Forums > Social Discussion > What's your share in/ solution to overpopulation?

Login/Join to Participate
Page: 12
FireTom
Stargazer

Member Since: 20th Sep 2003
Total posts: 6650
Posted:The usual Wiki-intro rolleyes



 Written by: Wiki



As of 2007, the world population reached 6.6 billion.[1] In line with population projections, this figure continues to grow at rates that were unprecedented prior to the 20th century, although the rate of increase has almost halved since growth rates reached their peak in 1963.









Or better asking: Where will you be, if by 2050 we will have reached 9.4 Billion? (Oh, wait - that's in 40years... *scratches head* I will be... 78 eek ) rolleyes meditate shrug



Wait, we also got the (actual) numbers about the population in a few cities worldwide:



Tokyo - 36.798.213

NYC - 22.531.069

Mexico City - 22.414.319

Seoul - 22.173.711

Mumbai - 19.944.372

Sao Paolo - 19.357.485

Jakarta - 17.928.968

Manila - 17.843.620

Los Angeles - 17.767.199

Delhi 17.753.087



These ten cities only host 2% of the worlds population, but generate 20% of the GDP.. and whilst about only 2% of the worlds population lived in cities by 1800 (1990 - 45%), this will definitely change over the coming years, where some 66% of the worlds population are predicted to live in cities.



The Ozzies are just ahead of the global trend.... wink



When is "the boat full"? (I use this here, but violently dislike the slogan of right wing parties in Germany and Austria otherwise - funny enough they use it in countries where the population is decreasing ubblol censored heads)


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete Topic

rainbowgirl
rainbowgirl

member
Location: London/Southend-on-sea
Member Since: 26th Aug 2006
Total posts: 70
Posted:Which is the way i see it, but i also see it that way for things that are not my own flesh and blood (my horse, my dog etc) becuase you can still have a lot of effect dispite not creating the individual involved!

I dont think there is anything wrong in wanting to create something for the world - theres already plenty of art but people still paint more!

If people stopped having children there would be just as serious a problem as there is now because the human race would die out, and it would do so very uncomfortably as there wouldnt be suffiecient people to provide food/resources/support etc for everybody. Replacement level reproduction (every one person contributing one new person who then goes on to contribute one new person and so on. Its 2.2 kids per couple in the west, the .2 is to allow for the few children who die before reproducing, those who cannot reproduce, those who choose not to and homosexuals) Is not a problem - perhaps restrict it for a while where there is a pressing problem until that situation is dealt with.

It is also important for as wide a range of people as possible to contribute to the gene pool to avoid problems of inbreeding (even if you arent actually related it is still a problem if you and your partners genes are too similiar for too many generations - which is why all animals have ways of telling similar gened partners from not so similiar gened partners, with humans this is smell - you prefer the natural smell of someone who is genetically dissimilar to you and find it arousing, i dont know how this works at a genetic level (how the genes make the different smells) but it certainly does work in practice). And even without going into eugenics it would still be a problem if only certain people were having children, in the west its the lowest and highest social classes who have the most children and do we really want a population with that many chavs or that many snobs? (sorry for the over generalisations, i know that not every person from the lower classes is a chav - im from a council house and im not a chav - and not every person from the upper classes is a snob, many are very down to earth (ie princess Diana) but they are also usually the execptions to the amount of breeding rule) Neither group is a good thing for society as a whole (happy slappers and tories spring to mind) it is best for all concerned to have a good mix of people.


You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars

"To alcohol, the cause of - and solution to - all of lifes problems!"

Delete

Rouge Dragon
Rouge Dragon

Insert Champagne Here
Location: without class distinction
Member Since: 21st Jul 2003
Total posts: 13215
Posted:I'm not saying that a parent should take pride in their child 100% and without thought in relation to everything they do. But I'm saying that I don't think it's wrong to have pride in ones children.

It actually makes me feel really sad that you feel it's so wrong.


i would have changed ***** to phallus, and claire to petey Petey

Rougie: but that's what I'm doing here
Arnwyn: what letting me adjust myself in your room?..don't you dare quote that on HoP...

Delete

DarkFyre
DarkFyre

HoP mage and keeper of the fireballs
Location: Palmerston North
Member Since: 4th Nov 2005
Total posts: 1965
Posted:Ok This may be a tad off topic but does anybody hear remember the episode of Sliders where the local people are contraception mad and they have that suicide lottery that pays you money and sets your family up for life if you win but you die. I remember it and at the time I fully agreed with it fully and as some of you may have guessed I still do.
The entire point of the episode was that smaller comunities are more plesant places to live and they tend to have lower crime rates. This is something that i can attest to myself since i was born and raised in London (a nice place to visit but you wouldn't want to live there) then i moved to Wellington NZ (much friendlier) and i have since moved to Palmerston North (granted the people arn't all that friendly here but the overall sence of 'community' is more pronounced).

I will admit I was happier in Welington but at the end of the day I am a city boy and Palmy is ittle more than a glorified town that has a university to bump its population up to city status.


May my balls of fire set your balls on fire devil

Delete

FireTom
Stargazer

Member Since: 20th Sep 2003
Total posts: 6650
Posted:Rouge, don"t feel sad about it, please. I simply consider genealogy to be over-rated. That's all. shrug I regard it inadequate and out-of-date for a multitude of reasons, whilst I acknowledge that a strong emotional bond between parents and children is necessary (which is onereason for adoption to be such a complicated process - IMO).

Now looking at these figures:

Germany

(its fertility rate of 1.39 children per mother is one of the lowest in the world,acc. to Wiki)

Birth rate: 8.25 births/1,000 population (2006 est.)
Death rate: 10.62 deaths/1,000 population (2006 est.)

UK

Birth Rate: 10.71 births/1,000 population (2006 est.)
Death Rate: 10.13 deaths/1,000 population (2006 est.)

Australia

Birth Rate: 12.14 births/1,000 population (2006 est.)
Death Rate: 7.51 deaths/1,000 population (2006 est.)

US

Birth Rate: 14.14 births/1,000 population (2006 est.)
Death Rate: 8.26 deaths/1,000 population (2006 est.)

China

Birth rate: 13.25 births/1,000 population (2006 est.)
Death rate 6.97 deaths/1,000 population (2006 est.)

India

Birth rate: 22.01 births/1,000 population (2006 est.)
Death rate: 8.18 deaths/1,000 population (2006 est.)

Rainbowgirl: Very interesting point. Genealogy is sill alive and kicking in mankind, very subtle though and may not only be depending on smell. I guess there's a series of indicators (as the natural smell often is hidden by Chanel No. 29.835 wink ) who make the determination for the ideal partner.

Isn't the urge to "create one child from yourself" more that one age-old desire to leave something that lasts (longer than yourself)? I always considered this to be a male prerogative...

"It need a village to raise a child" is an old African proverb and (if my informations are correct) in the Australian aboriginal community there is no expression for "mother or father" (i.e. they are all aunts and uncles, nieces and nephews) - children are raised by "the collective". (pls correct me if I'm wrong)

Dizzyphoenix: I guess there is a number of scenarios - many of them sound bizarre to the human(itarian) ear.


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

rainbowgirl
rainbowgirl

member
Location: London/Southend-on-sea
Member Since: 26th Aug 2006
Total posts: 70
Posted:It is not just a male prerogative to leave behind somehting that lasts longer than yourself, in fact such a view could be seen as sexist, chauvanistic and generally out of date.

I suggest you look into evolutionary psychology and/or behavioural ecology which will tell you a lot about why all members of all species are motivated to have their own offspring, at least at a genetic level. In short, genes are replicating 'machines' who have a megalomaniac desire to make as many copies of themselves as possible and for these copies to go on to make copies and so forth. This selfish 'desire' from the genes leads to almost every behaviour in everyday life (for all living things) people are attracted to beauty becuase beauty is equated with health and health is equated with fertility, people are more inclined to help and support their own family - especially siblings and offspring - because they are genetically the most similar so their continued survival and reproduction also replicates some of your genes.

In many collective societies (human or other animal)monogamous relationships are rare so males can never be sure which offspring are their own so treat all offspring equally well. In many collective societies (human or other animal, with or without the monogamous relationships) members are all related, at least to a certain extent (think of herds of horses where 99.9999% of the foals will have the same father, and many of the mares are half or full sisters, mothers/daughters and aunt/niece) so adults are inclined to cooperate about child rearing because, with only a few exceptions, all children have some of each of the adults genes.

Humans are unique in thinking they are 'above' their genes and do not need to behave in such instinctive ways. But this has not proved to be the case. Most cases of child abuse (not necessarily the exceptional kind that makes the papers, such perpetraitors are mentally unbalanced in other ways) are carried out by a non genetic relative - such as adoptive or step parents. This has been confirmed by countless studies, mainly from the discipline of psychology, and is widely used in determining which children are at risk. So humans are as motivated as any other animal to have children of their own.

I agree that natural selection will kick in eventually and sort out the overpopulation mess, but humans are also unique in the way they have artificially altered their environment and behaviour patterns which is in many ways putting a damper on natural selection - people who would have otherwise been wiped out are going on not only to live but to reproduce. And while it is an ethically thorny issue to say that certain people may or may not have children on the grounds of them not being the 'fittest' and therefore due to be done away with under the natural selection laws it does not mean that humankind should be absolved of responsiblility regarding overpopulation.Nature is trying its best - TB is on the increase and along HIV/AIDS, SARS, MSRA and bird flu is a contender for the next big plague, and global warming should get rid of a fair few people, and colder winters are doing there best to rid the world (britain at least) of elderly and/or poor people. The main problem, as i see it, is that these events are not being taken as signs or warnings that something needs to be changed, instead it is simply a call to arms to exert human superiority over nature so that everyone can live forever, no matter how old, infirm, frail, diseased or just downright useless they are.

Damn people.


You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars

"To alcohol, the cause of - and solution to - all of lifes problems!"

Delete

FireTom
Stargazer

Member Since: 20th Sep 2003
Total posts: 6650
Posted:Listen, "Rainbowgirl", no offence meant and none taken, but some of what you were posting sounded so rude - I was eek -ed to read this from a "rainbow girl".

Usually the "leave something lasting after you die"-attitude - to be a male prerogative - was thrown into my face by (obviously sexist and chauvinistic) feminists - I understand that the range of opinions about this diverge immensly.... (btw, is a chauvinist female still a chauvinist, or simply homophobic? umm wink ubblol )

 Written by: rainbowgirl

people are attracted to beauty becuase beauty is equated with health and health is equated with fertility



Beauty (as I see it) is more "in the eye of the beholder" and it seem to be the genes whispering their hosts what to consider "beautiful" - maybe sometimes according to social programming, but this would contradict the "souvereignity" of said genes and their desire to find their perfect counterpart.[/ironic]

Please, take a look:

beauty = health

 Written by: Reuters

The Italian fashion capital Milan has formally barred ultra-skinny and under-age models ahead of its February catwalk shows, as the fashion world comes under pressure to promote a healthier image.




Non-Https Image Link


now, please compare:


Non-Https Image Link


How comes that both are/ have been regarded "ideal"?

 Written by: rainbowgirl

Most cases of child abuse (not necessarily the exceptional kind that makes the papers, such perpetraitors are mentally unbalanced in other ways) are carried out by a non genetic relative - such as adoptive or step parents. This has been confirmed by countless studies, mainly from the discipline of psychology, and is widely used in determining which children are at risk.



Would you be so kind to back up that claim, please?

But we're drifting off...

 Written by: rainbowgirl

I agree that natural selection will kick in eventually and sort out the overpopulation mess, but humans are also unique in the way they have artificially altered their environment and behaviour patterns which is in many ways putting a damper on natural selection - people who would have otherwise been wiped out are going on not only to live but to reproduce.

And while it is an ethically thorny issue to say that certain people may or may not have children on the grounds of them not being the 'fittest' and therefore due to be done away with under the natural selection laws it does not mean that humankind should be absolved of responsiblility regarding overpopulation. Nature is trying its best - TB is on the increase and along HIV/AIDS, SARS, MSRA and bird flu is a contender for the next big plague, and global warming should get rid of a fair few people, and colder winters are doing there best to rid the world (britain at least) of elderly and/or poor people.

The main problem, as i see it, is that these events are not being taken as signs or warnings that something needs to be changed, instead it is simply a call to arms to exert human superiority over nature so that everyone can live forever, no matter how old, infirm, frail, diseased or just downright useless they are.

Damn people.



And that was the part that shocked me... eek confused meditate

May I divert your attention one more time?


Non-Https Image Link


(^ Stephen Hawkins, in case you didn't recognise)

Mankind - unlike any other species on this planet - was able to elevate itself above the mere "survival of the (physically) fittest" - it's become more of a "survival of the smartest" and even that one we surpassed... we are now able and can afford to keep individuals in the gene-pool who would have otherwise dropped out.

Personally I am very happy that they are still around. Some of the "old, infirm, frail, diseased or just downright useless" have given glorious examples for strength, willpower, sustainability, knowledge and wisdom, created great pieces of artwork and of science - I wouldn't want to miss out on any of them.

Who is judging about whose genes are "worthy" and whose are not?

Is a society, like the one on display in "Gattaca" one that we want?

Are we able to over-rule "genetic dogma/ dictatorship"?

Will we be able to overcome our own judgements, i.e. those imposed onto us?

And finally: will we stop to take ourselves so censored serious and important, whilst at the same time neglecting the importance of all others?

I believe that "health" is relative, as are "beauty" and "intelligence". There must be a different answer to the challenges of overpopulation than to revive this guy:


Non-Https Image Link


Keep coming.... wink hug


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

DarkFyre
DarkFyre

HoP mage and keeper of the fireballs
Location: Palmerston North
Member Since: 4th Nov 2005
Total posts: 1965
Posted:Ok tom you have made many a good point and nobody can argue against them because they are valid but you are pointing out the extremes and the exceptions to the norm not to mention the extreme differences in cultural views.



Lets just look at the beauty topic because it's the easiest to compare. The skinny model is considered beautiful by the fashion industry (probably the most bias view you could have chosen) who choose models base on a walking clothes hanger theory and i don't know about you but she doesn't float my boat. I am however glad to see your note on Milans current change in regulations as this shows that common sence is bringing the image of fashionable beauty closer to the idea of suvival of the fitest while at the same time Obesse TV is doing the same but in reverse.



The tribal statue is also an extreme since the cultural viewpoint is so far removed from anything that you or i can truly understand however she is fat and as such could last a greater amount of time on scarce amounts of food than a skinny chick (thus survival of the fitest) and to an ancient tribesman this would have been of great value (additionaly she has bigger tits and even in this age that is considered an attractive feature). The fact that she is a hefty girl could also imply that she is fertile and could bear many children for the tribesman in an age where disease commonly struck the old and young allike however it would also be fair to say that in this era Overpopulation would not have been an issue in fact the larger your tribe the greater its power.



Neither of these examples however represent the Joe and Jane Blogs of today as these are the people that contribute the most to overpopulation in a world that is being pushed to the edge. I am not saying that we should kill all cripples and bring in harsh laws govening ugly people but as a popualation we are still breeding as though 75% of our young (not an exact figure so dont pester me about it) will die before they have children of there own while the leaps and bounds that society has taken extend our lives beyond what could be considered normal and this is where the problem lies. A change of attitudes needs to take place and where once the greatness of ones family was of concern this should be replaced with the quality of ones family and the lives that each one is given, not alway long in length but greater in love, joy and experience.


May my balls of fire set your balls on fire devil

Delete

Spanner
Spanner

remembers when it was all fields round here
Location: in the works... somewhere...
Member Since: 27th Feb 2003
Total posts: 2790
Posted: Written by: PsyRush


 Written by: FireTom


So - IMO - adoption IS an option.




Adoption isn't really better than having another kid of your own. If lots of people adopt, this would encourage mothers who don't want kids to give away their babies, because it'll be easier and they'll have more options.... meaning that people would be more careless with unprotected sex because they can just give their baby away; eventually resulting in more babies.



It seems an easy decision to make in the first weeks of pregnancy but bonding between a child and its parents tends to begin before birth whether they like it or not.
When the baby is born, it's no surprise that suddenly it isn't such an easy decision to stand by.
This is why an adoption trend won't prevail over abortion which is not only more out of sight and mind (in comparison) but also already considered socially acceptable in enough parts of the world.


"I thought you are man, but
you are nice woman.

yay,

:R"

Delete

FireTom
Stargazer

Member Since: 20th Sep 2003
Total posts: 6650
Posted:hmm - DP - valuable input that is... clap



Is it true fact that "the higher the level of education, the lower the desire for an offspring"? (It may not change much of the "training-patterns" but certainly about their intent wink ) Meaning, that overpopulation derives from a low(er) level in education and awareness? Meaning that parents who really are conscious about themselves and their environment would not breed 12 children...?



I was just using striking examples above as to make my point clear: "Beauty" is not only in the eye of the beholder, but also a socio-cultural programming (like for example skin-tanning products in the west and skin-whitening products in the east).



Is it like "in times and areas where food is scarce, "overweight" is attractive and vice versa"?



I guess (!) that you are exactly striking the head, when saying that the emphasis should be on quality, rather than on quantity (of life). We all do (subconsciously or not) know that life could be MUCH more enjoyable without hunger, war, violence and greed (breeding slavery) - and by getting access denied to such an enjoyable life, mankind is put into a merry-go round...



Much like: you will get rewarded in retirement, afterlife or next incarnation - but now, this life/ time you have to suffer... One can have lived a fullfilled life by 40 - or not, at the age of 85...



Maybe I'm coming across garbled, but I'm trying to figure this out myself...


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

FireTom
Stargazer

Member Since: 20th Sep 2003
Total posts: 6650
Posted:now to return to the term: "plain useless" (people) and their part in the gene pool...

May I divert your attention to "(idiot) savants"?

Wiki: An autistic savant (historically described as idiot savant) is a person with both autism and Savant Syndrome. Savant Syndrome describes a person having both a severe developmental or mental handicap and extraordinary mental abilities not found in most people. The Savant Syndrome skills involve striking feats of memory and often include arithmetic calculation and sometimes unusual abilities in art or music.

Now isn't it the societies problem that they just haven't found ways to put their skills to use?

I guess the topic (in this regard) is a bit more complex, as it seems...


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Page: 12