Like the illusion of Wall Street, with its vast and powerful investment banks, now shuttered, China too is an illusion perpetuated by the Globalists that gave us the 15,000 mile Caesar salad, poisoned cat food and lead based paint on babies' pacifiers. Like the illusion that money would come from thin air to always push housing prices higher, China has spent a generation pursuing its illusion. Pursuing an unattainable dream to be like the West, while 6000 years of its carefully shepherded top soil blows into the sea.
Joined: Aug 03, 2007 Posts: 4590 Location: Boston Suburbs
Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 2:11 pm Post subject: Re: New goal for humans--self limitation
dohboi wrote:
Most fighting in traditional societies was/is of necessity small scale
If you value "population control" above all else, there are all sorts of unpleasant things you can rationale if you want to. _________________ http://doomsteaddiary.blogspot.com/
Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 2:42 pm Post subject: Re: New goal for humans--self limitation
Good point, mos. I'm not advocating anything at this point. But we are surely facing "all sorts of unpleasant things" in the near future. I'm just wondering what things that we have found unpleasant or even abhorrent in the recent past that we may need to re-evaluate--especially things that many traditional societies, through their thousands of years of collective wisdom of living withing the means of their immediate environments, have come to accept as necessary to their sustainable survival.
Many of us have come to reject loaded dualities between "civilized" and "savage" or "primitive," but I'm not sure how far we have gone in working out what such a re-evaluation means for basic ideas of what is acceptable or desirable behavior in a viable culture.
Joined: Nov 15, 2007 Posts: 346 Location: US East Coast
Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 2:48 pm Post subject: Re: New goal for humans--self limitation
Ah, a topic true to my heart. While there are many, many problems with the world this is the one that is the speeding bullet which has exited the barrel and is traversing the distance to our hearts.
There is no solution to this, to propagate our genes is programmed into our genes. To change this would be to change humans into something we are not. Our need to propagate is in large part what has made us what we are and is what ultimately be our undoing.
I am trying to develop a attitude of distance from the situation so that I can stand back and observe the rush to (near?) extinction from a safe emotional distance. That is not easy.
We may evolve into something that is capable of self-limiting our population, but that would be in the far distance and at the cost of much human agony. _________________ When going through hell, keep going! Churchill
Nothing is ever lost by courtesy. It is the the cheapest of pleasures, costs nothing, and conveys much. E Wiman
I know there’s no solution, so I just enjoy what’s here and I enjoy the journey G Carlin
Joined: Dec 03, 2004 Posts: 1190 Location: Seattle, Wa.
Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 3:40 pm Post subject: Re: New goal for humans--self limitation
Newfie wrote:
We may evolve into something that is capable of self-limiting our population, but that would be in the far distance and at the cost of much human agony.
If the consequences of overshoot create enough human agony then we may very well evolve culturally within a short time to accept the pragmatic necessity of self limitation including population control along with consumption.
As for the part of propagation that is in our genes do you think we can culturally evolve with taboos and laws to overrule this genetic wiring?
We have figured out how to have sex and avoid pregnancy but there does seem to be more at hand here. Maternal instincts toward child bearing, nurturing. Mate selection, even some as yet unknown genetic component to a feeling of wellbeing dependent on having your progeny brought to adulthood, etc. Need to express paternal instincts etc.
I notice a lot of single middle aged humans have pet dogs and cats where it seems these animals have been bred to heighten their devotion and dependency on their human masters. They serve as surrogates to children. This is a clever way perhaps that humans have short circuited the genetic predisposition toward propogation.
If so shouldn't there be other clever solutions? Any thoughts on this? _________________ Our resiliency resembles an invasive weed. We are the Kudzu Ape
Joined: Nov 15, 2007 Posts: 346 Location: US East Coast
Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 5:32 pm Post subject: Re: New goal for humans--self limitation
Ibon wrote:
"If the consequences of overshoot create enough human agony then we may very well evolve culturally within a short time to accept the pragmatic necessity of self limitation including population control along with consumption.
As for the part of propagation that is in our genes do you think we can culturally evolve with taboos and laws to overrule this genetic wiring? "
My observations are that the need to propagate is the "silent hand" behind many, many heated arguments. For example abortion or gay marriage. A certain segment of the population will face death rather than adopt a more liberal cultural stance. Then again there is the seeming need to save all and improve the life style of all. This desire elicits equally passionate arguments. No signs of cultural evolution here.
Humans have evolved through millions of years as a marginal species where we had to propagate at the expense of all around us just so that we could survive as a species. What other mammal is fertile year long? Excepting some other primates what other mammal has recreational sex? There may be some isolated instances but they are rare in the overall scheme. Simply, we became better breeders so as to have a sufficiently high replacement rate.
Latter we developed agriculture which increased our reproduction rate at the expense of our life span or quality of life. Grandmothers yield proportionately less to procreation than do fertile young women. Our potential life span has not changed significantly although there appears to be some sign that we are developing sexually at a latter age. That at least is some positive news.
Now that agriculture has led to industrialization we are at the (near) zenith of our population and in overshoot.
Any meaningful evolution will not be cultural evolution" but will be biological. Is that even possible? I don't know and will not live to find out. _________________ When going through hell, keep going! Churchill
Nothing is ever lost by courtesy. It is the the cheapest of pleasures, costs nothing, and conveys much. E Wiman
I know there’s no solution, so I just enjoy what’s here and I enjoy the journey G Carlin
Joined: Dec 03, 2004 Posts: 1190 Location: Seattle, Wa.
Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 7:11 pm Post subject: Re: New goal for humans--self limitation
Newfie wrote:
Any meaningful evolution will not be cultural evolution" but will be biological. Is that even possible? I don't know and will not live to find out.
I agreed with your post up until your ending. Such an emphatic position that culturally we cannot impose limits to our propagation may be a logical conclusion and well argued based on our biology and cultural experiences to date but cannot be ruled out if one recognizes the degree to which the consequences of overshoot will rock many of our cultural assumptions down to their foundations.
At least the exploration of where culture can stretch on this topic is worthwhile because otherwise you are really concluding that the future of humanity well forever be held within the tyranny of our biology and that there is no human cultural response to overshoot and die-off that will allow our current or any future human population to mitigate it.
On some level I find this conclusion a cop out. _________________ Our resiliency resembles an invasive weed. We are the Kudzu Ape
Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 12:18 am Post subject: Re: New goal for humans--self limitation
I will try and offer some hope.
Evolution tends to run faster or funnier on islands (you get miniature elephants etc.).
There have been reports that the Moriori, living on the small archipelago that is now known as the Chatham islands, soon came to reaslise that there was only so much room. Being constrained on a such a small landmass they probably recognised this quickly, and, not having the option of conquering a neighbour for more room, they had to develop some solutions and thus they managed to incorporate population control into their culture. Reports are that they had an ongoing practice of castrating a sample of male babies to constrain population. As a result, according to reports their lakes were filled with 'many eels and fish ', which indicates their environment was not stressed. They also developed a very peaceful culture where discussion was preferred over fighting. Apparently, they used to fight a lot when they first arrived but the fighting was killing too many people! (doing too good job at population control) and was risking the whole society and kudos to them they managed to adopt discussion above fighting as the cultural norm for dispute resolution before they wiped themselves out.
However, I believe they managed to exist as such because they were isolated (nobody to conquer them). This is examplified as sadly when a passing Australian seal hunting ship went back to the New Zealand mainland and reported about this wonderful island with much food and abundant natural resources. Next thing some new zealanders came over in long boats and took over, killing anyone who rebelled, making the moriori their slaves and destroying their culture.
As another note of curiousity, on some pacific islands I believe they periodically practiced sending men out in boats to go 'exploring' for new territory. It was a form of population control because the majority of them died out at sea.
Theoretically I think it could be possible if you were living on a very isolated island with no one to conquer you or interfere with your culture to develop a self-limiting culture.
Joined: Jan 01, 2007 Posts: 246 Location: Pacific Northwest
Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 12:55 am Post subject: Re: New goal for humans--self limitation
The solution is easy, implementing it would be hard.
First, perform a reversible sterilization procedure on all newborns. Then having a child, would require the two would be parents, to pay to have their sterilization reversed. This would eliminate all unplanned births.
Second, eliminate all forms of taxation except consumption taxes (Something along the lines of the "Fair Tax").
These two measures would reduce our population and penalize consumption.
Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 11:03 am Post subject: Re: New goal for humans--self limitation
I did not want this thread to be merely about populations controls, since consumption patterns are also of central importance, and both of these are tied into many other cultural assumptions. It is these tie-ins that I am most interested in. As Ibon so beautifully put it,
"we may very well evolve culturally within a short time to accept the pragmatic necessity of self limitation including population control along with consumption."
Such cultural development requires much discussion, and this is the exactly the discussion I would like to encourage here. I would like to point out that cultural biological evolution are not completely separate phenomena. To take an obvious example, where people choose to live (a cultural choice) can have a noticeable effect on such "biological" aspects as skin color (closer to the equator generally selecting for darker skin), ability to tolerate low pressure and oxygen levels (Tibetans, Nepalese...)...
Can we (and would we ever) culturally start selecting for low-libido, low-consumption progeny??
While we are on population control, as far as I understand the most effective practice is simply empowering women, through educational and other kinds of opportunities. Most women don't, in fact, want to have more than two or three kids. There are already trends towards people having fewer kids and (to my mind just as important) having them later. Encouraging such trends should be a high priority.
It seems to me that encouraging (or at the very least outlawing discrimination against) homosexuality would be an obvious way of reducing breeding.
Then there is the bumper sticker I've started to see around here: "Teach Masturbation!"
It would seem to be obvious that we need to rethink traditional taboos against homosexuality, masturbation, birth control, and abortion and other practices that serve to release our apparently limitless libido in ways that don't increase our exploding numbers.
The harder question for me is when do we have to revisit deeper (for many of us) ethics that prohibit temporary sterilization, castration, infanticide, ritual mutual suicide (warfare...)...
Most people have been suggesting directing such practices to reduce male population which I have nor problem with (in spite of being of that persuasion). But it should be pointed out that reducing numbers of productive females is much more effective in controlling population than does reducing numbers of potent males.
If you have a society made up of 100 women and one male, that lucky gut, if he's got his mojo workin', can theoretically, bring about 100 pregnancies in one year, and so could be responsible for about doubling the population every year.
A society of 100 men and one woman would only be able to produce about one child a year (and a whole lot of frustrated guys). These are obviously extremes, but they illustrate the relative value of women and men in procreation. (You'd obviously run into gene-pool problems in both cases quite soon.)
The island example is interesting. Can we come to see our planet as a fragile island and do whatever we can to avoid destroying its ability to sustain us and other species? Many hoped that the pictures of earth from space would help develop such a consciousness, but by some measures there has more planetary depredation in the few decades since those pictures were so famously published than in all history before this event. So pictures alone don't seem to be altering our culture toward a less rapacious society in any measurable way.
Sorry about the long post, and thanks for all of your thoughtful comments and ideas. Keep up the culturally transformative work!
Joined: Nov 15, 2007 Posts: 346 Location: US East Coast
Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 12:20 pm Post subject: Re: New goal for humans--self limitation
Ayame wrote:
I will try and offer some hope.
Evolution tends to run faster or funnier on islands (you get miniature elephants etc.).
There have been reports that the Moriori, living on the small archipelago that is now known as the Chatham islands, soon came to reaslise that there was only so much room. Being constrained on a such a small landmass they probably recognised this quickly, and, not having the option of conquering a neighbour for more room, they had to develop some solutions and thus they managed to incorporate population control into their culture. Reports are that they had an ongoing practice of castrating a sample of male babies to constrain population. As a result, according to reports their lakes were filled with 'many eels and fish ', which indicates their environment was not stressed. They also developed a very peaceful culture where discussion was preferred over fighting. Apparently, they used to fight a lot when they first arrived but the fighting was killing too many people! (doing too good job at population control) and was risking the whole society and kudos to them they managed to adopt discussion above fighting as the cultural norm for dispute resolution before they wiped themselves out.
However, I believe they managed to exist as such because they were isolated (nobody to conquer them). This is examplified as sadly when a passing Australian seal hunting ship went back to the New Zealand mainland and reported about this wonderful island with much food and abundant natural resources. Next thing some new zealanders came over in long boats and took over, killing anyone who rebelled, making the moriori their slaves and destroying their culture.
As another note of curiousity, on some pacific islands I believe they periodically practiced sending men out in boats to go 'exploring' for new territory. It was a form of population control because the majority of them died out at sea.
Theoretically I think it could be possible if you were living on a very isolated island with no one to conquer you or interfere with your culture to develop a self-limiting culture.
As I recall were these not the same people who where exterminated by the Mori when they discovered them?
Excerpted from Wiki
In 1835 some Ngāti Mutunga and Ngāti Tama people, Māori from the Taranaki region of the North Island of New Zealand settled in the Chathams. On November 19, 1835, a chartered European ship, the Rodney, carrying 500 Maori armed with guns, clubs and axes arrived, followed by another ship with 400 more Maori arriving on December 5, 1835. They proceeded to enslave some Moriori and kill and cannibalise others. "Parties of warriors armed with muskets, clubs and tomahawks, led by their chiefs, walked through Moriori tribal territories and settlements without warning, permission or greeting. If the districts were wanted by the invaders, they curtly informed the inhabitants that their land had been taken and the Moriori living there were now vassals."
A council of Moriori elders was convened at the settlement called Te Awapatiki. Despite knowing of the Maori's predilection for killing and eating the conquered, and despite the admonition by some of the elder chiefs that the principle of Nunuku was not appropriate now, two chiefs — Tapata and Torea — declared that "the law of Nunuku was not a strategy for survival, to be varied as conditions changed; it was a moral imperative."[8] A Moriori survivor recalled : "[The Maori] commenced to kill us like sheep.... [We] were terrified, fled to the bush, concealed ourselves in holes underground, and in any place to escape our enemies. It was of no avail; we were discovered and killed - men, women and children indiscriminately." A Maori conqueror explained, "We took possession... in accordance with our customs and we caught all the people. Not one escaped....." [9]
Joined: Dec 03, 2004 Posts: 1190 Location: Seattle, Wa.
Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 12:45 pm Post subject: Re: New goal for humans--self limitation
dohboi wrote:
The island example is interesting. Can we come to see our planet as a fragile island and do whatever we can to avoid destroying its ability to sustain us and other species? Many hoped that the pictures of earth from space would help develop such a consciousness, but by some measures there has more planetary depredation in the few decades since those pictures were so famously published than in all history before this event. So pictures alone don't seem to be altering our culture toward a less rapacious society in any measurable way.
Those pictures of planet earth were a start. They did shrink the planet and they did allow humans to see that we are all on one big island in space. But there has been a huge disconnect between the appreciation of this on a personal level and the actual practice of living day to day. In spite of all the scientific evidence and warnings the fragility of the planet has still not impacted directly masses of humans; we continue to exponentially grow even today. So our species resiliency along with our planet's resiliency has still not produced any significant feedback directly that would link a culture or individual's lifestyle with the fragile nature of our planet. This will soon change.
These feedbacks will be the greatest catalysts toward cultural transformation. Today they are threats. Tomorrow they will be realities. The worst case scenario of course will be a complete collapse with few surviving humans in isolation who won’t go through any cultural transformation and the cycle of overshoot and collapse will start over. But there are other likely scenarios were cultural transformation is possible..
The feedbacks of overshoot will represent a force globally that will be a novel human experience which will differ in profound ways from examples of societies that previously collapsed due to resource constraints. If you look at the classic studies of the Mayans or Easter Islanders these were isolated populations with very limited technology and a very fragile limited resource base without built in redundancies. Our current global human civilization is actually very resilient in comparison with many built in redundancies in terms of energy options, food options, consumption options, migration options. etc. When past civilizations collapsed they were not able to adjust their culture or technologies on the energy descent because of a lack of options once their primary resource based collapsed. When the Mayans couldn’t grow corn any longer due to soil depletion from slash and burn agriculture they were not able to import potatoes from Peru. This quick collapse of their civilization as a result did not enable any cultural transformation.
This is not to say we can avoid that hundreds of millions or even perhaps billions will die-off once the realities of our overshoot start impacting our species. Unfortunately a significant die-off is part of the catalyst required. Our resiliency will permit the feedbacks to do their work on our culture and still permit enough of a technological base for a form of modern civilization to continue. Nobody can predict in what form. But recognizing the good possibility that humans remain organized around some form of modern civilization does open the window that enough time will be available and enough infrastructures preserved that humans will culturally start to mitigate their consumption and numbers to avoid allowing the overshoot feedbacks to lead us to complete collapse. If we are enlightened enough we will start sooner rather than later and the degree of die-off can be mitigated. We haven’t really been tested yet and we can’t really be judged yet as a species since today we are still only talking about threats not realities. As I mentioned this will change very soon.
From the luxury of our current self entitled energy abundant culture rich in individual freedoms we cannot imagine any future global civilization able to discipline itself with the required social taboos and laws to control consumption and population . But have we ever considered that in 2 or 3 generations people like us will no longer be around and the general population going through the feedbacks and consequences that are coming are going to be honed to a totally different level of constraints on their freedom to breed and consume. This will mold cultural values, ethics, morals, taboos, lifestyle choices, and last but not least develop parallel with strong individual freedoms the humility to accept sacrifices for the greater good of society.
I think we suffer from a complete failure of imagination when we look into the future and see humans helpless under the tyranny of nature to simply collapse due to overshoot letting nature do what we apparently aren’t able to do ourselves. It is really premature to arrive at this conclusion since we haven’t really been tested yet. _________________ Our resiliency resembles an invasive weed. We are the Kudzu Ape
Joined: Nov 15, 2007 Posts: 346 Location: US East Coast
Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 12:48 pm Post subject: Re: New goal for humans--self limitation
Ibon, I don't think I'm coping out. Plan for the worst and hope for the best. I agree that we should explore what is possible. To that end I would like to offer this question as a topic of discussion:
"What is the OPTIMUM human population for each human to have an OPTIMUM existence?"
I have posted this before with no good results. People just get stuck on "carrying capacity" (the human chicken farm) argument and forget about quality of life issues. If we have a reasonable goal then we can aim for it.
And besides, while admittedly being ignorant of the situation, I know of no evidence of "cultural evolution." Seriously, can some one point out some examples.
dohboi wrote:
Can we (and would we ever) culturally start selecting for low-libido, low-consumption progeny??
You are onto the central crux of the problem. Life is by definition the ability to reproduce your genes and carry on your gene line. This implies having enough progeny to meet likely disasters and still keep the line going. Low-libido progeny would likely not survive and high-libido progeny would re-evolve. I am reminded of the Passenger Pigeon and the English Starling. The Passenger Pigeon was found in vast flocks and had but one chick per year. It was quickly exterminated by Western man. The ubiquitous English Starling comes from a few let go in Central Park by some guy trying to introduce Shakespear's mentioned birds in America. They have multiple chicks from multiple clutches per year and are now found in vast flocks, seem mostly making up for fall migration. One strategy clearly seems superior to the other. We are more like Starlings. We will have plagues etc. that will knock back our population, but the remaining few will breed like wildfire to repopulate. _________________ When going through hell, keep going! Churchill
Nothing is ever lost by courtesy. It is the the cheapest of pleasures, costs nothing, and conveys much. E Wiman
I know there’s no solution, so I just enjoy what’s here and I enjoy the journey G Carlin
Joined: Nov 15, 2007 Posts: 346 Location: US East Coast
Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 12:56 pm Post subject: Re: New goal for humans--self limitation
Ibon wrote:
From the luxury of our current self entitled energy abundant culture rich in individual freedoms we cannot imagine any future global civilization able to discipline itself with the required social taboos and laws to control consumption and population . But have we ever considered that in 2 or 3 generations people like us will no longer be around and the general population going through the feedbacks and consequences that are coming are going to be honed to a totally different level of constraints on their freedom to breed and consume. This will mold cultural values, ethics, morals, taboos, lifestyle choices, and last but not least develop parallel with strong individual freedoms the humility to accept sacrifices for the greater good of society.
I think we suffer from a complete failure of imagination when we look into the future and see humans helpless under the tyranny of nature to simply collapse due to overshoot letting nature do what we apparently aren’t able to do ourselves. It is really premature to arrive at this conclusion since we haven’t really been tested yet.
My guess is that it will take much more than 2 or 3 generations. It will be much more like 10 or 20 boom/bust cycles, each itself 5 to 15 generations long before some truly different evolves. Just think about the various financial boom/bust cycles we have seen in our economy, just in our life time, not to mention the life of the US. Our MBA's are supposed to be among our best and brightest and yet they seem doomed to repeat and repeat and repeat the same old mistakes. This makes me skeptical of cultural evolution. _________________ When going through hell, keep going! Churchill
Nothing is ever lost by courtesy. It is the the cheapest of pleasures, costs nothing, and conveys much. E Wiman
I know there’s no solution, so I just enjoy what’s here and I enjoy the journey G Carlin
Joined: Dec 03, 2004 Posts: 1190 Location: Seattle, Wa.
Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 12:58 pm Post subject: Re: New goal for humans--self limitation
Newfie wrote:
You are onto the central crux of the problem. Life is by definition the ability to reproduce your genes and carry on your gene line. This implies having enough progeny to meet likely disasters and still keep the line going. Low-libido progeny would likely not survive and high-libido progeny would re-evolve. I am reminded of the Passenger Pigeon and the English Starling. The Passenger Pigeon was found in vast flocks and had but one chick per year. It was quickly exterminated by Western man. The ubiquitous English Starling comes from a few let go in Central Park by some guy trying to introduce Shakespear's mentioned birds in America. They have multiple chicks from multiple clutches per year and are now found in vast flocks, seem mostly making up for fall migration. One strategy clearly seems superior to the other. We are more like Starlings. We will have plagues etc. that will knock back our population, but the remaining few will breed like wildfire to repopulate.
remember that these selfish genes so narrowly focussed on reproduction have also produced altruism in complex social societies. Our species evolved empathy and compassion along with selfish alpha male behavior to procreate. Selective pressures act not only on individuals but also on tribes especially in complex social societies. So our genetics are anything but simply correlated to propogation. We are not lizards with big dicks. _________________ Our resiliency resembles an invasive weed. We are the Kudzu Ape
Joined: Dec 03, 2004 Posts: 1190 Location: Seattle, Wa.
Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 1:05 pm Post subject: Re: New goal for humans--self limitation
Newfie wrote:
My guess is that it will take much more than 2 or 3 generations. It will be much more like 10 or 20 boom/bust cycles, each itself 5 to 15 generations long before some truly different evolves. Just think about the various financial boom/bust cycles we have seen in our economy, just in our life time, not to mention the life of the US. Our MBA's are supposed to be among our best and brightest and yet they seem doomed to repeat and repeat and repeat the same old mistakes. This makes me skeptical of cultural evolution.
It very well may take many more than 2or 3 generations but certainly in a couple of generations we will be deep into the realities of our overshoot and the process will start. I don't agree that transformation will last so long as you suggest however because we don't have the time. As you mentioned how quickly things have changed in one lifetime in terms of cycles. One of the consequences of our exponential growth is that processes accelerate. I do not foresee a stable slow transformation. I see the catalysts being cataclysmic. Nothing short of severe pain will transform us. In that I think we agree. I am just more optimistic in the elasticity of our culture to adapt. It wont be anything like what we assume as cultural norms today. _________________ Our resiliency resembles an invasive weed. We are the Kudzu Ape
All times are GMT - 6 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2, 3Next
Page 2 of 3
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
