OT: Earth is a finite space

[ZIM]

Solution 1 has been tried before

for largely the same reasons..

..but we knew that, right?

[Oso]

Nature, by and large, doesn't operate catastophically. It's almost inconcievable how one "good" war or unexpected disease could wipe out the human race. More reasonable would be a steady increase in social and biological problems proportional to population density problems. Natural population growth charts tend to be "S" shaped for this very reason. It's a peculiar bit of human arrogance to imagine that we're significant enough to bypass these laws of nature.

I agree. My point was that it IS the weeding out of a couple million here and there that is keeping us from growing too fast.

Better medicine and industrialization has led to a bread and circuses society that hasn't had the sense to slow down population growth. Millennia of muscle powered agrucultural societies has bred into us some need to produce more offspring than we need. Due to high infant mortality rates and a gestation period of 9 months and the fact that it is actually a bit harder to impregnate a woman than most people think led to families trying to crank out kid after kid in hopes that enough would survive to become the workforce on the farm. This continued well into the early 20th century.

too dang tired to continue

what the hell did I start

[ZIM]

When tornados take over the world
There'll be no time for fretting
No fussing and complaining anymore
When tornados take over the world
You won't have your folks
To blame for all the stuff that's your fault

Your friends will be swirling
Right above your disembodied head

When tornados take over the world
All the things in the fridge
That fell on the floor will disappear
And all of your neighbors
Will be waving their flashlights at your house

Your friends will be swirling
Right above your disembodied head

When tornados take over the world

-TMBG

Heck, Oso, I dunno...

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Oso
Better medicine and industrialization has led to a bread and circuses society that hasn't had the sense to slow down population growth.

Sure, but none of this will change the the S-shape of the growth curve, as you noted.

Millennia of muscle powered agrucultural societies has bred into us some need to produce more offspring than we need.

I'm not sure this is the case. You need 2 children per family to grow to adulthood to break even. Comparing birth rates by industrialization and SEC, the top end is around this mark.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by ZIM
..but we knew that, right?

No, no... you're wrong. The Nazi threat existed only because every Nazi was inherently an evil person. There are no remnants of their logic in our society, because we'd recognize it immediately for the evil that it is.

I mean, we'd never close down mental health institutionalization, would we?

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Laughing Cow
Do you think we could have that that level of indusrialisation without exploiting colonies, 3rd world countries and their resources.

Yes. In fact, we'll get that level of industrialization by stopping that exploitation so that industrialization is free to spread. It's the exploitation that's holding the system back, not empowering it.

The other problem that the world is facing is that we have become "service orientated".

This isn't a problem, again it's a boon. Service is oriented towards distribution of food, goods, and information. Distribution permits healthy, environmentally-friendly, and humanitarianly equal living. Industrialization permits more resources to be made with fewer consumed with fewer man-hours labour needed; hence a switch in human labour from production to service.

[Laughing Cow]

Christopher M.

1.) Industrialisation needs a lot of resources, in many places there exists NO infrastructure or the needed resources to support it.

Example:
Middle east lacks the neccessary water for heavy industry,
China & Asia many regions still do not have access to electricity and similar.

At the moment there is a move of shifting even the service industry to "poorer" countries( India & China), hence we are still exploiting poorer nations as they will offer cheaper labour/services.

2.) Yes, service orientated is what is happening in some areas of the globe.

Problem is that in order to distribute goods you FIRST need to create them, those cost resources and human labour.
Hence the shift to produce in 3rd world and similar countries as 1st world countries either don't want to provide the labour or would cost too much.

Problem is that 1st World countries are starting to face the same problems as the british empire did.

Production of goods and services is being done abroad, unemployment at home, brain-drain, etc.

Look at the IT-schooling in the states a lot of students study in the states and tahn leave and go back home in order to directly compete with US IT-Industry.

In short you can afford your current lief-style BECAUSE your goods are produced in countries where labour is being exploited, bring those countries to 1st world standard and you won't be able to afford the same goods as they won't be any cheaper than if they were produced in your home-country.

Cheers.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Laughing Cow
Industrialisation needs a lot of resources

... to produce a lot of output. A less industrialized model needs even more resources to produce the same output. If there is a complaint here, it is against the volumes of output, not the process of industrialization, which clearly conserves resources.

in many places there exists NO infrastructure

... which has absolutely nothing to do with relative frequencies of consumption of a stable natural resource supply.

At the moment there is a move of shifting even the service industry to "poorer" countries, hence we are still exploiting poorer nations as they will offer cheaper labour/services.

How is this exploitation?

Hence the shift to produce in 3rd world and similar countries as 1st world countries either don't want to provide the labour or would cost too much.

Is there anything wrong with this?

Also, it seems to contradict the previous remark. Are you trying to say that poorer countries are being shifted to production or to service? You've claimed both.

Problem is that 1st World countries are starting to face the same problems as the british empire did... Production of goods and services is being done abroad

How is this a problem?

Also, are you saying that foreign production is a problem or that it's a self-serving act of exploitation? You've claimed both.

Look at the IT-schooling in the states a lot of students study in the states and tahn leave and go back home in order to directly compete with US IT-Industry.

This isn't brain-drain. Foreign students are expected to return to their countries of origin. Brain-drain is when citizens leave their country after training there.

In short you can afford your current lief-style BECAUSE your goods are produced in countries where labour is being exploited

You're going to have to establish what the nature of this exploitation is before using it as the lynchpin of your conclusion.

Also, would you mind generalizing the pronouns in these kinds of remarks? Thanks.

bring those countries to 1st world standard and you won't be able to afford the same goods as they won't be any cheaper

Unless they're brought not just artifically to 1st world standards, but brought there internally through industrialization which generates more output for less resources consumed, by definition, allowing productivity per man hour to increase rather than decrease.

Which is the only way it has ever happened; and, presumably, the only way it ever will happen.

[TonyM.]

When I was a child none of the old people I knew took daily medication. They were healthy. Now all of the old people I know take multiple medications daily. Most are unhealthy, but they live two tears longer. Most of the forests I knew as a child in Louisiana, West Virginia and especially Maryland are now gone. Replaced by shabby housing developments. People are stupid and tiresome as a rule.

[fa_jing]

This is ridiculous, Oso. All systems of co-existance must eventually promote equality of human rights, or eventually the masses will wake up. Kill off? You first, since you advocate it. Forced sterilization after 1 or 2 live births? Your children first.

CM is correct, the world is NOT overpopulated. Big Myth, but it went out with the 70's. The population is poorly distributed. There is a ceiling that will be hit, within 100 years, and voluntary birth control with incentives is the best solution I can think of. But until that point, we are just fulfilling our evolutionary destiny by reproducing as many offspring who will themselves oneday reach child-bearing age as possible. We are wired for this, that's why most of us are here, and it should not be restricted without good cause. Certainly if my parents had stopped after two children, I'd be missing two sisters and niece or nephew on the way. All of us were cared for reasonably well. We took up each other's space growing up, had to smell a few more far.ts and breathe a little less oxygen than otherwise necessary, but it was worth it.

[chen zhen]

.

[Surferdude]

Hahahahahaha

[Oso]

HA HA HA HA HA HA

FOOLS !!!!

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Oso
Better medicine and industrialization has led to a bread and circuses society that hasn't had the sense to slow down population growth.

If you want to consider the logic behind eugenics (and I think you should, if only to understand it rather than demonize it, so that you can recognize similar thoughts in your own viewpoints), I think there's much better arguments than the overpopulation one.

The medicine issue you've brought up is a good one. Consider that evolution works by: whoever leaves behind the most viable offspring has the greatest influence upon the population gene-pool; and thus, the species "evolves towards" that standard. In animal populations, this generally works to breed in strengths and breed out weaknesses. For instance, individuals genetically prone to illness will leave behind less viable offspring: so those genes will be bred out of the population. Conversely: strong, intelligent, patient, ambituous, skillfull, quick individuals will leave behind more viable offspring; so the species as a whole will become stronger, more intelligent, and so on, over time.

Now: is this the case for the human race? There are a variety of things at play here. Modern medicine, by allowing sickly individuals to survive, prevents illness from being bred out of the population. Various people have also put forth arguments relating things like SEC to positive traits (like ambitiousness, patience, etc) and noted that success here is related inversely to reproductive success for humans, unlike other animals.

What implications does this have for the evolution of the human race?

Please note that I'm not suggesting any particular answer to this question.

[Oso]

Chris,

ok,

#1 You're smarter, more well read than I am and surely more educated. I'm guessing sociology or something. Maybe blended with anthropology.

#2 I'm gonna have to look 'eugenics' up before I respond.

ok, my dictionary was right here...who the hell is 'practicing' eugenics?

used to be a good midwife had a handy hairpin....the beginning of eugenics??

so called modern 'civil' and 'moral' rights have had a lot to do with what is considered a viable offspring. What kind of life does a severely retarded baby have to look forward to?

take this act of selfishness for example:

I know of a couple that tried to have children for years and years. 4 miscarraiges. Yet they kept trying. On the last try they concieved but early on knew through testing that the child was going to have problems, serious ones. Do they abort? No. So, during the childs first 3 months of life it stops breathing on a daily basis. (It was not a premie, past full term even) Over the first year it has had to have numerous operations to adjust it's clubbed feet and hands. still more to come. At almost a year old the child is not even beginning to speak or make noise at all. Yet, I have heard this couple speak of 'god's will' and how god wanted them to have this child. imo, god was telling them they couldn't/shouldn't with the 4 miscairrages. yet, through modern medicine they were able to bring this child who will most probably have zip in the way of quality of life into the world. To what end? Their own personal need to have a child. I only hope that they stop with this one. Please note my ire is directed at the selfish people that insisted on carrying through the pregnancy against all reasonable advice that the child would not have a good quality of life.

It is this sort of emperative to bear children that needs to be examined.

In this example the need is from the bible. but that's a whole nuther subject.


#3 I'm frikkin' tired.

so, I did 1,2 and 3 and then had to go look up 'eugenics'

still not really a cohesive post, imagine that.

d a m m i t.....(edit: we can say crap and hell but not ******?)

ok, so if eugenics is the science of improveing the human genome how does it apply to what we are talking about?

modern medicine is NOT improving the human genome. It's doing exactly the opposite.

call me elitest but I'm all for improving the human genome.

and one step towards that is to get rid of the stigma on interracial couplings. I think it can be argued that only when we are trully one h o m ogenous ( ) race will we actually have all the good stuff in one package.

enough

sleep beckons