should society/govt control population?

[floyd]

should people that can't take care of themself be allowed to have children? is it fair to the children they bring into the world or to society that has to assume their responsibility?

the freakonomics author rose to notoriety before writing that book with a research study that found that the legalization of abortion was a significant factor in the drop of violent crime a generation later in the 90s.

i can't legally drive a car unless i have insurance. which basically means i can't drive a car unless i can afford the liability my driving might cause others. why should having children be without restrictions?

thoughts?

[sandwich]

I think that the standard of an "acceptable parent" could be too easily abused in a very harmful way. One of the goals of Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was to sterilize poor people, Jews, Catholics and African Americans because she considered them unsuitable and pollutants to the gene pool. It seems like someone with such extreme intentions would be politically flayed, but her organization is thriving today.

[floyd]

well the lack of a standard can and currently is being abused in a very harmful way. is requiring car insurance abusive? maybe from a certain perspective.

maybe there needs to be kid insurance, if you can't afford it, you can't have kids.

[seba]

some people change when they get kids.

[floyd]

some people don't.

[Claverhouse]

I think that the standard of an "acceptable parent" could be too easily abused in a very harmful way. One of the goals of Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was to sterilize poor people, Jews, Catholics and African Americans because she considered them unsuitable and pollutants to the gene pool. It seems like someone with such extreme intentions would be politically flayed, but her organization is thriving today.
Nah, things are good if liberals do them: but bad if neo-liberals such as nazis do them.

There's nothing good nor bad but thinking makes it so.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[floyd]

at some point there will likely have to be population control for planetary survival... at this point it's merely a question of improving the quality of society by controlling population. currently imprisoned murderers and rapists can reproduce, based on the evidence their children are far more likely to be violent criminals

[meshou]

should people that can't take care of themself be allowed to have children?Yes.
is it fair to the children they bring into the world or to society that has to assume their responsibility?Life is not fair.
the freakonomics author rose to notoriety before writing that book with a research study that found that the legalization of abortion was a significant factor in the drop of violent crime a generation later in the 90s.even if this is true, this is voluntary, and does not nessicarily indicate inate quality of genes or parenting, just that people who are left to judge whether or not they can be good parents at a given time are often correct.
i can't legally drive a car unless i have insurance. which basically means i can't drive a car unless i can afford the liability my driving might cause others. why should having children be without restrictions?Because the privelage to drive and the right to have children are not the same thing. Same with a child and a gun, or a gun and the right to free speech, or a child and the right to vote, or a child and the privelage to use a subway, or a gun and the privelage to use a public urinal.

In other words, randomly comparing various rights and privelages doesn't mean they have anything to do with one another in the slightest.

As for taking responsibility, I believe some states mandate fines and jailtime to parents who do not curb unruly children.
thoughts?I have a theory you are an intracately designed point-missing robot who, while able to dance around the point of a thing, lacks the innate humanity to actually understand them. Thus, emotions must be explained, priorities must be justified (and can be wrong), one must like or dislike things for a reason, it is fne by you if others suffer and die because you're absolutely fine with it, and because two things share minor characteristics, such as "being red," or "dangerous under some circumstances," they should be treated as the same thing.

You're like the inbread lovechild of Data and Lore.

[panda]

You're like the inbread lovechild of Data and Lore.
You were just watching that episode of Star Trek: TNG on Spike TV, weren't you!?

[meshou]

You were just watching that episode of Star Trek: TNG on Spike TV, weren't you!?What, I missed 605-- "Inbread Android Monkey Love??" The one where Majel Rodenberry goes topless?? They never show that one!

I'd need a TV to watch first :P

[floyd]

based on the evidence, more people were suffering from violent crime prior to the post generational effect of the legalization of abortion.... something which takes away the freedom of the unborn child? would you care if more people suffered and died in a system you emotionally preferred? what's your main interest satisfying your fragile ego or figuring out what works best? i am basically interested in a system which reduces suffering and maximizes quality of life while preserving as much freedom as possible. however, i don't prefer a mad max system where total freedom unfortunately leads to total chaos and lots more suffering.

[panda]

What, I missed 605-- "Inbread Android Monkey Love??" The one where Majel Rodenberry goes topless?? They never show that one!
That's such a great episode.


I'd need a TV to watch first :P
I thought for sure you must of been watching that episode... it seemed too big of a coincidence for you to mention Data and Lore... I guess you're just a nerd. :)

*enigmacrypt tries to pretend that he was not just watching Star Trek...*

[Claverhouse]

at some point there will likely have to be population control for planetary survival... at this point it's merely a question of improving the quality of society by controlling population. currently imprisoned murderers and rapists can reproduce, based on the evidence their children are far more likely to be violent criminals
Apart from the fact that AFAIK American secure prisons neither allow mixed personnel nor conjugal visiting ( a mistake I imagine ), why worry about inmates ? Worry more about the murderers, rapists and assorted crims who haven't been caught and are reproducing their criminal genes legally enough.

One major strike against democracy is that the 'Sovereign People' includes persons you wouldn't go near with a barge-pole: murderers, wife-beaters, kidnappers, vivisectionists, serial killers, thieves and muggers, each with a vote.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[SensEye]

Yes.

[Wrajk]

One major strike against democracy is that the 'Sovereign People' includes persons you wouldn't go near with a barge-pole: murderers, wife-beaters, kidnappers, vivisectionists, serial killers, thieves and muggers, each with a vote.

That's one. My biggest problem with democracy is that two stupid people can overweigh a single clever one when voting. And YES, I know that the problem with that reasoning is, who decides who is stupid and who is not? It still rings true to me.
In theory, dictatorship is much more efficient than democracy, but in practice, it never works. Those who become dictators are power-hungry bastards, those that would be fit for the post don't want to do it.

And I believe population control is necessary, from a wholly materialistic point of view. We are using up resources, available space and the biosphere in an exponentially rising amount. We can either do something about it ourselves, or it will all come crashing down, very likely still in our lifetimes. I just hope that if and when it happens, it'll be the mushroom cloud that takes me and not famine, or an epidemic. (either natural or man-made)

[Claverhouse]

In theory, dictatorship is much more efficient than democracy, but in practice, it never works. Those who become dictators are power-hungry bastards, those that would be fit for the post don't want to do it.
Oh, it can work, but the fallout can be unpleasant. As for your second point, that's just one reason I stick to the tried and true --- if at present faded --- belief in absolute hereditary monarchy: the incumbents didn't seek the role, and have no choice but to fulfil it like it or not. It can certainly mess up, but then any other system will mess up too. Plus the fact that any other system is a self-perpetuating oligarchy. And if there's one thing worse than a single dictator, it's a group of dictators.

'Better one King than five hundred', thoughtfully remarked Charles II as he went to dismiss one of his quarrelling parliaments once.




And I believe population control is necessary, from a wholly materialistic point of view. We are using up resources, available space and the biosphere in an exponentially rising amount. We can either do something about it ourselves, or it will all come crashing down, very likely still in our lifetimes. I just hope that if and when it happens, it'll be the mushroom cloud that takes me and not famine, or an epidemic. (either natural or man-made)
Agree entirely. Plus people seem to get coarser the more of them are about...


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[aether]

should people that can't take care of themself be allowed to have children? is it fair to the children they bring into the world or to society that has to assume their responsibility?

the freakonomics author rose to notoriety before writing that book with a research study that found that the legalization of abortion was a significant factor in the drop of violent crime a generation later in the 90s.

i can't legally drive a car unless i have insurance. which basically means i can't drive a car unless i can afford the liability my driving might cause others. why should having children be without restrictions?

thoughts?

The world will always need drones...one of the least/most valid reasons, to make the others look better.

[Zephyrus055]

That's one. My biggest problem with democracy is that two stupid people can overweigh a single clever one when voting. And YES, I know that the problem with that reasoning is, who decides who is stupid and who is not? It still rings true to me.
In theory, dictatorship is much more efficient than democracy, but in practice, it never works. Those who become dictators are power-hungry bastards, those that would be fit for the post don't want to do it.
I think autocracy almost always works when it's in the hands of an NT.

Alexander The Great
Augustus Caesar
Peter The Great
Napoleon I

Just to name a few.


And I believe population control is necessary, from a wholly materialistic point of view. We are using up resources, available space and the biosphere in an exponentially rising amount. We can either do something about it ourselves, or it will all come crashing down, very likely still in our lifetimes. I just hope that if and when it happens, it'll be the mushroom cloud that takes me and not famine, or an epidemic. (either natural or man-made)
I agree.

[2ds]

um, i vote for population control. We have to be responsible not just as individuals but at some point as a whole species for our own destiny and that of our planet.

-2ds

[panda]

We have to be responsible not just as individuals but at some point as a whole species for our own destiny and that of our planet.
Why?

[2ds]

Why?

to use the basest and most populist reason, to survive.

-2ds

[panda]

to use the basest and most populist reason, to survive.
My question was more specifically directed towards the species/planet aspect of your statement.

My real question is: why do you care what happens to anyone/anything after your death?

[2ds]

My question was more specifically directed towards the species/planet aspect of your statement.

My real question is: why do you care what happens to anyone/anything after your death?

Well by definition I can't but.....

I like to believe (how ever irrationally) that there is something more to existence then breaking out of your natural population controls and burning out an entire planet. To be perfectly honest, it would be a bit of an anticlimax.

-2ds

[Dunearhp]

I don't think overpopulation is capable of burning out the planet. It might tip the balance to the point that most or all of the human race is wiped out by the environmental changes.

We are not as flexible as the earth, and nowhere near as patient.

[2ds]

I don't think overpopulation is capable of burning out the planet. It might tip the balance to the point that most or all of the human race is wiped out by the environmental changes.

We are not as flexible as the earth, and nowhere near as patient.

granted but it's still a pretty shitty way to go...

-2ds

[panda]

granted but it's still a pretty shitty way to go...

-2ds
The human race will go extinct one way or another.

[2ds]

The human race will go extinct one way or another.

prove it =)

-2ds

[Wrajk]

Be careful what you wish for.

[illusivemind]

Should some people not have had kids?
Yes, drunks, abusers, pedophiles, mentally deranged. There are plenty of people who had kids who really shouldn’t have. Would the kids have been better off? Don’t know, you can’t compare an extant quality with non-existence.

But I still disagree with the kind of ‘population control’ proposed. Let’s suppose that you manage to create a fool-proof system that is never abused and correctly identifies bad parents with some kind of Phillip K. Dick style of precognition.

One of these ‘bad parents’ is Mary. You have three options, sterilize her or if she is pregnant, force an abortion or immediately remove the child from her. Even though this technically isn’t eugenics, it is an encroachment of civil liberties that is incompatible in a liberal democracy. And if you don’t like liberal democracies, then get the hell out! j/k

[Zephyrus055]

Humans can not exist without a habitable-friendly environment
One day, the universe will not be a habitable-friendly environment anywhere
Therefore humanity will one day become extinct

or

Species evolve in to other species
Humans are species
Humans will one day evolve in to another species

or

Humans are gaining the technology to radically alter their DNA
Humans may one day radically alter their DNA to be another species

[panda]

Imperator055: Exactly.

That's why I don't understand why someone would choose to become concerned over the fate of our species or the planet. It's all going to end eventually.

[panda]

Should some people not have had kids?
Yes, drunks, abusers, pedophiles, mentally deranged
Damn, I guess I'm SOL.

(I wouldn't of been born if that were the case.)

[coffeezombie]

(I wouldn't of been born if that were the case.)
Who's to say you shouldn't have been?

[panda]

Who's to say you shouldn't have been?
The only person that matters: me. :D

[abathur]

Certainly easier to advocate once you're alive.

It's a line you just don't cross. It sets a horrible precedent for society. Once you can neuter the undesirables (or forcefully abort their children) simply because they're labelled undesirable, the only thing standing between anyone and the imposition of such policy on themselves is a socially flexible definition of what is definable. It's not that I want to see stupid people mass reproducing, especially not the scum of society, but I still don't feel comfortable setting such a precedent.

Sure, one day it's ok to exterminate or neuter anyone who likes kiddy porn. A few years later we decide the mentally retarded sure aren't doing is any good, so we add them to the list. Then the homeless. Then anyone requiring full-time care to survive. Then we decide painters and sociologists sure as hell aren't doing us any good. Then we decide anyone who would smoke and tatoo themselves is undesirable.

The thing is--SOMEONE finds all of those things undesirable already. Most of them, a fair number of people. A shift in who's in charge, or general public opinion is all it takes to throw a new group onto the chopping block.

[illusivemind]

abathur,

Great point! For any thing in the world, there is a person who hates it and wishes it destroyed. The opposite is also true...

[floyd]

china already crossed the line, i don't see much global outrage about it. their implementation, in theory, seems rather even handed, simply limiting the amount of kids any one person can have.

[illusivemind]

china already crossed the line, i don't see much global outrage about it. their implementation, in theory, seems rather even handed, simply limiting the amount of kids any one person can have.

Would agree though that that is different from implementing some kind of standard as to which people get to have kids or more than one child and who doesn't?

[2ds]

china already crossed the line, i don't see much global outrage about it. their implementation, in theory, seems rather even handed, simply limiting the amount of kids any one person can have.

This is more what I was getting at, I wasn't promoting eugenics....

enigma: you're going to cease to exist eventually, just kill yourself now, it'll be a whole heap less trouble :sobs:

-2ds

[floyd]

Would agree though that that is different from implementing some kind of standard as to which people get to have kids or more than one child and who doesn't?

yes... but i was never exclusively advocating a standard, just the need for control. limiting people to one or two kids would be good enough for me.

[panda]

enigma: you're going to cease to exist eventually, just kill yourself now, it'll be a whole heap less trouble :sobs:
Ok, I will. Goodbye.

[illusivemind]

yes... but i was never exclusively advocating a standard, just the need for control. limiting people to one or two kids would be good enough for me.

Really?



Should people that can't take care of themself be allowed to have children?

That is a standard determing who can and cannot 'properly take care of themselves'. Whether for financial or health reasons?

[SensEye]

This is more what I was getting at, I wasn't promoting eugenics....
-2dsAgreed. Everybody should be entitled to have between zero and two children. Qualification to move from zero would be a long and detailed process examining many aspects of the applicant's lives. Something along the lines a couple has to go through today if they wish to adopt a child.

[panda]

Everybody should be entitled to have between zero and two children.
Why exactly is that? Why not three, or four, etc?

[Claverhouse]

Agreed. Everybody should be entitled to have between zero and two children. Qualification to move from zero would be a long and detailed process examining many aspects of the applicant's lives. Something along the lines a couple has to go through today if they wish to adopt a child.
Basically then: before engaging in any means of sexual intercourse ( for no preventative device is guaranteed 100% ) couples should fill out a ten-page form to satisfy government regulations.

The socialist passion for the New Jerusalem always seemed to reject any other type of passion.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[DevRock]

should people that can't take care of themself be allowed to have children? is it fair to the children they bring into the world or to society that has to assume their responsibility?

the freakonomics author rose to notoriety before writing that book with a research study that found that the legalization of abortion was a significant factor in the drop of violent crime a generation later in the 90s.

i can't legally drive a car unless i have insurance. which basically means i can't drive a car unless i can afford the liability my driving might cause others. why should having children be without restrictions?

thoughts?

Lately, I've been advocating a sort of "breeding license" in this country (advocating in the sense I mention it in my blog and "joke" about it with people). It's Hitler-esque, I guess, and I know it would never come to fruition. But, I agree a large proportion of people should be spayed/neutered rigth away. That's jut coming from a standpoint that I think too many people are fuckign idiots, wasteful, rude, inconsiderate and otherwise are raising children that a) can't think for themselves, b) are only going to be a drain on society and the natural resources of our planet, and c) who will repeat the same damn mistakes their parents are making/have made. I point to my brother-in-law and sister-in-law as prime examples. They're in their mid-30's, lost a $230,000 in CT (that they couldn't afford to buy in the first place), spend what money they DO have recklessly (tons of junk food, new toys every week, brand name label clothing), and the kicker is that they've been living with my in-laws for the past 2 1/2 years beacuse they can't afford a house in the area and think, somehow, they will be. I'm convinced they're waiting for my in-laws to cave in and give them the house or wait until they die.

Anyway, politics and silly religions block any meaningful efforts to control the population. I've become so cynical of our species that I'm convinced there's no stopping the rampant destruction we're causing on our planet. We're destorying the environment in more ways that I can even think of and my general view is that our society, as a whole, at least in the US, is sinking lower and lower each day.

[eyebyte_atWork]

Call me crazy - I think people should regulate themselves concerning creating offspring. People should evaluate themselves and their situation - and if they fail - others should educate them. People should never have someone elses views imposed on them concerning this issue. Freedom is the most important thing in this country... having said that I must stress that it is every free person's resposibility to educate themselves and thusly govern their own actions to the highest degree afforded them.

We cannot afford to relive the same mistakes from the past where monarchies, dictatorships and autocracies have ruled and eventually become corrupt or unsustainable. We so far have one of the best systems in the world for dealing with people's lives - keeping personal freedom. We, as a country , must keep down this path - not one of self destruction.

[Rajah]

i can't legally drive a car unless i have insurance. which basically means i can't drive a car unless i can afford the liability my driving might cause others. why should having children be without restrictions?I don't think this is an accurate analogy. If I have no insurance and hit some guy, there is a legally-cognizable injury. My lack of insurance hurt that guy (and his spouse and kids). If I have a kid before I'm financially or emotionally able to care for it, who have I really hurt? Everybody? The people in my state? County? There's no real definable injury that will occur; hence, no "kid insurance."

Anyway, on one hand, people shouldn't have kids before they're able, although it gets even more dicey if they *are* able and circumstances later render them *unable* to care for their kids. On the other hand, I don't like government (or anybody for that matter) dictating whether or not I can reproduce. It's a personal choice.

Interesting post. I'll contemplate some more.

[Rajah]

That's jut coming from a standpoint that I think too many people are fuckign idiots, wasteful, rude, inconsiderate and otherwise are raising children that a) can't think for themselves, b) are only going to be a drain on society and the natural resources of our planet, and c) who will repeat the same damn mistakes their parents are making/have made.Here's a fundamental problem. Who would get to decide who the "idiots" are? Because I know a lot of idiots I wouldn't want to make that decision.

Anyway, politics and silly religions block any meaningful efforts to control the population.Why are we even concerned with this? Seems to me, our population will control itself naturally, as nature has done for a bazillion years. The other possibility is that the planet destroys itself entirely, in which case I'm dead and don't much care anyway.

[coffeezombie]

A lot of the biggest scum I've ever met in life had "good breeding" and a lot of the noblest people I've met came from crappy households. The idea of a breeding license is downright deplorable. I don't even think it's funny enough to be joked about in blogs. The measures that the typical INTP on here would use to determine a good parent are probably exactly the kinds of measures that would produce more Columbine Killers.

[Rajah]

Call me crazy - I think people should regulate themselves concerning creating offspring. People should evaluate themselves and their situation - and if they fail - others should educate them. People should never have someone elses views imposed on them concerning this issue. Freedom is the most important thing in this country... having said that I must stress that it is every free person's resposibility to educate themselves and thusly govern their own actions to the highest degree afforded them.

We cannot afford to relive the same mistakes from the past where monarchies, dictatorships and autocracies have ruled and eventually become corrupt or unsustainable. We so far have one of the best systems in the world for dealing with people's lives - keeping personal freedom. We, as a country , must keep down this path - not one of self destruction.Hear, hear!

[Rajah]

china already crossed the line, i don't see much global outrage about it. their implementation, in theory, seems rather even handed, simply limiting the amount of kids any one person can have.I've certainly read articles expressing horror at the idea, especially in relation to Chinese parents sacrificing daughters because they want their name to carry down through a son. I imagine the reason the US hasn't expressed "outrage" over it is because as a nation we tend not to express outrage until the situation lands in our backyard.

[DevRock]

Here's a fundamental problem. Who would get to decide who the "idiots" are? Because I know a lot of idiots I wouldn't want to make that decision.


I would. :D


Why are we even concerned with this? Seems to me, our population will control itself naturally, as nature has done for a bazillion years. The other possibility is that the planet destroys itself entirely, in which case I'm dead and don't much care anyway.


I disagree. I don't think nature IS taking control unless nature has much much more tolerance than I give it credit for. Natural populations give and take based on what nature does. But as humans, we have so many other reasons for doing things. We think logically (or that's what they claim) and have all these insane desires and wants and we have greed, etc. Worst of all, we ultimately inhabit the top of the food chain. We can kill pretty much anything and everything. We do this intentionally and unintentionally. We rid the planet of polio or we squeeze out the black bears by overbuilding in suburban areas.

Now, that being said, perhaps there are signs that nature is starting to "fight back." We haven't seen the ravages of AIDS yet. And we're anxiously awaiting what this avian flu is going to do.

[Synaptic Ether]

People that cannot support their offspring and continue to have more offspring will keep themselves in the lowest position of societal mobility, and societal influence.

There's no reason to attempt to enforce anything upon them.

[Claverhouse]

I've certainly read articles expressing horror at the idea, especially in relation to Chinese parents sacrificing daughters because they want their name to carry down through a son.
It's really more to support them in their old age, as is usual throughout most cultures in history. Daughters may be used for physical support for the elderly, but sons were needed to earn income before pensions came along, and males always earnt more through greater strength etc.. As an analogue this interestingly carries on in modern slavery, which is one of the modern world's success-stories: girls are worth less since they are mainly destined for sex-slavery, whilst small boys can earn more ( for their owners, not themselves ) through heavy labour.



I imagine the reason the US hasn't expressed "outrage" over it is because as a nation we tend not to express outrage until the situation lands in our backyard.
Also it would be fairly pointless, since the Chinese care fuck-all what Americans think.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Rajah]

Now, that being said, perhaps there are signs that nature is starting to "fight back." We haven't seen the ravages of AIDS yet. And we're anxiously awaiting what this avian flu is going to do.And this is what I'm getting at.

[Rajah]

Also it would be fairly pointless, since the Chinese care fuck-all what Americans think.And even if they did, I can't think of a country I would like to piss off less than China.

[illusivemind]

A lot of the biggest scum I've ever met in life had "good breeding" and a lot of the noblest people I've met came from crappy households. The idea of a breeding license is downright deplorable. I don't even think it's funny enough to be joked about in blogs. The measures that the typical INTP on here would use to determine a good parent are probably exactly the kinds of measures that would produce more Columbine Killers.

Exactly!

[2ds]

Agreed. Everybody should be entitled to have between zero and two children. Qualification to move from zero would be a long and detailed process examining many aspects of the applicant's lives. Something along the lines a couple has to go through today if they wish to adopt a child.

nooooo, no no no no no, not what i was saying.

I was thinking more like chinas one child policy, but probably more like a two child maximum or something, you don't have to be special to have kids you're just not allowed to have alot of them... the worst thing you can do for the planet is have more than two children....

-2ds

[panda]

nooooo, no no no no no, not what i was saying.

I was thinking more like chinas one child policy, but probably more like a two child maximum or something, you don't have to be special to have kids you're just not allowed to have alot of them... the worst thing you can do for the planet is have more than two children....

-2ds
So what happens if a woman who already has two kids becomes pregnant? And where are you pulling this "two children" figure from?

[illusivemind]

I trust you haven't read any of the people who claim that the over-population scare is a myth:

http://www.jefflindsay.com/Overpop.shtml
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0500overpopulation.htm



The high population density of China, a so-called "crisis" used to justify totalitarian extremes, pales in comparison with that of prosperous Taiwan or rich and clean Switzerland. New Jersey also has a much higher population density than China, but only the most hardened would advocate forced sterilizations and forced abortions to save New Jersey from collapse. Having been in Switzerland, New Jersey, and China, I can say that the quality of life (environmental quality, income, life expectancy, and health care) is vastly superior in the first two, where the population density is higher. What's the difference? China has an excess not of people, but of government, stifling human productivity and hindering efficient utilization of resources. New Jersey may have too much government for some folks, but it's still free enough that people can be productive resources, not just mouths to feed.




The world is over-populated and heading towards demographic catastrophe, right?

Wrong. According to Max Singer, writing in The Atlantic Monthly of August 1999, "Unless people's values change greatly, several centuries from now there could be fewer people living in the entire world than live in the United States today." How does he come to this startling and unorthodox view? Simply because no demographer predicted that when fertility dropped to replacement level - which is 2.1 child per woman per lifetime - it would keep falling. But it has. In Western Europe, Japan and the East Asian tiger economies, the total fertility rate (TFR) is 1.5. and falling. Italy's has fallen to a national suicidal 1.2. North African immigrants look like inheriting Italy.

[SensEye]

Basically then: before engaging in any means of sexual intercourse ( for no preventative device is guaranteed 100% ) couples should fill out a ten-page form to satisfy government regulations.
We are talking theory here. Even I know you can't make sex unpopular. Nor is there any reason to. Nothing practical can be achieved until we have a reasonable method of reversible sterilization.

But "if" we had one, the state should by all means mandate it's use.

You folks are jumping off the deep end with big brother and/or eugenics paranoia.

The state mandates all sorts of thinks like vehicle operation, drinking and voting age, etc. etc. All of those things require far less qualification than child raising. If the technology existed, I can see no rational reason for it not to be employed. Heck, I would settle for a minimum age requirement for starters. Say 25. That alone would solve a lot of problems. Throw in a few other reasonable qualifiers and things would work pretty well.

Now since said technology does not exist (and I doubt any attempt to develop such will happen anytime soon) it's all just a pipe dream.

But I'd like to think we could agree that if we could regulate reproductive ability, we would.

[illusivemind]

We are talking theory here. Even I know you can't make sex unpopular. Nor is there any reason to. Nothing practical can be achieved until we have a reasonable method of reversible sterilization.

I can see no rational reason for it not to be employed. Heck, I would settle for a minimum age requirement for starters. Say 25. That alone would solve a lot of problems. Throw in a few other reasonable qualifiers and things would work pretty well.


All putting a minimum age would do is land a whole lot of people in jail for breaking a totalatarian law. Not to mention the 'disposal' of all their children.



But I'd like to think we could agree that if we could regulate reproductive ability, we would.

No I wouldn't. I don't care how perfect you could make the world, technology permitting, you don't put those sorts of liberties in the hands of a regulatory body. Unless perhaps we futher hypothesize that corruption no longer exists, and there is no chance of a false incrimination etc. etc.

Then the somewhat circular argument runs, "suppose the world is almost perfect, instituting law x would make it more perfect"

[meshou]

No I wouldn't. I don't care how perfect you could make the world, technology permitting, you don't put those sorts of liberties in the hands of a regulatory body. Unless perhaps we futher hypothesize that corruption no longer exists, and there is no chance of a false incrimination etc. etc.Exactly. A regulatory body does not have the interests of the population at heart, merely the interest of the regulatory body. This would require a totalitarian regime to pull off, and would result in a horrific standard of living. There's no place on earth where it would end up with more good done than evil.


Then the somewhat circular argument runs, "suppose the world is almost perfect, instituting law x would make it more perfect"Yeah. If there were no such thing as corruption, mistakes, and this would not ruin tens of thousands of lives for a subjective and arbitrary standard of quality, this would be a great idea. And if your mother had cast iron wheels, she'd be a locomotive.

[2ds]

So what happens if a woman who already has two kids becomes pregnant? And where are you pulling this "two children" figure from?

I just mean in the sense that if you have two kids you essentially replace yourselves. if you have more you start a possible exponential growth.

Um, more than two kids ? forced abortion ? adoption ? jail for a repeat offender? take your pick

-2ds

[DevRock]

I trust you haven't read any of the people who claim that the over-population scare is a myth:

http://www.jefflindsay.com/Overpop.shtml
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0500overpopulation.htm

No, I haven't but having MANY married couples I know in their late 20's/early 30's (myself included) that have had or are having fertility problems (it seems nearly epidemic now), one of those theories may come true. However, I'm predicting more catastrophic means of population control happening for a while. The tsunami wiped out nearly 150,000 people and future generations. These hurricanes are looking more devastating every year. And, as mentioned, there are certain super virii that are probably going to wipe out impoverished areas of Africa and Asia.

Regardless, there are still a lot of people I don't think should breed. :)

[illusivemind]

Regardless, there are still a lot of people I don't think should breed. :)

So we return to the true motive, not of benevolence or utility towards humanity but a self-centred elitist eugenics to sterilise the 'untouchables.'

Even if you are not trying to suggest that bad people have bad children, which is an incredibly fallacious argument, you are suggesting that people with financial difficulties be barred from having children? For benevolent reasons? No, methinks you down want to be burdened with the responsibility of a state-funded orphanage as a hard working tax-payer.

But maybe I'm way off.

Here's the clincher, there is a difference between thinking, "man that woman's kids had an awful childhood, maybe it would've been better that they never existed" (a seemingly impossible judgement to make) and "Hey, I think you'd make a really lousy parent, hold still whilst I surgically remove your ability to bear children."

[DevRock]

So we return to the true motive, not of benevolence or utility towards humanity but a self-centred elitist eugenics to sterilise the 'untouchables.'

Even if you are not trying to suggest that bad people have bad children, which is an incredibly fallacious argument, you are suggesting that people with financial difficulties be barred from having children? For benevolent reasons? No, methinks you down want to be burdened with the responsibility of a state-funded orphanage as a hard working tax-payer.

But maybe I'm way off.

Here's the clincher, there is a difference between thinking, "man that woman's kids had an awful childhood, maybe it would've been better that they never existed" (a seemingly impossible judgement to make) and "Hey, I think you'd make a really lousy parent, hold still whilst I surgically remove your ability to bear children."


I'm not quite sure why, but you seem to be hooked on this thought that I'm somehow targeting only low income people. In fact, it's quite the contrary, as where I've lived for a long time is dominated by higher income families and where I see some of the worst behaviors happening, raising soulless demons.

BTW, my thinking is more towards "Hey, I think you'd make a really lousy parent, hold still whilst I surgically remove your ability to bear children." ;)

EDIT: Perhaps you have that in your mind as I referred to my relatives who have had financial difficulties. It's not the financial aspect I was focused on. It's the repeatedly destructive behavior they continue to display and have passed it on to their two young children. (i.e. they just DON'T get it - they lost a house, needed family members to bail them out twice - and after it was said and done continued to by toys every week, including a $400 tractor for an Easter present and act like nothign is wrong) It's actually been very frightening watching these two youngsters (who I love dearly) grow up amidst two idiots and start to display similarly self-destructive behavior patterns that I honestly see only getting worse as they get older.

[panda]

Um, more than two kids ? forced abortion ? adoption ? jail for a repeat offender? take your pick
Don't you think that would be rather traumatic for the parents...?

[Rajah]

I just mean in the sense that if you have two kids you essentially replace yourselves. if you have more you start a possible exponential growth.

Um, more than two kids ? forced abortion ? adoption ? jail for a repeat offender? take your pick

-2dsWhat about when people have 0 kids? Do their 2 "allotted kids" get distributed in some "pool" of available kids so some lucky person gets to have more than 2? What about someone who marries and has 2 kids, then divorces, and marries someone with no kids? Does that person get to have a third so as to make your "essentially replace yourselves" theory valid in practice? What if your kid dies? Do you get to have another?

And I cannot see how your punishments at all suit the "crime". Forced abortion is a horrifying concept, fraught with civil liberty issues I don't even need to go into here. And adoption or jail does not change the result of the "crime" -- there are still additional children. Sorry, you've put forth no punishment that really works to deter, prevent, or even punish the "crime."

[Rajah]

Don't you think that would be rather traumatic for the parents...?No kidding. And don't you think something like this would cause an increase in other crimes?

[Rajah]

EDIT: Perhaps you have that in your mind as I referred to my relatives who have had financial difficulties. It's not the financial aspect I was focused on. It's the repeatedly destructive behavior they continue to display and have passed it on to their two young children. (i.e. they just DON'T get it - they lost a house, needed family members to bail them out twice - and after it was said and done continued to by toys every week, including a $400 tractor for an Easter present and act like nothign is wrong) It's actually been very frightening watching these two youngsters (who I love dearly) grow up amidst two idiots and start to display similarly self-destructive behavior patterns that I honestly see only getting worse as they get older.After reading this anecdote, I couldn't help but think that the solution isn't to stop people from having kids, but to change people's behaviors. Seems to me like if those parents developed financial skills and passed them along to the kids in lieu of irresponsible behavior, the forced children limitation would be moot in your opinion. Moreover, I hardly think these kids' selfish behavior is enough to support a societal program of limiting the number of children someone can have.

[Claverhouse]

We are talking theory here. Even I know you can't make sex unpopular. Nor is there any reason to. Nothing practical can be achieved until we have a reasonable method of reversible sterilization.

But "if" we had one, the state should by all means mandate it's use. Apparently there are successful interventions in America that don't involve surgery, over here we are occasionally inundated with news of the remarkable, invigorating, stunning success of 'Teen Celibacy' programs which, as ever, encourage the kids to just say no, not only to smoking, drugs, guns, motorbikes, masculinity, racialism, communism, nazism, eating sweets, shopping and whatever else troubles the minds of deranged teaching professionals, but to an interest in the opposite sex.

Rather smug looking girls apparently wear wrist-bands symbolising their purity and talk openly and frankly about their virgin status and it's global importance, whilst the sort of boys who wouldn't have got laid anyway earnestly discuss how they're saving themselves for marriage.

Both sides of the political spectrum in the USA ranging from Tweedledum to Tweedledee have praised these 'No Sex For Teens' initiatives: the president has had links with the widely respected religious leader, the Rev. Sun Myung Moon since 1999:


Pro-Family Group (http://www.geocities.com/craigmaxim/p-politicians-governorgeorgewbush.html) Promotes Sexual Purity Goal to Reach 40 Million Youth By End of Year Members of the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification are taking their message to the streets of America, holding rallies and asking young people to recite a pledge of sexual abstinence before marriage. Their goal is reach 40 million American youth before the end of the year with the abstinence message. As of now, according to their New York office manager Jorg Heller, they have reached around 6 million. The pledge, called the Pure Love Pledge, is written on a card and handed to young people with a request that they recite the pledge and commit themselves to refrain from sexual activity before marriage.

"We've had a tremendous response in Harlem," said Juanita Pierre-Louis, a Family Federation leader in New York. "One woman came running up to me after she read the card and threw her arms around me and said this is exactly what our young people need to hear." Heller states that Family Federation members around the country, many of them housewives with children in tow, report a tremendously positive response to the initiative.

Abstinence before marriage and fidelity within marriage are bedrock beliefs of the group founded by the Reverend Sun Myung Moon, who blessed in marriage many of the group leaders in Madison Square Garden in 1982. Seventeen years later, these couples have teenagers who are dedicated to maintaining their sexual purity in a youth culture in which the word virgin is almost a foreign term.

In order to spread the message further, hundreds of these Unificationist teenagers have toured America and overseas during the last three summers with an organization called the Pure Love Alliance. Using street theater, rock music, service projects and rallies, the teens generally get favorable responses from crowds and civic leaders and good media coverage.

Abstinence education in schools has gained greater acceptance among educators. Presidential candidate George W. Bush announced that he would increase the federal investment in abstinence education if elected.
And that wise old creature Madam Clint has also endorsed anything which interferes in people's lives:


In her speech (http://familyscholars.org/?p=4046), she recalled campaigning for “teenage celibacy” a decade ago. She emphasized “the important role that parents can play in encouraging their children to abstain from sexual activity. … Research shows that the primary reason that teenage girls abstain is because of their religious and moral values. We should embrace this—and support programs that reinforce the idea that abstinence at a young age is not just the smart thing to do, it is the right thing to do.”
Right generally translates to compulsory eventually...

On the other hand, in order to make common ground with all sides and not alienate any possible lunatic support for her candidacy, she was careful to make it clear that as with abortion ( which she totally supports, but not entirely ), whilst she supports total abstinence programs, she also condemns them. A Woman For All Seasons.


Mrs. Clinton (http://www.religiousconsultation.org/News_Tracker/Senator_Clinton_seeking_shared_ground_over_abortions.htm), widely seen as a possible candidate for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination in 2008, appeared to be reaching out beyond traditional core Democrats who support abortion rights. She did so not by changing her political stands, but by underscoring her views in preventing unplanned pregnancies, promoting adoption, recognizing the influence of religion in abstinence and championing what she has long called ''teenage celibacy.''

Mrs. Clinton made clear that she did not favor abstinence-only programs of sexual education. ''We should also recognize what works and what doesn't work and to be fair, the jury is still out on the effectiveness of abstinence-only programs,'' Mrs. Clinton said. ''I don't think this debate should be about ideology -- it should be about facts, and evidence. We have to deal with the choices that young people make, not just the choices we wish they would make.''


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[DevRock]

After reading this anecdote, I couldn't help but think that the solution isn't to stop people from having kids, but to change people's behaviors. Seems to me like if those parents developed financial skills and passed them along to the kids in lieu of irresponsible behavior, the forced children limitation would be moot in your opinion. Moreover, I hardly think these kids' selfish behavior is enough to support a societal program of limiting the number of children someone can have.

You are correct, but I guess I'm too skeptical to believe people like this can REALLY change. Hell, if losing your home doesn't teach you a lesson, what will?

[DevRock]

Claver,
Those teen celibacy things make me laugh. It's almost as absurd as the Catholic church forcing it on priests. We are sexual creatures. Period. Anything done to supress that usually backfires. I know these programs are popular with the religious whackos here in the US, but there was an article I read the other day (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=30300) that profiled an Ohio high school where 13% (out of 490) of the girls in the school have become pregnant. The Bush admin has given that district something like $30 million to promote their backward policies. To see something like this makes you even more angry about what our tax dollars are going to.

Here's some more info on the absurd:
http://www.madison.com/post/blogs/dailybriefing/index.php?ntid=53433

[Claverhouse]

Here's some more info on the absurd:
http://www.madison.com/post/blogs/dailybriefing/index.php?ntid=53433

Joanne Hinton, whose 16 year old daughter is eight months pregnant , believes the abstinence-only program is not enough. "It's time to take the blinders off and realize these kids are having sex". Her daughter is a straight-A student who comes from a home with two loving parents.

Her mother reported they "asked her 45 times a week if she was having sex, doing drugs, or drinking. We were constantly checking on her."
Golly, what on earth sent the poor girl off the rails ?


Claverhouse :ph34r:


Unless she thought they were asking when she was going to start these things and didn't want to disappoint them...

[illusivemind]

Anything done to supress that usually backfires.
Irony alert.

DevRock, all you're really talking about is getting parents into education programs with their kids to teach them to instil discipline and values. And if these pillars of society have neither, it is an indictment of the society that rewards the vacuous march towards material success.

[panda]

vacuous march towards material success.
Explain to us how material success is vacuous. Sure, it might not be the end-all, be-all in life, but it's pretty damn nice.

[illusivemind]

an indictment of the society that rewards the vacuous march towards material success

enigmacrypt,

I am critisizing the society that rewards the vacuous march towards material success. It doesn't distinguish between people who actually lead meaningful and fulfilling lives and those who don't.

And would you suggest that material success is meaningful in of itself? I hope not.

[panda]

I am critisizing the society that rewards the vacuous march towards material success. It doesn't distinguish between people who actually lead meaningful and fulfilling lives and those who don't.
What do you consider a meaningful and fulfilling life?


And would you suggest that material success is meaningful in of itself?
Personally, I consider material success meaningful, yes. By which I mean that I'd rather have money and possessions than be poor. Whether material success is "meaningful" in some abstract or objective sense does not concern me.


I hope not.
Why is that?

[cjs55]

Once ones basic needs are met, what other meaning do material positions have?

Certainly the quest for posessions for no other reason then to have them that is unrealistic and useless.

But would our lives be 'better off', or more imbued with meaning at least, without many of these posessions, some of them luxuries of modern living? Rarely does a human being come across with the amount of vision needed to accurately answer questions like that...

[panda]

Once ones basic needs are met
How would you define "basic needs"?


what other meaning do material positions have?
Whatever meaning one chooses to bestow upon them. For some, they could provide psychological satisfaction.


Certainly the quest for posessions for no other reason then to have them that is unrealistic and useless.
Not necessarily. Say, for example, that I'm a thief who derives immense pleasure from the illegal acquisition of material possessions. Certainly, in such a case, I would not find it either unrealistic or useless. On the contrary.


But would our lives be 'better off', or more imbued with meaning at least, without many of these posessions, some of them luxuries of modern living?
The answer to that is most likely subjective. Personally, I'm not sure, but I find it difficult to imagine living without some of the conveniences I currently rely upon.

[cryokinetic]

And I believe population control is necessary, from a wholly materialistic point of view. We are using up resources, available space and the biosphere in an exponentially rising amount. We can either do something about it ourselves, or it will all come crashing down, very likely still in our lifetimes. I just hope that if and when it happens, it'll be the mushroom cloud that takes me and not famine, or an epidemic. (either natural or man-made)

This more or less sums up my worries about the issue.
The problem lies in dealing with overpopulation without violating freedom. People should be allowed to procreate (it's not like we're going to stop them anyway). China's limitation on the number of children a family may have is probably the closest we have come to a soultion... but slaying little girls because there's no one to carry down the family name (among other reasons) is unacceptable.

I honestly think that competition for resources will flare up during my lifetime... the most optimistic I can be is to hope to live out my later years in a remote area, far from the conflicts.

[illusivemind]

What do you consider a meaningful and fulfilling life?

A life lived by someone who has found (created) meaning in what they do.


Personally, I consider material success meaningful, yes. By which I mean that I'd rather have money and possessions than be poor. Whether material success is "meaningful" in some abstract or objective sense does not concern me.

There isn’t a whole lot of meaning in desiring x because y is unpalatable, but if that is enough for you then your march towards material success is not vacuous to you, though it may appear so to others. Thus we live in a society where a person is rewarded even if their only drive, passion, understanding is avoiding being poor.


Why is that?
I have ten thousand dollars.
I have ten thousand bananas.
I have ten thousand Ferraris.

Each of things in of themselves are as meaningful as one another. And they are all as meaningful as:

I do not have ten thousand things.

It is only given a context that any of these things can have meaning, let alone meanings that diverge from one another.

[illusivemind]

This more or less sums up my worries about the issue.
The problem lies in dealing with overpopulation without violating freedom. People should be allowed to procreate (it's not like we're going to stop them anyway). China's limitation on the number of children a family may have is probably the closest we have come to a soultion... but slaying little girls because there's no one to carry down the family name (among other reasons) is unacceptable.

I honestly think that competition for resources will flare up during my lifetime... the most optimistic I can be is to hope to live out my later years in a remote area, far from the conflicts.

I agree the exhaustation of finite resources is a problem. I think the solution involves using less finite resources and more renewable resources, not in killing people (or potential people) so I and my other top ten percent mates can continue pissing away ninety percent of the resources.

[cryokinetic]

I agree the exhaustation of finite resources is a problem. I think the solution involves using less finite resources and more renewable resources, not in killing people (or potential people) so I and my other top ten percent mates can continue pissing away ninety percent of the resources.
The only problem with using renewable resources is that you still consume a good deal on non renewable ones while processing them.

[Nighthawk]

I honestly think that competition for resources will flare up during my lifetime... the most optimistic I can be is to hope to live out my later years in a remote area, far from the conflicts.Sorry for the shithole my generation has left you with.

[DevRock]

I honestly think that competition for resources will flare up during my lifetime... the most optimistic I can be is to hope to live out my later years in a remote area, far from the conflicts.

I feel the exact same way. Hell, we already fight the world over oil and next will be water. With 6 billion people - and climbing rapidly - and certain counties (like the US and China) gobbling up every available resource at a frightening rate, I don't see how we can continue without something catastrophic happening. (I picture putting too many bees in a small jar).

I would love to be around 1,000 years from now and see how this generation and the next few will be looked upon (if there's anyone left in 1,000 years....). :shock:

[Nighthawk]

The only problem with using renewable resources is that you still consume a good deal on non renewable ones while processing them.... and therein lies the rub. If it takes more (or nearly as much) energy to remove oil from shale than the extracted oil itself will produce, then there is no use extracting it. All that oil is the effectively inaccessible to us. Just an example.

[cjs55]

There is no reason for so many people to be on the planet. It devalues human life. Did anyone here care when the tsunami hit? Nah. Natural disasters are not disheartening becuase of death count, they scare people because they symbolically represent human weakness, fluidity, and the power of the world which spawned them.

Both conservation and population control should be idealogical models for the masses to follow. You don't have to force it if you can convince people it's right. Just like you don't have to force abortions if you can convince people that breeding retarded people is total waste of emotional and material effort.


y, for example, that I'm a thief who derives immense pleasure from the illegal acquisition of material possessions.

This isn't having things just to have them. This is specifically wanting to illegally aquire them. There is a difference. You could say legal aquisition of items could be put in the same boat, but then you are playing by the rules of society, that is, not creating meaning for yourself but instead swallowing what you are told to swallow. The person who finds meaning in illegally aquiring possessions is actually working in opposition to society when it comes to the means, but agrees with them in the end. So I suppose the difference between the two is not all that great.


Another thought I just had on the matter: It's not possible for someone to independently come up with some value system which mirrors societies. You can't be creative in defining meaning and also use material posessions as the guage of your worth in life. It is impossible. You can't create what you've already been given.

This is all gibberish...for that I apologize...

[Rajah]

There is no reason for so many people to be on the planet. It devalues human life.How?

Did anyone here care when the tsunami hit? Nah. Natural disasters are not disheartening becuase of death count, they scare people because they symbolically represent human weakness, fluidity, and the power of the world which spawned them.That's an awfully broad (and wrong) statement. I care. And not just because of my "symbolic weakness," but because of the death toll, pure and simple.

Both conservation and population control should be idealogical models for the masses to follow.Why? I've certainly seen sources suggesting that "conservation" is attempting to fix a problem that isn't actually there. Further, I'm suspicious of any "ideological model" someone tells me I need to follow.

Just like you don't have to force abortions if you can convince people that breeding retarded people is total waste of emotional and material effort.Are you kidding me? Did you seriously just say "breeding retarded people"?

It's not possible for someone to independently come up with some value system which mirrors societies. You can't be creative in defining meaning and also use material posessions as the guage of your worth in life. It is impossible. You can't create what you've already been given.Let me see if I have this right. You assume that society always values the acquisition of material goods. Because society values this, I can't possibly come up with an independent system that values the acquisition of material goods because (1) my system reflects society's already-existing values, and therefore (2) it is not creative. First, who says "society" always values the acquisition of material goods? Maybe a capitalist society... but even then that's a broad statement. And second, why must my value system be by definition "not creative" just because it assigns value to something society values? Logically, then, no "value system" could ever be "creative" (whatever that means) because it to some extent is derived from external factors. Plus, this assumes that a value system consists of one thing, not many components -- for example, I may adhere to some of society's values but reject others. Finally, I don't really think you can broadly discuss society's "value system." Our society comes to consensus with respect to certain values (i.e. premeditated murder is generally bad) and not others (should forced abortion be mandated). I just don't think you can support the breadth of the statements you made. Naturally, I invite you to correct my interpretation of what you said.

[floyd]

a comedian who grew up in a latin american family opined that many families in his culture treat kids like lottery tickets, if you have enough of them one is bound to hit. do you think his assertion is innaccurate? is there anything wrong with having as many kids as you can regardless of their welfare? do you think that poor people that have kids in a famine area, for example, are acting with any premeditation or thought about consequences and consideration for what their child will face. is abortion worse than starving to death? when is the predictable suffering for children enough for some people to embrace more thoughtful reproduction.

remember, this is an open ended discussion, no need to jump to conclusions about things. you can certainly think people who can't support children (or themselves) should not have them, while still thinking any system that would limit reproduction is too dangerous... i.e. you don't have to take a black or white position on this subject.

[coffeezombie]

a comedian who grew up in a latin american family opined that many families in his culture treat kids like lottery tickets, if you have enough of them one is bound to hit. do you think his assertion is innaccurate? is there anything wrong with having as many kids as you can regardless of their welfare? do you think that poor people that have kids in a famine area, for example, are acting with any premeditation or thought about consequences and consideration for what their child will face. is abortion worse than starving to death? when is the predictable suffering for children enough for some people to embrace more thoughtful reproduction.

Most animals act like this. Why is it necessarily worse if humans do so as well?

[DevRock]

Most animals act like this. Why is it necessarily worse if humans do so as well?

Well, one reason would be the enormous amount of resources we use up (wastefully) as compared to ANY animal.

[coffeezombie]

Well, one reason would be the enormous amount of resources we use up (wastefully) as compared to ANY animal.
That's true. I was thinking more of primitive cultures, acting in such a way because they might have wars or plagues kill off most of their kids. There might be more of a problem with such behavior when it happens in the heavily consumerized industrial world.

[SensEye]

Most animals act like this. Why is it necessarily worse if humans do so as well?Because animals are driven by instinct. They don't know any better. Humans should.

Also, I've never seen a live aid concert to prop up an over population of say, wildebeasts. Most people just observe the die off with a shrug and say it's nature taking it's course.

[Sue Denim]

We may or may not currently be at the practical population limits, but 1) population is definitely growing, and 2) this is a world of finite resources. It is inevitable that unless something changes, we will hit limits on resources, and I don't see how that can be a good thing. When you consider that even radical changes in birth rates take a very long time to take effect (decades), it strikes me that doing something sooner would be much better than doing something after we have more clearly reached the limits.

I tend to think that Liebig's Law is a good starting point as it applies to population limits:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebig%27s_Law

Liebig's Law of the Minimum, often simply called Liebig's Law or the Law of the Minimum, is a principle developed in agricultural science by Justus von Liebig. It states that growth is controlled not by the total of resources available, but by the scarcest resource. This concept was originally applied to plant or crop growth, where it was found that increasing the amount of plentiful nutrients did not increase plant growth. Only by increasing the amount of the limiting nutrient (the one most scarce in relation to "need") was the growth of a plant or crop improved.

Liebig's Law has been extended to biological populations. For example, the growth of a biological population may not be limited by the total amount of resources available throughout the year, but by the minimum amount of resources available to that population at the time of year of greatest scarcity. That is, the growth of a population of animals might depend not on how much food is available in summer, but on how much food is available in winter.

I think we've hit some practical population limits in some places. Places like Ethiopia and Niger seem to be examples of limits being reached in particular areas. Even where aid is brought in to mitigate the effects, I think that (over)population is definitely a contribing factor to the suffering and loss of life.

I also think this essay, titled "Nobody Dies of Overpopulation" by Garrett Hardin, is interesting and relevant:
http://www.mnforsustain.org/hardin_g_nobody_dies_of_overpopulation.htm

Garrett Hardin also makes some interesting points in his article titled "The Tragedy of the Commons", whether or not you agree with his 'solution'. In either case, I think it's certainly worth considering if you're going to discuss the possibility of controls on population.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/162/3859/1243

I fear putting decisions about reproductive rights into the hands of government. But I fear the effect of overpopulation as well. No balanced approach that I can see is without compromise, unfortunately.

[cjs55]

How?

Imagine you were one of the last 16 people on earth. Every time one of them died, it would be an important event for the human species, as there are only 15 left. Getting close to extinction and all that.

The more human beings, the less important one of them is to the species as a whole. Now I'm not saying we should keep less than 100 human beings on the planet just so we can all feel important. I think however that human life has become cheap, expendable, and frankly useless because of the quantity over quality approach the current ideology dictates. In my horribly biased opinion, quality of life should be more important than just making sure everyone lives. This is one reason I disagree with the current ideology regarding extremely retarded or disfigured children being born.

I would ask...why should we have 6 billion people on the planet? What is the benefit to either humanity as a whole or the planets natural system as a whole? What would be lost if we cut the number down to 100 million? What would be gained? (Please assume it was done via voluntary population control over generations, for the sake of non-thread derailment)


That's an awfully broad (and wrong) statement. I care. And not just because of my "symbolic weakness," but because of the death toll, pure and simple.

Someone dies or is in pain somewhere in the world every second. Are you in a constant state of caring for these people who die/are in pain? If you really care about those people (who you never knew) who died in the tsunami, why not care about people who die from other causes as well? Surely you must spend all day thinking about all of these poor dying people that you have never met.

You may wish to alleviate suffering, and think to yourself 'how sad for those people', but you can't tell me you have the same emotional reaction towards people who die that you did not know, and people who die that you did. You imagine yourself losing friends or loved ones, imagine that others feel that pain, and feel empathy for them. You yourself do not feel the pain.


Why? I've certainly seen sources suggesting that "conservation" is attempting to fix a problem that isn't actually there. Further, I'm suspicious of any "ideological model" someone tells me I need to follow.

I'm glad you are suspicious, but the perpetuators of ideology do so without actually -telling- anyone to do anything, so it is a moot point. If you can see through the manipulation, you're not who I'm talking about when I say 'the masses'.

As far as conservation not being necessary, I think it is fairly obvious that this is a world of finite resources. How much conservation is necessary is obviously up for debate, but the current belief that we can consume as much as we want is unhealthy spiritually, and illogical especially if population continues to grow.


Let me see if I have this right. You assume that society always values the acquisition of material goods. Because society values this, I can't possibly come up with an independent system that values the acquisition of material goods because (1) my system reflects society's already-existing values, and therefore (2) it is not creative. First, who says "society" always values the acquisition of material goods? Maybe a capitalist society... but even then that's a broad statement.

Our society certainly values the acqusition of posessions as a grounds for value, a way of saying I'm more successful than someone with less stuff. Success is a term which depends on a value-structure to give it meaning. For instance, to be successful in a fascist state is to serve the state best as you can. To be successful in extreme islam is to martyr ones self for allah.


And second, why must my value system be by definition "not creative" just because it assigns value to something society values? Logically, then, no "value system" could ever be "creative" (whatever that means) because it to some extent is derived from external factors.

Creative means a value-system created by the person instead of taken from society (Whether or not [or how] this is possible is certainly an interesting argument). My argument is that once a value-system is taken from society, it is impossible to justify it with a personalized (creative) view. This argument is an example of my intuition outpacing my thinking...I'm not sure I'm right, it just sort of struck me as I was typing.


Plus, this assumes that a value system consists of one thing, not many components -- for example, I may adhere to some of society's values but reject others. Finally, I don't really think you can broadly discuss society's "value system." Our society comes to consensus with respect to certain values (i.e. premeditated murder is generally bad) and not others (should forced abortion be mandated). I just don't think you can support the breadth of the statements you made. Naturally, I invite you to correct my interpretation of what you said.

I disagree. I think there are value systems extremely well defined in society currently. However, there are two seperate camps which may cause alot of conflict: Secular Humanist liberalism opposed with puritan ethos/capitalism.

These are the 2 mainstream societal value systems (at least that I can see) at the moment, and they are fairly easy to dissect at least at the level of concept. As far as your examples go...1) All societies come to the conclusion that murder is usually bad because random murders would cause the downfall of the society. 2) I don't think anyone believes in forcing abortion except for extremists...

[Rajah]

In my horribly biased opinion, quality of life should be more important than just making sure everyone lives.I appreciate you admitting your opinion is horribly biased.


I would ask...why should we have 6 billion people on the planet?I would ask, why not? Why does it have to be 6 billion bad, 100 million magically good? Again, I don't see where you're going with this.


(Please assume it was done via voluntary population control over generations, for the sake of non-thread derailment)Duly noted. My questions remain.


Someone dies or is in pain somewhere in the world every second. Are you in a constant state of caring for these people who die/are in pain? If you really care about those people (who you never knew) who died in the tsunami, why not care about people who die from other causes as well? Surely you must spend all day thinking about all of these poor dying people that you have never met.

You may wish to alleviate suffering, and think to yourself 'how sad for those people', but you can't tell me you have the same emotional reaction towards people who die that you did not know, and people who die that you did. You imagine yourself losing friends or loved ones, imagine that others feel that pain, and feel empathy for them. You yourself do not feel the pain.I believe all I said was that I cared about the tsunami because the death toll was high. Period. I never claimed to dwell on each individual life (and in fact, did not and could not because the toll was so freaking high). Please refrain from putting words in my mouth. I agree with you that I, in fact, do not have the "same emotional reaction towards people who die that I did not know, and people who die that I did." I never said otherwise. That does not mean that in specific instances, I don't feel the pain of a stranger's death. In fact, I cried more over a death I saw on TV in New Orleans than I ever did over my own grandfather (which was not at all). It's a case by case scenario.


As far as conservation not being necessary, I think it is fairly obvious that this is a world of finite resources.It is? Seems to me many of our resources are renewable. And when it comes down to an energy crisis, we'll pony up the cash we're hoarding to make those resources available and useable.


Creative means a value-system created by the person instead of taken from society (Whether or not [or how] this is possible is certainly an interesting argument). My argument is that once a value-system is taken from society, it is impossible to justify it with a personalized (creative) view. This argument is an example of my intuition outpacing my thinking...I'm not sure I'm right, it just sort of struck me as I was typing.Again, I see a quandary. Your logic dictates not only that a value system could never be creative, but nothing at all could ever be creative. Anything I believe that rests on external factors is by your definition not creative.


I disagree. I think there are value systems extremely well defined in society currently. However, there are two seperate camps which may cause alot of conflict: Secular Humanist liberalism opposed with puritan ethos/capitalism.Your idea of "value systems" appears to rest on two things: (1) each society can only have one set of defined values; and (2) you cannot deviate from this set. Then you hit problems such as saying that things apply to "the masses." Is there only one "the masses" (apparently not; you admit that there are at least "two separate camps"). What is a "mass" -- how do you split up "societies" to look at their value systems? Are there value systems within each society's value systems? Purely because these questions exist, I don't think you can say that there are "extremely well defined" value systems, period.


As far as your examples go...1) All societies come to the conclusion that murder is usually bad because random murders would cause the downfall of the society. 2) I don't think anyone believes in forcing abortion except for extremists...I should have been clearer with the "random" murders point. As for point 2, we're back to the China example already raised on the board.

[Synaptic Ether]

People should always have the right to be stupid, and in a perfect world the stupid would have the opportunity to learn from their errors of judgment on their own. Through experience. If such experience means hardship then that is a lesson the person would need.

[cryokinetic]

People should always have the right to be stupid, and in a perfect world the stupid would have the opportunity to learn from their errors of judgment on their own. Through experience. If such experience means hardship then that is a lesson the person would need.

But that lesson will put me and everyone else I know (and billions of others I don't) through hardship as well...

What about my rights?

[meshou]

But that lesson will put me and everyone else I know (and billions of others I don't) through hardship as well...

What about my rights?Well, when it comes down to it, your existance puts everyone you have ever met through some sort of inconvienince at some point.

So I think no one is entitled to not being inconvienced. Fuck, no one has the right to be exempt from a horrible, painful death, let alone not to be annoyed, fucked over, or having said horrible death be human error. I think suffering stupidity is often a mere itch compared to "Everyone I love will eventually be dead in my lifetime-- and that's if I am lucky."

And when it comes down to it, while stupidity is rampant, incompetence is surprisingly rare. We're in an SJ world. SJs aren't real forgiving or error, being effecient, non-clumsy, hardworking people.

[Synaptic Ether]

cryo, freedom does have its responsibilites. we can't just exterminate everyone that annoys us--sometimes the lessons are ours to learn.

[Nighthawk]

But that lesson will put me and everyone else I know (and billions of others I don't) through hardship as well...

What about my rights?Yep ... life sucks. I've been paying for other peoples' mistakes (in addition to my own) for most of my adult life. Try as I might, I have not found a good way to insulate myself from this problem. Pain seems to have a way of spreading itself around, and consequences of actions bleed over a lot. It's a messy world.

[floyd]

for those who would not want to limit people having kids at all... are you against cloning? or genetically engineered children? if so, why? if you think people should be able to have kids regardless of if they can feed them or regardless of genetic defects (because people should be free to be stupid, regardless of the welfare of the kids or society), why limit cloning or genetic engineering. at more than one point in our evolutionary line (from one celled organisms to humans) we likely reproduced asexually (in other words differently than we do now). cloning or genetic engineering is just a newer/different way to reproduce. if you would limit that, but not the form of reproduction you are familiar with, i have to wonder whether your objections are about conventionalism, narrowmindedness rather than well reasoned thought.

[kendoiwan]

for those who would not want to limit people having kids at all... are you against cloning? or genetically engineered children? if so, why? if you think people should be able to have kids regardless of if they can feed them or regardless of genetic defects (because people should be free to be stupid, regardless of the welfare of the kids), why limit cloning or genetic engineering. at more than one point in our evolutionary line (from one celled organisms to humans) we likely reproduced asexually (in other words differently than we do now). cloning or genetic engineering is just a newer way to reproduce. if you would limit that, but not the form of reproduction you are familiar with, i have to wonder whether your objections are about conventionalism, narrowmindedness rather than well reasoned thought.


I have reservations about cloning. These are based on my questions which I don't like the probable answer. Who would do the cloning? Who would monitor them? How would we safe guard against experimentation? What's to stop someone who can afford it from cloning themselves into an army? What's to stop someone from tampering with the cloned child? I mean the current system sucks but at least you don't have a potential horror movie on your hands... So partially "narrow mindedness" as you put it (I call it reasonable fear and caution), and partially reasoned thought.

[Synaptic Ether]

Sure cloning should be legal. Even if it isn't, people will do it anyway--there is always a way to get around laws, especially if you can afford it. The best way to keep it from becoming a tool only of those that would abuse their power is to make it accessible to anyone.

If the clones don't like it they can say so themselves. How else to know unless it happens?

It is humorous though, in its complete non-necessity. Cloning that is.

Genetic engineering, for the purposes of preventing diseases is a conscious effort at what we instinctively do already when choosing a lover. It would be interesting to see how sex appeal might change after we can preemptively eliminate disease through genetic engineering.

[Rajah]

for those who would not want to limit people having kids at all... are you against cloning? or genetically engineered children? if so, why? if you think people should be able to have kids regardless of if they can feed them or regardless of genetic defects (because people should be free to be stupid, regardless of the welfare of the kids or society), why limit cloning or genetic engineering. at more than one point in our evolutionary line (from one celled organisms to humans) we likely reproduced asexually (in other words differently than we do now). cloning or genetic engineering is just a newer/different way to reproduce. if you would limit that, but not the form of reproduction you are familiar with, i have to wonder whether your objections are about conventionalism, narrowmindedness rather than well reasoned thought.You're forcing two issues to correlate, which don't.

My central arguments against limiting a person's right to reproduce (and the arguments of many others in this thread) are based on a desire to avoid governmentally-imposed limitations in this arena. I distrust this concept of governmental intrusion, and I simply see too many problems with the inception of such a program. Further, I think there is an inherent right to reproductive freedom that such a program necessarily curtails.

My arguments against cloning are based purely on the difficulties in creating and monitoring such a program so as to maintain safeguards (I concur with kendoiwan's reservations).

Thus, I don't think the two ideas are necessarily related. You can have well-reasoned arguments against both, based on fundamentally different principles.

[SensEye]

My central arguments against limiting a person's right to reproduce (and the arguments of many others in this thread) are based on a desire to avoid governmentally-imposed limitations in this arena. I distrust this concept of governmental intrusion, and I simply see too many problems with the inception of such a program. Further, I think there is an inherent right to reproductive freedom that such a program necessarily curtails.
Concerns about government ineptitude/corruption are valid. However, if we are to evolve as a society we simply have to move forward. Some small steps, like my aforementioned minimum age restriction, should be worked towards.

I don't agree that unrestrained reproductive freedom is an inherent right. The world/ecosystem has finite resources and you and your offspring are only entitled to a fair share.

[Synaptic Ether]

Perhaps educating in this way would be better than enforcing limited family sizes. In Western culture in the US anyway, the meme is out there and going strong...more than 2 or 3 kids is Old World, Catholic, Mormon or Welfare Mom. TV families give the citizens 'norms'.

Most of the people having numerous children when they cannot afford them by our standards are from other cultures. In other cultures crass consumerism is not the central theme of relation. Poverty means something entirely different to people in other cultures. Maybe this is something worth considering?

Not to say there is a right way and a wrong way, but other people have different views about what a good life is and what a good life isn't. I think everyone ought to have absolute freedom to live their lives as they personally will their lives to be. It would be nothing but intolerant zealotry to enforce our cultural views on other cultures.

I don't think it is the place of the childless to have any say whatever about family sizes. We can control our own lives, when we've accomplished that to perfection then perhaps we will have room to judge others.

[Rajah]

I don't agree that unrestrained reproductive freedom is an inherent right. The world/ecosystem has finite resources and you and your offspring are only entitled to a fair share.Ahhh. So my reproductive rights (and what some would argue is a biological need to bear offspring) should be constrained by the world's population limits. And I'm back to square one. Why? You're going to have to prove to me that: (1) the world/ecosystem has finite resources; (2) the world's resources cannot support current population growth; (3) any "limitations" of the world's resources could be curbed or cured by limiting population; and (4) there are no other ways to either develop new resources to support a growing population or extend the resources we have. Even if you could prove all of these things, you'd still have to show me that they (combined) outweigh my rights.

It seems that the underlying (and alarmist) theory undercutting the cry for population control is that we'll have a overpopulation crisis and our kids shouldn't be put through hell becasue we didn't take steps to limit population growth. This, of course, assumes that (1) people have a right to live in a comfortable environment free from the ravages of overpopulation, and (2) that a population "explosion" won't be reined in by natural forces.

Again, I think there are just too many civil liberties issues, as well as issues implementing, maintaining and moderating a population "control" program, to effectuate such a program.

[cryokinetic]

cryo, freedom does have its responsibilites. we can't just exterminate everyone that annoys us--sometimes the lessons are ours to learn.
I'm not talking about minor inconveniences such as having to sit in traffic for hours because there are too damn many people in the Dallas area.

I'm thinking abut this on a species-wide (if not global) scale. My problem is with the massive overconsumption of resources.
Any lessons we as a species learn from making the mistake of consuming too damn many resources will be pointless. By the time we've used up enough of said resources to realize our fuckup... it won't matter.

Edit: Spelling

[Synaptic Ether]

massive overconsumption of resources

Therein lies the problem. Overpopulation might contribute to overconsumption, but it needn't. Consider this:

A family in the Australian Outback has 10 children, none of the family members drives a car or eats red meat on a frequent basis. They have a garden and grow many of their own vegetables, which they preserve for later use. The children ride bicyles to the nearest school, other family members walk into the nearest town, purchasing only supplies they actually need. The family's father is a carpenter, the mother an artist.

Compare with:

Male American college fraternity member eats 5 Big Macs a day, as well as about a gallon of Mtn Dew and more than a 12 pack of beer and drives a Hummer to and from campus (less than 1/8 mile away) as well as to and from sporting events, concert venues, and of course, the mall. Student proceeds to consume massive amounts on a daily basis, spending money and acquiring things as a means of entertainment, and producing waste in accordance.

Do you think the fraternity member ought to be able to decide for the Australian family what is and what is not a reasonable use of resources?

Americans consume more of the worlds resources than the population of any other country, regardless of the family sizes in those countries. The problem is not that a family in the Amazon has 9 children. The problem is that we ourselves are consuming too many resources on an individual basis.

[cryokinetic]

massive overconsumption of resources

Therein lies the problem. Overpopulation might contribute to overconsumption, but it needn't. Consider this:

A family in the Australian Outback has 10 children, none of the family members drives a car or eats red meat on a frequent basis. They have a garden and grow many of their own vegetables, which they preserve for later use. The children ride bicyles to the nearest school, other family members walk into the nearest town, purchasing only supplies they actually need. The family's father is a carpenter, the mother an artist.

Compare with:

Male American college fraternity member eats 5 Big Macs a day, as well as about a gallon of Mtn Dew and more than a 12 pack of beer and drives a Hummer to and from campus (less than 1/8 mile away) as well as to and from sporting events, concert venues, and of course, the mall. Student proceeds to consume massive amounts on a daily basis, spending money and acquiring things as a means of entertainment, and producing waste in accordance.

Do you think the fraternity member ought to be able to decide for the Australian family what is and what is not a reasonable use of resources?

Americans consume more of the worlds resources than the population of any other country, regardless of the family sizes in those countries. The problem is not that a family in the Amazon has 9 children. The problem is that we ourselves are consuming too many resources on an individual basis.

I agree with you whole heartedly.
The problem is a combination of individual american consumption and massive overpopulation of otehr industiralized countries. The third world countries and co are not a major problem when it comes to resources.

[eyebyte_atWork]

massive overconsumption of resources

Therein lies the problem. Overpopulation might contribute to overconsumption, but it needn't. Consider this:

A family in the Australian Outback has 10 children, none of the family members drives a car or eats red meat on a frequent basis. They have a garden and grow many of their own vegetables, which they preserve for later use. The children ride bicyles to the nearest school, other family members walk into the nearest town, purchasing only supplies they actually need. The family's father is a carpenter, the mother an artist.

Compare with:

Male American college fraternity member eats 5 Big Macs a day, as well as about a gallon of Mtn Dew and more than a 12 pack of beer and drives a Hummer to and from campus (less than 1/8 mile away) as well as to and from sporting events, concert venues, and of course, the mall. Student proceeds to consume massive amounts on a daily basis, spending money and acquiring things as a means of entertainment, and producing waste in accordance.

Do you think the fraternity member ought to be able to decide for the Australian family what is and what is not a reasonable use of resources?

Americans consume more of the worlds resources than the population of any other country, regardless of the family sizes in those countries. The problem is not that a family in the Amazon has 9 children. The problem is that we ourselves are consuming too many resources on an individual basis.

You also do not have enough land in larger cities to support a life style change as far as food - but changes can still be made.

I am big on public transportation - trains, subways, and would like to see inter city speed trains in wider use. (I'd like to see a bullet train between Houston and Dallas - about 392 miles distance from eachother)

With proper planning today;s cities can be converted to a more efficient use of resources - not everyone needs a car. Homes could be more efficiently built - and longer lasting. The whole city's infrastructure could be made more co-operative and efficient.

I could go into example - but I think we all agree on these points.

[Claverhouse]

This is lapsing into stereotype --- which method is not to be despised since stereotypes often may embody a truth --- I'm sure millions of Americans lead highly ascetic lives of great purity; particularly those without much money. The Third World will become a major consumer of resources as soon as their economies gear up to the encouraged model ( I'd encourage them to go back living as they did before the developed countries found them, myself ), just as China is now swallowing all the iron and oil they can get. Should the growing populations all desire the benefits of modern society, they'll run out pretty damn quick.

That student will also not be a problem for long if he mixes the Mountain Dew and the beer before driving the hummer.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Synaptic Ether]

China already has a delightful population control program--it hasn't stopped the resource consumption.

I think it would be great if Americans could learn to entertain themselves, and to have seasonal celebrations that didn't revolve around buying things. I think it would be great if Americans could find self worth in themselves rather than in their possessions.

[illusivemind]

massive overconsumption of resources

Therein lies the problem. Overpopulation might contribute to overconsumption, but it needn't. Consider this:

A family in the Australian Outback has 10 children, none of the family members drives a car or eats red meat on a frequent basis. They have a garden and grow many of their own vegetables, which they preserve for later use. The children ride bicyles to the nearest school, other family members walk into the nearest town, purchasing only supplies they actually need. The family's father is a carpenter, the mother an artist.

Compare with:

Male American college fraternity member eats 5 Big Macs a day, as well as about a gallon of Mtn Dew and more than a 12 pack of beer and drives a Hummer to and from campus (less than 1/8 mile away) as well as to and from sporting events, concert venues, and of course, the mall. Student proceeds to consume massive amounts on a daily basis, spending money and acquiring things as a means of entertainment, and producing waste in accordance.

Do you think the fraternity member ought to be able to decide for the Australian family what is and what is not a reasonable use of resources?

Americans consume more of the worlds resources than the population of any other country, regardless of the family sizes in those countries. The problem is not that a family in the Amazon has 9 children. The problem is that we ourselves are consuming too many resources on an individual basis.

I agree.


I agree with you whole heartedly.
The problem is a combination of individual american consumption and massive overpopulation of otehr industiralized countries. The third world countries and co are not a major problem when it comes to resources

Which countries are you talking about exactly?

How about we exterminate everyone over 65. They are generally retired, not contributing many resources and suck up resources from welfare and the health system.

Also regulate taxes via an ecological footprint. Everyone is allocated a particular size footprint and have to pay a percentage in taxes for each sq ft they go over their allocation. So if someone wants to drive a hummer and have three holiday houses, that’s fine but they’ll have to pay dearly for it. The same principle can apply to corporations and yes-even nations.

[SensEye]

This, of course, assumes that (1) people have a right to live in a comfortable environment free from the ravages of overpopulation, and (2) that a population "explosion" won't be reined in by natural forces.
It's not a 'right' to live in a comfortable environment but it's pretty stupid not to.

I would be curious to know why you think life is better with unrestrained breeding. Is it really all that important to see just how many people we can stuff on this planet before a catastrophy strikes?

You seem to completely ignore that society (the government if you will) places all sorts of restrictions on your rights and freedoms today. You can't vote/drink/drive/marry/legally have sex until a certain age. Do you rage against these policies? Is reproduction really so different that it must remain sacrosanct? Why?

[Trystorp]

A side note:

I'll be the requisite pedantic and recommend Jared Diamond's latest book "Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed". In it he illustrates how societies who fail to adapt to their environments inevitably destroy themselves. Population explosion and overuse of land is looked at particularly in reference to the genocide in Rwanda and Burundi, where Hutus weren't just killing Tutsis but also other Hutus. He argues that the natural forces that rein in population explosions are often war, famine and genocide.

New Yorker Review (http://www.newyorker.com/critics/books/?050103crbo_books)

[illusivemind]

It's not a 'right' to live in a comfortable environment but it's pretty stupid not to.

I would be curious to know why you think life is better with unrestrained breeding. Is it really all that important to see just how many people we can stuff on this planet before a catastrophy strikes?

You seem to completely ignore that society (the government if you will) places all sorts of restrictions on your rights and freedoms today. You can't vote/drink/drive/marry/legally have sex until a certain age. Do you rage against these policies? Is reproduction really so different that it must remain sacrosanct? Why?

I don't directly endanger other people's lives by becoming pregnant. The test for the restriction on liberty is to give everyone that amount of freedom that they don't violate anyone else's freedom. Giving you the freedom to drive unrestricted, have sex and marry seven year olds president comprimises the liberties of others.

[meshou]

It's not a 'right' to live in a comfortable environment but it's pretty stupid not to.

I would be curious to know why you think life is better with unrestrained breeding. Is it really all that important to see just how many people we can stuff on this planet before a catastrophy strikes? I do.

We are either animals or we are not, and will follow the same rules.

Population growth is slowing, and has all but haulted in most first world countries, excluding the US (which is far from overpopulated). And even ours is falling fast.

In fact, there's a large problem in some countries that the economy relies on a large work force, and that work force is rapidly aging, and will eventually retire or die.

Article. (http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~anthro/courses/361/wattenberg.html)

In the case of animals, when the population comes close to running out of room and resources, the population naturally reaches equlibrium with their surroundings. That is, even if someone does have three beach houses, all that means is fewer children will be born because of it-- only so many resources to go around.

People have not gotten smarter, and yet this appears to be naturally happening around the world. We're animals. We adjust.


You seem to completely ignore that society (the government if you will) places all sorts of restrictions on your rights and freedoms today. You can't vote/drink/drive/marry/legally have sex until a certain age. Do you rage against these policies? Is reproduction really so different that it must remain sacrosanct? Why?All right, I can see a mandatory age for reproduction if there is a pressing immediate need (which, as I showed earlier, there is not; the birthrate is falling all on its lonesome). But unless it is a matter of immediate life and death, I would rather err on the side of choice.

I do rail against a drinking age, drug laws, and restrictions on the rights for a teenager to control what goes into (or out of) their body. I feel the right to privacy is regularly violated by the government whenever it damn well pleases, and it appauls me. All these restrictions lead to violence, humiliation, a culture where children are drawn to dangerous taboo, and the violent imposing of morals and even personality on those individuals.

When the decision to restrict choice is made, I feel that it must be treated as a brutal and drastic decision, as when it is a mistake to do so, it nearly always has brutal and dehumanizing concequences.

How would it be enforced? Forced abortions, incarceration if you don't take your pill, forced vacetomies and uterectomies for those unsuitable for reproduction, or just make sure the brand new underclass is abstinent-- cut it out and stitch it shut, and cauterize the blood vessils that get a dude up. Abstinence is, after all, the only 100% garaunteed way of not concieving a child, and so much easier than just putting people in prision for twenty years.

Hey, we should do it when they're children, decide they'll never amount to anything worth reproducing then. Much less traumatizing, we don't lose them to the work force, and by the time they grow up, it'll be an accepted cultural norm. Plus, they can't protest if they're three, right?

A dictatorship dystopia is so much better than an overpopulation one.

[sbw]

I don't directly endanger other people's lives by becoming pregnant. The test for the restriction on liberty is to give everyone that amount of freedom that they don't violate anyone else's freedom. Giving you the freedom to drive unrestricted, have sex and marry seven year olds president comprimises the liberties of others.

yes, but recreational drug use in the privacy of one's home harms no-one, and not wearing a seatbelt harms no-one but possibly yourself. I hope you don't believe that the "test for the restriction on liberty" described is actually the one used here in america.

Scott

[sbw]

I do rail against a drinking age, drug laws, and restrictions on the rights for a teenager to control what goes into (or out of) their body. I feel the right to privacy is regularly violated by the government whenever it damn well pleases, and it appauls [sic] me. All these restrictions lead to violence, humiliation, a culture where children are drawn to dangerous taboo, and the violent imposing of morals and even personality on those individuals.


*swoons*

Scott

[illusivemind]

yes, but recreational drug use in the privacy of one's home harms no-one, and not wearing a seatbelt harms no-one but possibly yourself. I hope you don't believe that the "test for the restriction on liberty" described is actually the one used here in america.

Scott

Y'know what, you're right. How stupid of me. America is an exemplar to the world on how a society should be. How could I think that any ideals at work in a political system could not already be at work in the US of A. You invented the Liberal Democracy right? Declaration of Human Rights, that was yours too? Red Cross? The policy of pre-emption?

Because shitty drivers who don't wear seatbelts are always only driving alone, they never kill their own families do they? And busting down doors and hauling a guy smoking dope off to jail as really done wonders to decrease crime and save lives.

When thinking about an ideal society I sure as shit hope your mind moves beyond "here in america".

[illusivemind]

How would it be enforced? Forced abortions, incarceration if you don't take your pill, forced vacetomies and uterectomies for those unsuitable for reproduction, or just make sure the brand new underclass is abstinent-- cut it out and stitch it shut, and cauterize the blood vessils that get a dude up. Abstinence is, after all, the only 100% garaunteed way of not concieving a child, and so much easier than just putting people in prision for twenty years.



Hey meshou, guys don't have babies, women do. So they're no point castrating the men we'll just abort the foetuses that cut out the uteri of the 'undesirable women'. Then we can have safe guilt-free sex.

I'm a man, so it's ok for me to prescribe abortions and punitive methods of restricting births. After all, it's not men's fault the world is populated with people who should be shot. Women are the sexual selectors, they're suppose to weed out the scum, and when they don't, they don't take 'personal responsibility' and 'do the right thing' by flushing that potential Frankenstein down a toilet somewhere.

I mean, what a better way to build the pillars of a better and 'pure' society than on a foundation of blood of the unborn?

[Synaptic Ether]

It would be more efficient to sterilize the men. One man can impregnate several women within the space of 9 months. And men are more likely to want to try to do that. Women have that 9 month mandatory waiting period between births.

[illusivemind]

It would be more efficient to sterilize the men. One man can impregnate several women within the space of 9 months. And men are more likely to want to try to do that. Women have that 9 month mandatory waiting period between births.

Wow. :blink:

[Rajah]

I would be curious to know why you think life is better with unrestrained breeding. Is it really all that important to see just how many people we can stuff on this planet before a catastrophy strikes?I couldn't say it better than meshou.


(On a side note: Senior Member? Buy me a beer! Because I'm over 21 and all...)

[cjs55]

Only the most unattentive would say that human beings are in the same category with other animals when it comes to their relationship with nature.

And "reproductive rights" only exist because a society allows you to believe you have them. Humans require fairly complex societies (tribes are still quite complex) in order to survive, unlike other animals. This means that reproductive success for humans is dictated not by the individual alone, but by the code of the society in which they live.


My point with the 100 million people on earth: Life would be better for the average human because of two factors...1) More psychological significance when it comes to meaning and the importance of ones own life when people are mainly in smaller communities. This would result in more productive people (in the sense that they actually want to contribute to their community. Stock traders wouldn't count as productive.) 2) More resources to go around per humam being.

My point with the finite resources of the world also concerns renewable resources. Renewable does not mean infinite at any given point in time. If human population and consumption continues to grow there is no question that eventually we will begin to run out of most renewable resources as well (whether or not they can still be renewed does not change the fact that there will be shortfall). There is also the fact that the more human beings on the planet, the more they fuck with it, because of their unique capability (for animals) to seperate themselves from nature. Not all human beings necessarily do this, but the two biggest super powers in the world certainly like to currently.


Finally, concerning ideology and masses. In America there is a distinct political division between republican and democrat. Now, in the end, both pander to the same group of people. Mainly a group of people that is not into critical thinking, a group that is more into a sort of crowdism. But I didn't determine ideology by looking at politics, it just sort of happened to nicely mirror what I had already believed to be the two main ideologies of our time. A great way to look at ideological dictation by society is to analyze language. What is success? It's generally given in this broad sense to mean financial. This backs up puritan ethos. Who are our heros? Martin Luther King Jr, Susan B Anthony, etc. This backs up the liberal humanistic view.

One can not homogenize (sp...?) every single person in the mass of society, as there are distinctions and personal motivations. But you have alot of dots on a grid, and they all point to two influences. De Toqueville said a few hundred years ago that americans want two conflicting things: To be equal, and to be free. In a sense, I still think this applies today.

The masses are certainly divided in our society, look at the recent elections. However, they operate the same way: Basically being uncritical and mob-based. They are quite easy to manipulate in modern society if you have the media at your disposal. It's not that there are two seperate masses in western society, it's that there are two different influences on them.

[Rajah]

Only the most unattentive would say that human beings are in the same category with other animals when it comes to their relationship with nature.I believe that human beings perceive themselves in a different category because of our capacity for higher reasoning. We tend to forget that at the end of the day, we are just animals. Animals with unique abilities, language, and complex thought, but animals. Period. And as with other animals, nature will rein us in when it must. It appears you assume we are the end-all and be-all of creation, when I believe that there's in all likelihood something different and better yet to come, subscribing as I do to that whole pesky evolution theory.

The more you tell me about how the world would be better if it had 100 million people, because of some "psychological significance," or that we will run out of renewable resources, or even that America has only two ideological factions (with which I disagree), without pointing me to a text, website, data, or even a freaking pamphlet for corroboration, the more I am going to question what you're saying. And the more I will distrust your opinion if you assert that someone must be "inattentive" if he holds a different opinion, or simply does not blindly subscribe to your opinion.

[cjs55]

I agree we are animals, I disagree that we are similar to other animals in our relationship with nature. The main distinction is that we control, harness, tame, manipulate. We do this quite well. Certainly nature strikes back, but usually in less developed parts of the world (famine in africa, etc). The New Orleans flooding could have been avoided if the correct precautions had been taken. As humanities technology becomes more advanced, the natural repercussions will be mitigated more and more (in terms of their 'negative' impact on humanity).

The idea that if population and consumption continues to grow there will eventually be shortfall (if there isn't already) is a logical conclusion. Although guessing the point at which this may occur obviously relies on data, the fact that it will eventually occur is a logical imperative because the planet does not have an infinite surface area. My real concern however is that the current standard of living is poorer than it could be.

Why should I back up my theories about human psychology with pamphlets? I see that many human beings currently find life boring or meaningless. I believe the problem is that the overall value of being human has deteriorated, and I strive to find an answer to this problem that is acceptable logically and intuitively. Do you doubt your own ability to look into the human condition and require pamphlets to come to any conclusions?

As far as resources go, there will be more resources to go around the less people there are. Do you challenge this notion?

Finally, I have no idea what evolutionary theory has to do with this, but I can tell you that it is mainly sexual selection (which is currently derived mainly from social mores, not nature) that drives human evolution at this point in time.

[YardGnome]

I thought Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds were taking care of this problem already?

[Synaptic Ether]

I predict there will be floating cities in the not so distant future. Kelp might start looking more attractive as a food, too.

Part of the loss of human value might be attributed to the elevation of the value of existing resources over the value of human life. We are rational beings after all--we can always use our resources more efficiently, or find more efficient ways of living.

It isn't necessary to preemptively exterminate people in order to get more stuff for yourself. I think that line of thinking contributes to the loss of human value more than large family sizes do.

[meshou]

And busting down doors and hauling a guy smoking dope off to jail as really done wonders to decrease crime and save lives.Bullshit. Every country or region that has ever repealed any substance prohibition has seen a percipitious drop in crime, violent or otherwise, and a drop in the use of that substance as well.

That is one of those cases where taking away choice instead of erring on the side of the right for people to make their own choices leads to more violence, death, and corruption than if you had simply let the kids smoke their fucking weed.

[sbw]

Y'know what, you're right. How stupid of me. America is an exemplar to the world on how a society should be. How could I think that any ideals at work in a political system could not already be at work in the US of A. You invented the Liberal Democracy right? Declaration of Human Rights, that was yours too? Red Cross? The policy of pre-emption?

Because shitty drivers who don't wear seatbelts are always only driving alone, they never kill their own families do they? And busting down doors and hauling a guy smoking dope off to jail as really done wonders to decrease crime and save lives.

When thinking about an ideal society I sure as shit hope your mind moves beyond "here in america".

I DIDN'T SAY THAT AMERICA WAS IDEAL SO THEREFORE ARE THOSE SAME LAWS ON THE BOOKS IN YOUR COUNTRY TOO IF THEY ARE THEN THE SAME DISCLAIMER WOULD APPLY

Scott

[illusivemind]

Bullshit. Every country or region that has ever repealed any substance prohibition has seen a percipitious drop in crime, violent or otherwise, and a drop in the use of that substance as well.

That is one of those cases where taking away choice instead of erring on the side of the right for people to make their own choices leads to more violence, death, and corruption than if you had simply let the kids smoke their fucking weed.

Agreed.

And busting down doors and hauling a guy smoking dope off to jail as really done wonders to decrease crime and save lives.

[illusivemind]

I DIDN'T SAY THAT AMERICA WAS IDEAL SO THEREFORE ARE THOSE SAME LAWS ON THE BOOKS IN YOUR COUNTRY TOO IF THEY ARE THEN THE SAME DISCLAIMER WOULD APPLY

Scott

It does.

I couldn't care less that I happen to be born in this country rather than that one. Patriotism does not arise from the geographical location I happen to exist in.

[illusivemind]

As far as resources go, there will be more resources to go around the less people there are. Do you challenge this notion?

I do.

If the world was a village of a hundred people

"6 people would possess 59% of the entire world’s wealth, and all 6 would be from the United States."

Less people doesn't mean more resources to go around, it means more resources concentrated in the hands of a few. Thinking that we have to cull people to allow for a more equitable distribution of resources is like thinking we have to shut down factories in Slovenia to halt Global Warming.

The truth is, the affluent west is addicted to it's lifestyle, which George Bush says is "non-negotiable". I'm sitting here at my computer in my nice home with a range of luxuries, the money for which could've fed a few starving villages.

But the human mind evolved in small tribal communities, my moral compass goes off when there is a person bleeding in front of me, not when there is one on the other side of the planet. It is only by forcing regulators to circumvent this selfish intuition that the global community can stop from imploding.

[tinribz]

But the human mind evolved in small tribal communities, my moral compass goes off when there is a person bleeding in front of me, not when there is one on the other side of the planet. It is only by forcing regulators to circumvent this selfish intuition that the global community can stop from imploding.

This is one of the most insightful things I have heard you say, one of my personal favorites for exposing the hypocrital nature of most church goers.

On the subject of the actual thread, Aldus Huxley and George Orwell must be turning in their graves. Did you miss the real 1984 and BNW's messages?

Getting away from the moral argument though, humans can be and are extensivly trained from birth. Just like dogs can be trained not to chase sheep, humans are trained in developed societies to ignore instincts to reproduce by positive reinforcement to desire wealth and enjoy the pleasures it brings. Children interfere with it's acquisition and the recreational benefits.

As the world develops the poverty line will reach a point where there is a watershed in population growth. It is already starting in China. Consequently there will no need for any government intervention.

[Rajah]

Certainly nature strikes back, but usually in less developed parts of the world (famine in africa, etc). The New Orleans flooding could have been avoided if the correct precautions had been taken. As humanities technology becomes more advanced, the natural repercussions will be mitigated more and more (in terms of their 'negative' impact on humanity).If you posit we are so technologically savvy to tame nature, then why on earth wouldn't we be technologically savvy enough to come up with alternative solutions to control population or to create manmade resources that replace natural ones (which you claim are diminishing, and which I still require evidence to believe).


Although guessing the point at which this may occur obviously relies on data, the fact that it will eventually occur is a logical imperative because the planet does not have an infinite surface area. My real concern however is that the current standard of living is poorer than it could be.This presumes we are forever limited by the surface area of the planet. What about building higher? Building off-planet?


Why should I back up my theories about human psychology with pamphlets? I see that many human beings currently find life boring or meaningless. I believe the problem is that the overall value of being human has deteriorated, and I strive to find an answer to this problem that is acceptable logically and intuitively. Do you doubt your own ability to look into the human condition and require pamphlets to come to any conclusions?I'm an INTP; I like to base my decisions on facts. And all you've given me is your opinion. Frankly, I could be wrong -- but nothing you've told me has convinced me otherwise. Even if you don't feel like backing up your theory of human psychology with any documentation, I'd imagine you have support for your theories of our impending environmental doom?


As far as resources go, there will be more resources to go around the less people there are. Do you challenge this notion?I agree if 500 million people suddenly disappeared from the face of the earth, there would be more resources per person. So? This still doesn't support your idea that with population growth at the level it is, we will run out of resources.


Finally, I have no idea what evolutionary theory has to do with this, but I can tell you that it is mainly sexual selection (which is currently derived mainly from social mores, not nature) that drives human evolution at this point in time.Support? Maybe our social mores are derived from nature? (i.e. if "wealth" is a character we look for in selecting a mate, perhaps it is because "wealth" equates with being a good provider, or more important, having high status, either of which would be a very important quality in a father).

[meshou]

This is one of the most insightful things I have heard you say, one of my personal favorites for exposing the hypocrital nature of most church goers.Whoah, I have absolutely no love for Christians, but that is unfair.

Let's backtrack. From what I understand, the human mind is only capable of processing and keeping track of 150 (give or take one or two) distinct interpersonal relationships. Past that, relationships become impersonal, shared goals become weak, factioning occours, and there are movements to fracture the group into smaller groups of under 150 people.

We live in a global culture now. What we do effects or can effect people across the globe-- but we are not built to govern that effectively. We're monkeys working on a 150 people scale, who litterally do not have the brainpower or energy to care in specific for someone they have never met without giving up one of their personal relationships.

So, your sister, or a faceless stranger in Kenya? Objectively, you can do more good to the stranger. But that is not how the world works. We can do our sisters more good simply because they are closer in every sense of the world. We are not built to be good to strangers. We're not even bult to be among strangers, let alone good to them. That the world is made of more strangers than friends is an unnatural state for us.

What I object to in Christianity is that they do not treat their neighbors any better than us heathens treat ours, and treat the strangers remarkably worse than many who are not Christian. The unity is remarkably stronger between friends, but at the expense of the strange.

But again, this is how we are built. Us verses Them is built in, and unaviodable. That Christianity has a strongly defined Us means they will be more cruel to the Them because people are cruel to all Thems.

Christians are not remarkable in this. It is a human thing, and we are each just as guilty of it-- especially if introverted. Of anyone (including Christians as a whole), we make more people Them, and care most about ourselves.

In that sense, I agree, people are more valuable if there are less of them-- every person alive knows and values that other person because it is how humanity works. There are no strangers.

But simply because people work that way does not make it a good thing, a thing to be pandered to. If we condemn Christians for marganilizing non Christians and being uncharitable to strangers, it is no better to simply make sure no strangers exist ever. Rather, we must evolve into creatures that can care on a larger scale.

[illusivemind]

Let's backtrack. From what I understand, the human mind is only capable of processing and keeping track of 150 (give or take one or two) distinct interpersonal relationships. Past that, relationships become impersonal, shared goals become weak, factioning occours, and there are movements to fracture the group into smaller groups of under 150 people.

That’s right; scientists have worked at a brain size to group size ratio, where they can accurately predict the maximum size of communities in primates from measuring their average brain size. For humans it is about 150 (147.8).



Anthropologist Robin Dunbar has gone through anthropological literature and found that the number 150 pops up over and over again. For example, he looked at 21 different hunger-gatherer societies around the world and found that the average number of people in each village was 148.4.

The same pattern holds true for military organization. Over the years, through trial and error, military planners have arrived at a rule of thumb for the size of a functional fighting unit - 200 men. They have realized that it is quite difficult to make any larger a group than this to function as a unit without complicated hierarchies and rules and regulations and formal measures to insure loyalty and unity within the group. With a group of 150 or so, formalities are not necessary. Behavior can be controlled on the basis of personal loyalties and direct man-to-man contacts. With larger groups, this seems impossible.

Further is the religious group known as the Hutterites, who for hundreds of years, through trial and error, have realized that the maximum size for a colony should be, low and behold, 150 people. They've been following this rule for centuries. Every time a colony approaches this number, the colony is divided into two separate colonies. They have found that once a group becomes larger than that, "people become strangers to one another." At 150, the Hutterites believe, something happens that somehow changes the community seemingly overnight. At 150 the colony with spontaneously begin dividing into smaller "clans." When this happens a new colony is formed.




So, your sister, or a faceless stranger in Kenya? Objectively, you can do more good to the stranger. But that is not how the world works. We can do our sisters more good simply because they are closer in every sense of the world. We are not built to be good to strangers. We're not even bult to be among strangers, let alone good to them. That the world is made of more strangers than friends is an unnatural state for us.


Prescribing a kind of fatalism in the face of the particulars of the human brain, is, I think, over doing it. We are not living in warring tribes of 150 people, we are living in interrelated social networks with competing interests but also common goals which allow us to form cities and nations, with nowhere near perfect cohesion but far from anarchy.

But the point is, are we able to go beyond the parochial nature of human instincts and intuitive morals (why should we ever trust our moral intuitions in this light?) ?

I think the answer is yes. I remember reading an article about a philosopher (I forget who), who had hooked up subjects to a type of CAT scan machine whilst asking them ethical dilemmas. The results showed that different parts of the brain lit up depending on the type of question. The questions that dealt with the ethics of the person bleeding in front of you activated parts of the primal brain that excited various emotional reactions. Whereas deciding whether or not to donate to the red cross activated a completely different part of the brain, higher functioning: reason. We use a calculatory mechanism that was never designed to deal with moral questions.

But it is with reason that we can say helping the stranger in Kenya stay alive is objectively better than buying your sister more jewellery. We don’t need to evolve to see this or to suppress our emotions, we need an education system that allows us to understand this, which will in turn allow us elect leaders who will go beyond parochial concerns. I think a true democracy can only function with an educated citizenry, which means pouring money into education as though it were as important as national defence. Of course perhaps current politicians are not interested in a ‘true democracy’ that would undermine their power. And whilst the public remains uneducated, thinking evolution is a fairy tale, and their emotional ethics are actually the divine laws of god, we have no fucking hope.

So maybe you are right Meshou in saying that some kind of genetic evolution is the only way forward, but I want to believe there is still some hope. That by creating a system where ‘domestic politics’ includes the global society and the decisions of our leaders are held accountable not by one country but by the citizenry of the world, the problems of the faceless Kenyan stranger, become my problems.

[CENTIPEDE HEAD]

In order to get, say, a driver's license, you must pass a certain series of tests. But to have a kid requires no qualifications whatsoever. You might be so poor that you can't support yourself. You might be mentally or psychologically challenged. You might be a total whacko, and yet you have "every right" to have children even if it's the tax dollars of others who will pay for that child. I definitely think it's unfair. Anyone can bring another being into the world and it requires no tests, no verification that you deserve to, that you can afford it, or that you have any idea what you are doing. (Different story for those wanting to adopt; they go through a lot to acquire children.) In fact in the US many who are on welfare get extra money to have more kids so that amounts to more incentive to populate the projects and slums. But even in countries where there are no government doles, the poorest portion of the population is increasing exponentially. Apparently, poverty and want do not deter the human libido. Eventually the problem must be adressed in the West as it has been in China. Hopefully it can be humanely done. The new Scientific American magazine issue (I recommend) deals with the subject of the "Climax of Humanity" and how the next 50 years there will be a bottleneck..the population will level off at around 9 billion. There will be issues for supporting that many people and it will strain the resources of the world and our technologies. At some point, Western politicians will have to bring the subject up but it would currently be political suicide for them to even mention the population control. It is just one of the many issues on the horizon.

[meshou]

In order to get, say, a driver's license, you must pass a certain series of tests. But to have a kid requires no qualifications whatsoever. You might be so poor that you can't support yourself. You might be mentally or psychologically challenged. You might be a total whacko, and yet you have "every right" to have children even if it's the tax dollars of others who will pay for that child. I definitely think it's unfair.I think we established life was unfair at age four.


Anyone can bring another being into the world and it requires no tests, no verification that you deserve to, that you can afford it, or that you have any idea what you are doing. (Different story for those wanting to adopt; they go through a lot to acquire children.)OK. Who would do the verifying?

Look at the lady at the DMV. Look at your fourth grade teacher. Do you trust either of them to look you up and down and tell you if you deserve to have kids? Those'd be the exact people doing it.


In fact in the US many who are on welfare get extra money to have more kids so that amounts to more incentive to populate the projects and slums.Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit? Bullshit!

This is the sort of crap people who have no idea how poor you have to be to qualify for welfare, how much you actually get in wellfare, and how expensive kids are.

Actual statistics:

--In 1992, the beneficiaries of wellfare were 9.2 million children and 4 million adults, most of them single parents. That is not to say that 4 million people had nine million children; only that in many cases, the parent or parents of CHILD recipients of Welfare's parents didn't get any themselves. About half these children were under six, and a quarter under three.

-- There is no wellfare for able bodied childless adults.

--Wellfare does not increase the average number of children, and in fact, those on Wellfare have fewer children than the US average-- 73% have two or fewer children. Since 1969, the number of children in a welfare household has dropped by half.

--The maximum food stamp benefit, received by only 23% of all recipients, amounts to about \$1.06 per meal per person. The maximum food stamp allotment for a family of three is $295/month.
You can’t use food stamps to buy toilet paper, soap, toothpaste, tampons, or anything else that isn’t food that is vitally necessary.

-- 50% of recipients exit AFDC in the first year of welfare.
-- 75% of recipients exit AFDC in the first two years of welfare.
-- 30% of welfare recipients leave welfare permanently in less than two years.

-- Since 1970, states have allowed inflation to erode 45% of the value of welfare payments. In addition, many states have cut benefits: In 1970, the average monthly welfare check per family was \$676 (in 1993 dollars). In 1993, the average monthly welfare check per family was $373. Most AFDC households purchase shelter, clothing, transportation, personal hygiene, household needs, school supplies, and medical expenses not covered by medicaid/medicare out of an annual benefit income that averages $8000 for a family of 3 (one adult, two children) when AFDC and foodstamps are combined.

Two children are far more expensive than $8,000. One person can barely live on 8,000 a year (if they did not eat meat, or drive much, and lived with room mates-- in other words, if they lived dirt poor).

Here's (http://www.makezine.org/queens.html) my source.

See also here. (http://www.movingideas.org/content/en/report_content/twoamericas_work.htm)

Please also note that the vast majority of welfare dollars benefits the rich; "wellfare" includes social security, disability, medicare and medicade, all things which either benefit you equally regardless of income, or more if you make more money.

It's damaging to portray welfare as something that makes having kids profitable. The only way you could possibly support yourself and a child on welfare is if you also had a full time job. Thus, most people get off welfare fairly quickly-- the average long term welfare recipient gets off in less than four years. Short tem recipients get off in less than a year.


But even in countries where there are no government doles, the poorest portion of the population is increasing exponentially. Apparently, poverty and want do not deter the human libido. Eventually the problem must be adressed in the West as it has been in China. Hopefully it can be humanely done. The new Scientific American magazine issue (I recommend) deals with the subject of the "Climax of Humanity" and how the next 50 years there will be a bottleneck..the population will level off at around 9 billion. There will be issues for supporting that many people and it will strain the resources of the world and our technologies. At some point, Western politicians will have to bring the subject up but it would currently be political suicide for them to even mention the population control. It is just one of the many issues on the horizon.If we level off at nine billion, we can't be increasing expoentially. We're too close to the ceilieng for that, we must be leveling off. Crowding and poverty, therefore, must be a very strong deterrant.

Frankly, our way of life will not change catastrophically with three billion more people. Technology is moving at least as fast as the population.

And if it does not, what will happen? Why, a few million (or billion) will die, and we will reach equlibrium at a smaller number. It's happened before less than a century ago, and again three centuries before that.

It will take care of itself. I would rather it do so than leave it in the hands of your average DMV bueracrat.

[meshou]

But it is with reason that we can say helping the stranger in Kenya stay alive is objectively better than buying your sister more jewellery.If feeding a Kenyan = buying luxuries, you are way off base.

My mother has helped support her brother's child. Gotten his teeth fixed etc. My boyfriend's father has helped his mother in law by making sure her bills are paid and power is on.

He does not have the connections to directly fed a Kenyan. The only people who have that power are in Kenya-- and that is the problem with aid to Africa. We throw money at it and hope that it hits, when it just as often (if not more) goes to buying the corrupt leaders of those countries another elephant.

If I spend twenty dollars making sure my uncle's kid has teeth, I know all the proceeds will go to his teeth. If I am not in direct contact with someone in Kenya, there is actually a good chance that, of the twenty dollars I spend to feed a starving child, less than five will feed that child. Money thrown at problems that is twice removed from the problem is always greatly reduced by the time it gets to that problem, because you run into people who genuinely don't care.

Thus, I can litterally do twenty dollars of good to my sister, but with the same amount of money, do less than five for a Kenyan, and at the same time, have also funded the corruption that made him starve in the first place. That is not to say I will not still donate, simply to point out that removal does have concequences.

[kendoiwan]

I have to weigh in on meshou's side of this one. When Katrina hit, my father who is and has been a fugative from the law for the last decade, hit me up for some cash... as much as I'dve like to help out the folk in NO, my wayward pops comes first...

[illusivemind]

If feeding a Kenyan = buying luxuries, you are way off base.

Che?
I said: we can say helping the stranger in Kenya stay alive is objectively better than buying your sister more jewellery

You disagree?

I never suggested that we are morally obligated to sacrifice dental care or shirk financial debts or live without electricity so we can feed starving people. 'Buying Luxuries = Feeding a Kenyan' is a flase equation, with the money spent on whatever we may deem luxuries here in the west it is more likely ' Buying Luxuries = Feeding many many Kenyans.' As well as the third world in our own backyard, the impoverished westerners who fall on the scrapheap of this great system

But where do we draw the line to say what is necessity and what is luxury? The Kenyan might very well think that buying a television and a washing machine is a luxury. Wherever we draw that line, there is an obscene affluence in the first world, with money spent on unnecessary luxuries that would do more objective good in the third world but because of the parochial selfishness of human nature, our current political system is set up so that for the main part (excluding charitable donations and foreign aid) this does not happen.



He does not have the connections to directly fed a Kenyan. The only people who have that power are in Kenya-- and that is the problem with aid to Africa. We throw money at it and hope that it hits, when it just as often (if not more) goes to buying the corrupt leaders of those countries another elephant.

That is a legitimate objection. But it is an objection to the practicalities of donations and corruption. It is not an objection to the ethical duties one holds to one’s friends/families as distinct from strangers who may be in more dire need.

[illusivemind]

I have to weigh in on meshou's side of this one. When Katrina hit, my father who is and has been a fugative from the law for the last decade, hit me up for some cash... as much as I'dve like to help out the folk in NO, my wayward pops comes first...

That’s great, you feel an emotional affinity with your father that overrides people in New Orleans. If people didn’t have this connection or sense of duty within their own families in tribal societies, they would be targeted by families who did look out for one another.

But are you trying to suggest, that this is a more objectively ethical action?

I cannot tell upon the basis of the information provided, depending on the level of need it very well might be. But you haven’t really offered anything in the way of an argument.

[kendoiwan]

That’s great, you feel an emotional affinity with your father that overrides people in New Orleans. If people didn’t have this connection or sense of duty within their own families in tribal societies, they would be targeted by families who did look out for one another.

But are you trying to suggest, that this is a more objectively ethical action?

I cannot tell upon the basis of the information provided, depending on the level of need it very well might be. But you haven’t really offered anything in the way of an argument.

Objectively ethical :blink: :rofl: :rofl:

BTW I don't have to offer an argument when I already stated an agreement with an arguement that has already been offered... :ph34r:

[meshou]

Che?
I said: we can say helping the stranger in Kenya stay alive is objectively better than buying your sister more jewellery

You disagree?Yes. And not only is it better for me to give luxuries to her than to feed a starving person, they are totally the same thing, and whether I would or not has everything to do with the argument at hand, since every time I want to help a starving person, I get them a Hello Kitty Wrtistwatch with a compass in the band.

Wait, no. I think my objection was that not only did that statement have nothing to do with what I said, it made absolutely no point, since no one would ever disagree with that. If there was a pointless catergory in a fictional board award thread, that would have won, even over the "how many girls have a vagina?" thread in the women's issues forums.


I never suggested that we are morally obligated to sacrifice dental care or shirk financial debts or live without electricity so we can feed starving people. 'Buying Luxuries = Feeding a Kenyan' is a flase equation, with the money spent on whatever we may deem luxuries here in the west it is more likely ' Buying Luxuries = Feeding many many Kenyans.' As well as the third world in our own backyard, the impoverished westerners who fall on the scrapheap of this great systemWhat I was saying is that some people in my immediate circle (and presumably yours) qualify as impoverished.

When it comes down to it, yes you are. If we were to feed every man, woman, and child on earth, it would mean exactly that-- instead of education for my nephew, or internet for me, or education for me, or a car for me (all things which would improve my quality of life, and the quality of life for people around me), it would all have to go to the starving.

There is always something we could give up to help the poor. However, I have this niggling little requirement that, when I intend to do good, it actually gets done.

So, here is the actual choice, with the levels of removal available to me: Buy my sister jewelry, or spend that money in an attempt to feed Kenyans. Most of it goes to the corrupt dictators which starve them and shoot at them.

I think I'll stick with something that doesn't kill people.


But where do we draw the line to say what is necessity and what is luxury? The Kenyan might very well think that buying a television and a washing machine is a luxury. Wherever we draw that line, there is an obscene affluence in the first world, with money spent on unnecessary luxuries that would do more objective good in the third world but because of the parochial selfishness of human nature, our current political system is set up so that for the main part (excluding charitable donations and foreign aid) this does not happen.You're treating this like luxuries and affluence are a one way street, instead of part of what makes talking about charities possible.

Did it ever occour to you that a country which does not produce or indulge in luxuries can't afford to render aid? Luxuries consist of excess. If we did not have them, we'd be in the same boat. Maslow's hierarchy.

So I am all for the bloated luxuries of America; we can apparently throw a hundred billion dollars at Africa, and they still do not all eat. However, without the excess, nothing would have been thrown at all.
That is a legitimate objection. But it is an objection to the practicalities of donations and corruption. It is not an objection to the ethical duties one holds to one’s friends/families as distinct from strangers who may be in more dire need.I am not arguing that I owe different ethical duties to strangers than loved ones (I do, but those occour further up maslow's pyramyd). I am arguing that, if there were two people in the exact situation, I am litterally able to do more good to the one in closer proximity to me, be it in terms of location, genetics, personality, or affinity. Therefore, it is preferable for me to spen my resources on a direct relation of mine than rely on a relation of a relation of a relation to do good for me.

A charity drive to donate to the red cross is less effective than donating to the red cross, which is less effective than going to Africa with a can of beans and handing it to a kid when it comes to making sure that can gets in that kid's hands.

The level of removal from a situation breeds corruption. Bureaucracies are removal, and large ones are invariably corrupt.

It is preferable to feed the starving in your own back yard simply because you can watch them eat, and hear back quickly when bread is stolen from them. Charity corruption in Africa thrives simply because we are removed from it-- they are the faceless hungry who we intend to feed and forget, because that is how humanity is.

So, feed the people in our own back yard, and know that we are not isolated to our circle. If I bring my sister into having excess, she can help her best friend's sister, who will help his cousin, and so forth.

What we have to hope for is that the world will get progressively smaller, and that Africa will soon be in our back yards.

[illusivemind]

Objectively ethical :blink: :rofl: :rofl:

BTW I don't have to offer an argument when I already stated an agreement with an arguement that has already been offered... :ph34r:

Weeelllll, thanks for contributing nothing. Come back anytime. :rolleyes2

[illusivemind]

Wait, no. I think my objection was that not only did that statement have nothing to do with what I said, it made absolutely no point, since no one would ever disagree with that. If there was a pointless catergory in a fictional board award thread, that would have won, even over the "how many girls have a vagina?" thread in the women's issues forums.
Wow.
Allow me to introduce you to what is called a ‘premise’. They are used in arguments to support a ‘conclusion’. You identify them so as to locate the sources of disagreement resulting from divergent conclusions.

If you have premise ‘A’ and premise ‘B’ in support of conclusion ‘C’, and you think ‘C’ is false but ‘A’ is obviously true, to paraphrase your most eloquent consensus, then there is a good chance some disagreement lies with ‘B’.
So if you admit ‘A’ is the right thing to do, then we can say you don’t have an ethical objection, you either have a practical objection (which you do) or you aren’t interested in doing the right thing (which In hope a rarity of people would propose).

What I was saying is that some people in my immediate circle (and presumably yours) qualify as impoverished.
Well, then allow me to reiterate As well as the third world in our own backyard, the impoverished westerners who fall on the scrapheap of this great system


When it comes down to it, yes you are. If we were to feed every man, woman, and child on earth, it would mean exactly that-- instead of education for my nephew, or internet for me, or education for me, or a car for me (all things which would improve my quality of life, and the quality of life for people around me), it would all have to go to the starving.
Good to see you don’t have a self-centred view of the world. If we took away the education and electricity of the first world, we might get a nice round lump sum that would feed everyone for a while, but very well may destroy the first world’s ability to produce resources that feed anyone.
I’m not talking about selling high-school educations to pay for grain for Africa, I’m talking about selling limousines(metaphor), does your nephew need a limousine to get to and from school?


So, here is the actual choice, with the levels of removal available to me: Buy my sister jewelry, or spend that money in an attempt to feed Kenyans. Most of it goes to the corrupt dictators which starve them and shoot at them.

I think I'll stick with something that doesn't kill people.
Wow, so an imperfect system is licence to ignore the plight of people you don’t directly interact with? No of course it isn’t, and that’s not what you were saying but with the hyperbole it’s hard to tell.


Did it ever occour to you that a country which does not produce or indulge in luxuries can't afford to render aid? Luxuries consist of excess. If we did not have them, we'd be in the same boat. Maslow's hierarchy.

So I am all for the bloated luxuries of America; we can apparently throw a hundred billion dollars at Africa, and they still do not all eat. However, without the excess, nothing would have been thrown at all.
This is an interesting proposition, I struggle to believe that the current level of affluence of America’s richest is ‘necessary’ for the continued prosperity of the country, can you support it with evidence?


I am arguing that, if there were two people in the exact situation, I am litterally able to do more good to the one in closer proximity to me, be it in terms of location, genetics, personality, or affinity. Therefore, it is preferable for me to spen my resources on a direct relation of mine than rely on a relation of a relation of a relation to do good for me.

Yes, you’ve made the point about the impoverished closer to home, which I already agreed with. Yet it seems to me you want stretch this to mean more than it does. If you can feed ten starving children in your suburb by which the same amount of money would only feed five starving children in another suburb then of course you should help the five starving children in your suburb. But educating or clothing or immunising ten children in your suburb as compared to feeding five starving children somewhere else, is not the same equation.


A charity drive to donate to the red cross is less effective than donating to the red cross, which is less effective than going to Africa with a can of beans and handing it to a kid when it comes to making sure that can gets in that kid's hands.

Crap. You’re talking about a cynicism of aid organizations which is fine but that doesn’t amount to giving a can of beans is better than raising a few thousand dollars. In terms of your certainty about the aid reaching maybe, but not the effectiveness of said (now reduced) aid supposing it has reached its destination. You are conflating two separate issues.


So, feed the people in our own back yard, and know that we are not isolated to our circle. If I bring my sister into having excess, she can help her best friend's sister, who will help his cousin, and so forth.
Yes if we waste enough food then the breadcrumbs will be bigger for the rats below. [sarcasmSounds ideal.[/sarcasm]

[meshou]

If you are able to introduce me to a premise, why do you have such poor grasp of mine that you think it is nessicary to go back to assumptions you know full well both of us are working from?

It is better to do good to a stranger than give a luxury to a loved one. However, you assume good can be done, and that there are not limits.

I hate to break it to you, but money is not the balm of gilead. Money does not solve poverty. Problems on the scales we are talking about are not matters of lack of money. Japan has no airable land, its only natural resource is the fish, and it has the number two economy in the world.

Africa has diamonds, gold, oil, ores, trade routes, land, and it starves. There is wealth in Africa. The problem is politics, not money, and therefore can't be solved with money.

The problem with Africa is not something you or I can fix. It is a situation that must be solved locally.

I may be a horrible heartless bitch who wants all good things to die and eats kitties for saying you can't solve the problems of the world in exactly the way you like. I may be trying to justify horrible cruelty by saying that just because you say a problem is simply solved does not make it so.

[kendoiwan]

If you are able to introduce me to a premise, why do you have such poor grasp of mine that you think it is nessicary to go back to assumptions you know full well both of us are working from?

It is better to do good to a stranger than give a luxury to a loved one. However, you assume good can be done, and that there are not limits.

I hate to break it to you, but money is not the balm of gilead. Money does not solve poverty. Problems on the scales we are talking about are not matters of lack of money. Japan has no airable land, its only natural resource is the fish, and it has the number two economy in the world.

Africa has diamonds, gold, oil, ores, trade routes, land, and it starves. There is wealth in Africa. The problem is politics, not money, and therefore can't be solved with money.

The problem with Africa is not something you or I can fix. It is a situation that must be solved locally.

I may be a horrible heartless bitch who wants all good things to die and eats kitties for saying you can't solve the problems of the world in exactly the way you like. I may be trying to justify horrible cruelty by saying that just because you say a problem is simply solved does not make it so.

Still agreeing with her... :ph34r:

[SensEye]

I've been away for a bit but I see the debate still rages.

Further to all this discussion about feeding starving children, I still say the optimal solution is to prevent the creation of starving children in the first place. Hence the original premise of the thread, that society SHOULD control (restrict mainly) population growth.

Rajah will no doubt continue to argue that no one has proven high population growth is necessarily harmful. I would hold that the fact there are substantial numbers of hungry people in the world as self evident. She may argue those people would not be hungry if we transfer sufficient resources from those with surplus to those without. But how often can this cycle be repeated? Not indefinitely I assure you.

It really comes down to an argument of quantity versus quality. I would rather humanity strive for a limited number of people (still several billion) with a high standard of living than a vast number of people with a low standard of living (which is where continual no strings attached wealth transfer will take us).

[CENTIPEDE HEAD]

So the fact that “life is unfair” is kindergarten-level common knowledge, eh? I say it depends on who you ask, when you ask them, regarding what aspect. Even if life isn't fair, does that mean we shouldn't strive for justice in the world ?

Let me clarify the statement against which you shouted Bullshit from the rooftops. Your references and statistics would lead one to believe that all is well. People who are on Government assistance are all above-board, the mothers don’t irresponsibly have extra children they can ill afford (just 1.9 children/household, no more than in any other sector), they get into the system, stay a short while and then get out and find a job. Teenagers don’t get pregnant there. Kids have fathers and mothers and intact families. No sense of dependence or entitlement is created in the recipients. There is no fraud. No, just good folks who need a helping hand for a while and then they move on. Come on. Get real. Look, I’m not here to suggest caricatures of Welfare Queens or to suggest that they are rich or are truly profiting from the system. No one in their right mind believes that. But to say that some average individual in the system doesn’t have "family planning" at the top of their priority list is an massive understatment. Actually I did uncover a study that showed that taking away benefits doesn’t even deter them from having more kids. They do what they’re going to do anyway, but I think it unjust to bring a child into a situation of poverty and dependence, both for taxpayers and for the child as well. But then again-I forgot- life is unfair. :sobs:

I might accept some of the things you say but I have a lot of anecdotal experience to reject as well. My wife for example teaches at a school where there are a lot of “low income” kids. Each year she asks the kids at the beginning what jobs they’d be interested in pursuing later in life. They always scoff at that and say things like they are going to stay home and collect “their check” just like their parents do and speak in terms of “working the system” all while sporting the latest $150 shoes. I suspect there is entrenched entitlement for people taking donations from government bureaucracies. You seem to be fairly anti-bureaucratic, mocking the poor adminstrators at the DMV. Well speaking of bureaucratic nightmares, look at the level of waste inherant in the welfare system. As you yourself say in another post here, you can’t throw money at the problem. Look at this link that refutes some of the data that’s out there about how “poor” the poor in America really are.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/BG791.cfm

The issue of global overpopulation which is unfortunately conflated here (my fault) is a separate issue. Though definitions vary, poverty abroad is on a whole other level than what it is stateside. I will correct you in saying that at this point the global population is indeed increasing exponentially, potential worldwide plagues, wars, or other factors notwithstanding.

“On or about October 12, 1999, the world population reached 6 billion. It has continued to climb at an annual rate of 1.4 percent, adding 200,000 people each day or the equivalent of the population of a large city each week. The rate, although beginning to slow, is still basically exponential; the more people, the faster the growth, thence still more people sooner and an even faster growth, and so on upward toward astromnomical numbers unless the trend is reversed and growth rate slowed to zero or less. During the 20th century more people were added to the world than in all of previous human history. The pattern of human population growth in the 20th century was more bacterial than primate. When Homo sapiens passed the six billion mark we had already exceeded by as much as 100 times the biomass of any large animal species that ever existed on the land. We and the rest of life cannot afford another hundred years like that. “

”The constraints of the biosphere are fixed. The bottleneck through which we are passing is real. It should be obvious to anyone not in a euphoric delerium that whatever humanity does or does not do, Earth’s capacity to support our species is approaching the limit.

-Edward O. Wilson The Future of Life (2002)

I recommend this book to all.

Read more here about the issue which you seem so blithely dismissive, one which will “take care of itself.”

http://www.overpopulation.org/USpopulation.html

Do governments need to concern themselves with the population issue? Hell yes they do. Developing countries have more extensive problems and the solutions vary depending on specific locations. China has already been forced by conditions in their country to take population control measures. (Some even controversial but they ARE desperate.) I am uncertain what type of controls might be put into place or even whether they might involve DMV style worker drones. But population is tied to issues of sustainability and it is a paramount issue.

[CENTIPEDE HEAD]

This more or less sums up my worries about the issue.
The problem lies in dealing with overpopulation without violating freedom. People should be allowed to procreate (it's not like we're going to stop them anyway). China's limitation on the number of children a family may have is probably the closest we have come to a soultion... but slaying little girls because there's no one to carry down the family name (among other reasons) is unacceptable.
I honestly think that competition for resources will flare up during my lifetime... the most optimistic I can be is to hope to live out my later years in a remote area, far from the conflicts.

The problem lies in dealing with overpopulation without violating freedom.
Yes, that is where the political alarms start to go off. People start imagining all sorts of bungled ways governments might deal with it. What would actually be involved? Would they be reprehensible or immoral to some?
What kind of freedoms would be lost or rights violated? This whole subject is rife with draconian nightmarish things, both if something is done but done badly or if nothing is done. MAYBE, before its too late, an across the board one child limit could be set or a tax levied on the number of kids had beyond one or maybe two. But what if a politician came out and said this today, years before the crisis occurs? He'd be drummed out of town. What's frightening is that populations that need to start now down the road to control won't find it politically palatable in the least until it's too late and their people are trapped in the bottleneck as in the case of China. Another thing that some forget is that its not just about what the population is, it is about what the Earth's environment (and sure: our technologies as well) can sustain. Issues of Energy, Environment, Population are all inextricably bound and complex but the bottleneck IS coming. It's just a matter of time.

[Rajah]

Rajah will no doubt continue to argue that no one has proven high population growth is necessarily harmful. I would hold that the fact there are substantial numbers of hungry people in the world as self evident. She may argue those people would not be hungry if we transfer sufficient resources from those with surplus to those without. But how often can this cycle be repeated? Not indefinitely I assure you.No.

I will continue to argue that no one has proven to me that: (1) the population is increasing such that our resources will dwindle; (2) that there is no other way to combat the problem other than forced limitations on the number of children someone can bear; and (3) that imposing limitations on the number of children someone has would really solve the problem at the end of the day.

And even if you can prove all of those things, I'd have to be convinced that whatever limitations are imposed are worth the necessary imposition on our civil liberties. To me, that's an awfully big standard.

[Rajah]

Thanks, CENTIPEDE HEAD, for posting the links. I look forward to reading them.

[CENTIPEDE HEAD]

Thanks, CENTIPEDE HEAD, for posting the links. I look forward to reading them.

You're welcome and once again, I would encourage you to read The Future of Life. Edward O. Wilson, in case you don't know, is a Harvard biologist and twice has won the Pulitzer. He's not just some hack doomsayer. He doesn't just describe the problems, but spells out a plan.

-C.H.

[Rajah]

You're welcome and once again, I would encourage you to read The Future of Life. Edward O. Wilson, in case you don't know, is a Harvard biologist and twice has won the Pulitzer. He's not just some hack doomsayer. He doesn't just describe the problems, but spells out a plan.

-C.H.Absolutely. I've already done a bit of research on him since reading your post.

[illusivemind]

Still agreeing with her... :ph34r:

Hahaha, great. Cognitively equivalent to "Yaaayy" or "Boooo". :whistle:

[illusivemind]

If you are able to introduce me to a premise, why do you have such poor grasp of mine that you think it is nessicary to go back to assumptions you know full well both of us are working from?

I don’t know full well. (As I’m sure you already know!) The first step in philosophical discourse is to question assumptions, I regarded your equation (buying luxuries = feeding a Kenyan) as a misinterpretation of my argument. If you feel I was being patronizing, that wasn’t my intention and I apologize.

There are philosophers who suggest familial and friendly ties are morally relevant and justify unequal aid given.


It is better to do good to a stranger than give a luxury to a loved one. However, you assume good can be done, and that there are not limits.
OK, we agree on the first part, but maybe we disagree on what the limits of charity mean.

That governments of poor nations are corrupt don’t justify spending money on luxuries. And spending money on luxuries is not the same as helping the impoverished within our own society.

It is perfectly logical to suggest that more good can be done by improving the lives of people you know (and presumably yourself) by buying computers and cars than giving your hard earned cash to a system that is broken. After all, many African nations have suggested that increasing trade is far more beneficial than increasing foreign aid.

However, it is also perfectly logical to suggest that if the system is broken it should be fixed. I struggle with the complacency of the first world in thinking that because problems haven’t been solved they are unsolvable, that if the people were dying in our own backyard (And had votes) more would be done.

You don’t strike me as an uncompassionate person, or someone who subscribes to the view of GW that the American way of life is “non-negotiable”. I don’t claim to have the answers, but I do claim that the absence of those answers does not justify the decadence of the first world in the face of outrageous poverty of the third.


The problem with Africa is not something you or I can fix. It is a situation that must be solved locally. I don’t agree, you or I can lobby representatives to vote for a reduction of the African debt and an increase in trade can we not? Try to displace your (somewhat justified) cynicism and see this with an open mind, it is not in the interests of the media or the government to imbue the population that this is a problem that can be solved by us, that can be solved by wanting and using less.

[Sardakar]

No.

I will continue to argue that no one has proven to me that: (1) the population is increasing such that our resources will dwindle; (2) that there is no other way to combat the problem other than forced limitations on the number of children someone can bear; and (3) that imposing limitations on the number of children someone has would really solve the problem at the end of the day.

And even if you can prove all of those things, I'd have to be convinced that whatever limitations are imposed are worth the necessary imposition on our civil liberties. To me, that's an awfully big standard.

Rajah....accolades to you.

1)There is no conclusive proof at all that increasing population leads to decreases in resources, especially in free-market, technologically advanced countries like the US. For example, the US has become one of the most populated countries on earth yet there is no shortage of food here. In addition, as time goes on, (and as our population grows) agribusiness develops new ways of growing food that allows for the production of more crop on less space.
2)Check the premises...who says there is a population problem? In countries where law and free markets are the order of the day, few people go hungry even when populations increase drastically. The more property rights are preserved, the more well fed the masses become. The problem isn't increasing populations.
3)Of course it wouldn't. A crusade against childbirth would no more have an impact on how many children people have than the war on drugs has had an impact on drug abuse. Like the war on drugs, a war on reproductions would simply create a new criminal class overnight by inventing a new crime.

A side note...I read somewhere last year that if the entire population of the earth were put into one small area with the approximate population density of New York City...this super city would be about the size of Texas. That tells me that there is a hell of a lot of space still left in the world.

[kendoiwan]

Hahaha, great. Cognitively equivalent to "Yaaayy" or "Boooo". :whistle:


No it's the equivalent of saying I've read your argument, read hers and I'm more swayed by hers than yours... :ph34r:

[floyd]

on hd pbs there was a show on china the other day. basically, china is short on farm land and fresh water. based on those current factors (it's possible that technology might improve this in the future), they can't sustain a larger population than they currently have. in fact, they are dependent on a continuation of their explosive industrial growth to compensate for their lack of core resources (a trend which will deplete global resources). so in the case of china (and other regions who have outgrown their resources) it is a question of limiting birth or people dying of starvation. which do you think is more humane? if the world was struck back to the stone age, americans and europeans (because of lower population density and more arable land) have a better shot than most regions of maintaining an agrarian existence without most people dying.

based on current technology there is a limit to the amount of food which can be produced... if the technology infrastructure ever collapses, then there will be even less food production.

[meshou]

I don’t agree, you or I can lobby representatives to vote for a reduction of the African debt and an increase in trade can we not? Try to displace your (somewhat justified) cynicism and see this with an open mind, it is not in the interests of the media or the government to imbue the population that this is a problem that can be solved by us, that can be solved by wanting and using less.And this will stop the tinpot corrupt dictators, constant bloody civil wars, and biweekly genocides how?

There are resources in Africa to feed Africans. They are not being spent.

Litterally, we could pour twice as much into Africa, and fewer would starve to death. An improvement, yes. But it would be to live in abject poverty, with little health care, no jobs, and with the real risk of being dragged out of your home and shot because you have the wrong last name.

So how do we stop all that? Doctors sent over are also regularly shot. We could invade, and have a lovely combination of a World War and Viet Nam on our hands.

And lobbying? You're assuming people at each other's throats and dictators who buy elephants and 14th wives and their hundred and twenty second car with solid gold rims give a shit about lobbysts. Reasonible means sway reasonible people.

We have to wait until it calm down to do more than keep them basically alive, so they can die from disease r a violent death at thirty five.

[Sardakar]

on hd pbs there was a show on china the other day. basically, china is short on farm land and fresh water.


Kind of like Manhattan. An island that grows no food and has no water supply of its own. But since its in a free (relatively) economy, it has the money to import everything it needs. Free economies always yield abundant wealth. The freer the economy and the more individual property rights are protected, the more wealth is produced. If China were a capitalist country, it could sell what it has in exchange for what it needs.

I would rather live on canned imported foods than live under the unavoidable yoke of government tyranny that will inevitably result from imposing population controls. State imposed population controls have a bad history. Nazi Germany, Communist China. I certainly wouldn't want Hitler or Mao's policies in America.

You also mentioned that if the technology infrastructure failed, we would go hungry. That's true. But let's face it...if the technology infrastructure failed, we would also die of disease because there would be no way to make medicine or medical instruments. Many would also die from the wave of violence that would sweep the earth since the weak could not use technology to defend themselves from those who are physically stronger (remember that it takes the technology of the firearm to protect a 5'1" woman from the attack of a 6' 3" man or to protect a country from foreign invasion) We would also die of dehydration by the millions.

[Sardakar]

And this will stop the tinpot corrupt dictators, constant bloody civil wars, and biweekly genocides how?



Very valid points. 500 hundred years ago, droughts and blights certainly caused famines and they were inescapable for almost all people. Today, since no blight or drought afflicts any land area so large that ALL food globally is whiped out, food can be imported due to the technology at our disposal. For example, if a blight to tomatoes whiped out the New Jersey tomato crop, it could still be trucked, trained, airshipped or shipped to the region to feed people.

Why doesn't this happen in africa or other third world countries? Primarily because of the "tinpot corrupt dictators, constant bloody civil wars, and biweekly genocides" that are the true blights of those nations. In such regions, no investment occurs (too risky to invest in a country where the factory you built could be blown up or nationalized at any moment) and theerefore no money is made. No money, no imports, and no technology to import with.

No amount of feeling guilty for our western prosperity, no amount of donations or charity, and no amount of population control on our own people can aleviate the troubles there.

[Miss Anthropic]

I think that the standard of an "acceptable parent" could be too easily abused in a very harmful way. One of the goals of Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was to sterilize poor people, Jews, Catholics and African Americans because she considered them unsuitable and pollutants to the gene pool. It seems like someone with such extreme intentions would be politically flayed, but her organization is thriving today.
Margaret Sanger was not exactly the founder of planned parenthood. She was more like the mother of the birth control movement--which did not necessarily mean sterilization. She promoted birth control to protect women. She was from a time when doctors told women there wasn't anyway they could avoid pregnancy and many died from a variety of home-done abortions. (my grandmother, in the 1920's and 30's was from that era and she had 6 babies, one every two years. If her husband hadn't died when he was 34 she probably would have kept on having them--her doctor, a "good Catholic" man told her there was nothing she could do, and that she was supposed to have babies. Her sister, my great aunt, never had any children, but had multiple abortions because she didn't want kids, but no birth control was available to her.) Margaret Sanger didn't want to sterilize Catholics, it was the Catholics that didn't want her promoting birth control. Ethnically Jewish people can carry genes for Tay Sachs disease which is certain death for the child with two Tay Sachs genes--today there is technology for genetic counseling and the problem can be addressed differently. I'm sure Margaret Sanger thought she was addressing societal problems in a pragmatic way. A quote from her bio: "She focused many of her efforts on gaining support from the medical profession, social workers, and the liberal wing of the eugenics movement. She increasingly rationalized birth control as a means of reducing genetically transmitted mental or physical defects, and at times supported sterilization for the mentally incompetent." She was president of the American Birth Control League from which she resigned before it joined with another organization which was then renamed Planned Parenthood. So she got a little radical in her later years, but mostly she did women a huge favor by giving them information. It was actually the government that did some major surgical sterilization of mentally deficient and/or unstable people in the 30's, 40's and 50's? It was about 60 years after she started her campaign promoting birth control before abortion actually became legal.

In my opinion the government should not dictate how many kids one can have, or who is or is not allowed to have kids--that is until a parent has legally screwed up--in other words, if the first kid gets removed from the home then the gov't should be able to intervene before the irresponsible idiots have more children. However, you are missing the big picture of life if you want to make it perfect by eliminating those you believe aren't deserving. The greatest successes of human existance are those who are born into the worst situations possible and become productive members of society despite the odds against them.

[Zephyrus055]

It has been my experience that the majority are chronically politically ignorant and incapable of reaching rational and thoughtful opinions on their own. Furthermore, their opinions seem to be conditioned in to them. What use is a democracy when the media can condition the convictions of the masses? I have only observed that NTs reach their own conclusions independent of popular conviction and propaganda the most of than any other type. I, for example, find myself constantly coming to a new opinion when new evidence and reasoning is presented. And I have no problem admiting that I could have been wrong. I also know other NTs and one NF who do this too. I don't know of any SJs/SPs who do that, however.

The fundamental flaw with democracy is rooted in economics and the reasoning of more than 85% of the population.

And I'm of the opinion that democracy (and constitutional republic) can not really exist. It inevitably emerges in to a government where a plutocratic elite monopolize the media and electoral process.

So no, universal democracy is out of the question as far as I'm concerned.

I am personally a believer in autocracy. The masses need to be controlled and conditioned with certain beliefs and values for the state to function with a synergistic advantage. This type of government is moreover potentially the most efficient, effective, and utilitarian.

Of course, there is also the possibility of a corrupt autocrat. And I admit I have no clear answer to this, other than my hypothesis that an NT ruler is most immune to corruption. I also have a wealth of examples that show the disproportionate successes of NT autocrats and businessmen from other types. I don't know about NFs though, however.

I am also open to the idea of a limited democracy, where perhaps only NFs/NTs can vote. But the practicality of implementing this would be difficult.

[floyd]

imperator - the research referenced in freakonomics found that money had little effect (1% swing) on political elections. of course, those results might be less accurate in light of the fact that the people who run are far from randomly selected.

NT is just not a reliable measure... T can mean different things. the unabomber was an NT, many serial killers are NTs... do you think they would make good autocrats?

i prefer some form of mixed gov't, a balance of meritocracy and democracy.

[Zephyrus055]

imperator - the research referenced in freakonomics found that money had little effect (1% swing) on political elections. of course, those results might be less accurate in light of the fact that the people who run are far from randomly selected.
Exactly. The plutocratic elite can pound anyone who does not support their interests. While they do not directly rule, they unfairly control those who are in positions of power through bribery and their weapon, the media. It's almost impossible to get in to power on the state and federal level without corporate donations etc. And those who do not act in their interests are immediately demonized by the media, which is controlled by a select few. Well, there is a lot of media, but a few media firms control a large percentage of the media market. It's an oligopoly.



NT is just not a reliable measure... T can mean different things. the unabomber was an NT, many serial killers are NTs... do you think they would make good autocrats?
Lol, those are the exceptions to the rule. I'm referring to NTs who are psychologically healthy and who merit that power. Moreover, the MBTI/Keirsey have not apparently done an adequate job explaining personality and psychological disorders. Those with personality/psychological disorders can be easily mistyped. If we looked at the personality characteristics of a sociopath, I doubt that we would type them as an NT. We'd type them as a sociopath, lol.

A sociopath obviously should not be elevated to the status of autocrat, and a lazy bumm NT who dropped out of high school should not rule either.

And out of all practicality, choosing our autocrat would have nothing to do with electing him/her. "Oh yes, we the people have had enough of the plutocratic elite and we want Joe the mighty NT to rule!" Won't happen. An NT would have to seize power on his own merit and risk. That NT is probably not going to be a psychopath either. Following that, the MBTI can be useful for the autocracy to select their heirs.


i prefer some form of mixed gov't, a balance of meritocracy and democracy.
Eh, a meritocracy really isn't a government, is it? I thought it had to do with how society interracts with people.

[floyd]

a lazy bumm NT who dropped out of high school should not rule either.

i object.

quality introverts don't want to lead or seize power generally... so an autocracy will favor extroverts. sociopaths fit somewhere on the mbti, and i assure you they cluster mostly in the NT and ST zone. further, psychopaths are drawn to power. who the fuck wants to be responsible for a ton of people except a lunatic extrovert.

meritocracy as far as people being put in positions of power due to their merit/intelligence/utility regardless of whether anyone likes them personally.

[Nighthawk]

meritocracy as far as people being put in positions of power due to their merit/intelligence/utility regardless of whether anyone likes them personally.Unfortunately, there are too many F voters and decision makers for that to ever happen.

[Zephyrus055]

i object.

quality introverts don't want to lead or seize power generally... so an autocracy will favor extroverts. sociopaths fit somewhere on the mbti, and i assure you they cluster mostly in the NT and ST zone. further, psychopaths are drawn to power. who the fuck wants to be responsible for a ton of people except a lunatic extrovert. Is there something wrong with ENTJs/ENTPs?

There have been plenty of introverted types who seized absolute power or led revolutions etc.. Augustus Caesar, an INTJ, for example, became Rome's first Emperor. In all honesty, I think there are plently of introverted NTs who desire power, and feel passionate about fixing our current state of inefficiency caused by political and economic incompetence.

I don't think an autocratic system would favor extroverted types any more than our democratic system does. How can a democracy or republic favor introverted types in positions of government less than an autocracy?

Yes, sociopaths and psychopaths desire power. However, their personality characteristics don't fit the personality characteristics of NTs that have been attributed to them by Keirsey. As far as I'm concerned, they may test as NTs, but they are not really NTs.

A sociopath is a sociopath
A NT is a NT
A sociopath is not a NT


meritocracy as far as people being put in positions of power due to their merit/intelligence/utility regardless of whether anyone likes them personally. Oh ok, fair enough. And I agree that meritocracy is certaintly important.

But I don't know how you intend to implement that in a democratic government, except for a political cabinet.

[floyd]

so if keirsey says x, x is true. not all NTs are sociopaths, but many if not most sociopaths are NTs.

entps/entjs are the most likely to be tyrants... so yes i would say there is something 'potentially' wrong with them.

since extroverts prefer to lead far more than introverts, any system which puts 'leaders' in charge of large groups of people is going to attract more extroverts. a system which would complement/attract introverts would be a city-state system like that of the ancient greeks where there is a reduction in central authority and there is more individual autonomy.

[coffeezombie]

since extroverts prefer to lead far more than introverts, any system which puts 'leaders' in charge of large groups of people is going to attract more extroverts. a system which would complement/attract introverts would be a city-state system like that of the ancient greeks where there is a reduction in central authority and there is more individual autonomy.
I don't see any difference between ancient Greece and today's nations except for the fact that government was obviously based more upon local culture. Ancient Sparta was just as likely to have extrovert kings and military leaders as the modern United States. The only system that would work optimally for introverts would be some kind of anarchic form, whether it is anarcho-communism or anarcho-capitalism. I think the presence of laws means leaders, and leaders usually means extroverts, as you aptly point out.

[Zephyrus055]

so if keirsey says x, x is true. not all NTs are sociopaths, but many if not most sociopaths are NTs. Perhaps. But anyway, it irrelevant to the discussion. I was not referring to the small exception to the rule.


entps/entjs are the most likely to be tyrants... so yes i would say there is something 'potentially' wrong with them.Emperor Napoleon I was an ENTJ, and he was no tyrant. Neither was Alexander The Great, an ENTP.

My mom is also an ENTJ. While I find her somewhat annoying, I can't say that she is a tyrant.

Theoretically, maybe some ENTJs/ENTPs are tyrants, but I have my doubts that they are prevalent. And it is unlikely that a tyrannical ENTJs/ENTP would ever gain prominance.

Most of the tyrants I know are ESTJs.


since extroverts prefer to lead far more than introverts, any system which puts 'leaders' in charge of large groups of people is going to attract more extroverts. a system which would complement/attract introverts would be a city-state system like that of the ancient greeks where there is a reduction in central authority and there is more individual autonomy. Really, I don't think introverts are frightened of power, while extroverts seek it. Furthermore, I doubt that extroversion leads one to tyrannical policies.

[floyd]

it does because extroverts are more externally defined so they can't tolerate public insults for example... that is where the penchant for tyranny takes root. an extroverted T is more likely to want others to see them as powerful (generally they are invested in how others see them). an introverted T may like some level of power/wealth, but they don't care if others know, and likely prefer to be a hidden power.

[Claverhouse]

PLACE-HOLDER FOR CLASSIC STATUS



It has been my experience that the majority are chronically politically ignorant and incapable of reaching rational and thoughtful opinions on their own. Furthermore, their opinions seem to be conditioned in to them. What use is a democracy when the media can condition the convictions of the masses? I have only observed that NTs reach their own conclusions independent of popular conviction and propaganda the most of than any other type. I, for example, find myself constantly coming to a new opinion when new evidence and reasoning is presented. And I have no problem admiting that I could have been wrong. I also know other NTs and one NF who do this too. I don't know of any SJs/SPs who do that, however.

The fundamental flaw with democracy is rooted in economics and the reasoning of more than 85% of the population.

And I'm of the opinion that democracy (and constitutional republic) can not really exist. It inevitably emerges in to a government where a plutocratic elite monopolize the media and electoral process.

So no, universal democracy is out of the question as far as I'm concerned.

I am personally a believer in autocracy. The masses need to be controlled and conditioned with certain beliefs and values for the state to function with a synergistic advantage. This type of government is moreover potentially the most efficient, effective, and utilitarian...

This is a most excellent post, and in my opinion justifies moving the entire thread to the Classics. And I agree regarding the Divine Augustus also.

As a legitimist though I should point out that not only is the concept of democracy morally degrading, but in addition to avoiding the corruption of both it and oligarchy which are the only alternatives to kingship ( tyranny being placed under oligarchy since tyrants are the creatures of parties ) we monarchists obviate the danger of people seeking power by giving it solely to one chosen by God and providence through birth --- whether or not they want it. The usual arguments against this are wearisomely familiar: 'suppose he's mad' or 'suppose he's weak' etc., but are fairly irrelevant since exactly the same thing applies to presidents or any head of state, or even ruling party. And are throughout history rather more common in people-chosen governances than in hereditary monarchs.

And, coffeezombie, the 'kings' of Sparta were not monarchs but selected constitutional heads of state with priestly functions: usually the authorities did not allow their wishes to affect what the ruling class decided. Just like the wretched Windsorite/Guelphs in present-day Great Britain.


Claverhouse :ph34r:


[ In but a short while, I shall return with a link on population control for adults only, but it being in my Firefox bookmarks from last night and that I am now about not only to uninstall Firefox and install Fx 1.0.7 and simultaneously install the beta of Firefox 1.5 and then try and run both at the same time, this requires the utmost concentration. It won't get it; but I'll give an imitation of sincere concentration just as if a teacher was blathering on about something I lost the plot of ten minutes before. ]

[Claverhouse]

Before showing the links I must warn that this is a highly unsuitable site for most people --- banging on about various things that worry right-wingers, such as capitalism, banking, the NWO, the CIA, christian zionists, jews etc. ( there is a strong islamist slant ) and suggesting very unlikely theories such as that the mass media (http://www.theunjustmedia.com/Media/Homepage%20Media.htm) in most countries is nearly entirely owned and controlled by jewish people in their own interests; that globalisation (http://www.theunjustmedia.com/Corporation/Corporation%20Home%20Page.htm) is a specific tool to impoverish the masses and make wealthy individuals still more wealthy and powerful; and that coca cola contains cocaine (http://www.theunjustmedia.com/Corporation/Articles%20on%20Corporation/Coca-Cola,%20the%20CIA,%20the%20Courts%20Coke%20and%20Cocaine.htm). Therefore if easily offended it is best to avoid such sites completely. Or complain to the CIA or something.

Still, even in the worst of places there may be nuggets of gold, and the Propaganda (http://www.theunjustmedia.com/Propaganda/Homepage%20Propaganda.htm) list has some useful pages --- if a government could control all media and communication, meanwhile forcing citizens to speak in a politically- controlled jargon, this would blunt independent thinking. If thought could be controlled, then rebellious actions against a regime could be prevented.” Because of the nature of lust for power, moral means to achieve political objectives becomes irrelevant; thus, the motive to conceal real intentions from the citizens. The Sub-Rosa character of the elites is not who they are, but the actual hidden goals they achieve with their policies and control of the State. --- amongst them:

When Propaganda Backfires --- Nigeria (http://www.theunjustmedia.com/Propaganda/When%20Propaganda%20Backfires.htm)
Basic facts and population propaganda and the new world order (http://www.theunjustmedia.com/Propaganda/basic%20facts%20and%20population%20propaganda%20and%20the%20new%20world%20order.htm)

From the first:


Since an undertaking of this sort would, in the event its foreign sponsorship were known, be considered a hostile intervention of monumental proportions, certain basic precautions had to be taken. At the top of the "rules of engagement" list is the requirement that the campaign be undertaken in such a way as to give the false impression that it is coming from within the target country. In other words, it is imperative that the face presented to the public must be a Nigerian face; in fact, proxy communicators would be needed from scores of major ethnic groups scattered all around the country. And getting their participation is no easy task. Few trustworthy people will deliberately and knowingly cover for a politically explosive foreign intervention, only to become publicly associated with a hated ideology. Thus, the recruitment phase requires that channels be created by which money can be transferred through front groups and dummy corporations to disguise its origin. Even collaborators have to be deceived.

Since it is of utmost importance that propaganda themes are tailored to the sensitivities of the intended audiences, extensive research must be done into the worries and concerns, beliefs, taboos, aspirations, expectations, hopes, and desires of each unique group targeted under the nation-wide offensive. This is in itself requires a great deal of money and even more caution. Then, as propaganda messages are developed, they must undergo a thorough testing process before small sample groups, being repeatedly refined until it there is a reasonable certainty that they will evoke the desired response from the intended audience. Then the emphasis shifts to finding actors and spokespersons to convey the messages and the media by which the messages will be disseminated. Again, concealment of the funding source and the intent of the campaign is a perquisite to a successful propaganda strategy. And there is more. Once the campaign actually begins, a continuous process of evaluation is carried out to measure the month-to-month impact of the campaign.

Campaigns of this nature are a high-risk endeavor. Any hint as to the identity of 'secret' funding sources, or any suspicion about the motives behind the propaganda operation, can easily cause the entire program to backfire. And that is precisely what happened in Nigeria.

The writer also quoted a former Nigerian diplomat:

[P]eople are very suspicious about Americans in this country. They have very large populations in America . . . [So] why are they insistent in developing countries like Nigeria, why are they taking so much interest in controlling our births?

Objections were raised not only on racial grounds, but along religious lines as well. One intellectual expressed the view that the US interest in birth control is based on "a fear of large Muslim populations." And an Islamic legal scholar said:

[T]here is a vigorous campaign by youth and religious organizations about this family planning [because they think] that it is an American project that they want to eliminate Muslims, they want to stop the population growth of the Muslims.... I think that is why people in the city are jittery.

And finally, there was the larger hostility toward America that focused on larger US foreign policy matters. "[O]ur people suspect America," said another Muslim leader, "by virtue of what they are hearing every day about American injustices, [such as] American interference in the internal affairs of some other countries . . . especially [the] Gulf crisis

Those crazy foreigners... They seriously imagine that the West does not have their best interests at heart. When all they need to do is follow the directions of western democracy to achieve happiness beyond the rainbow.

From the second ( more interesting ):


Although these may not be things we ordinarily notice, they are resulting in extraordinary changes in the world. Let us look at two important countries. Germany is the demographic giant of Europe, with a population of almost 85 million. Nigeria is Africa's most populous nation with roughly the same number of inhabitants. In Nigeria, the average family has nearly seven children. In Germany, completed family size is just a little more than one.

Now a total fertility rate of seven means that, at the time of their last birth, some women are going to have more than seven children and some will have fewer, but it averages out across the society to seven. For every woman with five children, in other words, there is another who has nine. For each woman who bears only three children there will be one with eleven. Put another way, for each woman who dies childless, there will be roughly five who end their reproductive lives with nine children. That's what you have if the total fertility rate is seven.

On the other hand, when the fertility rate in a country is just 1.3, as it is in Germany today, you are going to have three women who stop at one child for every woman who has two. Or you would count two couples that never produce children at all for every one that has four children. In either case, you have average completed fertility of 1.3, as in Germany.

Obviously, this points to some striking differences in lifestyle and personal preferences. But what do the statistics mean politically?

Here is an example. If you have a congressional district in which three out of four voters are white conservatives, you can pretty much predict how that district will be represented at the national level. But if you had a change over time resulting in the balance being reversed -- so that ethnic minorities affiliated with liberal causes became a 75 percent majority -- you would see a very different electoral outcome.

Does democracy work on a global scale, where imports and exports, possession of important resources, military troop strength, labor force, a clearly-articulated set of interests, and global visibility are the ballots by which world leadership is selected? That is the subject of this discussion.

So what you see, looking at the economically active population, is a tremendous shift in the distribution and ethnicity of the people who produce the world's wealth. Germany begins with a total population roughly equal to that of Nigeria, but it has perhaps twice as of its people with in the young adult and middle aged groups. But over two succeeding generations, we see the economically active population of in Germany shrinking by almost 60 percent. During the same period of time, however, Nigeria's labor force could be expected to grow several fold, and to end up being nearly 13 the size of Germany's (given both Nigeria's growth and Germany's decline). It is important to note that women in developing countries have large families for reasons related to customs, spiritual beliefs, cultural norms -- and what is known as practical common sense in largely-agricultural societies. Nigerians, in other words, have large families because they want them and because they serve the practical needs of Nigerian society. German couples produce very few children because this is consistent their preferences. It has nothing to do with politics. Germans are not consciously committing "race suicide," as reactionary elements within their country call it. And Nigerian women do not have babies because they want Nigeria to stop exporting its oil for cheap and to use its natural wealth to those things that will make the nation powerful. But it may work out that way.

The issue dominates "strategic thinking" in Europe, as well. In fact, the European Parliament in 1984 passed a resolution titled, "European Economic Community Resolution on Measures to Promote Population Growth" (Resolution No. C 127/78). That resolution was based on the assertion that "Europe's standing and influence in the world depend largely on the vitality of its population" and that "population trends in Europe will have a decisive effect on the development of Europe and will determine the significance of the role which Europe will plan in the world in future decades." It noted, too, that European leaders had become "seriously disturbed by the recent statistics showing a rapid decline in the total fertility rates in the EEC," and advised: "unless steps are taken to reverse this trend, the population of the Europe of Ten will account for only 4.5 percent of the total world population by the year 2000 and only 2.3 percent by 2025, as opposed to 8.8 percent in 1950."

The same resolution then called upon the member states to adopt measures "of political and social significance" in order to "combat this marked trend towards population decline," and also to undertake studies of practical steps which could be taken toward that end.

Given the fact that reproductive choices tend not to be made for the good of the state, most experts think it highly unlikely that incentives designed to make larger families more attractive will have a substantial impact on European birthrates. Thus, it is the other side of the equation that is getting most of the attention. And here we speak of coercive population control tactics aimed at the peoples of the developing world.

Here is another quote, this one from a magazine published by the International Planned Parenthood Federation, one of those Agency for International Development contractors. It talks about the activities of the Family Planning Association of India, an affiliate of the AID grant recipient, which pays field workers to go from door to door in india seeking those 230 million women who "need" contraceptives but lack access to them. "We got no response for the first six months," says Pendse, who went from door to door with a female fieldworker. Seeing the [Family Planning Association] vehicle, villagers immediately assumed they were going to be bulldozed into mass sterilizations. "They used to run inside and close the doors and windows."

According to this account, the intended "beneficiaries" of the family planning campaign literally disrupted their lives daily, physically hiding indoors with their windows and doors bolted in an extremely hot, humid climate. And this was explicitly to avoid the family planning "help" which the "experts (and the governments of the U.S. and other wealth nations) insist that they "need" and "want."

That's not all. According to the same report, published November 2, 1991, the group had to resort to a different approach to make inroads into this territory. So, the report continues, family planning promoters disguised themselves as humanitarian relief workers, teaching village women how to combine cereals to make baby food, giving useful instruction about sanitation, helping out with agricultural problems. They did this apparently for quite a long time, and then only very gradually introduced some population propaganda by means of a seemingly-innocent song. According to the same publication, the workers finally taught the women to sing little songs to their children -- songs with anti-fertility messages. Eventually, the messages in the songs started to be tolerated. According to the organization's own report:

Such messages are reinforced through cultural symbols that are familiar to the community. For instance, women who have opted to sterilization after their second child are honoured through traditional means; they are given coconuts, steel utensils, and held up as role models... Houses where all eligible couples have adopted family planning are recognized with a triangle.

But does this work? Over a long period of time, it can have an enormous impact. By co-opting the women into accepting birth control as if it were part of their own culture, resistance is minimized. But still, people are reluctant to do as the foreign-funded family planning groups urge them. Says the same report:

"These women are still at the initial stage of community participation," explains Pendse. "They don't always perceive their needs. The welfare worker has to point them out."

Men can be just as difficult.

"Bharat Gadag is clear that he wants at least one son, and is not prepared to settle for two daughters. "It'll take a little more counselling to change his opinions," explains fieldworker Kotkar.

Now according to the "experts" in the CNN news brief, these people need contraceptives. They have large families because they <> to contraceptives. But according to a published field report from the family planning association, the people don't want the contraceptives. The birth control agency has to employ welfare workers to tell people what is good for them, and even then, people still need "more counselling" so that they will do what the welfare workers want.

They, and we, are in line for much much more counselling. It's so comforting when the liberal didacts know exactly what is best for everyone.





Claverhouse :ph34r:




And yes, I do favour much smaller populations all round; but I don't care for enforced smaller populations, least of all through friendly persuasion and 'little songs'.

[meshou]

Those crazy foreigners... They seriously imagine that the West does not have their best interests at heart. When all they need to do is follow the directions of western democracy to achieve happiness beyond the rainbow.I'm definately not for homogenizing all cultures.

However, western Democracy does have one minor, teensy leg up on the starving African nations-- we tend not to slaughter citizens within our borders on a tens of thousands scale, and we all eat.

I know you have some idea that if you took away choice from the people you don't think should have it, or don't have it in the first place, then the world would be better. But even if 90% of the world is full of people unable to make their own choices, we must treat them like they all are. It's the ten percent which actually do that matter.

What makes you think that the people who do make choices don't float to the top and pull the strings of the rest? Or do it in more subtle ways, a la the various roles in the book The Tipping Point?

Democracy is morally bankrupt. I don't think there's something better. Rule by the intilligent is appealing, but impossible in practice-- intilligence is not measurable in any useful way but the choices people make in their lives. Therefore, confiscating choice before you know what people will choose is stupid.

I'm tired of INTPs whining about how if only the world favored them, it would be better. For who? For 5% of the population? The world isn't made for just you. If you actually want to make 95% of the world miserable just to make you happy, you're no better than the SJs. I suggest you take your superior choosing and mind power, and choose to shut up, do something with your life, and be happy despite not being favored right off the bat. If you really are special, you can manage it. If not, I suppose we can sit here and whine some more about how the dumb world doesn't favor the smart, despite all evidence to the contrary-- consider that you may also be lazy, and perhaps about the average level of stupid.

The smart valuable people will make their way to the top. If you do not, it is because you are either not one nor neither. If you do not like it, I suggest withdrawing from the real world entirely. But fear not. It's one of our talents.

[Claverhouse]

Those crazy foreigners... They seriously imagine that the West does not have their best interests at heart. When all they need to do is follow the directions of western democracy to achieve happiness beyond the rainbow. I'm definately not for homogenizing all cultures.

However, western Democracy does have one minor, teensy leg up on the starving African nations-- we tend not to slaughter citizens within our borders on a tens of thousands scale, and we all eat. I'm not quite sure where you are going with this. The traditional way of imposing one's standards on other peoples is to invade and then declare them part of one's empire. ( Although imperialists usually allow each people to keep their own cultural norms and local law-making --- apart from the really gross stuff --- from Alexander on. ) This although annoying is acceptable: what is a hideous distortion is to impose one's own standards and desired outcomes on foreign peoples, ignoring their wishes, through cultural subversion, blackmail, diktat, secret diplomacy, bribery, preaching and an occasional use of an amount of injudicious force, in order to further one's own ends and benefits; as western democracy & capital does to exploit those peoples just as much as if they were Indians subjugated in the past by the British Empire, Central Asians subjugated by the tsarists or bolsheviki or, say, the Philippines subjugated by the Americans in the first half of the 20th century.

One reason why these 'starving African nations' --- not that all African nations are in the least starving nor killing their citizens: Libya for instance is relatively quiet and prosperous --- are both starving and engaged in mutual slaughter is due to Western interference in the first place which first destroyed their, no doubt horrible, local governance and set up the instantly corrupt systems of democratic idealism; and still maintains controls through trade and diplomacy to keep them poor and fighting in order to extract the goods and labour we in the west need.

Not that I exactly care too much about them dying etc. anyway: as the most magnificent cynicism was uttered by Winston Churchill on someone pointing out the consequences for those sold by his policies into the hell that Yugoslavia was to become: "Are you planning to live there ?" Still, the West is being exceptionally hypocritical and dishonourable in looting Africa through trade whilst preaching policies for them to follow that will actively harm them from their point of view.

I know you have some idea that if you took away choice from the people you don't think should have it, or don't have it in the first place, then the world would be better. But even if 90% of the world is full of people unable to make their own choices, we must treat them like they all are. It's the ten percent which actually do that matter.

What makes you think that the people who do make choices don't float to the top and pull the strings of the rest? Or do it in more subtle ways, a la the various roles in the book The Tipping Point? This seems excessively elitist; and suffers from the American tendency to fawn rather too much on perceived success; or even success as defined by the successful.


Democracy is morally bankrupt. I don't think there's something better. Rule by the intilligent is appealing, but impossible in practice-- intilligence is not measurable in any useful way but the choices people make in their lives. Rule by the intelligent may be appealing to you, it is not to me. And again no doubt it is the intelligent defining the criteria. Intelligence has absolutely nothing to do with either morals, manners or sense. There is no reason to trust it above other qualities. Lenin was highly intelligent: Ferdinand of Bulgaria probably much less so --- I would much rather live under Foxy Ferdinand than Vladimir Illich.


Therefore, confiscating choice before you know what people will choose is stupid. Actually this statement is stupid.

Anyway, you may be quite sure that the mass will always choose the worst outcome through a variation of Gresham's Law: the bad drives out the good, and their gullible wish for short term gain. If you offered the choice between a simple nutritious meal and tasty Soylant Green a la Macdonalds, guess which Golden Arches will be flooded ? Not that the question of choice comes into it. Should democracy be either valid or invalid as it is, then giving or taking away the power to choose is irrelevant.

As for the likely decisions of governments 'elected' by those ordinary citizens: one of Bismarck's best quotes has it, when asked what he thought the Court of Austria would do next: "What's the silliest thing you can think of ?"


I'm tired of INTPs whining about how if only the world favored them, it would be better. For who? For 5% of the population? The world isn't made for just you. If you actually want to make 95% of the world miserable just to make you happy, you're no better than the SJs. I suggest you take your superior choosing and mind power, and choose to shut up, do something with your life, and be happy despite not being favored right off the bat. If you really are special, you can manage it. If not, I suppose we can sit here and whine some more about how the dumb world doesn't favor the smart, despite all evidence to the contrary-- consider that you may also be lazy, and perhaps about the average level of stupid.

The smart valuable people will make their way to the top. If you do not, it is because you are either not one nor neither. If you do not like it, I suggest withdrawing from the real world entirely. But fear not. It's one of our talents. Where have I whined about either intpism or the world not favouring me or intps ? And where have I ever claimed that I was intelligent --- quite the opposite: I know my limitations --- or that the world should follow my prescript ? I would ask more, but the last three sentences are just such Babbitian Panglossian crap, I'm going to have to lie down to recover.



Claverhouse :ph34r:


Also there's a double negative in your last.

[SensEye]

If you actually want to make 95% of the world miserable just to make you happy, you're no better than the SJs. In the context of this thread, in theory is that 'intelligent' population control would benefit everybody. Most particulary those unfortunate children born into dire poverty. I remain convinced it would, but such social policy is not going to happen during my lifetime so we'll never know. It's got nothing to do with making me happy. It would make no difference to my day to day life.

[meshou]

In the context of this thread, in theory is that 'intelligent' population control would benefit everybody. Most particulary those unfortunate children born into dire poverty. I remain convinced it would, but such social policy is not going to happen during my lifetime so we'll never know. It's got nothing to do with making me happy. It would make no difference to my day to day life.I was talking about the general "if we restructured society in exactly the way I like, everything would be better" whinge that goes on across the board.

My problem with population control is that, in the end, there's no good way to do it.

[meshou]

Claverhouse:

If you are arguing that there is no choice and no noise in the system, then you are arguing that there is no better possible way to do it. You must believe at least in choice, if not free will, to argue that anything could be done differently.

I don't really believe in it. I don't believe you have it, or I have it. However, acting as if people did have it is the only position I would call moral.


I am very sorry I was not alive two hundred years ago to singlehandedly stop colonization, and that nothing I can do now can change the situation. In fact, I'm all for withdrawing all political interference beyond making sure they're fed.

The fact remains-- I eat, and many there do not. Therefore, I think my way of life is better. This does not imply we should do anything to change it, just that no one's wrong for pointing out it's a shitty way to live.

The rant at the end was not specifically directed at you. However, you do seem to have a lot of ideas that no one in the world wants to impliment. Perhaps it's because people probably know better than you do how to run their own lives.

So, why do you want to inflict your ideals on western society when it's wrong to do so in Africa's case?

[panda]

I was talking about the general "if we restructured society in exactly the way I like, everything would be better" whinge that goes on across the board.

My problem with population control is that, in the end, there's no good way to do it.
If I restructured society the way I liked it, it would certainly be good for me. I deeply suspect other people might have a problem with it, though. Damn.

EDIT: I was in the mood to be obvious and redundant.

[Claverhouse]

Claverhouse:

If you are arguing that there is no choice and no noise in the system, then you are arguing that there is no better possible way to do it. You must believe at least in choice, if not free will, to argue that anything could be done differently.
I'm not sure what you mean by the first sentence: but if there is no meaningful choice in the system. that is the design of the system. Even if I don't accept that power should reside in the sovereignty of the people, it does not follow that I accept that there is no better system than the present one which also denies choice to those nominal people.

Certainly my belief denies choice of government, but not free will, to everybody. As to how monarchic governance arises, it is rarely through the choice of people. Nor should it be.


I don't really believe in it. I don't believe you have it, or I have it. However, acting as if people did have it is the only position I would call moral.
Really ? Why is it moral to live a lie ?


I am very sorry I was not alive two hundred years ago to singlehandedly stop colonization, and that nothing I can do now can change the situation. In fact, I'm all for withdrawing all political interference beyond making sure they're fed.
I'm not particularly against colonisation or empire: they are natural processes arising from when a country grows to a certain extent: "Either something is growing or dying" as the Buddha said. It is entirely natural that America should expand it's power from the Civil War on, it had reached that stage in it's development. But when imperialism is disguised as beneficial loving-kindness masking the enforcement of it's own foreign political ideals and looting through trade it becomes hypocritical and disgusting. Particularly when it dupes the third world into limiting their populations for it's own reasons.


The rant at the end was not specifically directed at you. However, you do seem to have a lot of ideas that no one in the world wants to impliment. Perhaps it's because people probably know better than you do how to run their own lives.
Well, I know better than you how to run my own life, and my country should know better than yours how to run it's own life: doesn't stop there being an occupation army of American service-people in my country or many many other countries. I'm not sure which 'ideas' you are referring to, other than monarchism. I believe in veganism sure, but have never said that others should be vegan; but I would prefer all vivisection banned. Other than that... ? Apart from your peculiar assumption that no one other than myself wants monarchism --- which has a feeble semblance of truth because of the temporary power of the lie of democracy --- the main reason that peoples outside America are denied it is because of the present power-structure under-written and enforced by the United States. As it would have been under-written and enforced by the USSR had the Cold War gone the other way. The fact that power resides in the hands it does, does not legitimise that power.

It's certainly not that people probably know better than <-> do how to run their own lives: they don't make those decisions: governments do. And always will.


So, why do you want to inflict your ideals on western society when it's wrong to do so in Africa's case?
Because I am western and not African. They have the right to do exactly as they please ( apart from as I hinted the gross stuff, such as reinstituting the slave trade for instance ). And you are already inflicting your ideals ( democracy and all that crap ) on the west and me.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[illusivemind]

We have to wait until it calm down to do more than keep them basically alive, so they can die from disease r a violent death at thirty five.

If that’s true, then you are perfectly justified in ignoring the problem until you consider it manageable. I don’t think it is true, and nothing short of the impossibility of changing the current state of Africa and all impoverished nations justifies Western resources spent on decadence or just anywhere but the problem.

If you truly believe it is impossible, then I pity your close mindedness, but nonetheless respect your view.



Democracy is morally bankrupt. I don't think there's something better. Rule by the intilligent is appealing, but impossible in practice-- intilligence is not measurable in any useful way but the choices people make in their lives. Therefore, confiscating choice before you know what people will choose is stupid.

I'm tired of INTPs whining about how if only the world favored them, it would be better. For who? For 5% of the population? The world isn't made for just you.


I agree. But does our system favour smart people making it to the top (GW Bush?) or cunning people?



due to Western interference in the first place which first destroyed their, no doubt horrible, local governance and set up the instantly corrupt systems of democratic idealism; and still maintains controls through trade and diplomacy to keep them poor and fighting in order to extract the goods and labour we in the west need.

Too right. The United States champions the ‘free-trade’ movement, proclaiming that countries have to open up their markets if they want to be profitable and do business with the US. They forget that the countries that have become rich have done so when their economies were sufficiently strong. Whereas countries like Thailand have had their economies crippled by the US ‘liberating’ their markets for the taking.

I think for democracy to be legitimate, you don’t need enlightened leaders you need enlightened masses. But that is so subjective as to be bordering on meaninglessness. One of the pillars of liberalism is that whilst you may find something repulsive or repugnant, this is not justification in of itself to legislate against it, distasteful pornographic ‘art’ for instance. But in a democracy, so long as you have enough people to find that thing repulsive and agree that it should be banned so as to protect people from themselves, voila, you’re favourite book is being burned.

However, If I have to choose between the tastes of a voting majority and an unelected minority, I choose the majority.

[TwoBigFish]

The problem of poverty stricken children is largely driven by a welfare system that rewards irresponsible parenthood with larger dividends.

There are millions more people waiting to adopt fresh little pink babies than there are unwanted crack babies (or aborted babies, for that friggin matter, but I'll leave that for another day) ... a good social campaign would be to convince all uninterested parents to give their children to homes that want them.

That being said, government should have a say in that about as much as they should have a say in what kind of car I drive, where I live, what I eat or how I raise a family.

That is to say ... they should have none, but probably will get some at some point because of all the socialist psychos like Lady Clinton who think the village should get to raise the child.

-C

:sobs: :banana:

[eyebyte_atWork]

The problem of poverty stricken children is largely driven by a welfare system that rewards irresponsible parenthood with larger dividends.

There are millions more people waiting to adopt fresh little pink babies than there are unwanted crack babies (or aborted babies, for that friggin matter, but I'll leave that for another day) ... a good social campaign would be to convince all uninterested parents to give their children to homes that want them.

That being said, government should have a say in that about as much as they should have a say in what kind of car I drive, where I live, what I eat or how I raise a family.

That is to say ... they should have none, but probably will get some at some point because of all the socialist psychos like Lady Clinton who think the village should get to raise the child.

-C

:sobs: :banana:


Loaded subject .

[Dman]

Loaded subject .

Sentence fragment.

[Dman]

“Sentence fragment” is a sentence fragment.

[eyebyte_atWork]

“Sentence fragment” is a sentence fragment.

also a loaded subject :)

[Rajah]

Here's an interesting link:


Australians do ‘patriotic duty’: Birthrate up

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9509847/

A quote from the story: During a budget speech in May last year, Costello urged Australians to have more children, telling couples to “have one for your husband, one for your wife and one for your country.”

So, how do you feel about this government official (the Treasurer) actually encouraging people to have kids?

[kendoiwan]

The problem of poverty stricken children is largely driven by a welfare system that rewards irresponsible parenthood with larger dividends.

There are millions more people waiting to adopt fresh little pink babies than there are unwanted crack babies (or aborted babies, for that friggin matter, but I'll leave that for another day) ... a good social campaign would be to convince all uninterested parents to give their children to homes that want them.

That being said, government should have a say in that about as much as they should have a say in what kind of car I drive, where I live, what I eat or how I raise a family.

That is to say ... they should have none, but probably will get some at some point because of all the socialist psychos like Lady Clinton who think the village should get to raise the child.

-C

:sobs: :banana:


False what about all the countries in the world without any welfare system to speak of... the problem of poverty stricken child results from the fact that poor people have unprotected sex just like everybody else... christ it's not that complicated... :blink:

[illusivemind]

The push for couples to have more children is because of the ageing population in Australia. By around the time all the baby boomers want the pension, we won't have the money nor will they be enough people left working.

So we've raised the retirement age and given tax rewards to families who have had children in the right time window since the last federal budget. Methinks that is the real reason for the rise in birthrate, no-one listens to Costello.

[Rajah]

The push for couples to have more children is because of the ageing population in Australia. By around the time all the baby boomers want the pension, we won't have the money nor will they be enough people left working.

So we've raised the retirement age and given tax rewards to families who have had children in the right time window since the last federal budget. Methinks that is the real reason for the rise in birthrate, no-one listens to Costello.Solution! Send the excess world population to Australia. Done and done. :)

[illusivemind]

Solution! Send the excess world population to Australia. Done and done. :)

Only if they look white, Australians tend to put all the other 'funny lookin' foreigner's in detention centers without charge for years on end. Even if they turn out to be Australian citizens and/or mentally ill.

[dubbeltop]

a belgian man had 30 kids from 5 females. so np right. well guess who has to pay for those kids lol. but lucky for him because our population is declining because we all want 2 cars and 3 holidays a year he is now a local hero.

ps: the number of wives and children might be on the low side.