I read a book called The Story of B and it was a really great read. I learned that populations grow in proportion to the amount of food available. So, if you have a population of rats, for instance, and you give them a set amount of food, their population will reach a point of stasis in which the proportion of rats dying versus being born remains constant. If you introduce more food, more rats will be born.
So, let's think about human beings, prior to 10,000 years ago. Humans were hunter-gathers and living in equilibrium with the environment. The Human population was pretty consistent with no huge spikes in population growth. However, once humans figured out how to grow food, there has been an explosion in the growth of the population. If more food means more people being born, then will there always be starving people? It seems that if we were to feed the starving people, then they will reproduce and there will be more people to feed and at some point there won't be enough food. Does my question make sense? Are humans competing for food and those that are starving don't have the resources to compete for it? Is this some form of natural selection that will always be present in any given population?
Asherah
EDIT: The derail about Jesus has been split off and moved to Religion - Tank
Agriculture can be volatile.
Droughts can come and go, floods, disease can destroy crops.
Earthquakes and hurricanes can destroy infrastructure and hence supply passages.
War can disrupt supply.
Crazy political theories such as the giant leap forward can cause people to stop producing food and focus on other things.
Extreme poverty, there are probably some homeless people in your back yard who are starving to death.
I am not sure what the "Feed the children" types of charities do. If they don't focus on developing better infrastructure in an area and simply just ship some food to places then I don't see how that works. You save a child today, they grow up and have starving children tomorrow.
I think a good approach to reducing world hunger is to improve education. Educated people are more likely to build necessary infrastructure and are less likely to have children at a young age and less likely to have huge quantities of children.
In a simplistic sense resources control population. The resource could be food, water or space to live. At some point human population could be limited by resources. However human fecundity is drastically effected by infant mortality rates and that is driven by education levels and availability of contraception. So to stop the human race eating itself out of existence, or reaching a starvation driven dynamic balance, we need to educate (particularly women) and make contraception available (again particularly women).
I agree with Tank - education about reproductive issues and widely available contraceptives is preferable to letting a couple billion people starve to death. The original theory may apply to a lot of animals, but rats don't have access to condoms.
Edit: and people might have lived in harmony with nature when we were hunters and gatherers, but we also spent 10 hours a day trying to supply ourselves with food. If we still had that lifestyle, we'd have no technology and nearly no free time. Agriculture isn't perfect, but I wouldn't want to go back to the way things were. Getting eaten by a wild cat or dying because I broke my leg? No thank you.
I see how the example I gave with the rats was way too simplistic. Agreed that education is extremely important as well. All points made were insightful.
DeterminedJuliet - I don't want to go back to the way things were either for the same reason!
Humans are an interesting species to review from an evolutionary perspective. On the subject of hunger, human beings are starving more worldwide due to misappropriation of resources and ineffective use of power coupled with political and civil inequalities. In human beings natural selection works more so within our ability to sustain ourselves in the social environment we have evolved. We are all dependant on specialists for the things we need. How many people reading these posts could scout a location and dig a well, build adequate irrigations system and grow crops? So when you think about it it's not really agriculture that has allowed our species to thrive it's our specialization. We have a master farmer that can train apprentice farmers. We have master builders and apprentice builders. We have people specialized in install a single bolt on an assembly line that creates the tractors that tow the food we need to areas that are extremely remote and very far removed from where the food is actually grown. So when thinking of natural selection for human beings it goes deeper than plain starvation because we rely on one another as a resource just as much as we rely on clean water and fresh air. Who are the individuals that have less reproductive success in human societies? Individuals that do no integrate well into their given specialized cultures. Worldwide the societies that struggle the most are those that have yet to establish efficient means of allowing their populations to specialize. In a population where a head of house hold works a job and grows food and builds a shelter and fixes cars and builds bikes and cuts hair and raises livestock...he can only do all of those things adequately he does not have to opportunity to perfect any one of those tasks or processes. So societies that are able to take specific tasks and delegate them to specialists and regulate those specialists to the point that they do not hoard or monopolize then you have a functioning community and from those functioning communities thriving societies emerge. Thus is human evolution as it stands today. Granted we are not as a species immune from environmental pressures. However, if there is a drought, natural selection in human beings will not operate on an individual's ability to survive longer periods of time without water. Natural selection will operate on individuals who have the ability or inability to solve complex problems within the confines of their society and culture. So natural selection is working on the individual but the individual itself is no longer self contained the individual now operates within a society and its reproductive success is completely determined by how well that individual integrates into and affects the success of the society.
An easy way to view this is in imagining an enormous natural disaster. One that fractures society and dismantles infrastructure for basic commodities such as running water and electricity. Survivors who are able to coalesce and integrate into a functioning society will have a reproductive advantage over those who opt for a solitary lifestyle.
So humans are competing for food but not so much as in one individual competing with another, but one society competing with another. society is acting as a part of the environment, the part of the environment that most humans have immediate contact with. So just as our hunter gatherer ancestors had to be specialists in root identification or bow making we are now specialists of IT or assembly line automation. This keeps our modern societies working, this is all the natural progression of the human species and the way in which concepts of natural selection have to be applied to a highly social and specialized species.
With population increase and global communication capabilities the future is clear, we will be a global society sooner than later. Whether we integrate through diplomacy or war will paint the future of this planet but it is on the horizon and is as inevitable as a sunrise. The interesting thing about it is that we are just now beginning to understand the mechanics of our own existence and through this understanding we can only hope that future generations will use this knowledge to build better societies.
Quote from: Twentythree on March 14, 2012, 09:13:27 PM
Humans are an interesting species to review from an evolutionary perspective. On the subject of hunger, human beings are starving more worldwide due to misappropriation of resources and ineffective use of power coupled with political and civil inequalities. In human beings natural selection works more so within our ability to sustain ourselves in the social environment we have evolved. We are all dependant on specialists for the things we need. How many people reading these posts could scout a location and dig a well, build adequate irrigations system and grow crops? So when you think about it it's not really agriculture that has allowed our species to thrive it's our specialization. We have a master farmer that can train apprentice farmers. We have master builders and apprentice builders. We have people specialized in install a single bolt on an assembly line that creates the tractors that tow the food we need to areas that are extremely remote and very far removed from where the food is actually grown. So when thinking of natural selection for human beings it goes deeper than plain starvation because we rely on one another as a resource just as much as we rely on clean water and fresh air. Who are the individuals that have less reproductive success in human societies? Individuals that do no integrate well into their given specialized cultures. Worldwide the societies that struggle the most are those that have yet to establish efficient means of allowing their populations to specialize. In a population where a head of house hold works a job and grows food and builds a shelter and fixes cars and builds bikes and cuts hair and raises livestock...he can only do all of those things adequately he does not have to opportunity to perfect any one of those tasks or processes. So societies that are able to take specific tasks and delegate them to specialists and regulate those specialists to the point that they do not hoard or monopolize then you have a functioning community and from those functioning communities thriving societies emerge. Thus is human evolution as it stands today. Granted we are not as a species immune from environmental pressures. However, if there is a drought, natural selection in human beings will not operate on an individual's ability to survive longer periods of time without water. Natural selection will operate on individuals who have the ability or inability to solve complex problems within the confines of their society and culture. So natural selection is working on the individual but the individual itself is no longer self contained the individual now operates within a society and its reproductive success is completely determined by how well that individual integrates into and affects the success of the society.
An easy way to view this is in imagining an enormous natural disaster. One that fractures society and dismantles infrastructure for basic commodities such as running water and electricity. Survivors who are able to coalesce and integrate into a functioning society will have a reproductive advantage over those who opt for a solitary lifestyle.
So humans are competing for food but not so much as in one individual competing with another, but one society competing with another. society is acting as a part of the environment, the part of the environment that most humans have immediate contact with. So just as our hunter gatherer ancestors had to be specialists in root identification or bow making we are now specialists of IT or assembly line automation. This keeps our modern societies working, this is all the natural progression of the human species and the way in which concepts of natural selection have to be applied to a highly social and specialized species.
With population increase and global communication capabilities the future is clear, we will be a global society sooner than later. Whether we integrate through diplomacy or war will paint the future of this planet but it is on the horizon and is as inevitable as a sunrise. The interesting thing about it is that we are just now beginning to understand the mechanics of our own existence and through this understanding we can only hope that future generations will use this knowledge to build better societies.
Really interesting post. This makes a lot of sense.
I agree, really interesting and thoughtful response, Twentythree.
And some of the other posts cracked me up!! LOL. I love reading this forum just for a good laugh ;D
EDIT: The derail about Jesus has been split off and moved to Religion - Tank
Jesus solves world hunger (Derail from serious topic) (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=9541.0)
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 14, 2012, 08:34:29 PMEdit: and people might have lived in harmony with nature when we were hunters and gatherers, but we also spent 10 hours a day trying to supply ourselves with food. If we still had that lifestyle, we'd have no technology and nearly no free time. Agriculture isn't perfect, but I wouldn't want to go back to the way things were. Getting eaten by a wild cat or dying because I broke my leg? No thank you.
The reverse of this may actually to be the case. Hunter-gatherers are generally believed to have more free time than agriculturalists and industrialised people, and certainly had more free time than early agriculturalists ten thousand years ago. Agriculture was adopted because it supported larger populations and was a more reliable source of food, but it didn't create more free time.
Hunter-gatherers generally spend 20-40 hours a week 'working', although they can do that 'work' as and when they want and a lot of it is as much play as it is 'work' as we'd define it. There's a good article on it here
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/200907/play-makes-us-human-v-why-hunter-gatherers-work-is-play
obviously we do have advantages of modern technology and medicine that they don't, but hunter-gatherers do generally have more playful existences filled with more free time.
Quote from: Too Few Lions on March 15, 2012, 02:00:43 PM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 14, 2012, 08:34:29 PMEdit: and people might have lived in harmony with nature when we were hunters and gatherers, but we also spent 10 hours a day trying to supply ourselves with food. If we still had that lifestyle, we'd have no technology and nearly no free time. Agriculture isn't perfect, but I wouldn't want to go back to the way things were. Getting eaten by a wild cat or dying because I broke my leg? No thank you.
The reverse of this may actually to be the case. Hunter-gatherers are generally believed to have more free time than agriculturalists and industrialised people, and certainly had more free time than early agriculturalists ten thousand years ago. Agriculture was adopted because it supported larger populations and was a more reliable source of food, but it didn't create more free time.
Hunter-gatherers generally spend 20-40 hours a week 'working', although they can do that 'work' as and when they want and a lot of it is as much play as it is 'work' as we'd define it. There's a good article on it here
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/200907/play-makes-us-human-v-why-hunter-gatherers-work-is-play
obviously we do have advantages of modern technology and medicine that they don't, but hunter-gatherers do generally have more playful existences filled with more free time.
An interesting perspective, but it seems a bit romanticized to me. I agree that hunter-gatherers definitely have a more "socialized" way of living, but I think the argument of how much they work really depends on someone's definition of work. I would like to see where the author's reference to hunter-gatherer groups only working 20-40 hours a week comes from, because I haven't read anything like that. Hunter-gathers might not toil in a field all day, but if they have to walk for two hours to find a hunting spot, I'd still consider that "work" even if they tell some really bonding and socially significant myths along the way. It still takes time out of their day. It just doesn't make sense to me that they'd have a lot of really "free" time, but their societies would remain pretty consistently un-changed. There have to be some kind of limiting factors there.
Jared Diamond's book Guns, Germs, and Steel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel) lays out what I mean pretty well - he makes an argument for
why some groups of people changed or "advanced" in technology/literature/government and why some stayed the same. A lot of it has to do with the development of agriculture based on geography and that makes sense to me. To argue anything else is pretty much a racial argument.
More anecdotally, I'm also reading Samuel de Champlain's biography right now which is pretty interesting because, when the French came over to Canada, they ran into some Native groups that were hunter-gatherers and some native groups which had agriculture. The groups that had agriculture pretty much always did much better than the groups who were hunter-gatherers (the groups that could build up grain stores over the winter survived much better than the groups that had to scrounge around in the wild during a snow-storm). After reading about the hunter-gathers in New France knocking on Champlain's door, begging for food, because their women and children were dropping dead with malnutrition, I gotta say, it doesn't appeal to me.
It'd be a nice idea if we could all live in the sub-tropics and only work-play 20 hours a week, but I think it's a pretty romanticized view. Hunter-gatherer groups have their benefits, but they have their limitations, too. "Living in harmony with nature" means dying when there are bad or unproductive seasons and developing complex superstitions about the spirit world. Hunter-gatherers aren't all peaceful egalitarian societies, either. They have wars - some clans enslave other clans, some have ritualized mutilation rituals - there's any combination of what we'd value as "good" or "bad" social traits. I don't think there's anything inherently "moral" or "immoral" with a hunter-gatherer society or an agricultural society, and I don't think the Western world is "superior" in a conventional sense, either.
I just see a lot of sentiment around that, oh, if only we could go back to the way that "nature intended for us" that everything would be great. Call me cynical, but I don't really buy it.
That is along the reasoning I follow and most people think I'm un-empathetic due to it.
The welfare system in America supports your premise. Meaning, if we give the unproductive food and means of survival, they will simply reproduce without gaining self sufficiency. Granted, there are examples of individuals who arose from this system and made there own money, both benefiting society and and providing for their offspring, but most do not.
I hate to use a biblical parabal, but teaching a man to fish is far better than giving a man a fish. One fish does nothing to break the cycle, teaching does a whole lot.
When looking at continents like Africa, they aren't fully to blame for their problems. External influences have hindered their progress for centuries. The west has been embedded in the region for a while now, and due to most of the regions dependence and foreign aid, they have failed to rebuild their civiliztion. Giving people shit for free usually does not benefit the individual or group of individuals in the long run.
Ultimately, I say there will alway's be a larger population than the earth and humanity can support. The more abundant food, medicine, etc, the better survival rate of infants. Once we reach that stasis point, famine sets in. It is a natural and likely unavoidable cycle.
Many on this forum would argue for unnatural population control at the hands of government. I simply argue for natural population control at the hands of famine and Mother Earth.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 16, 2012, 01:30:53 AM
Many on this forum would argue for unnatural population control at the hands of government. I simply argue for natural population control at the hands of famine and Mother Earth.
I wouldn't call education and ensuring the accessibility of contraception "unnatural population control at the hands of government." Or were you talking about something else?
As logistics technology improves, someday perhaps we can solve world hunger. To do it today, we would need a change in attitudes. Even if you could solve it in some places, others would pop up. There are some parts of the world that were once productive agriculturally that are now turning into desert. People are often very slow to leave their homelands, even if famine sets in. Even when they are willing to leave for a better life, often other countries are not willing to receive them because of the fear that the sudden increase in population will hurt their economy. There are parts of Africa going through generational wars now because of that.
Could this happen to a first-world country? The Sahara desert is growing north past the Mediterranean. You can see it if you look at satellite pictures of vegetation over the last decade. The trend is that Italy and perhaps Spain/Portugal could eventually be swallowed by the Sahara. Would they possibly turn into war zones because of it? Would the rest of the world care more about the hunger of first-world countries than we currently do about third-world countries?
Quote from: fester30 on March 16, 2012, 04:54:17 PM
To do it today, we would need a change in attitudes.
This is my thought exactly. I'm not sure that we wouldn't have the resources to do it now, but first we would have to change the way we eat (for example instead of using the corn and oats and grain that we use to feed livestock for meat, we could use it more efficiently to feed people.) Also, we would have to change our attitude that food is a priviledge, not a right. Until we do those things, people will always be hungry.
Quote from: Anne D. on March 16, 2012, 03:02:03 PM
I wouldn't call education and ensuring the accessibility of contraception "unnatural population control at the hands of government." Or were you talking about something else?
I was talking about governments forcefully limiting the number of children families are allowed to have. I have heard the idea entertained in serval threads in the past by some on this forum and other forums.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 16, 2012, 06:08:01 PM
Quote from: Anne D. on March 16, 2012, 03:02:03 PM
I wouldn't call education and ensuring the accessibility of contraception "unnatural population control at the hands of government." Or were you talking about something else?
I was talking about governments forcefully limiting the number of children families are allowed to have. I have heard the idea entertained in serval threads in the past by some on this forum and other forums.
Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 16, 2012, 06:08:01 PM
Quote from: Anne D. on March 16, 2012, 03:02:03 PM
I wouldn't call education and ensuring the accessibility of contraception "unnatural population control at the hands of government." Or were you talking about something else?
I was talking about governments forcefully limiting the number of children families are allowed to have. I have heard the idea entertained in serval threads in the past by some on this forum and other forums.
The way we're heading, its inevitable.... unless you want to run society and our planet into the ground. That's not a 'civilisation' I want to be a part of.
Do you not consider the planet already overpopulated? At what point do you pull the plug on unhindered procreation? Double the population? Triple? Never?
Do we value the rights of a person to have children OVER the comfort of the existing inhabitants of Earth? To what end? As Atheists, how can you not prioritise your comfort and happiness while alive? This is our home. It's all we've got and all we're ever going to have - let's protect what we have and not let it fall to crap because of some tunnel-sighted notion of freedom and preserving personal rights.
We need to take some tough decisions, sure enough. But I suspect that by the time we've woken up and let go of PC, bleeding-heart liberalism and agreed that it's the only sensible option, we'll have already created a miserable, cramped, compromised existence for everyone... and how many of our current privileges and rights will we necessarily forego then?
It's not just the matter of "some people have to die" (though I think it's a pretty big matter), it's a matter of who gets to choose who dies? The people who won the genetic lottery and were lucky enough to be born in the first world? Aren't we the ancestors of the people who started the industrial revolution and started over-population issues in the first place? Wasn't it the West's colonization initiatives that fucked up a lot of what we'd consider the third world now?
If we really want brutal survival of the fittest, why doesn't the middle east cut North America off from oil, China can stop importing 90% of the consumer goods we buy, everyone hoard whatever they've got on their own soil and we'll see who comes out on top? If we want the world to sort itself out and we don't really care who lives or dies in the process, that seems the fairest way to go about it.
Come to think of it, Canada might do pretty well with that arrangement. We have a lot of farm land. A lot of natural resources, natural fuel - a lot of fresh water. Yeah, let's do that! Good luck, rest of the world! See you in Utopia!
Quote from: Scissorlegs on March 16, 2012, 09:09:12 PM
The way we're heading, its inevitable.... unless you want to run society and our planet into the ground. That's not a 'civilisation' I want to be a part of.
From what you say, you seem to think those are the only two possibilites.
Quote
Do you not consider the planet already overpopulated? At what point do you pull the plug on unhindered procreation? Double the population? Triple? Never?
The planet is not even close to overpopulated. Certain regional areas are overpopulated, but not the world as whole. China and India have populations larger than the region can easily support, but that does not support the idea of over population worldwide. I believe the Guinness Book, showed that the worlds population could easily be placed side by side in the state of Texas, with around a 1,000 sq/ft space between individuals. Regardless, there is still a lot of empty land out there.
Back on topic however, over-population in regard to food is a valid point. But that is a matter of personal responsibility. If you can't afford to sustain a larger family, you should refrain from reproducing. If you do reproduce and can't afford to keep you're entire family alive, that's a natural solution to the problem. I fail to see why productive members of society should be penalized so the non-productive can provide for their families.
I also fail to see how we can determine what the stasis is in regards to food and population. I see no way of allotting these resources fairly. You can give food equally amongst all people, and the productive get screwed. Or you can base it on income, but than it's simply the government playing favorites.
There are also to many unknowns to determine what an ideal population would be. If space travel and habitable planets are discovered in our lifetime, this entire argument is moot. If science discovers a extremely cheap and effective way of producing food, this argument is moot. Just imagine if we had this conversation in the 1800's. You could argue for population control, only to have science and technology progress to a point where larger populations could be more easily maintained.
Quote
Do we value the rights of a person to have children OVER the comfort of the existing inhabitants of Earth?
Yes, I do. Do you not value a woman's right to decide what develops in her body? Should women be forbidden from having abortions?
I do not understand why the logic allowing abortions' i.e. a woman owns her own body, is not carried over to this situation. Most atheists accept the right of a woman to abort an unwanted child. So, why should that logic not be applied to women choosing to have children? Why should they not be free to choose what they do with their bodies, the same way we defend women who get abortions?
Furthermore, if the world were "arguably" underpopulated, would you agree with a ban on abortions? Does a woman only own her body when she makes decisions that are good for society as a whole? Do atheist only support abortion because of a perceived over population problem? I was under the assumption it was due to the fact that a woman owned her body and could do with as she chose. At least in regards to the topic of abortion...
Quote
To what end? As Atheists, how can you not prioritise your comfort and happiness while alive? This is our home. It's all we've got and all we're ever going to have - let's protect what we have and not let it fall to crap because of some tunnel-sighted notion of freedom and preserving personal rights.
I'm usure how being an atheist suggests you prioritize your comfort and happiness, but regardless I do prioritize such things. I live as an individual, and my comfort and ability to provide for myself and family is of the utmost importance. Without freedom and personal rights, there is no conceivable means to preserve our world. Politicians are still individuals, and they look out for their own best interest. Do you really believe politicians are looking out for the greater good?
I'm typically accused of being an ideologue, I don't believe it has ever happend on this forum, but I have been accused of such things before in other venues. I know, an even "almost perfect" world, is an impossibility, much less a Utopia. At least based on our current level of knowledge. Which is why I prefer natural solutions to problems.
Quote
We need to take some tough decisions, sure enough. But I suspect that by the time we've woken up and let go of PC, bleeding-heart liberalism and agreed that it's the only sensible option, we'll have already created a miserable, cramped, compromised existence for everyone... and how many of our current privileges and rights will we necessarily forego then?
Individuals need to make tough decisions, on an individual basis (or family unit), but this is not the governments place to decide what is in the best interest of the individual. Looking out for the individual typically benefits society on the macro level. The majority of most populations are lower and middle class; when they begin acting on an individual plane of survival, and looking out for their family unit or personal gains, the benefits are indirectly passed on to families and individuals in similar situations.
Personal rights should never be abandoned. Like any situation where a species overpopulates a given area, nature fixes the problem. Governments are made up of people who may not understand the problem, appreciate the problem, and usually do come up with the wrong solution to the problem. Further, politicians are almost always in the upper class and are not affected by the problem.
Individuals are always the most equipped to deal with these types of things. If the government did not pay poor people more money every time they had a child, they would quit having them. Government is almost always the problem and never the solution.
Bolded and reposted because I'm really curious about the answers to this question.
Furthermore, if the world were "arguably" underpopulated, would you agree with a ban on abortions? Does a woman only own her body when she makes decisions that are good for society as a whole? Do atheist only support abortion because of a perceived over population problem? I was under the assumption it was due to the fact that a woman owned her body and could do with as she chose. At least in regards to the topic of abortion...
I understand the world as a whole is not 'over populated' per say, but large cities, and even small towns have population issues. I live in nyc; manhattan to be exact! There are SO MANY large families in my area. I also happen to live in a poverty ridden area with lots of food shelters/soup kitchen type places , and welfare places.
I find it kind of idiotic to have a kid--- none the less more than 2 or 3 when you can barely support yourself. It sounds like a sad stereotype , but a lot of these people are single parents with like 2-3 kids, living in poor conditions.
Our food and water resources are limited. I am kind of one the side of people only being able to reproduce if they can actually financially provide.
I'm not sure if poverty connects to crime, but the crime goes up in my area as the years go on and 'new gen' of kids from the previous teenagers having them grow up. It's kind of uncomfortable. :'(
Are we really happy to keep increasing population to gradually fill every piece of space available? Of course we could spread out a bit more but what would be the purpose? So we can fit more people in? Why would I want to do that? Putting a bigger strain on dwindling natural resources - forests, natural habitats, more pollution, more waste. The fact is we DON'T have the technology that makes our lifestyles sustainable. The solution? Change our lifestyles to make them sustainable. Another fact is we DON'T have another planet to colonise. And the more time goes on and the more financial resources are stretched the less able we are to invest in the luxury of space exploration. I honestly believe we're not ever gonna make it out of our solar system - specifically because of the above. Ultimately, it is exactly the problem of overpopulation that will see the death of the technologically advanced human, and a miserable existence for the billions of humans left fighting for a smaller piece of a dwindling pie.
As for giving autonomy to the individual - well, it hasn't worked so far. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. We can define 'overpopulation' as the number of people below which a system can support sustainably. We have two choices - improve technology/lifestyles to increase sustainability, OR reduce population. The former isn't working.
A womans right to have an abortion has no impact on me, so go ahead. A womans right to have a child very much affects me and if it can't be done un-injuriously then I will take issue. What other rights do we have which, in their observance causes injury, cannot be reasonably rescinded?
Fundamentally, if we disagree about having children being a right and not a privilege, then this argument is irreconcilable.
If this post looks similar to one I made on the same subject last month, that's because it is.
Quote from: Scissorlegs on March 17, 2012, 01:54:18 AM
Are we really happy to keep increasing population to gradually fill every piece of space available? Of course we could spread out a bit more but what would be the purpose? So we can fit more people in? Why would I want to do that? Putting a bigger strain on dwindling natural resources - forests, natural habitats, more pollution, more waste.
Preoccupied; wife is acting as proxy, but proofread by Think Anarchy.
It was never proposed that humanity should attempt to fill up the entire Earth. It was meant to point out that, although there may be overpopulated areas of the globe, the planet is not over populated, in regard to land.
QuoteThe fact is we DON'T have the technology that makes our lifestyles sustainable. The solution?
Natural selection is a far better option than unnatural selection. I do not believe in god, therefore I do not want to act as a god. We can't know how to best engineer society, so we should get out the fucking way.
QuoteChange our lifestyles to make them sustainable. Another fact is we DON'T have another planet to colonise. And the more time goes on and the more financial resources are stretched the less able we are to invest in the luxury of space exploration. I honestly believe we're not ever gonna make it out of our solar system - specifically because of the above. Ultimately, it is exactly the problem of overpopulation that will see the death of the technologically advanced human, and a miserable existence for the billions of humans left fighting for a smaller piece of a dwindling pie.
I am going to assume that you did not read the previous post in full since you did not address the argument previously advanced for this statement. I will write it again so maybe this time you read it:
100 years ago, society did not have the technology and resources that we currently have, however, overpopulation did not become a problem. Technology advances as the need for it grows. However, if that technology does not become available then natural section is a fail safe; one that is proven to work. If overpopulation were to become a problem, there is a natural safeguard to prevent it from getting out of hand.
Also, space exploration is advancing. Perhaps you should look into the private space exploration technology that is being created and researched, at a far greater pace than the government has been able to accomplish since they started NASA... or the Ruskies created Sputnik.
QuoteAs for giving autonomy to the individual - well, it hasn't worked so far. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. We can define 'overpopulation' as the number of people below which a system can support sustainably. We have two choices - improve technology/lifestyles to increase sustainability, OR reduce population. The former isn't working
So, your solution is to take away the autonomy of the individual. Do you realize what the actually means? What would happen if the State took away your right to free speech because it sometimes hurts people? Or your right to own property? Is that right?
To truly understand what lose of autonomy means perhaps you should research the individual's life (your life) under Chairman Moa or Khmer Rouge.
I understand that in a perfect world these marxist, social engineering, type ideas seem like they would work; however, in reality it leads to genocide, totalitarianism, eugenics, and eventually total loss of individual freedom... unless of course you are lucky enough to be in the political class.
QuoteA womans right to have an abortion has no impact on me, so go ahead. A womans right to have a child very much affects me and if it can't be done un-injuriously then I will take issue. What other rights do we have which, in their observance causes injury, cannot be reasonably rescinded?
It was proposed that if underpopulation was a problem, would you support banning abortion? To point out, just in case you cannot fathom how it would be a problem, underpopulation would likewise lead to poverty and starvation. You need a generously sized population to have prosperity. I will discuss this point further with you when you actually address the argument. Therefore, if you actually believe your premise, the abortion debate should be important to you.
The right to own property can cause injury to another. Property is a scarce resource therefore if I own something, you cannot likewise own the same exact thing. However, the right to own property cannot reasonably be rescinded, as you put it. Without private property, there is no advancement agriculture, technology, and society in general.
QuoteFundamentally, if we disagree about having children being a right and not a privilege, then this argument is irreconcilable.**Omitted because statement was dickish and irrelevant**
So you are admitting you do not believe that a woman owns her own body. The government can dictate what all people, women and men, can do with and to their body if having a child is considered a privilege. If you do not agree with the previous statement then your entire stance on this topic is illogical. Based upon the logic you laid out, you seem to support the government either forcing or prohibiting abortions, depending on the perceived importance on society as a whole...?
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 17, 2012, 03:01:58 AM
It was never proposed that humanity should attempt to fill up the entire Earth. It was meant to point out that, although there may be overpopulated areas of the globe, the planet is not over populated, in regard to land.
We're not talking about land, we're talking about world hunger and other deprivation. But it's all linked. I know we're not
trying to fill the earth, but that's what's happening passively. Just because it's passive doesn't make it acceptible.
Quote
Natural selection is a far better option than unnatural selection. I do not believe in god, therefore I do not want to act as a god. We can't know how to best engineer society, so we should get out the fucking way.
Really? better at what? Natural selection is not having any impact on the comfort of my existence - which is my priority. In fact its ineffacacy in contemporary humans is allowing the problem to thrive. Natural selection would allow us to double or triple our population and have us surviving on human corpses for food and living in our own excrement (once immunities have matured). Way to go humans! That's not a world I want to see. Do you? I suppose the prevaling complacency about this issue is a function of 'our' unhealthy belief that 'it'll all work itself out in the end'. Will it? Without God, we are the next best thing. Humans are changing this planet MUCH quicker than any change it has seen in cosmological history. The status-quo of the comfort of humans is not on the agenda for natural selection. So we need to put it on our own agenda.
QuoteI am going to assume that you did not read the previous post in full since you did not address the argument previously advanced for this statement. I will write it again so maybe this time you read it:
100 years ago, society did not have the technology and resources that we currently have, however, overpopulation did not become a problem. Technology advances as the need for it grows. However, if that technology does not become available then natural section is a fail safe; one that is proven to work.
If overpopulation were to become a problem, there is a natural safeguard to prevent it from getting out of hand.
Overpopulation IS out of hand. It is unsustainable and growing. Our lives are becoming increasingly uncomfortable because of it. It's not like humans have ever found a happy stasis of poulation. We are a new species and have grown in numbers since we 'emerged'. We have no grounds for assuming that natural selection will come to the rescue of this explosion of human numbers. And by 'rescue' I mean keeping population levels to comfortable - and sustainable - levels. Throughout modern history we have seen an increasing erosion of our rights so that society can function. A right we had 300 years ago we see as a necessary loss to a functioning social system (build houses, occupy land, cut down trees, fish the sea...). The same will be seen in 300 years time - and procreation limitation will be included. When it's part of the fabric of our existence it will not seem like the abhorrent violation of rights you might consider it today - because we will see the necessity of it.
QuoteAlso, space exploration is advancing. Perhaps you should look into the private space exploration technology that is being created and researched, at a far greater pace than the government has been able to accomplish since they started NASA... or the Ruskies created Sputnik.
I'm fully aware of the pace of current space technology. The scales we need to consider for feasable colonisation are FAR beyond current human capacity. Like I said, I don't believe we'll ever escape the solar system before the infrastructure required for its development is compromised by other more earthly needs.
My opinions are based on a less-than-positive outlook for humankind. I have no reason - and certainly no precedent to go on - to consider that humans will do anything other than blindly fuddle around the planet like children inadvertantly creating mayhem. We're pinning our hopes for the future of mankind on technology that doesn't exist. What makes you think that we'll suddenly start doing the right thing for our comfort of existence now? The longer we leave it, the harder will be any solution.
I'll have to pick up the rest later on. I've got my own little population to deal with right now...
Quote from: Scissorlegs on March 17, 2012, 08:16:46 AM
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 17, 2012, 03:01:58 AM
It was never proposed that humanity should attempt to fill up the entire Earth. It was meant to point out that, although there may be overpopulated areas of the globe, the planet is not over populated, in regard to land.
We're not talking about land, we're talking about world hunger and other deprivation. But it's all linked. I know we're not trying to fill the earth, but that's what's happening passively. Just because it's passive doesn't make it acceptible.
We are not actively trying to fill up the entire earth with people though. There is still a ton of available land that can be used for growing and raising food, as well as housing people. As localized areas have to high a population, other alternatives have been used, like the construction of skyscrapers. There is also a new independent group that is actively trying to figure out how to build cities in the ocean.
http://www.seasteading.org/
The argued purpose is to have these cities outside government control so different political systems can be tested. It is possible this technology (to use the word broadly), if optimized, could give humanity even more space to work with.
Quote
Natural selection is a far better option than unnatural selection. I do not believe in god, therefore I do not want to act as a god. We can't know how to best engineer society, so we should get out the fucking way.
QuoteReally? better at what? Natural selection is not having any impact on the comfort of my existence - which is my priority. In fact its ineffacacy in contemporary humans is allowing the problem to thrive. Natural selection would allow us to double or triple our population and have us surviving on human corpses for food and living in our own excrement (once immunities have matured). Way to go humans! That's not a world I want to see. Do you? I suppose the prevaling complacency about this issue is a function of 'our' unhealthy belief that 'it'll all work itself out in the end'. Will it? Without God, we are the next best thing. Humans are changing this planet MUCH quicker than any change it has seen in cosmological history. The status-quo of the comfort of humans is not on the agenda for natural selection. So we need to put it on our own agenda.
First of all, let me clarify I was inadvertently using the term "natural selection" incorrectly. In actuality I should say "natural population control."
This is totally conclusory, however. We have had population spikes in the past that have not resulted in cannibalism and living in our own feces and dumping buckets of excrement out our windows ended in the developed world with plumbing and running water. I fail to see how over-population would cause us to forget the technological advances we have already made.
I also find your statements here a little conceited. Although we are the most highly evolved creatures on the planet, we are now-where close to god-like in power. We have changed the planet cosmetically. Instead of tree filled forests there are skyscrappers, while still maintaining other heavily forested areas.
QuoteHumans are changing this planet MUCH quicker than any change it has seen in cosmological history.
Tectonic plate shifts, asteroids, volcanic eruptions, floods, flowing water eating away at rock, massive fluctuations in global temperature, all beg to differ with the idea we have changed this planet much quicker than any change in history. All of which drastically affected the planet and environment, some instantly, some at a slower pace.
However, natural selection may be the wrong term, or we may be using two different definitions of the term. When I say natural selection, I mean it in the broader sense of the term. In other words, if Africa produces more people than they can feed, people will starve and die. I do not mean it in the sense that people are in fact undergoing physiological changes.
QuoteI am going to assume that you did not read the previous post in full since you did not address the argument previously advanced for this statement. I will write it again so maybe this time you read it:
100 years ago, society did not have the technology and resources that we currently have, however, overpopulation did not become a problem. Technology advances as the need for it grows. However, if that technology does not become available then natural section is a fail safe; one that is proven to work.
If overpopulation were to become a problem, there is a natural safeguard to prevent it from getting out of hand.
Quote
Overpopulation IS out of hand. It is unsustainable and growing. Our lives are becoming increasingly uncomfortable because of it. It's not like humans have ever found a happy stasis of poulation. We are a new species and have grown in numbers since we 'emerged'. We have no grounds for assuming that natural selection will come to the rescue of this explosion of human numbers.
Our numbers have continued to grow, our life expectancy has increased, we are more capable of stemming off life threatening diseases, we have indoor pluming, air conditioning, air travel, irrigation systems, we work less, have more diverse forms of entertainment, etc. Our lives as a whole have gotten much more comfortable as our populations have grown.
Quote
And by 'rescue' I mean keeping population levels to comfortable - and sustainable - levels. Throughout modern history we have seen an increasing erosion of our rights so that society can function.
A right we had 300 years ago we see as a necessary loss to a functioning social system (build houses, occupy land, cut down trees, fish the sea...). The same will be seen in 300 years time - and procreation limitation will be included.
I have no idea what you are saying here. At least in the U.S. we are free to purchase and occupy land, cut down trees, build houses, and fish. I'm at a complete loss on this one.
Quote
When it's part of the fabric of our existence it will not seem like the abhorrent violation of rights you might consider it today - because we will see the necessity of it.
People like you will, but not individuals like me.
So what is the ideal sustainable level worldwide? What is the sustainable level given a country like India? What is the mathematical formula to determine what an ideal population is?
This also makes it seem like you would like living in a
1984 type world. As long as you perceive it as necessary.
QuoteAlso, space exploration is advancing. Perhaps you should look into the private space exploration technology that is being created and researched, at a far greater pace than the government has been able to accomplish since they started NASA... or the Ruskies created Sputnik.
I'm fully aware of the pace of current space technology. The scales we need to consider for feasable colonisation are FAR beyond current human capacity. Like I said, I don't believe we'll ever escape the solar system before the infrastructure required for its development is compromised by other more earthly needs.[/quote]
I'm not saying space colonization is likely in our time, however, now that the private sector has broken into the industry, we are already seeing advances at a quicker rate. The point is you can't accurately determine what is a healthy population.
Quote
My opinions are based on a less-than-positive outlook for humankind. I have no reason - and certainly no precedent to go on - to consider that humans will do anything other than blindly fuddle around the planet like children inadvertantly creating mayhem. We're pinning our hopes for the future of mankind on technology that doesn't exist. What makes you think that we'll suddenly start doing the right thing for our comfort of existence now? The longer we leave it, the harder will be any solution.
I'll have to pick up the rest later on. I've got my own little population to deal with right now...
What you say of modern humanity could be applied to every generation since our infancy. It may look like mayhem to you, but we are constantly finding ways to live comfortably on this planet. Our history is bloody and violent, but population has continued to grow when technological advances allow it.
I'm curious where you live. I have gathered from what you have written you simply don't like being around a lot of people. I'm also curious as to where your discomfort comes from. Is there not enough food and you're family starving in the area you live in. If you have a problem with the crowds in your area, perhaps you should look into moving to a less populated country or town. There is still a lot of empty space on this planet.
Oh where to start...?
Yes, there is lots of land upon which humans do not (yet) live. This is land on which we should be able to rely to produce our oxygen. Our oxygen factories are in decline because of exploitation. The last thing we need is to spread ourselves over our ever decreasing green spaces.
Seasteading: an interesting proposal. I hope it's successful and enlightening.
My point about living in our own excrement was to illustrate that 'natural population control' (if you will) does not have the power to safeguard our comfort. By the time natural population control takes effect we'd have gone way past a comfortable existence.
QuoteThe earth has already proven she has no problem killing of swarths of humanity. Famine is not a philosophical idea, it is something that has been a problem for centuries. There are also many reasons for famine, sometimes a government destroys all the crops during war, sometimes extensive drought, sometimes the region is simply underdeveloped. Although famine isn't pretty, it is a natural and proven system for keeping population levels at bay.
So, in the context of your previous assertion that natural population control is preferable to human intervention, you are saying that allowing people in unfortunate countries to die is preferable to stopping children being born in the first place? Brilliant!
You are absolutely right that there is no natural stasis in population. But the stasis I would
like to preserve is a number somewhat below that which we have now. That is because, with the technology available today, sustainability points to a lower number. Sustainability is simple to gauge - can we replenish our resources as fast as we use them?
I've talked about erosion of rights in previous threads, but I'll repeat it here. I live in London, UK. 300 years ago I had a right to build my house on common land, 100 years ago I had a right to take cocaine, 5 years ago I had a right to smoke in a pub. These rights (as well as unlimited fishing and tree-felling previously mentioned) were all taken away in the interest if the common good. I bring these up to illustrate that our rights have been eroded for many, many years to accommodate increasing populations. Noone today questions the necessity of these rights revocations. And while I understand that rescinding a right to reproduce may be distasteful today, in 50 years we would regard it as necessary just as we currently do with the limited rights above.
Quotewe are constantly finding ways to live comfortably on this planet
...and it's becoming harder and harder. It seems that the aggregate contentment of all earth citizens has reduced in the past few decades. We have devastating famine, disease and economic decline. Western insatiable consumerist exploitation has caused much of the misery in 'third world' economies. Our greed and blindness to the real 'cost' of cheap goods is a major contributor to the suffering of these people... and now we leave them to die after bleeding them dry. The cure to this needs directing at us as the cause.
On the subject of my discomfort, I'd say that its source is the knowledge that our unsustainable lifestyle results in a smaller share of depleting resources for everyone - both financially and environmentally. My comfort is diminished.
I argue for a systemic pursuit of a world where each and every person has a comfortable - even happy - existence. Otherwise, what's the point in existing at all. While we're not prepared to give up our lifestyles so that an elevated population can live sustainably, we must reduce the numbers so that the lifestyles are sustainably maintained. Now THERE'S an ideologue for you!
Quote from: Scissorlegs on March 18, 2012, 12:55:54 AM
Oh where to start...?
Yes, there is lots of land upon which humans do not (yet) live. This is land on which we should be able to rely to produce our oxygen. Our oxygen factories are in decline because of exploitation. The last thing we need is to spread ourselves over our ever decreasing green spaces.
If you have evidence of our running out of oxygen, please provide it. Even with the elimination of wildlife for developments, plant life is not completely destroyed. Tree farming is typically done on farms where trees are replanted as they are harvested. These tree's aren't as old, but the practice does prevent old forests from being harvested.
I also see no reason why a simple solution to the problem, if it is one, would not be to build more skyscrapers for greater vertical expansion instead expanding vertically into wildlife.
Quote
Seasteading: an interesting proposal. I hope it's successful and enlightening.
My point about living in our own excrement was to illustrate that 'natural population control' (if you will) does not have the power to safeguard our comfort. By the time natural population control takes effect we'd have gone way past a comfortable existence.
I see no reason to conclude the technology we currently have would be destroyed, forgotten, or made useless because of larger populations.
Discomfort is not justification for forcefully limiting the number of children a family can have.
QuoteThe earth has already proven she has no problem killing of swarths of humanity. Famine is not a philosophical idea, it is something that has been a problem for centuries. There are also many reasons for famine, sometimes a government destroys all the crops during war, sometimes extensive drought, sometimes the region is simply underdeveloped. Although famine isn't pretty, it is a natural and proven system for keeping population levels at bay.
Quote
So, in the context of your previous assertion that natural population control is preferable to human intervention, you are saying that allowing people in unfortunate countries to die is preferable to stopping children being born in the first place? Brilliant!
Death and despair are an unfortunate part of life. It isn't pretty, but it is unavoidable. Even with the draconian measures you support, you would not prevent the problems much of the developing world faces. Families who can support multiple children, and breed responsibly, should not be punished because some on a limited budget cannot act responsibly in this regard.
Quote
You are absolutely right that there is no natural stasis in population. But the stasis I would like to preserve is a number somewhat below that which we have now. That is because, with the technology available today, sustainability points to a lower number. Sustainability is simple to gauge - can we replenish our resources as fast as we use them?
I'm pro-choice because a woman deserves the right to own her body. The right should naturally extend to preventing another human from developing in her body. Using the same logic, seeing as a woman owns her body, she has a natural right to invite life to develop in the body she owns.
I'm not sure you fully understand the implications of your logic. What you propose suggests the state owns your body, rather than you owning your body. I simply maintain that freedom and self-ownership are more important than adopting draconian laws in order to sustain a level of comfort you deem ideal. I also maintain that death and despair are an unfortunate and unavoidable part of life, and no restriction of freedom will ever change this fact.
Now, using you're logic. Let's look at underpopulation. If the proposed problem were reversed and there were an underpopulation problem, would you support forcing individuals to produce children? Suppose a woman refused to have a child, is rape or forced fertilization now justified? The logic used in preventing births has already applied to forced sterilizations in China, why should the same logic not be applied if faced with the problem of underpopulation?
Would killing the elderly or unproductive be justified if the severity of overpopulation were great enough?
You may think the above example is extreme, but it seems to accurately apply the logic you use when discussing overpopulation. Where do you draw the line, and if you would not support rape in the scenario above, what logical justification do you have for ending that line of reasoning at that point?
Quote
I've talked about erosion of rights in previous threads, but I'll repeat it here. I live in London, UK. 300 years ago I had a right to build my house on common land, 100 years ago I had a right to take cocaine, 5 years ago I had a right to smoke in a pub. These rights (as well as unlimited fishing and tree-felling previously mentioned) were all taken away in the interest if the common good. I bring these up to illustrate that our rights have been eroded for many, many years to accommodate increasing populations. Noone today questions the necessity of these rights revocations. And while I understand that rescinding a right to reproduce may be distasteful today, in 50 years we would regard it as necessary just as we currently do with the limited rights above.
Do you honestly believe nobody questions the necessity or moral rightness of those laws?
Below is just one article of those who question the "necessity" of you're laws. There are many more in the states who call for an end to the drug prohibition. There is also valid evidence to show drug laws simply increase drug use and lead to more crime by driving the market underground.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2011/03/drug_laws_may_make_matters_wor.html
I would imagine there are also some in you're country who would like to return to common land. The fact is, it is not universally accepted that the erosion of these rights are justified.
There are also many people who oppose smoking bans, so your point is completely incorrect.
Quotewe are constantly finding ways to live comfortably on this planet
Quote
...and it's becoming harder and harder. It seems that the aggregate contentment of all earth citizens has reduced in the past few decades. We have devastating famine, disease and economic decline.
None of this is new. Famine, disease, and economic collapse are not anything new.
Quote
Western insatiable consumerist exploitation has caused much of the misery in 'third world' economies. Our greed and blindness to the real 'cost' of cheap goods is a major contributor to the suffering of these people... and now we leave them to die after bleeding them dry. The cure to this needs directing at us as the cause.
Our consumerism is helping to lift third world countries out of poverty. Western businesses outsource to the developing world because the cost of doing business is so cheap. By opening up factories, and increasing jobs in the developing world, we are actually doing them a huge service. There economies are slowly growing, some rather quickly now, due to our outsourcing jobs to them. Also, the wages western companies pay are typically higher than comparable jobs in the area. By our standards, it seems like they are getting screwed, but in actuality, they are better able to provide for their families, due to the foreign factories.
If it were not for these jobs, many children would live their entire lives in rural areas farming simply to eat. Worse yet, many children are forced to prostitute for money. Industrialization leads to the wealth required to keep children out of fields and factories and in school. America is a perfect example of this. Before industrialization children grew up on farms and spent little time at the community school houses. As industrialization grew, families moved to the cities. As wealth continued to grow, children were no longer needed in the workforce and laws were created to end the practice. What is important to note is that by the time these laws were enacted, the practice of child labor was already on the decline. Families, because of industry, were able to afford to send their children to school. I understand the gut reaction to child labor, but what most fail to realize is that these families and the children would have less food if they weren't working. As their areas continue to develop, the need for their children to work should decrease as their economies continue to grow.
This is analogous to what is happening in these third world nations. Us, as Westerners, need to learn to view the world through the eyes of those less well-off. Taking these jobs away may make you feel like a better person because your shoes were not made by tiny hands, but in reality, these kids are much better off working and making a living.
I'm not arguing the business owner cares or that his motives are altruistic, but the fact is, these factories are beneficial to the developing world.
Quote
On the subject of my discomfort, I'd say that its source is the knowledge that our unsustainable lifestyle results in a smaller share of depleting resources for everyone - both financially and environmentally. My comfort is diminished.
Again, you're discomfort and want for larger spoils is not justification for the actions you propose. We simply need to adapt to new situations and problems, not overreact to maintain your level of comfort.
Quote
I argue for a systemic pursuit of a world where each and every person has a comfortable - even happy - existence. Otherwise, what's the point in existing at all. While we're not prepared to give up our lifestyles so that an elevated population can live sustainably, we must reduce the numbers so that the lifestyles are sustainably maintained. Now THERE'S an ideologue for you!
Yes utopia's are nice, but one has never and most likely never will exist. Limiting births also doesn't lead to greater happiness. Do you really believe everyone in China has a healthy and happy life?
I would just like to add. Simply because people as a whole grow to accept a certain thing, does not mean it is ideal or morally appropriate action.
The TSA in the U.S. is a great example. A large portion of the population supports their work or simply don't care, while the others are outraged. A quick google search will bring up loads of stories and videos of children being molested, attractive women being targeted, and other violations. All of this sanctioned by the government.
It is now believed the nude body scanners are less effective than traditional metal detectors. I have seen one article stating they only see front and rear images on a black background. Anything that doesn't have body heat appears black. So if you have something strapped to your side, it's a black object on a black background, making it invisible.
I haven't seen confirming stories yet, so I'm not sure how accurate that last paragraph is yet.
Regardless, a large portion of the population supports the TSA. If nothing changes, in 60 years, no one will remember what it used to be like to fly. People will accept it, simply because it's a part of life. Simply because people forget is not justification for anything you have argued. People become complacent, that's the danger.
I'm with ThinkAnarchy in finding the idea of government-enforced limiting of family size repellant, unless one is talking something like tax incentives/disincentives and not forced abortions.
But, yes, overpopulation is a huge problem. I don't think education and access to contraceptives as a solution or slower of the problem have been used to the extent they could be, though. If we're talking about the developing world, I'm guessing that many of the women in the red, orange, and yellow areas on the following WHO map would love to limit their family sizes if they could:
http://gamapserver.who.int/mapLibrary/Files/Maps/Global_MDG5_2011_Contraceptive_prev.png (http://gamapserver.who.int/mapLibrary/Files/Maps/Global_MDG5_2011_Contraceptive_prev.png)
TA quote:
QuoteBack on topic however, over-population in regard to food is a valid point. But that is a matter of personal responsibility. If you can't afford to sustain a larger family, you should refrain from reproducing. If you do reproduce and can't afford to keep you're entire family alive, that's a natural solution to the problem. I fail to see why productive members of society should be penalized so the non-productive can provide for their families.
TA, in many parts of the developing world, it's not a matter of "personal responsibility." Lack of access to contraception and education are the problem.
Even here in the developed U.S., I think quality sex education could make a big difference. Sex education is largely a local matter and can be abysmal depending on where you live.
Quote from: Anne D. on March 21, 2012, 02:06:36 AM
TA, in many parts of the developing world, it's not a matter of "personal responsibility." Lack of access to contraception and education are the problem.
Even here in the developed U.S., I think quality sex education could make a big difference. Sex education is largely a local matter and can be abysmal depending on where you live.
You are correct. I didn't really think about that when I wrote it.
My sex education wasn't very good. It was called "In God's Image" and we had nude drawings to show us the body parts and they told us about all the terrible diseases. They also taught us Family Planning. They did instill wearing a condom though.
ADDED AFTER POST: If I had more money, I would happily donate some money to a charity that donated condoms to 3rd world people. There aren't many things I would donate money to, but that is one I can get behind.
Yeah, the sex ed unit of the health class we had during high school was pretty so-so, too. And, yes, they seem to love dwelling on the terrible diseases. Scary film strips made up probably 90 percent of the class.
Quote from: Anne D. on March 21, 2012, 02:32:20 AM
Yeah, the sex ed unit of the health class we had during high school was pretty so-so, too. And, yes, they seem to love dwelling on the terrible diseases. Scary film strips made up probably 90 percent of the class.
They should focus more on how a baby ruins your society life for a while, and costs a bazillion dollars to raise. Especially for these kids and teens.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on March 21, 2012, 04:58:06 AM
Quote from: Anne D. on March 21, 2012, 02:32:20 AM
Yeah, the sex ed unit of the health class we had during high school was pretty so-so, too. And, yes, they seem to love dwelling on the terrible diseases. Scary film strips made up probably 90 percent of the class.
They should focus more on how a baby ruins your society life for a while, and costs a bazillion dollars to raise. Especially for these kids and teens.
Orrrrr, they could have frank, honest discussions about all elements of sexuality; tell them it feels good and can be a very positive experience, but there are precautions to take. Show them how to use a condom and where to buy birth control. Tell them about diseases, but be REALISTIC about them. Talk about orgasms, sexual anxieties and how to treat your partner with respect.
*Sigh* this is the world I'd like to live in.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 21, 2012, 02:05:33 PM
Orrrrr, they could have frank, honest discussions about all elements of sexuality; tell them it feels good and can be a very positive experience, but there are precautions to take. Show them how to use a condom and where to buy birth control. Tell them about diseases, but be REALISTIC about them. Talk about orgasms, sexual anxieties and how to treat your partner with respect.
*Sigh* this is the world I'd like to live in.
To be honest, that sounds a lot like how my sex ed class went. We didn't talk about sexuality as much, but we did talk about orgasms and birth control and condoms. We also had the scare clips that everyone shows and he would have a picture of an infected penis pop up randomly on the projector. Good times. XD
Quote from: Budhorse4 on March 21, 2012, 02:29:06 PM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 21, 2012, 02:05:33 PM
Orrrrr, they could have frank, honest discussions about all elements of sexuality; tell them it feels good and can be a very positive experience, but there are precautions to take. Show them how to use a condom and where to buy birth control. Tell them about diseases, but be REALISTIC about them. Talk about orgasms, sexual anxieties and how to treat your partner with respect.
*Sigh* this is the world I'd like to live in.
To be honest, that sounds a lot like how my sex ed class went. We didn't talk about sexuality as much, but we did talk about orgasms and birth control and condoms. We also had the scare clips that everyone shows and he would have a picture of an infected penis pop up randomly on the projector. Good times. XD
Awesome! haha.
Our junior high sex-ed was actually pretty good, too, actually.
But when I was in elementary school, we had some bizarre "abstinence" group give a speech at our school. They told us that if you use a condom, one in 6 of us would get pregnant (EACH time we had sex). Which is a complete lie if I ever heard one.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 21, 2012, 03:30:28 PM
Quote from: Budhorse4 on March 21, 2012, 02:29:06 PM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 21, 2012, 02:05:33 PM
Orrrrr, they could have frank, honest discussions about all elements of sexuality; tell them it feels good and can be a very positive experience, but there are precautions to take. Show them how to use a condom and where to buy birth control. Tell them about diseases, but be REALISTIC about them. Talk about orgasms, sexual anxieties and how to treat your partner with respect.
*Sigh* this is the world I'd like to live in.
To be honest, that sounds a lot like how my sex ed class went. We didn't talk about sexuality as much, but we did talk about orgasms and birth control and condoms. We also had the scare clips that everyone shows and he would have a picture of an infected penis pop up randomly on the projector. Good times. XD
Awesome! haha.
Our junior high sex-ed was actually pretty good, too, actually.
But when I was in elementary school, we had some bizarre "abstinence" group give a speech at our school. They told us that if you use a condom, one in 6 of us would get pregnant (EACH time we had sex). Which is a complete lie if I ever heard one.
Small wonder that people this clueless about the mechanics of sex and bc are anti-sex. ;D
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 21, 2012, 03:30:28 PM
Quote from: Budhorse4 on March 21, 2012, 02:29:06 PM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 21, 2012, 02:05:33 PM
Orrrrr, they could have frank, honest discussions about all elements of sexuality; tell them it feels good and can be a very positive experience, but there are precautions to take. Show them how to use a condom and where to buy birth control. Tell them about diseases, but be REALISTIC about them. Talk about orgasms, sexual anxieties and how to treat your partner with respect.
*Sigh* this is the world I'd like to live in.
To be honest, that sounds a lot like how my sex ed class went. We didn't talk about sexuality as much, but we did talk about orgasms and birth control and condoms. We also had the scare clips that everyone shows and he would have a picture of an infected penis pop up randomly on the projector. Good times. XD
Awesome! haha.
Our junior high sex-ed was actually pretty good, too, actually.
But when I was in elementary school, we had some bizarre "abstinence" group give a speech at our school. They told us that if you use a condom, one in 6 of us would get pregnant (EACH time we had sex). Which is a complete lie if I ever heard one.
Any clue why it's so difficult for some people to do proper research ??
Seriously, something that we do every single day shouldnt be taboo.
(like how some people cringe when I mention I am getting my cycle. Get over it :\ )
Quote from: Sweetdeath on March 21, 2012, 04:38:43 PM
Any clue why it's so difficult for some people to do proper research ??
Seriously, something that we do every single day shouldnt be taboo.
(like how some people cringe when I mention I am getting my cycle. Get over it :\ )
Every day? Good work, Tiger...
Quote from: Scissorlegs on March 21, 2012, 04:48:41 PM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on March 21, 2012, 04:38:43 PM
Any clue why it's so difficult for some people to do proper research ??
Seriously, something that we do every single day shouldnt be taboo.
(like how some people cringe when I mention I am getting my cycle. Get over it :\ )
Every day? Good work, Tiger...
Haha! agreed.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 21, 2012, 10:18:31 PM
Quote from: Scissorlegs on March 21, 2012, 04:48:41 PM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on March 21, 2012, 04:38:43 PM
Any clue why it's so difficult for some people to do proper research ??
Seriously, something that we do every single day shouldnt be taboo.
(like how some people cringe when I mention I am getting my cycle. Get over it :\ )
Every day? Good work, Tiger...
Haha! agreed.
That's right. Don't be jealous :D