Yeah, that's kind of what I was thinking...
Although I did have this hilarious joke about how America has built-in population control in the form of it's non-inclusive healthcare service, but decided to leave it out.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Population Control
- Thread starter Let It Fall
- Start date
Yeah, that's kind of what I was thinking...
Although I did have this hilarious joke about how America has built-in population control in the form of it's non-inclusive healthcare service, but decided to leave it out.
Yeah, that's kind of what I was thinking...
Although I did have this hilarious joke about how America has built-in population control in the form of it's non-inclusive healthcare service, but decided to leave it out.
Your joke would not have made sense; there is not one person in the US that cannot get health care if they need it.
Interesting if not old topic.
I wanted to throw three thoughts into the discussion:
1) What is the fundamental difference in selectively breeding Homo sapiens, vs. selectively breeding any of the tens of thousands of other species we have selectively bred for the past 10,000 odd years?
2) From an ecological p.o.v. we are an apex predator, and as such absolutely have a maximum sustainable population. We could switch to an herbivorous diet which would have a higher carrying capacity, but that would lead to many, many, more problems, just so that we could grow the population further. This is a fundamental truth (re: apex predators and capacity).
3) Homo sapiens in the developed world are not in my view, being acted upon by selective pressures anymore. Selective pressures reveal evolutionary change through the differential success of individuals in a population. In the case of developed world H. sapiens, the vast majority of individuals successfully reach reproductive age, locate breeding partners, and successfully raise their children to reproductive age, ad nauseum. Now, in the developing world, I would argue that these differences in individuals absolutely reflect a higher rate of success, as only the most fit, intelligent, popular, are able to accomplish these tasks that we all in the west tend to achieve.
There are going to be problems, and the natural forces will reduce our population. So, in my view, we don't have to because our population will have a dramatic bottleneck event, eventually. It won't be pretty, so I hope it is at least 50 years off so I don't have to live it.
Oh...and being an 'equal opportunity' bigot is contrary to the definition of bigot. As, presumably, a truly 'equal' bigot would despise his own creed, religion, etc as well. In which case you are no longer a bigot, in fact, the technical term would then be:
"Jerk".
And one more correction: The entire population of the world cannot exist in the State of Texas. I don't even know what sort of source to annotate for this fact, but just trust me. If you read between the lines of that post, I think you can grasp the authority that post would have referenced.
I wanted to throw three thoughts into the discussion:
1) What is the fundamental difference in selectively breeding Homo sapiens, vs. selectively breeding any of the tens of thousands of other species we have selectively bred for the past 10,000 odd years?
2) From an ecological p.o.v. we are an apex predator, and as such absolutely have a maximum sustainable population. We could switch to an herbivorous diet which would have a higher carrying capacity, but that would lead to many, many, more problems, just so that we could grow the population further. This is a fundamental truth (re: apex predators and capacity).
3) Homo sapiens in the developed world are not in my view, being acted upon by selective pressures anymore. Selective pressures reveal evolutionary change through the differential success of individuals in a population. In the case of developed world H. sapiens, the vast majority of individuals successfully reach reproductive age, locate breeding partners, and successfully raise their children to reproductive age, ad nauseum. Now, in the developing world, I would argue that these differences in individuals absolutely reflect a higher rate of success, as only the most fit, intelligent, popular, are able to accomplish these tasks that we all in the west tend to achieve.
There are going to be problems, and the natural forces will reduce our population. So, in my view, we don't have to because our population will have a dramatic bottleneck event, eventually. It won't be pretty, so I hope it is at least 50 years off so I don't have to live it.
Oh...and being an 'equal opportunity' bigot is contrary to the definition of bigot. As, presumably, a truly 'equal' bigot would despise his own creed, religion, etc as well. In which case you are no longer a bigot, in fact, the technical term would then be:
"Jerk".
And one more correction: The entire population of the world cannot exist in the State of Texas. I don't even know what sort of source to annotate for this fact, but just trust me. If you read between the lines of that post, I think you can grasp the authority that post would have referenced.
Incorrect.
Any person can obtain EMERGENCY care if they need it. Not preventative or primary care.
I didn't really have a joke. Me saying that I had a joke was the joke really. I'm guessing that most people won't find it at all amusing, but it made me smile a bit. My intent was not to turn the thread into a discussion on US healthcare policies, as that will probably lead to it getting closed, so we can probably drop it now.
i loled.
The fundamental difference is, they aren't us. That's it.
The whole meme vs gene question, I'd basically agree with you tho.
I'm pretty sure the term "equal opportunity bigot" is always intended to be satirical.
Population of ~6,700,000,000. State of texas is 696,241 km^2.
~9,623 people per km^2
Considering Monaco has a population density of ~16,754 people per km^2
Granted, in reality the ability to actualy maintain that, drag all food and whatnot from all the corners of the globe to that one area etc etc would be a logistical nightmare. It wouldn't exactly be pleasant living and trying to govern and police it would be a nightmare too.
Tho I don't agree with the sentiment that we could do it. Just looking at the numbers, it's viable (in some outlandish way)
How in the F is this still open, and considered less political than soldiers getting spit on? Really? Population Control? Really? Talkbass has none of the answers, so let's act like it.
This.
Make a "License To Breed" mandatory. Give it an expiration date, & make it not auto-renewable. And make the qualifications just a bit more difficult than the 10 questions they ask at the DMV.
While it could turn political, this is largely a discussion of logistics and ethics. Ethical discussions need not be politicized.
Population growth eventually could be a major worldwide problem. I think Malthus had some insightful ideas. In a macro sense, his thesis is proven every time somebody manufactures beer. Makes me thirsty.
Since we have big brains, we humans like to think we are above the problem of overpopulation and carrying capacity. By expanding carrying capacity through things like the use of fertilizers and pesticides, diesel machinery, irrigation, etc. etc. we prove to ourselves again and again that Malthus was wrong. Carrying capacity can grow forever just like us! Since we've always been able to figure something out before, that means we will continue to always figure something out.*
We're just animals. If we don't recognize the problem and take mitigating steps, nature will act. Nature is ruthless. One government that takes the problem seriously enough to really take steps is China. If they hadn't enacted their population control measures in the 60s, they'd be in big big trouble right now. Instead they appear to have the world in the palm of their hands. Really, China is one of the few places where there was a very real population crisis on the ground and it was handled without mass death and suffering (basically the way nature works).
The problem is, as the discussions in this this thread demonstrates, human reproductive rights are held dearly as a basic human right in most of the world. China's draconian system clashes with what most people understand as basic human rights.
Nature is a lot more harsh than China has been.
There is a lot of promise in the worldwide push for women's health education and the availability of contraceptives. That international effort seems to be on the forefront of the solution for this problem right now. Population is a fascinating, sometimes horrifying, sometimes miraculous and inspirational, course of study.
Recommended reading.
* Past Performance Does Not Guarantee Future Results
Since we have big brains, we humans like to think we are above the problem of overpopulation and carrying capacity. By expanding carrying capacity through things like the use of fertilizers and pesticides, diesel machinery, irrigation, etc. etc. we prove to ourselves again and again that Malthus was wrong. Carrying capacity can grow forever just like us! Since we've always been able to figure something out before, that means we will continue to always figure something out.*
We're just animals. If we don't recognize the problem and take mitigating steps, nature will act. Nature is ruthless. One government that takes the problem seriously enough to really take steps is China. If they hadn't enacted their population control measures in the 60s, they'd be in big big trouble right now. Instead they appear to have the world in the palm of their hands. Really, China is one of the few places where there was a very real population crisis on the ground and it was handled without mass death and suffering (basically the way nature works).
The problem is, as the discussions in this this thread demonstrates, human reproductive rights are held dearly as a basic human right in most of the world. China's draconian system clashes with what most people understand as basic human rights.
Nature is a lot more harsh than China has been.
There is a lot of promise in the worldwide push for women's health education and the availability of contraceptives. That international effort seems to be on the forefront of the solution for this problem right now. Population is a fascinating, sometimes horrifying, sometimes miraculous and inspirational, course of study.
Recommended reading.
* Past Performance Does Not Guarantee Future Results
As an Amazon Associate, TalkBass may receive commissions from qualifying purchases made via links on this site.
It saddens me that I'm not surprised that there are people who actually think like this.
uh, hello, 6.8 billion people is already unsustainable. HELLO, is anybody listening?!
