MonteQuest on the Population Taboo

Devin · Heavy Crude Joined: Apr 07, 2008 Posts: 202

Noted.

Mack12345 · Tar Sands Joined: Jun 02, 2008 Posts: 78

Im pretty new around here .
Spent the last like 3 daysa reading this thred , very interesting .

I just want to weigh in in support of Monte's logic .
Yes it sucks ,But something should be done to control and drasticly reduce our population . "I dont mean ending any current lives im talking like by dramaticly reduceing birthrate by whatever means are required" .

Now realisticly we all know that likely wont happen Sad

... So mother nature will have to lay a very horrible and violent smackdown upon our species .

Ferretlover · Last edited by Ferretlover on Fri Jul 25, 2008 4:11 pm; edited 1 time in total

bshirt · Heavy Crude Joined: Dec 23, 2006 Posts: 446

lper100km

Fascinating idea: Pre-emptive action to avoid a later, larger problem? Yes, it’s being endlessly posted about so I might as well add my take.

I think a large part of the controversy lies with the shifting nature of morals and ethics. These are products of their time. When all lower survival needs are satisfied, we then have the luxury of fine tuning our attitudes, behaviours and beliefs. Unquestionably, the liberal thoughts, attitudes and practices that have permeated Western societal thinking have been born of plentiful times. Many have found their way into common law and even some established religious denominations are ‘upgrading’ their approach under the influence of modern thinking.

Given this steady build up of liberal thinking, it is unlikely that there will be a complementary attitude change that will match the pace of the calamities to come as we slide down the depletion curve. We are in as much of an attitude overshoot as we are a population overshoot. Overlay this with the universal desire that hopes circumstances will either improve or not become worse and there is a powerful psychological barrier to doing anything that would mitigate any potential threat. The political dithering that left Europe vulnerable in the 1930s is classic. Since the general thinking now is that everything will proceed as usual except for an inconvenient rise in the price of gasoline, there is no reason to think that people are in any way concerned about limiting family size on that basis. The state, the church, the economy are all hooked into a paradigm of continued growth of population and ‘stuff’. With few exceptions, there is a total absence of realization of the fragility of the food supply, particularly in Western societies. There are some gathering economic clouds, but those will blow over as they always have before.

I think the demographic math shows that we are past the sustainability point already. The logical projections from this concept are totally alien to the current mindset. The idea that children might starve from the day they are born just never crosses anyone’s mind. Taking steps now to limit and reduce human population in the near future might be a logical response, but it will go absolutely nowhere. Even the most obvious action of birth control raises the hackles of a large section of the population, not just the fundies. Reason won’t cut it and even if it does, it’s too late. Pre-emptive aggressive action taken to forestall a possible future threat is rare. Preparations maybe, but action, no. Even in animal husbandry, herds are not killed off because there is a threat of mad cow, only when the disease has been identified. There is always the threat of mad cow.

However, the growing impact of PO will change all that. Mirroring the oil supply, food prices will first escalate, then food itself will become progressively less available to the point of crisis and beyond. With malnourishment a daily companion, social and economic turmoil, illness and disease will proliferate resulting in the predicted massive die offs of all age groups over time. Violence will take it’s toll.

Only when that point is reached, do I think that the present day morality will be abandoned in favour of far more practical and self serving interests. The old, infirm, incapacitated, incapable and deformed at birth would all be increasingly vulnerable as a new reality takes hold. Fundamental survival interests will dominate until a closer balance is achieved again. But these are an after the fact response to unimaginably changed circumstances, not a premeditated program to stave off the event from happening. I think that at this time, we are quite incapable of actually carrying out the kinds of actions that Monte and others were discussing as an intellectual exercise in the earliest posts. They may be intellectually and logically reasonable, but most are grossly morally abhorrent to our present mindset.

As a species and civilisation, we’ll simply wait for the inevitable, jump off the proverbial cliff and suffer the consequences, because we are culturally, morally and maybe genetically incapable of doing anything else. Those closest to the land will have not so far to fall figuratively and will suffer much less than those who are far removed from it. Individually, it’s a crapshoot.

However, all bets are off if there is some psycho out there, motivated by megalomania or some twisted version of saving the earth who has access to an untreatable virus and the means to deliver it. Oh wait, that’s terrorism and we’re protected against that.

Ferretlover

Great post, 1per100km, and nice formatting, too! Smile

_________________
"RRrrruuuunnnn!!!" ~Apocalypto

turner · Tar Sands Joined: Jun 10, 2008 Posts: 71

I want to preface what I am about to say with the admission that I am athiest and pro-abortion (so no agendas), but...

This is madness. The whole purpose of life is to survive long enough to procreate. Sure, ideally we should reduce our population but this is never going to happen. If you think it is difficult to convince people that PO is a problem and they should modify their lifestyle how are you going to convince them to not have sex??? Cmon. For some people in the world, contraception is available but for millions it is not. Even in the developed world it is far from foolproof. In the three years between taking the pill and having a tubal ligation (both modern interventions) I was pregnant three times despite employing other devices!!

I could go on and on but perhaps I can sum up with this:

Lets issue the girls with a vibrator and a supply of batteries and let the boys sort themselves out with playboy or whatever- and you guys (and girls) would all be happy, right??

This board is all about the macro and nothing about the micro - and the micro is what PEOPLE are all about.

Did you happen to watch any of the footage of the Chinese parents that lost their one child in the crumbling schools of the earthquake? I don't think carrying capacity and PO was foremost in their minds.

"Realism is a fine thing" - just me (nobody special)

AgentR

I have made similar notes on similar threads, but just to comment..

The only sources of REAL population control are those that either drastically limit the number of live births; or those which result in the death of adults at very young ages. We want to lump assisted suicide and application of advanced medical technology for the extension of life for elderly rich into the mix; but the reality is that they result in absolutely no significant change in population dynamics.

It flat, DOES NOT MATTER in this discussion, whether some elderly rich guy lives to 75 instead of 72.

It *DOES* matter whether or not some 32 year old female gets a card of cheap antibiotics to treat a wound infection.

It *DOES* matter whether or not a 20 year old female is given a government mandated choice between sterilization + free college, or fertility + poverty.

For fairness sakes I suppose, add the males into the snipping line; but never fool yourself that it'd make any difference at all in conception rates.

Personally; I think the natural result and consequences are more suitable, just, and appropriate; than the kinds of actions governments would have to take to achieve REAL progress towards population reductions.
_________________
Yes, we are. As we are.
And so shall we remain; Until the end.

turner · Tar Sands Joined: Jun 10, 2008 Posts: 71

Ok but why is it always the girls that must make the sacrifice?

AgentR

HEADER_RACK · Intermediate Crude Joined: Feb 15, 2007 Posts: 540

I disagree with AgentR

The males are the primary ones to sterilize not the females.

A woman once pregnant is out of the baby business for 9 months. In that same period of time one male can fertilize countless numbers of other females. He is never out of the baby making business.
You can sterilize either the countless women or the one male that can fertilize them all.

EDIT: Also women have a limited time frame to reproduce. Men have no such restraints. We can be just as potent at 90 as when we were at 18. If he can get it to rise to the occation.
_________________
Nothing is more dangerous than a man with nothing left to lose but has everything left to gain.

AgentR

HEADER_RACK · Intermediate Crude Joined: Feb 15, 2007 Posts: 540

To have any effect on over population we would be talking about extremely high rates of sterilization not matter which gender we chose.
I believe though it is a quicker and easier process to do it to males than females. I also think that it is easier to reverse in males than females. Would need someone with medical expertise to chime in if this is true or not.
_________________
Nothing is more dangerous than a man with nothing left to lose but has everything left to gain.

RedStateGreen

lper100km