Quote: (10-17-2013 01:18 PM)defguy Wrote:
Besides wouldnt population control be a good tihng? we have WAY too many people on this planet and it isnt sustainable.
I've got no patience for the perpetuation of this myth, which I've countered on this site before:
Quote: (05-09-2013 07:35 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:
Quote: (05-09-2013 02:43 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:
In the long run, I am convinced that the entire world has to do something similar to China (either this way or through natural changes occuring from feminism, as destructive as they are). We're probably already beyond a sustainable population point, agriculturally and environmentally speaking.
Prove it.
I tire of people expressing absolute certainty with regard to Earth's population capacity and the need to reduce human numbers despite lacking anything approaching an appropriate level of evidence to make such a broad, drastic conclusion. There is no evidence that Earth has reached its carrying capacity, and there is no agreement on precisely what that carrying capacity is (estimates have ranged from 400 million to 14 Billion, all depending on who you're talking to and when you're talking to them). Current shortages in essentials (food, water, etc) are due more to human corruption and greed than they are the presence of this mythical population limit.
This is without even taking into account technological concerns. Our capacity to feed humanity and keep it healthy has expanded by leaps and bounds in the past century. This is why our population is the size it is now-it grew to match what we became capable of matching. This is also why even in the poorest nations with the most rampant rates of population growth, living standards have actually INCREASED during the last 3 to 4 decades (higher life expectancies, lower infant mortality, etc, etc).
Technology cannot be counted on to provide such boosts ad infinitum, but arguments regarding our need to trim the human herd show a complete disregard for the possibility that such a boost could occur again in the future. Advancements in technology could create the improvements in efficiency and productivity needed to sustain population sizes thought impossible decades ago. Strict adherence to the necessity of human population decline does not allow for the consideration of these developments of the man advancements they could bring.
Short version: There is no evidence that earth's human carrying capacity is less than 7 Billion, and there is therefore no evidence that such a number of human beings cannot be sustained. Thus, it cannot logically be concluded that we have "way too many people" on Earth, at least not objectively.
And no, population control/fertility decline would not be a good thing on a global scale.
Quote:Quote:
And truth be told what have you done that proves to 7 billion people that youre genes are so special we need to pass them on? Im awesome, I know it, most people know it, but the future will be just fine regardless of whether I have kids or not...
That's your personal decision, but the question you ask is irrelevant. There is no need for a man to justify his desire to reproduce and, in doing so, satisfy the most basic and fundamental function of any being.
This desire is present in every living creature. The rabbit seeks to pass on his genes. The rat seeks to pass on his genes. The dogs and the cats seek to reproduce. The cockroaches and the ants feel the need to pass on their genes. This is an urge that is fundamental to the persistence of life-it is common in nearly all creatures because it has to be in order for said creatures to persist on this planet. There is no obligation on the part of these or any other creatures to justify their possession and satisfaction of that fundamental reproductive urge.
The idea that this urge should be subject to some sort of inquisition/examination in the case of humans or any other being is, frankly, silly. The only person who needs to be convinced of the worth of your genes and their need to persist is the individual you seek to mate with. Nobody else (nevermind 7 Billion other people) needs to be involved.
Again, if you'd like not to have children as an individual then that is your call. You're not obligated to have children, nor are you really obligated to justify your lack of desire to do so. The catch, however, is that those who feel differently also have no real obligation to justify the urge to reproduce. You don't need to be "special" to have a right to pass your genes on as you see fit (so long as you can convince a mate to make that happen with you). Furthermore, that must remain the case if we are to persist as a species.
Know your enemy and know yourself, find naught in fear for 100 battles. Know yourself but not your enemy, find level of loss and victory. Know thy enemy but not yourself, wallow in defeat every time.
