into space that didn't cost thousands of dollars per pound, it's only useful if we find actual arable land.
Sure, rich people could emigrate to Mars and build a colony there, but it would be a lot cheaper and just as effective to build a bio-dome in the middle of the Sahara.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's interesting that you post this thread. I often think wistfully about how licensing people to procreate would be a good idea. (Mind you, this thought only passes through my mind in temporary moments of frustration - I've never seriously considered it as something that should be implemented.) We license people to drive. We license people to own guns. We license people to hunt and fish. Yet the most important job a person could undertake in their lives is to be responsible for the life and well-being of another person, and apparently the only requirement to do that is to be fertile.
I live in Las Vegas, and every summer here there are stories on the news of a child who has died because some idiot parent left the child in a hot car while going into the grocery store, or some such. (Remember, this is the desert, and in the summer it can rise to in excess of 110 degrees during the day - and that's not even inside the car.) There was one story a couple years ago of a woman who left a child in a hot car while she was going into the DMV! Yeah, that'll be a short trip. A man stopped her as she was going in and told her to get that child out. She actually said, "No, he'll be alright." The man responded by telling her to get the child out now, or he would call the police. She got the child out.
In a friend's apartment complex I'm constantly seeing dirty, filthy children wearing nothing but diapers walking around in the parking lot completely unattended, as though the parking lot is their playpen.
A few years ago there was a story about a man who stopped at a convenience store to buy a pack of cigarettes, and left his car running in the parking lot with his infant child inside. The car was stolen while he was inside the store. Left it running with his child inside.
From my window at work, I have a view of a 4-way intersection that is very dangerous, because cars often blow the stop signs. A few weeks ago, I saw a kid riding a skateboard down the sidewalk. He was sitting on the skateboard, so he had little control over it. When he got to the intersection, he didn't stop - he just barreled right out into the street, and there were cars going through. He stopped halfway across, picked up the skateboard and walked the rest of the way. All of this while he was carrying a baby.
And then of course we see these stories on the news - the Scott Pedersons and the Casey Anthonys.
It's at times like these that I ponder what may be the benefits of licensed procreation.
I've not yet been lucky enough to find a woman to marry and begin a family. But I aspire to it. I long for it. And I just don't understand how some people in this world can be so lucky to have what I have not, and value it so little.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don;t particularly care what the population was, total...I'd still fight against anyone trying to tell me I couldn't have children based on THEIR system of standard.
And those models assume we will always produce food, water and energy in the same manner we do now. They are speculation at best, and complete nonsense at worse. I have faith we will find a way to manage ourselves some hoe, and find solutions that don;t impinge on one of the very basic human rights....the right to procreate.
I can't think of any right more worthy of fighting for, myself.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
RA, I'm also just finishing Blue Mars, the last of Kim Stanley Robinson's trilogy about the colonization and terraforming of Mars. Where I am now (in the book), the earth has a population of 18 billion, Mars 18 million, and many other people are building small colonies spattered around the solar system. So these thoughts and ideas about a great Earth exodus were swimming around in my head anyway.
I do not think it's a realistic means for population control. I think there will be settlements on the moon and Mars in the not too distant future, but it will be in the dozens or hundreds of people, not the millions or billions.
But Kwea, even if the population levels off at 10 billion, there are many people in developing countries that are getting closer to consuming and producing and polluting on par with those in many developed countries. And you look at any credible prediction for what that means for land use and food scarcity and energy and pollution, you very quickly see some discomforting results.
So sure, we could find some way to get cheap, clean electrons to power our homes and help grow our food and not emit anything nasty into the air and water. That would be great. Then the population could be much higher than it is today. But many of the nations that are developing are developing in ways that are fossil fuel based, dirty, and not sustainable.
And those models do not all assume we will produce food, water, and energy the same as we do now. In fact, they very explicitly take the possible development into account. But because no one really knows what these developments will be, when they will come, how they will be implemented, and how effective they might be, one cannot assume that the problems caused by overpopulation of a high-consuming/polluting world will be avoided. The farther into the future you go, the greater the uncertainty, and the less sure of anything you can be.
Something about your post really bothered me. It's that "I don't particularly care" attitude, for something as critical as population. Since there is very little we can do to move large amounts of population off the planet, we're stuck here with the numbers we have and the means to produce food and energy that currently exist, or are likely to develop in the near future. It takes decades for an new source of energy to move from discovery through development and into full implementation.
The earth is a closed system, with all of its energy coming from the sun (except for nuclear power). And no body really knows what sort of reaction this closed earth system is having to the increase in population and emissions.
So when you say that you'd fight against people imposing their system on you, you're also imposing your system on them. But since you "don't particularly care" about the implications of your system when extrapolated out to a population of 7 billion, I see you as the reckless one.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by imogen: ... So, if we did live in a society were reproduction was regulated, what do you think the criteria for gaining permission to reproduce (a licence, I guess) should be?
(If we must live in such a world) *Shrug* No need to reinvent the wheel. We already have guidelines and procedures for prospective adoptive parents, just bring them over IVF.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kwea and I see eye to eye here. There's no way someone will come and tell me when and when not to have children. If my wife and I decided we wanted 10-15 kids, then as long as my wife is up to it, we'd go one at a time and see how close we got. If we wanted to stop at the two we have now, then that's our choice.
I don't think any regulations talked about here could work. There are too many variables- as many have discovered, such as what income is sufficient, or the level of education in differing countries.
The idea of licensing couples to procreate is a novel idea, since there are so many terrible parents out there, but I don't think the idea could ever be put to practical use.
Originally posted by SamPrimary: The human organism cannot continue its current rate of growth.
This is a load of garbage. There's plenty of land out there for a whole lot more expansion- especially in the US, and as for resources, history has shown when we need them we can get them. Certainly, as long as the Government continues to take on the responsibility to support the population and their every need, then population increases become a huge expensive issue. As long as you believe in big government, then you believe in small population and vice-versa.
Imogen- I hope I didn't change the direction of the conversation too much.
Posts: 135 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
Originally posted by SamPrimary: The human organism cannot continue its current rate of growth.
This is a load of garbage. There's plenty of land out there for a whole lot more expansion- especially in the US, and as for resources, history has shown when we need them we can get them.
We're still talking finite resources if we only count Earth. At one point we WILL get wars for resources when there won't be enough for all, if we don't control reproduction and we don't go to other planets. And before the wars we'll have to live with fewer and fewer resources. You'll want to have your car and your TV and your plane trips and your running water, no matter how many "you" are? Well, so will others, and it won't end well. Simply saying "don't worry" is short term thinking, destined to fail. I don't understand why considering the natural limits shouldn't be included in any talks about reproductive rights.
Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Thread drift is inevitable (and kind of fun) - I just wanted to avoid having the same argument in two different places. Let's have a different argument, by gum!
quote:The idea of licensing couples to procreate is a novel idea, since there are so many terrible parents out there, but I don't think the idea could ever be put to practical use.
I don't really think it could either, but sometimes I think it would be nice. I look at my neighbour across the road who is currently pregnant with her 4th child, and probably in her early 20s. None of the previous 3 children live with her, her boyfriend is in and out of jail (but he is not the father of the latest), we have seen her drunk/under the influence of something numerous times during the two of her pregnancies we have lived her for. (Why do I know all these details? Because of the loud 'discussions' she, boyfriend and other people have. I'm editing out the profanities.) Now, the government is intervening in that DOCS (our equivalent of social services) has taken her kids - but I still don't think she should reproduce. The harm she causes these kids during her behaviour during pregnancy has got to have some effect.
Edit - woah, that made no sense. Typing while dealing with baby!
posted
Corwin, Yes, there are supposed finite resources on earth, and there is a dependence on these resources that will be the cause for war and contention. I said "supposed," because I believe we are an arrogant species who thinks to know and understand way more than we actually do. There aren't enough scientists in the world to discover everything, not yet anyway, and our technology improves daily, and isn't perfect.
Speaking of technology and advances, I also believe there will be a day we can be completely FREE from "finite" resources, and on to the bigger and better to which we've grown accustomed.
My bottom line is, where there's a will, there's a way. The human race will adapt and overcome.
Imogen- I'm glad the drifting is within an acceptible range for you. I couldn't agree with you more- someone aught to go right up to your neighbor and take away her ovaries- in fact they should've done that long ago. The dilema is she would then be deprived of exercising her free agency. Of course, she SHOULD decide not to have kids all on her own, find some stability in her life and start to make life changing decisions. I suppose that's the wonder and sometimes tragedy of free agency.
Posts: 135 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beleaguered: My bottom line is, where there's a will, there's a way. The human race will adapt and overcome.
When it comes to things like resource scarcity, climate change, sea level rise, among others, adaptation is not the ideal path. Adaptation implies that we will be able to adapt, and this is not a proven concept. Indeed, I think it's an arrogant, naive concept. What if it gets to a point where we simply cannot feed everyone, or simply cannot get clean water to every one?
The alternative, and I can post papers talking about this if anyone is interested, is mitigation. If we can mitigate today, it is much less likely that we'll reach a point where we're unable to adapt tomorrow.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
whale, I hope you haven't painted this picture of me driving down the loan highway, through a stretch of tropical rainforest, throwing my leftovers from the super-sized #3 I had for lunch out my sunroof. Certainly, we need to mitigate as much as possible today, and do our best to live with our surroundings instead of ruling over them with carefree dominence. The way I see it, we do our best to renew what we can now, logging companies plant trees etc, so later will be tolerable.
That being said, I believe as long as we do our best to take care of the world in which we live, then we really shouldn't have to worry about our population increasing. When I say we do our best to take care of this world, I mean we continue trying to discover better ways of doing things, and become thoroughly involved. As our population goes up, so does the number of intelligent people (in theory), and the incentive to have answers and results is greater (my attempt to tie in the original discussion).
Posts: 135 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beleaguered: Speaking of technology and advances, I also believe there will be a day we can be completely FREE from "finite" resources, and on to the bigger and better to which we've grown accustomed.
My bottom line is, where there's a will, there's a way. The human race will adapt and overcome.
Ah, but the problem is whether we'll be able to tap into "unlimited" resources or adapt before we run out of the current ones. What do you do when the solution isn't apparent but are out of resources for the existing people?
I wonder if countries like the US or those in western Europe with good economies and not that big population densities would be willing to accept immigrants from denser countries if those countries reach critical points. Somehow I feel that the first reaction would be: "It's our country and our resources! Mind your own business!" And they will, starting wars if necessary. And then, wouldn't you wish there was a population control method that prevented overpopulation? Would you only want it in other countries because in your country it would be against the "rights of the people"? I doubt that the other countries will listen in this case.
Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
1. Two married parents, a mother and a father.
Most of those other things - stable home, financial solvency - will follow automatically. It certainly gives the best chance of it.
2. Other parents, maybe, if they have lived in the same place for at least three years and can prove they have an extended support system, such as siblings or grandparents available to help. But only because I have such a hard time with deciding who and doesn't get to have biological children, not because I think those arrangements make it actually close to equal with the advantage of having a mother and a father.
3. No addictions to drugs or alcohol.
4. No mental illnesses that are not controlled by medication. Even if they could be, if they are not, then the parent doesn't have enough discipline to make their own life stable, much less the kid's.
quote:Originally posted by Sean Monahan: And I just don't understand how some people in this world can be so lucky to have what I have not, and value it so little.
You said it all.
I like your requirements, katharina.
Posts: 691 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Corwin: Somehow I feel that the first reaction would be: "It's our country and our resources! Mind your own business!" And they will, starting wars if necessary.
Probably, along with a dash of "too many immigrants from your country will change our culture."
quote: And then, wouldn't you wish there was a population control method that prevented overpopulation? Would you only want it in other countries because in your country it would be against the "rights of the people"? I doubt that the other countries will listen in this case.
Actually, you're not cynical enough
Countries would complain that its against "the rights of the people" even in other countries, while simultaneously complaining about the pollution and resource-load caused by overpopulation. All that while discouraging immigration to reduce the overpopulation.
After all, its happened before ... and it will probably happen again.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by jebus202: But wait! Before you go regulating reproduction you've got to decide what you're gonna do with all the illegal babies that starting shooting outta people. Blenderize them? Throw 'em in a dumpster? Hope the Chinese will adopt them? Sell them on eBay?
Oh no, in my hypothetical world, reproduction is completely controlled. Maybe some kind of switch that can only be turned on by the government.
Yes, it's creepy and invasive.
Has this story been written yet? The Giver did the opposite.
This idea, while never the focus of the story, is explored in Bujold's Vorkosigan series.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
beleaguered, I'm not meaning to paint that picture at all.
I mean to point out, however, that our best may not be good enough given our current lifestyle. The per capita emissions of an American, for example, are huge when compared with most of the rest of the global population. And with many developing nations striving and achieving our level of income and prosperity and emissions, it's going to be harder to cut back and adapt.
quote:...we do our best to renew what we can now, logging companies plant trees etc, so later will be tolerable.
And an interesting point, planting trees in temperate forests (like those in the US) may not give back as much as once thought. Here's a link Forests and Climate Change (and again, sorry if this isn't accessible, I'm on a campus most of the time and have access to these sites), but here's one of their conclusions:
quote: It has been inferred, for example, that tropical afforestation is likely to "slow down" global warming, whereas temperate afforestation has "little to no" climate benefit and boreal afforestation is "counterproductive"
So when we say "we do what we can now," there's often an implied caveat, that "we do what we can now...without really changing the way we live all that drastically." This may turn out fine, but in no way is this a guarantee.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Assuming you can start with non-fertility and offer fertility, I think just the act of requiring an application would do a lot to prevent unwanted and surprise pregnancies.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
I understand how a nation might think this way, but I don't know of too many nations who have ALL the necessary resources. There will be a bidding war over resources, and I believe there will always be trade and compromise.
Corwin,
I think you're being a bit unnecessarily pesimistic about the situation. There's no way to know for sure whether we WILL run out of our resources before we discover more new renewable ways of doing things. I like to think we are smarter than that, and when push comes to shove- and I assume it will- then we will find a way out of this current predicament. I figure there will be war and struggle before we get there, but I believe we will arrive at a better future before any of that mass destruction and national cynicism you and mucus talk about.
Whale,
I'm not talking about saving the world by planting trees, I'm suggesting those who are using a resource find a way to offset their impact on the world by its use. I used the example of the loggin industry. There are trees that have very quick growth rates, some that reach maturity in just 5-10 years. If they alternated between their many achres of property, spending up to 5 years in each one to harvest their crop, then they would be successfully contained to a certain set of locations, as opposed to cutting and moving, and removing trees in their path. I think other industries would be able to do a similar thing.
Posts: 135 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I always find it funny when people think that humans can plan an ecosystem to support ourselves, when the prevailing economic theory is one of competition and survival being preferential to a planned economy.
I also think it's presumptuous to attempt to model "how many people the Earth can support," as if it was as simple as modeling energy balance as CO2 levels change.
A much more realistic method is simply to look at the Earth as it is. Extinctions, destruction of coral reefs and rainforest, soil erosion, destruction of habitat, soil, air, and water pollution, desertification, groundwater subsidence and intrusion, etc., etc.
The earth is in the active process of being destroyed. It can't support the 6+ billion we already have, much less 10, 15, or 25 billion.
As to regulation of human reproduction, once again that's a huge can of worms. I never thought my mother should have been allowed to have a parenting license, but not for economic or marital reasons. There are probably thousands of reasons why not to have children, and the only real reason to have them is because we evolved to want them.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
so "we evolved to want" children? I have trouble with this phrase, not understanding the meaning of the words, but understanding how this could be true. I suppose if we base the idea that you believe in Darwin's theory of evolution, and not in a God or an all powerful being who created life, then much of what you discussed and explained makes more sense to me.
Of course, someone who doesn't believe in a God and instead believes in the big bang theory and of evolution could believe we are a doomed society.
I don't presume to know whether our society is doomed. I only have faith in a God who cares for us, and wants us to succeed as creations after his own image. It's in my faith that I understand that what we and the earth are going through is another cycle or phase. Either the cycle or phase will run it's course, and reset itself (might seem as self-regulation), or the existence of humanity on this earth will no longer be necessary as we know it, and will be cycled as a whole into something different.
Now I'm talking religion, and understand science folks like yourself will jump on my back with reasons this couldn't be possible. The funny thing about beliefs and faith, is I can't necessarily argue against any of your scientific reasoning, only to restate my faith and beliefs and suggest that you are wrong.
I acknowledge there is plant and animal life extinction. There are also new species of plants and animals still being discovered. I understand there is war and contension on the earth. Isn't it funny how people complain about killing the earth, and about overpopulation, yet they cry, wine and complain when war and famine kill and destroy people? Maybe it's human nature to want life and at the same time both invite and abhor violence and mayhem. It's a shame we are such a destructive race, then again for those concerned with population, the destruction is a necessary evil. I am not concerned with population, and therefore wish people didn't need to be so destructive.
Posts: 135 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: I would say in order to have kids you'd have to either be me, or be married to me. That would certainly make girls a lot more likely date me.
Hobbes
Or lead to the extinction of the human race. Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Didn't God say: "Let there be Light"? and that happened on the first "day". The way time passes for God is not like our time, so a day could be a trillion years. I am sure that when that light came on there was no big bang because there was not any air to carry the sound and no humans to hear the bang. So lets name it the big light theory.
As for population control, studies have shown that in rat populations when they are too crowded most of the population becomes homosexual. So at least rats have achieved population control..
Posts: 83 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beleaguered: I am not concerned with population, and therefore wish people didn't need to be so destructive.
I don't doubt either of your statements, but think the therefore is unnecessary - unless you meant to imply those people who are concerned about population growth welcome war, destruction and wholesale slaughter?
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll tell you Hobbes, if that were one of the criterion for having children, then I hope you're into polygamy, and I hope you have a lot of stamina. You know what, this would definitely be one of those wishes I'd wish the Genie would just take back. I couldn't handle more than my wife, not successfully anyway.
Oshki- I think it would be called the Bright Light theory. That just sounds better to me than "big". It's more descriptive.
I don't even want to touch your rat population theory!
Posts: 135 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
You got me to read and re-read that section of what I wrote. I am implying those who are concerned with over population could very well be for the destruction and and war- if not consciously, then subconsciously. For someone who is truly against the population growth rates, what would the loss of a few hundred or even thousand people from another continent mean?
Thank you for getting me to clarify what I meant. I'm always happy to elaborate on something that makes sense to me.
Posts: 135 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
beleaguered, It was a study that I read about. I have no theory about that. I am sure "too crowded" is a relative term depending on the availability of food and nesting space. The study did show that when populations dropped the rats went back to breeding in a more productive heterosexual manner. I doubt if anyone has seriously studied the per capita homosexual rate in humans in crowded vs. uncrowded conditions. Is it crowded in San Francisco? My Bad!
Posts: 83 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
You got me to read and re-read that section of what I wrote. I am implying those who are concerned with over population could very well be for the destruction and and war- if not consciously, then subconsciously. For someone who is truly against the population growth rates, what would the loss of a few hundred or even thousand people from another continent mean?
Well, from one who is concerned about population growth, I can tell you that the loss of any people living in the world today (no matter what country they live in) is not something I welcome.
I think that unless we start living a heck of a lot more sustainably, people need to start having less children - but there is a big difference between talking about restraining reproduction rates (ie lives that never existed - no matter where you draw the line on the whole life/foetus/embyro debate) and killing lives already in existence.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The funny thing about beliefs and faith, is I can't necessarily argue against any of your scientific reasoning...
Well, at least you admit it. Seriously, though, before you start accusing atheists of being hopelessly negative, remember that your God's on the record as being the guy who wipes out all but a tiny percentage of the population of the Earth because He feels like it.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Imogen, I've noticed that people go through a certain cycle of being and living. We're procreating now at a fast rate, exponentially even, than many would like. The dilema is while this takes place we are doing all we can, having our scientists, doctors, and scholars do all they can to prolong the human life. We're not only increasing our population exponentially, but we're extending our lives, and whenever there is war, conflict, or natural disasters it's viewed as a terrible loss of people (rightfully so!).
But my point is we can't have it both ways. How can we preserve life and make it better, and still decrease the population? There's no way to decrease or even control the population without disease, famine, war, or natural disasters.
This is why I suggested someone who had a serious problem with the population rate is more likely to accept these terrible occurances- even if only subconsciously, since it's a form of population control. Anything else just doesn't make sense to me.
Posts: 135 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beleaguered: Oshki- I think it would be called the Bright Light theory. That just sounds better to me than "big". It's more descriptive.
Actually, most light didn't begin propagating freely through the universe until about 380,000 years in.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Of course, someone who doesn't believe in a God and instead believes in the big bang theory and of evolution could believe we are a doomed society.
Be aware that Hatrack has a large atheist/agnostic presence, and I am one. Also be aware that many people who believe in God also believe in the big bang and evolution.
For that matter, some religious people can and do believe that society is doomed. Or merely that most of society is doomed. But regardless of your religious belief, the damage we are doing to the Earth is apparent. Counting on God to avert the disaster that we are creating is pretty presumptuous, in my book. If I were God, I'd be pretty ticked at what humans are doing to my creation.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beleaguered: ... But my point is we can't have it both ways. How can we preserve life and make it better, and still decrease the population? There's no way to decrease or even control the population without disease, famine, war, or natural disasters.
Not really, you'll find that in developed countries better health-care is usually accompanied by better family planning, parents putting off having children until later in their careers, and having less children.
Thats why countries like Japan and many in Europe have negative population growth and many countries such as Canada would be negative if not for immigration.
This actually high-lights the fact that when we're talking about restricting population what we're really concerned with is restricting usage of resources. In other words, the world could easily support billions more people if we all lived like Indians, the world would go to hell in a hand-basket in a few years if we all lived like Americans (or Canadians for that matter).
But over the long-run, if we can make it past the upcoming peak in resource usage as developing countries copy us and become developed countries, then you'll find that the those disasters aren't all that relevant.
Edit to add: This shows the big drop thats already occurred linkPosts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
). 
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
