[troll-free] Parenting

[SteveG]

ubs wrote

How is it simplistic if both our rate of innovation and consumption can be measured?

Are you opposed to all types of conservation. SteveG, or is it just that you feel restrictions on reproduction are the lowest of the low?

In the meantime, to maybe shed light on why I reacted as I did, I want to point out that in this, your initial comment, you accused me of opposing all types of conservation (I did no such thing). You also characterized my opinion on restricting reproduction for me, though the subject had previously not come up.

The discussion had been merely a questioning of whether overpopulation was the problem that most people assumed.

Maybe if you can see your first comment in that light, it might explain my reaction. Just by way of offering background.

[ubs]

SteveG wrote

Let's hit the reset button again, and try to proceed slowly to make sure of understanding on both sides.

Are you game?

Sure

SteveG wrote

RESET:
Since I am genuinely confused as to what you are asking of me, and what you are wanting me to respond to, I'll ask you to restate you essential question/comment again to get us restarted.

skribb's original post was about population control

skribb wrote

Population
Since we have a fuckload of people on Earth already, I think that you should only be able to have at the very most 2 children, and in some countries the limit should be 1 child (like it is in China, I think).

Skribb did not say that we have overpopulation. Only that there was a fuckload of us, with which I agree. Paraphrasing my understanding of your position – you feel that we are not overpopulated, and should thus carry on.


I agree with your position that much of the woes suffered by different people on the earth has as much to do with corruption as overpopulation, but I do not agree with your conclusion – that we should therefore carry on. So now I am turning the tables on your assumptions and my question is this.


Why does there need to be more than a fuckload of people? What benefit is there of having a fuckload plus one?

[SteveG]

ubs wrote

Skribb did not say that we have overpopulation. Only that there was a fuckload of us, with which I agree.

But f-load is relative.

If there are 1,000 people on the plant and then the population ‘explodes’ to 1,000,000, that might look like a f-load to the original 1,000, but if the population then grows to 100,000,000, the 1,000,000 now looks quite smallish.

Talking in terms of large or small seems nonsensical to me unless you have something to measure it against.

That is why the issue of carrying capacity came up. 8 billion people is really only objectively large if it’s approaching the carrying capacity of the planet.

Again, assuming my extreme example, let’s say the carrying capacity is 100 billion (not saying it is), then 8 billion is objectively speaking, only 10% of the total capacity. Is 10% of something a f-load?

If the carrying capacity is 30 billion, is 8 billion large? Questionable, but maybe getting there. If it's 15 billion, yeah, we are talking large now.

But even in Phil's earlier post, he said the range of estimates is anywhere from 2 billion to 60 billion.

And even at that, we can effect the capacity greatly by some of the other things that have been discussed (switching to nuclear energy primarily, major reductions in consumption, etc., etc., etc.).

Do you see where I am going here? I think there are far too many questions marks to be drawing any conclusions.

ubs wrote

Paraphrasing my understanding of your position – you feel that we are not overpopulated, and should thus carry on.

I don’t think I said anything that strong. Rather I question the accepted common wisdom that we most certainly are overpopulated.

I have not yet seen an even remotely compelling case that global carrying capacity is something we have a handle on (Phil passed me some reading suggestions I intend to check out, so who knows).

ubs wrote

Why does there need to be more than a fuckload of people?

See above. I am simply not convinced that we have a f-load. That may be the case, it may not. I simply see no compelling case that on a global scale that is either obvious, or a closed issue.

I am just not impressed by the raw number of 8 billion. 8 billion grains of sand is not a f-load, nor is 8 billion stars when considered against the totals of each.

Until we have something better to measure our population numbers against, I am not ready to accept the population apocalypse.

Show me that there is something other than a subjective stance that we have a f-load, and then we can move to the next step (what to do).

ubs wrote

What benefit is there of having a fuckload plus one?

As I said earlier, current population plus one is the natural course that we will take.

Intervening with draconian restrictions means you are intervening in the natural course of human growth.

I don’t think it’s outrageous that before we start talking about forcibly controlling reproduction, some compelling rational be given, other than the subjective claim that 8 billion ‘looks about like the right number.’

If a river is flowing down to the ocean, and you want to put a damn up to stop the flow, I think it’s incumbent on you to show a valid reason for blocking the water other than, 'I just like this spot and don’t want the water going any further'…which is basically what you are saying.

[ubs]

SteveG wrote

But even in Phil's earlier post, he said the range of estimates is anywhere from 2 billion to 60 billion.

And even at that, we can effect the capacity greatly by some of the other things that have been discussed (switching to nuclear energy primarily, major reductions in consumption, etc., etc., etc.).

Do you see where I am going here? I think there are far too many questions marks to be drawing any conclusions.

On the contrary the one conclusion that we can draw is that we can sustain the population at its current rate. And there seems no compelling reason to increase our numbers.

15,000 is the number of humans that it takes for there to be a diverse enough set of dna to keep the species alive - I would define that as small. And anything over that is gravy.

SteveG wrote

As I said earlier, current population plus one is the natural course that we will take.

Most likely, but that doesn't make it the best path.

SteveG wrote

Intervening with draconian restrictions means you are intervening in the natural course of human growth.

There is nothing more draconian than competition, disease and starvation that mark the population fluctuations in other animal species. Furthermore, we are a part of nature and by definition anything we do is natural, including using our intelligence to intervene in our own growth rate.

Lily mentioned that we need each other to sustain the current level of goods and services. A true statement, but that does not necessitate growth.

The fact of the matter is that the technology that will save us from ourselves is already here, in our medicine cabinet, in a tacky plastic pink compact.

[SteveG]

ubs wrote

On the contrary the one conclusion that we can draw is that we can sustain the population at its current rate. And there seems no compelling reason to increase our numbers.

I can see what you are arguing (as much as I disagree), but again, the only way to do this is through force. People will simply not give up the most basic thing to any species, reproduction, without a fight.

And how exactly would you implement this? Would you start culling the population when we go beyond some fixed point? What if those in power decide that you are the one to be culled based on some characteristic that has fallen out of favor with society?

The cost of compelling this would be much higher than I think you imagine, and it would get very ugly. This might look very clean and sanitized in a modern society, but it will likely violate every tenet a free people hold dear.

To even contemplate this, I would think you’d better have an incredibly good reason, and I can’t see unfounded fear as an even remotely reasonable one (again, we are assuming for the sake of this particular discussion that we are not ‘overpopulated’). Of course, you are free to disagree.

Beyond that, I suggest you begin implementing your plan by voluntarily pledging never to have children.

One of the beauties of the ethic of openness to life is that it reproduces itself, and the corollary is that the ethic you espouse, if lived out earnestly, kills itself off in no time by failing to do the most basic thing…provide for its own continuation.

Good luck with that.

The fact of the matter is that the technology that will save us from ourselves is already here, in our medicine cabinet, in a tacky plastic pink compact.

I earnestly hope that you have the honesty to live by your principles (see above).

[ubs]

SteveG wrote

Good luck with that.

I earnestly hope that you have the honesty to live by your principles (see above).

There you go again. Always a breath away from theist rage. It's the entitlement they impart upon parishioners. That stuff is poison man.

[SteveG]

There was absolutely no rage intended. I mean it very sincerely.

You propose that anything over 15,000 is gravy, and when I suggest and hope for you to live by your own ethic, you take it as a being a breath away from rage.

Why is that?

I'll be very up front that I certainly find it a rather foolish position to hold, and do think it worth pointing out how it means death to itself, but it doesn’t anger me.

How/why would I be angry? I in fact see where you are coming from much better now, and can see that based on your assumptions; it makes a lot of sense.

That doesn’t change the reality of the situation, that you’ll need a lot of luck in having it become anything meaningful outside your own intellect. The demographics of it, if lived out, are just not in your favor.

Wow, this population discourse has garnered a lot of passionate debaters. That was, like, the least relevant subject of this thread

[ghoulslime]

SteveG wrote

There was absolutely no rage intended. I mean it very sincerely.

You propose that anything over 15,000 is gravy, and when I suggest and hope for you to live by your own ethic, you take it as a being a breath away from rage.

Why is that?

I'll be very up front that I certainly find it a rather foolish position to hold, and do think it worth pointing out how it means death to itself, but it doesn’t anger me.

How/why would I be angry? I in fact see where you are coming from much better now, and can see that based on your assumptions; it makes a lot of sense.

That doesn’t change the reality of the situation, that you’ll need a lot of luck in having it become anything meaningful outside your own intellect. The demographics of it, if lived out, are just not in your favor.

Euw! Look at the righteous indignation! All Jesus getting ready to beat off the money changers in the temple and shit!