Birth Control: The world's population needs to be reduced in number don't you think?
- Thread starter Kudos
- Start date
TranceVisuals
Banned
An excellent book that I am reading at the moment, quite succiently puts it that those people that want
an easy simple answer, basically are avoiding thinking. One can only hope to stimulate the mind of
another, to provoke one to become responsible to their own education, facilitate if you will.
The question you asked is a complex one to which to answer fully and concisely for you was to put forward
some examples of research that had contributed to my views.
an easy simple answer, basically are avoiding thinking. One can only hope to stimulate the mind of
another, to provoke one to become responsible to their own education, facilitate if you will.
The question you asked is a complex one to which to answer fully and concisely for you was to put forward
some examples of research that had contributed to my views.
Yodhe, to recap: Ott and I have suggested that the cause of a lot of unnecessary human suffering is a thing we call basic human greed. You then disagreed, saying that this greed is part of our societal conditioning, due to a conspiracy of some sort. I have not yet disagreed, as I am uncertain whether there is a difference between what you are referring to and what I mean when I say basic human greed.
What I am trying to get across is that there are humans who are greedy at a very basic level. This is why I have referred to basic human greed. How this greed came about is not the question (though that is a very interesting point); I hope everyone here believes that its causes can indeed be transcended. But its effects are more difficult to counter, and have more to do with the topic.
What I am trying to get across is that there are humans who are greedy at a very basic level. This is why I have referred to basic human greed. How this greed came about is not the question (though that is a very interesting point); I hope everyone here believes that its causes can indeed be transcended. But its effects are more difficult to counter, and have more to do with the topic.
TranceVisuals
Banned
Fair enough points that you have raised. I was merely concerned that people had said that such greed is innate,
like some catholic original sin, rather than a product of circumstance. Like we have a genetic predisposition to greed,
or not. To paraphase the words of timothy leary towards his demise.... "We may have failed on a lot of things, but one thing is sure we showed how wrong the bahaviourologists were."
like some catholic original sin, rather than a product of circumstance. Like we have a genetic predisposition to greed,
or not. To paraphase the words of timothy leary towards his demise.... "We may have failed on a lot of things, but one thing is sure we showed how wrong the bahaviourologists were."
SugarPixie
unforgoatable
Ott^ said:
They DO - maybe at the moment we have enough to go round - I think any malthusian type predictions being realised are due to problems with distribution of resources rather than actual shortage - however, world population can't continue to grow exponentially and not crash at some point surely?
Yes, problems at the moment are mainly caused by consumerism - but even if blaming population problems on ''fecundity of the lower classes'' - I guess the modern equivalent being Less economically developed countries with large population groth - is termed wrong and policically incorrect, it's a fact that developing countries have the largest birth rate, and their population will continue to rise until their birth rate falls in line with their death rate. Once [if] all countries do this, surely we'll have a huge overpopulation crisis, even if you COULD change attitudes and resource distribution to make everything more even - and then some form of malthusian theory would take over - people aren't gonna sit around going ''well, nobody really has enough food, but at least we're equal''.
I just can't believe that, even with huge advances in food production technology, GM, high yeald strains etc, that we can keep food production up enough to feed everyone unless birth rate falls dramatically, especially with current trends of environmental degradation.
TranceVisuals
Banned
I have seen the research that was, and is still being done on food sources.
I was in the lucky position to have a father very high up in the MAFF (as it was then),
Ministry of Food, and Fisheries. Not only after the second world war was the imperative
need for excelled food production needed, but also in the advent of a third world war. In
which case for obvious reasons, under the old guidelines the MAFF became the second
most important ministry after defence, even more important than the home office. As a
result of this, partially envisioning large areas of the country devastated by nuclear fallout,
they worked on a emergency food system, using algae. Now it wouldn't be very great to
eat, and make for a boring diet, but they they managed to get 100 times the food yeild using
algae tanks, than compared to the nearest equivalent.
Not only that, but algae could be grown offshore, in near unlimited farming capacity. And
that is with technology around ten years ago. The appropriate utilisation of the sea area for
food production would enable the population to increase some 100 fold before there was any
serious problems, and if the majority of food production was shipped off shore, we would have
more space than we currently do, even with the additional population.
Not only that but hopefully we are only a few generations from establishing off planet colonies,
and habitation, which will cool the ever increasing population pressure. And lets face it for all
practicable purposes for the imminent future space is infinite, a near infinite amount of stuff,
particularly large dead rocks that we can crawl over and spread life out to.
I also know as a student of eschatology (the study of the end of the world), that every generation
has predicted doom and gloom, that there would be too many people, that london would drown in
its own sewage (that was a good one!!!), that we need to exterminate the unfit people to give more
resources for the "well" people etc etc. And guess what folks, it hasn't happened yet, and I will
bet any money you like it won't happen in the foreseeable future either.
That doesn't mean that the quality of life isn't being eroded, or that it won't change in bizarre and hithertoo
fanatasical ways, but it isn't a result of there not being enough..... it is a simple mismanagement, ignorance
that causes so much continued suffering. But it seems far easier to blame physical shortages than admit
there is something wrong with our culture, and way of life, and be brave enough to go, excuse there is
another way of doing things. And I don't mean living like luddites in yogurt weaving communities, even if that
is a fantasy of mine, well minus the yogurt, the weaving and the luddite bit.
I was in the lucky position to have a father very high up in the MAFF (as it was then),
Ministry of Food, and Fisheries. Not only after the second world war was the imperative
need for excelled food production needed, but also in the advent of a third world war. In
which case for obvious reasons, under the old guidelines the MAFF became the second
most important ministry after defence, even more important than the home office. As a
result of this, partially envisioning large areas of the country devastated by nuclear fallout,
they worked on a emergency food system, using algae. Now it wouldn't be very great to
eat, and make for a boring diet, but they they managed to get 100 times the food yeild using
algae tanks, than compared to the nearest equivalent.
Not only that, but algae could be grown offshore, in near unlimited farming capacity. And
that is with technology around ten years ago. The appropriate utilisation of the sea area for
food production would enable the population to increase some 100 fold before there was any
serious problems, and if the majority of food production was shipped off shore, we would have
more space than we currently do, even with the additional population.
Not only that but hopefully we are only a few generations from establishing off planet colonies,
and habitation, which will cool the ever increasing population pressure. And lets face it for all
practicable purposes for the imminent future space is infinite, a near infinite amount of stuff,
particularly large dead rocks that we can crawl over and spread life out to.
I also know as a student of eschatology (the study of the end of the world), that every generation
has predicted doom and gloom, that there would be too many people, that london would drown in
its own sewage (that was a good one!!!), that we need to exterminate the unfit people to give more
resources for the "well" people etc etc. And guess what folks, it hasn't happened yet, and I will
bet any money you like it won't happen in the foreseeable future either.
That doesn't mean that the quality of life isn't being eroded, or that it won't change in bizarre and hithertoo
fanatasical ways, but it isn't a result of there not being enough..... it is a simple mismanagement, ignorance
that causes so much continued suffering. But it seems far easier to blame physical shortages than admit
there is something wrong with our culture, and way of life, and be brave enough to go, excuse there is
another way of doing things. And I don't mean living like luddites in yogurt weaving communities, even if that
is a fantasy of mine, well minus the yogurt, the weaving and the luddite bit.
Stuoolong
Professionally fluffy
Squagnut said:
Stuoolong said:
At the end of the day, we are animals. If you believe in the theory of evolution, it is easy to argue that we have a survival of the fittest mechanism hard-wired into our brain.
In modern times, much of our behaviour as humans has transcended this - we are altruistic, generous and caring of our fellow man. Whatever one says about religions, they have been the most influential driving force behind this, IMO.
But we still have the desire to get the best for ourselves and our families, and it's a very rare westerner who can give away most of what they have so that those poorer than they can survive. I would purport that the majority of westerners (including myself) don't think that deeply about it most of the time, and if a comfy lifestyle with all the mod cons comes their way, they take it. Especially when the starving people are on the other side of the world and NIMBY.
The issue of who in the world is "fittest" and why is more a political one, and nothing to do with genetics or physiology. Since we have become social beings, being "fittest" means a variety of things depending on which culture you are brought up in. For example, vast amounts of people in Britain want a partner who is wealthy financially. Because our culture demands that, to get all the mod cons, you need wealth.
I believe that this situation is changing rapidly for the better as more and more people "turn on, tune in" (sic) to the reality of the inequalities of the world and realise that they do not need as much as they thought they did. As this happens, more and more people will learn to transcend the "survival of the fittest" hard-wire.
trancetheory
♥♪♫
not entirly true, many third world families have large families delibratly to increase their chances of survival, not because they want a large family, but because they want a better chance that a few of them will survive. Sad but true.
trancetheory
♥♪♫
ummmm....which planet are you talking about again?
yodhe said:
I do relate to your general optimism, but not this argument that space and resources are effectively infinite. It's reminiscent of the flawed economists' argument that resources are really, really, really, big - so big they practically infinite - so it wont matter if we chop down billions of trees cos there'll always be more. Tell that to the Amazon rainforest.
I'm not even convinced there is a huge amount of liveable "space" left. Coming from Australia I'm used to people saying "you could fit a billion people in Australia -it's so big" without considering the obvious problem there would be with a lack of water, since most of the place is desert. Some people believe the first battle has already begun over water resources (aquifers in Gaza, between Israel and Palestine). And remember, while it's certainly possible to reclaim land and make it habitable, it costs energy, and someone, somewhere has to pay that cost.
Hmmm.. I'm sounding rather negative now, though I intended to argue against Malthusian type arguments. :huh:
Instead, let me summarise what the positions seem to be:
1) Malthus is wrong cos we have always developed new improved technology in the past so will do so in future, thereby saving ourselves.
and, 2) Malthus is right, cos even though he has been wrong continuously up until now, that doesn't mean he wont be right in the future.
ie: both the argument for and against a Malthusian future are based on "unpredictable future developments".
Which is pretty much an argument of optimism vs pessimism.
Would be nice to have some more facts behind the arguments.
TranceVisuals
Banned
Nope, just a shame statistically I wont be here to see it.....
SugarPixie
unforgoatable
Man, the geography part of the brain is happy and pulsating with stimulation...
Anyway, back to me being a pessimist [actually I have very little left to say cos i'm running out of arguments..]:
Even if malthus etc turn out to be completely wrong, surely it's best to try and cause as little further population growth as possible - because then we have a vague idea that it'll be ok.
I guess my point is, with all the problems in the world right now, won't they be worse once the population in the poorest countries is like ours? From the past, and what's happening right now, it is pretty likely that these are the populations that are gonna grow the most, because it tends to take a while for the fall in death rate to have an equivalent fall in birth rate and for the population to re-stabalise - leading to a huge increase in population.
And say what you want about improvements in food production - yeah, so there could be an increase in the amount of food. But there's still enviromental degradation going on, and we don't really know how that's gonna affect our planet.
And, who knows if we can just run off and live on other planets once we've screwed up this one? Wouldn't it be better to try and make it work here rather than just hoping it'll be ok?
Back to the original topic though, I reckon that laws attempting to regulate population growth wouldn't be a good thing, causing social problems and all.
What HAS worked in one of the poorest places in India [we were led to believe it worked when we studied it as a geography case study anyway..] is more eductation, improving the status of women, and widespread access to family planning has had a huge impact on population growth - people over there were voluntairily being sterilised before they were
0 with only 3 or 3 kids.
Anyway, back to me being a pessimist [actually I have very little left to say cos i'm running out of arguments..]:
Even if malthus etc turn out to be completely wrong, surely it's best to try and cause as little further population growth as possible - because then we have a vague idea that it'll be ok.
I guess my point is, with all the problems in the world right now, won't they be worse once the population in the poorest countries is like ours? From the past, and what's happening right now, it is pretty likely that these are the populations that are gonna grow the most, because it tends to take a while for the fall in death rate to have an equivalent fall in birth rate and for the population to re-stabalise - leading to a huge increase in population.
And say what you want about improvements in food production - yeah, so there could be an increase in the amount of food. But there's still enviromental degradation going on, and we don't really know how that's gonna affect our planet.
And, who knows if we can just run off and live on other planets once we've screwed up this one? Wouldn't it be better to try and make it work here rather than just hoping it'll be ok?
Back to the original topic though, I reckon that laws attempting to regulate population growth wouldn't be a good thing, causing social problems and all.
What HAS worked in one of the poorest places in India [we were led to believe it worked when we studied it as a geography case study anyway..] is more eductation, improving the status of women, and widespread access to family planning has had a huge impact on population growth - people over there were voluntairily being sterilised before they were
0 with only 3 or 3 kids.
Reconstructed
Member
RedZebra said:
Good point here about water.
A lot of people are surprised when you tell them that water shortages are one of the biggest problems facing humanity today. There is already a significant problem with water in the Middle East, China and parts of the North American midwest. Desalination just isn't economically feasable, and rivers running through multiple nations pose a huge problem of who controls the water on their land. Can a country upriver dam that river and use its water for its people? That kind of screws the countries downriver...
Water is the next oil, I reckon.
jenijen
Junior Members
What an interesting thread. I was pleased and relieved to see that so many people disagreed with the initial post.
Interestngly enough in a few years time there might actually be encouragement for higher birth rates in this country, due to the fact that we have too low a working population to support the elderly/retired people from the baby boom generation. I doubt if that will actually happen, but it is definitely an issue.
I heard recently abut how europe produces WAY more of certain foods than we can eat (namely beef and butter) and there are massive stores of it that go back many years (why they dont send it where its needed i dont know...) My friends who work in homeless shelters cook beef up to 20 years old from these stores.
We wont go back to burning wood and coal, its not in any way realistic. Nuclear power provides some benefits if it is used safely and carefully. wind and water power technologies are growing...
Interestngly enough in a few years time there might actually be encouragement for higher birth rates in this country, due to the fact that we have too low a working population to support the elderly/retired people from the baby boom generation. I doubt if that will actually happen, but it is definitely an issue.
I heard recently abut how europe produces WAY more of certain foods than we can eat (namely beef and butter) and there are massive stores of it that go back many years (why they dont send it where its needed i dont know...) My friends who work in homeless shelters cook beef up to 20 years old from these stores.
We wont go back to burning wood and coal, its not in any way realistic. Nuclear power provides some benefits if it is used safely and carefully. wind and water power technologies are growing...
lala69
51% Sweetheart,49% Bitch
In South Africa, we've had it drummed into us that we simply shouldn't have large families because the world can't handle it. I got to the UK to find that people are breeding very efficiently here. Culture shock.
I do agree that the world population needs to stop expanding, but I don't think that laws are the answer. I think the idea should be to reward people for having less children. Tax rebates and stuff. The more children you have, the more you pay for the way you're taxing the environment.
At the end of the day - people should make the choice for themselves - though. Easy for me to say - I have no children. But then again - I've made damn sure about that. Safety and repsonsibility and all that.
I do agree that the world population needs to stop expanding, but I don't think that laws are the answer. I think the idea should be to reward people for having less children. Tax rebates and stuff. The more children you have, the more you pay for the way you're taxing the environment.
At the end of the day - people should make the choice for themselves - though. Easy for me to say - I have no children. But then again - I've made damn sure about that. Safety and repsonsibility and all that.
NotaMongoose
Or am I?
There won't be a shortage of water in ten years. There is already a technology that is able to desalinate water for free, without using up any net energy. This is the same technology that can be used to generate electricity, again 'for free' - a working version of this can create 10Kw of energy just by turning it on. These technologies tap into what is called "zero-point energy" (Anyone seen the Incredibles? That Incrediboy character makes reference to it when he zaps the Incredibles with a time-stasis beam), and is not science-fiction. It is simply a technology that has been deemed dangerous, and is currently being blocked from research.
The reason it is being blocked is because it goes against 150 years of scientific 'truth'. These are truths that make a lot of people very rich, and so blocking it is the only way of keeping those people(read: Oil companies) rich.
So water need not be a problem. Neither need lack of oil. Hell, stop burning oil and harness zero-point energy, we still need plastics, right? Yeah, but you can make plastics from household waste, again someone has patented a device that does this, easily and cheaply. But I bet you haven't heard about it, right?
The only reason humans will ever have a problem accessing resources, is because other humans are stopping them.
http://jnaudin.free.fr/meg/meg.htm Read about the Motionless Electromagnetic Generator here. As you see, it has a US patent, which means it is a technology which has been PROVED to work.
Anyone who has any knowledge of physics or electrodynamics should read up on zero-point energy. A good page to read is
http://www.halexandria.org/dward154.htm
Although watch out for some of his ideas on the rest of that site, Dan Sewell Ward is rather a... radical thinker. But the physics stuff is very very heavily referenced.
The reason it is being blocked is because it goes against 150 years of scientific 'truth'. These are truths that make a lot of people very rich, and so blocking it is the only way of keeping those people(read: Oil companies) rich.
So water need not be a problem. Neither need lack of oil. Hell, stop burning oil and harness zero-point energy, we still need plastics, right? Yeah, but you can make plastics from household waste, again someone has patented a device that does this, easily and cheaply. But I bet you haven't heard about it, right?
The only reason humans will ever have a problem accessing resources, is because other humans are stopping them.
http://jnaudin.free.fr/meg/meg.htm Read about the Motionless Electromagnetic Generator here. As you see, it has a US patent, which means it is a technology which has been PROVED to work.
Anyone who has any knowledge of physics or electrodynamics should read up on zero-point energy. A good page to read is
http://www.halexandria.org/dward154.htm
Although watch out for some of his ideas on the rest of that site, Dan Sewell Ward is rather a... radical thinker. But the physics stuff is very very heavily referenced.
...there's a lot of crackpots on the web.
I'll not say it's not true, cos there is certainly some heavy physics in that link, and I'm not too hot on physics. Also, physics has proven some amazing stuff (superconductors, "tangled" subatomic particles, etc)... although not cold fusion as seemed to be being claimed on that site (the original cold fusion "result" could never be replicated).
Anyways, a few points:
- from the abstract of the patent there doesnt appear to be anything about it producing more energy than was put in - just transferring electromagnetic energy between a certain arrangement of coils. So the fact that the patent was granted doesn't "prove" that it works and can generate free energy.
- conspiracy theories are all well and good, and while I'm ready to believe a government or a company would hush up some new discovery which works against their own interests, you gotta remember that scientists (well, not all, but enough!) are egotistical, proud and desperate for fame and/or funding (or at least, funding!)... if this thing worked even slightly, everyone would be working on it and trying to be the first to publish it (Nobel prize, anyone?). That's what happened when the cold fusion story was published 10-15(?) years ago... labs all round the world JUMPED on it for 2 reasons, (a) if it was true they wanted to be in on it (b) if it was false they would no doubt be quite happy to disprove their competitors idea. But motive (a) is a strong one...
- just cos one lone, maverik, (misunderstood, excluded, rejected,...) scientist believes something that no-one else does doesn't make it true! See the recent thread about the lone dissenting scientist about HIV causing AIDS for example.
- the argument that governments etc are smothering the idea doesn't really make much sense. Can you imagine how powerful would be the country with the sole techonology to create energy??!
- there is no "scientific truth", 150 years old, or even longer. Science is about hypotheses, theories, ideas, and these are held up for scutiny to be disproved. Ok, there are scientific "laws", and disproving (or at least proving that it is not complete) a law is the ultimate dream of any scientist cos it puts you in the league of Einstein who proved Newton's law of gravity was incomplete.
It would be really, really cool, if it was true and we will have free energy in 10 years, but I think you ought to prepare yourself for disappointment. If there's a physicist around I'd be interested to know what they think about the theory. I try to have an open mind - there's lots we don't know or understand - so I'll be happy to be proved wrong!
thanks for the post though - the website looks intriguing.
I'll not say it's not true, cos there is certainly some heavy physics in that link, and I'm not too hot on physics. Also, physics has proven some amazing stuff (superconductors, "tangled" subatomic particles, etc)... although not cold fusion as seemed to be being claimed on that site (the original cold fusion "result" could never be replicated).
Anyways, a few points:
- from the abstract of the patent there doesnt appear to be anything about it producing more energy than was put in - just transferring electromagnetic energy between a certain arrangement of coils. So the fact that the patent was granted doesn't "prove" that it works and can generate free energy.
- conspiracy theories are all well and good, and while I'm ready to believe a government or a company would hush up some new discovery which works against their own interests, you gotta remember that scientists (well, not all, but enough!) are egotistical, proud and desperate for fame and/or funding (or at least, funding!)... if this thing worked even slightly, everyone would be working on it and trying to be the first to publish it (Nobel prize, anyone?). That's what happened when the cold fusion story was published 10-15(?) years ago... labs all round the world JUMPED on it for 2 reasons, (a) if it was true they wanted to be in on it (b) if it was false they would no doubt be quite happy to disprove their competitors idea. But motive (a) is a strong one...
- just cos one lone, maverik, (misunderstood, excluded, rejected,...) scientist believes something that no-one else does doesn't make it true! See the recent thread about the lone dissenting scientist about HIV causing AIDS for example.
- the argument that governments etc are smothering the idea doesn't really make much sense. Can you imagine how powerful would be the country with the sole techonology to create energy??!
- there is no "scientific truth", 150 years old, or even longer. Science is about hypotheses, theories, ideas, and these are held up for scutiny to be disproved. Ok, there are scientific "laws", and disproving (or at least proving that it is not complete) a law is the ultimate dream of any scientist cos it puts you in the league of Einstein who proved Newton's law of gravity was incomplete.
It would be really, really cool, if it was true and we will have free energy in 10 years, but I think you ought to prepare yourself for disappointment. If there's a physicist around I'd be interested to know what they think about the theory. I try to have an open mind - there's lots we don't know or understand - so I'll be happy to be proved wrong!
thanks for the post though - the website looks intriguing.