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
I recently read that half of the people who have ever lived to 65 in the history of the world are alive today. Can't remember the source. Pretty sobering.
Why should anyone be surprised? We've got millenia of evidence showing what essentially unchecked population growth yields, and we've got at least a few solid decades of well-reasoned theory on what will happen if that growth remains unchecked. Thinking "like this" (i.e., that procreating should be a privilege that is conducted with consideration & foresight) is imho far more defensible than the alternative, which is (presumably) to simply Let Nature Take Its Course. We already know where that will get us.
I can tell by reading the OP that this is a thread I don't really want to read through, so I'll just say this and leave:
There is no population problem, and there won't be for thousands of years probably. The problem is misuse of space, and once people start looking at it that way things will probably start to get better.
There is no population problem, and there won't be for thousands of years probably. The problem is misuse of space, and once people start looking at it that way things will probably start to get better.
A much nearer problem is the fact that there aren't nearly enough humans, and that the few there are, are on one planet.
We need to go to the planets (and their moons), and to the stars. We need trillions of humans on thousands of planets around hundreds of stars.
Or all get taken out at one time in a simple cosmic accident, like a magnator or GRB or meteor strike or super-eruption.
The answers to what ails us down here can be found out there, as well.
Too many people? Nah. Just not enough dreamers and people with the nuts to get the job done.
We need to go to the planets (and their moons), and to the stars. We need trillions of humans on thousands of planets around hundreds of stars.
Or all get taken out at one time in a simple cosmic accident, like a magnator or GRB or meteor strike or super-eruption.
The answers to what ails us down here can be found out there, as well.
Too many people? Nah. Just not enough dreamers and people with the nuts to get the job done.
well we could put some kind of sperm killing agent in major cities water supply..........BUWAHAHAHAHA
Your thesis doesn't take into account that less people alive = less people who consume the products and services that result from those jobs. If global population is a self-equalizing system (or can have equifinality from outside influence), then it doesn't matter how many people are alive; there should be enough people to meet the labor demand. Reducing the population may achieve equilibrium in the labor market for a short period of time, but it doesn't really matter as there will eventually be less peole to consume those products and services; then we'll be back where we started at if economic and financial factors have not stabalized.
You're in college? Do you have any electives left to take? If so, go beyond your intro to psych gen ed. and take a psychology research methods, development psychology, or psychometrics and assessment class, because your argument is seriously lacking some important merit.
First, how do you establish criterion validity for your thesis? You're basically stating that the concept of low IQ of parents has predictive validity that their children are going to have low IQ. How do you take into account other factors, such as after-school programs, school counseling, education, and diet, that may affect intelligence? You're using a reductionist argument to try and pin-point intelligence down to one variable. It doesn't work that way. It's not nature vs. nurture. It's an interaction of a multitude of variables, many that are still unknown, which influence intelligence. Socio-economic status is probably going to have more predictive validity for intelligence and further education completed than parents' IQ. Should only upper-middle class and rich people have children?
"Simple psychological evaluation," you say. For what? Autism? Schizophrenia? Border-line Personality Disorder? Münchausen Syndrome? Body Dismorphic Disorder?
Have you ever cracked open the DSM-IV? Mafia enforcers could tie a copy of the book to each foot of a person in order to make them sink to the bottom of a river. Even if you tested just for the moderately and highly diabilitating disorders, you'd still need to have a large battery of instruments and evaluations, high in content, criterion, and construct validity, in order to accurately assess people. It would be anything but a "simply psychological evaluation."
+1 and you missed most of the "biology" side of that argument like trisomy's, x-chromosome carried diseases, recessive trait diseases, Huntington's, Cystic Fibrosis, Tay-Sach's, etc. Most of those have to be tested for individually, and most of them are expensive and extremely invasive. We could go as far as remove children with genetic predispositions via karyotype.
And to play Devil's Advocate, I was karyotyped and was flagged as trisomy 21 (down syndrome) and I don't have it. Not to mention I had an IQ of 120 in the fifth grade, and am the only person in my family to ever make it to college.
You make some great points...and you also inadvertenly bring up another point: When it comes to science, so many people are looking for The Truth. The fact of the matter is that you can find at an issue from multiple perspectives, whether it's psychology, sociology, economics, biology, or chemistry, to arrive at a conclusion. Each discipline may have a different conclusion and a different way of getting there, but none of them are necessarily "wrong" in the traditional sense.
Science to me isn't trying to find "The Truth." Science is the recording and sharing of empirical truths and inferences made from those truths. Its asking how and through what methods. That's why I converted from a psychology major to a biology one, that's why my religious beliefs are as they are, and that's why I believe as I do politically.
Philosophy is asking WHY or finding that "Truth" so to speak. Read Frankenstein if you want to know what happens when science and "Truth" are combined...
That's always been in align with my thinking. I really find very few things in this world to be black and white. I sometimes have trouble committing to any particuarly ideal, philosophy, or political stance. But that's probably a topic for a whole 'nother thread.
Same. I sway with how I'm feeling at the time.
That was the premise for my entire major specific intro too biology last fall.
