Post Reply
Page 1 of 10  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10 Next
6 years ago  ::  Apr 15, 2008 - 9:49AM #1
oddjoe
Posts: 811
There.  I just mentioned the 80 million pound gorilla, using a fudged 90 pound weight per person.  Lately there is talk of increasing fertility in more developed nations like Russia, China, and European ones.

I have to conclude that humans suffer from mass insanity based on Einstein's definition of doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results.  We keep on satisfying our drive to have little uses running around.  The way this problem ends up getting solved looks pretty bleak.  The guy in the commercial says, "Pay me now or pay me later".  Problem is the cost goes way up then.  Maybe world leaders are already expecting that the fix for this problem will be WWIII.  Problem with the violence option is that there will be little left for the survivors.

People have an idea of what to do to avoid draconian fixes.  How to stop human fertility is the real question involved in addressing this problem humanely.
Nonself-defensive competition against others (fighting against others) is the root of human evil.
Let's try to overcome humanity's drive to reproduce on this finite planet.
Anarchism + perfect understanding and compassion within the citizenry = utopian socialism.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Apr 15, 2008 - 3:44PM #2
CharikIeia
Posts: 8,303
I think demographic data show that the best fertility stoppers are prosperity and education. Huxley (Aldous) said, "An intellectual is a person who has discovered something more interesting than sex." We need more intellectuals, on the long run. Or at least, women who are smart enough not to allow themselves to become breeding machines.

As far as I know (and I am NOT very informed on this), the agrarian resources of this planet can feed many more people than now are around -- there seems to be no 'impending demographic doom' as some gloomy prophets at least since Malthus have been sketching. The problem seems more to reside on the logistics and planning side. The current unrests in Haiti certainly did not happen because there is not enough food to nourish this small island's inhabitants.

Just these days, a UNESCO report concludes that "while agricultural science and technology has made it possible to greatly increase productivity in the last 50 years, the sharing of benefits has been far from equitable. Furthermore, progress has been achieved in many cases at a high social and environmental cost. The report’s authors therefore recommend that agricultural science place greater emphasis on safeguarding natural resources and on “agroecological” practices. These include using natural fertilizers and traditional seeds, intensifying natural processes and reducing the distance between agricultural production and the consumer. "

I wonder why the genetically manipulated soy production that the Bush administration so fervently advocated is not among the suggested measures. Any guesses?

LINK
tl;dr
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Apr 15, 2008 - 6:05PM #3
oddjoe
Posts: 811
My guess why gene altered soy isn't promoted is that the world believes that it is not very trustworthy technology.  It may introduce unforeseen problems.

i don't think the UNESCO recommendations go very far, though they are needed.  There is no real long-term option that I see at the present population other than people in wealthy countries living in relative poverty in relation to their present living standard.

The world doesn't have enough natural resources to spare to make everyone prosperous, and education without anything to use it for, due to poverty and unavailability of resources, is a prescription for frustration and unrest.  I believe in it even though it is a two edged sword.

There is enough agricultural capacity to feed everyone, but it depends on diet quality and the amount of trouble involved with eating.  As more effort is put into food production, the resources it draws away from other areas of life produces a correspondingly lower standard of living.
Nonself-defensive competition against others (fighting against others) is the root of human evil.
Let's try to overcome humanity's drive to reproduce on this finite planet.
Anarchism + perfect understanding and compassion within the citizenry = utopian socialism.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Apr 15, 2008 - 6:19PM #4
Ithilien
Posts: 1,597
Applause for both Oddjoe and Charikleia, here.   I completely agree that increased fertility as a goal is a horror, and I further believe that education of women is the best deterrent (and was the conclusion of the World Women's Conference (I think it was the Beijing one--'95, was it?).

I'm not talking just non-American brown people, either, which is the assumption of so many of my fellow Americans when the subject comes up.  Many are all for decreased fertility *elsewhere*, if you get my drift.

I'll be interested in following this thread.  Thanks for starting it!

--Kj
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Apr 15, 2008 - 7:08PM #5
oddjoe
Posts: 811
Hi Kj; thanks!  I recall what you say about that conference for some reason, even though those were very busy years for me.

Indeed, we shouldn't expect to solve the problem with a "Do as I say not as I do attitude".  Everyone needs to fall under the same fertility restrictions.

I wonder if a lifetime, one to one, reproductive adult to child, rate is low enough.  Two parental partners each count the same child.  Even at that rate, I am not sure how much, if any, the population would decrease.   Either way, it is going to be a struggle for humanity because we waited so long.
Nonself-defensive competition against others (fighting against others) is the root of human evil.
Let's try to overcome humanity's drive to reproduce on this finite planet.
Anarchism + perfect understanding and compassion within the citizenry = utopian socialism.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Apr 15, 2008 - 7:21PM #6
Ithilien
Posts: 1,597
Oddjoe, do you support legal intervention in fertility choices, or are you a proponent of educational efforts only?  Or something else?

I, myself, would not ever get on board with legal limits--I'm far too Libertarian to accept such control over personal choices--but I'm big time behind trying to persuade people to *choose* to have fewer children. 

I've always kind of used the ol' ZPG replacement rate as a guide, myself (I do not have any children, so I mean as a guide for judging what might be acceptable.  Is that what you are suggesting in your post?  I'm really, really tired right now, and I'm having difficulty deciding if you mean a one-to-one replacement rate (two parents, two children or fewer) or a one-child-per-couple rate.

You seem like you've studied this, and I have not; what are resports suggesting? 

--Kj
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Apr 15, 2008 - 7:40PM #7
Shihulud
Posts: 1,360
I've read in some places that there is an over-use problem, not exactly a over population problem. Maybe if people changed their lifestyles it wouldn't be a problem at all. I think it's natural to want children, and there is nothing wrong with it. It's a great joy. I consider adopting having your own child as well. I had one child, and that is enough for me in todays economy.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Apr 15, 2008 - 7:44PM #8
Shihulud
Posts: 1,360
My guess why gene altered soy isn't promoted is that the world believes that it is not very trustworthy technology. It may introduce unforeseen problems.

Actually, studies have suggested that GMO soy has actually increase the rise of anaphylectic allergies to it.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Apr 15, 2008 - 6:05PM #9
oddjoe
Posts: 811
My guess why gene altered soy isn't promoted is that the world believes that it is not very trustworthy technology.  It may introduce unforeseen problems.

i don't think the UNESCO recommendations go very far, though they are needed.  There is no real long-term option that I see at the present population other than people in wealthy countries living in relative poverty in relation to their present living standard.

The world doesn't have enough natural resources to spare to make everyone prosperous, and education without anything to use it for, due to poverty and unavailability of resources, is a prescription for frustration and unrest.  I believe in it even though it is a two edged sword.

There is enough agricultural capacity to feed everyone, but it depends on diet quality and the amount of trouble involved with eating.  As more effort is put into food production, the resources it draws away from other areas of life produces a correspondingly lower standard of living.
Nonself-defensive competition against others (fighting against others) is the root of human evil.
Let's try to overcome humanity's drive to reproduce on this finite planet.
Anarchism + perfect understanding and compassion within the citizenry = utopian socialism.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Apr 15, 2008 - 6:19PM #10
Ithilien
Posts: 1,597
Applause for both Oddjoe and Charikleia, here.   I completely agree that increased fertility as a goal is a horror, and I further believe that education of women is the best deterrent (and was the conclusion of the World Women's Conference (I think it was the Beijing one--'95, was it?).

I'm not talking just non-American brown people, either, which is the assumption of so many of my fellow Americans when the subject comes up.  Many are all for decreased fertility *elsewhere*, if you get my drift.

I'll be interested in following this thread.  Thanks for starting it!

--Kj
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 10  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook