How long before a limit is put in place?

PMKeates said:
The concept of 'overpopulation' is effectively a myth at our current levels. We have more than enough space and, crucially, 'we have science'. Science and technology is what will give us more efficient utilisation of existing resources and the ability to create more. The only time where you could consider overpopulation a problem is when the incremental benefit of an additional human being is less than the incremental cost of supporting him/her. As humans, fundamentally, consume basic energy sources and convert them in to thoughts of seemingly limitless complexity, that equation is going to be weighted heavily in our favour for a long time.
Click to expand...
A very good way of putting it.

Some interesting points in the thread, while I knew how to stop population growth ethically if it was required (modernisation of the developing world, culturally - such as the education of women, availability of contraception etc) - I hadn't actually considered it these changes were already in progress to the extent they are.

Zethor said:
What the hell? Are you two muppets for real? Can't believe what I'm reading!

The strength of the human genome is genetic variation, not certain genes that lead to intelligence or any other "good" trait. Any form of social darwinism would only weaken it because strictly controlled breeding can lead to certain "desireable" traits becoming more dominant which always comes with side effects as the genetic weakness can become dominant too.

In a thousand years you could theoretically create a group of people that are slightly more intelligent or have slightly more physical strength. However, due to these people belonging to a small and somewhat similar gene pool, they may have a vulnerability to certain types of viruses or cancers or some unforseen genetical defect.

Your ideas are not only deeply immoral, they are idiotic.
Click to expand...
Indeed.

Diversity is one of our core strengths - without it we are weaker as a species. Besides, you can't really judge the potential of a child by looking at the parents - genetics skips generations & a vast majority of aspects regarding intelligence & cognitive ability develop during childhood through experiences & environment.

The biggest irony I've noticed is those who advocate breeding controls or social Darwinism would in reality be the first rotten fruit to be trimmed from the genetic tree.
 
Last edited:
Zethor said:
What the hell? Are you two muppets for real? Can't believe what I'm reading!

The strength of the human genome is genetic variation, not certain genes that lead to intelligence or any other "good" trait. Any form of social darwinism would only weaken it because strictly controlled breeding can lead to certain "desireable" traits becoming more dominant which always comes with side effects as the genetic weakness can become dominant too.

In a thousand years you could theoretically create a group of people that are slightly more intelligent or have slightly more physical strength. However, due to these people belonging to a small and somewhat similar gene pool, they may have a vulnerability to certain types of viruses or cancers or some unforseen genetical defect.

Your ideas are not only deeply immoral, they are idiotic.
Click to expand...

Im with them on this, its in no way a strict control nor is it saying you cant, its stating live within your means and dont expect hand outs. The only reason your argument holds true is if you fall into the category of those getting bailed out by the government in which case it becomes a personal argument rather than a logical one. There are a lot of multicultural people from different backgrounds, races and genetics that can afford to breed without handouts, the human race would continue it would just drop the amount of people breeding without care or thought, we arnt even discussing removing housing, disability or other benefits just making people think about the consequences of their actions when breeding responsibly because someone will pick up the bill for it
 
Last edited:
elmarko said:
Indeed.

Diversity is one of our core strengths - without it we are weaker as a species. Besides, you can't really judge the potential of a child by looking at the parents - genetics skips generations & a vast majority of aspects regarding intelligence & cognitive ability develop during childhood through experiences & environment.

The biggest irony I've noticed is those who advocate breeding controls or social Darwinism would in reality be the first rotten fruit to be trimmed from the genetic tree.
Click to expand...

What I'm reading from this, and forgive me if I'm wrong, is that not all bad trees grow bad apples. Occasionally, because some genius has been spawned somewhere down the line of the mentally deficient, there's a minute chance that another might crawl out the woodwork from an otherwise daft family. So do we advocate letting these people breed in the hope that another Nobel Prize Winner comes along once in a blue moon? Surely it makes more sense to keep the good factories open and shut the bad ones down.
 
Lysander said:
What I'm reading from this, and forgive me if I'm wrong, is that not all bad trees grow bad apples. Occasionally, because some genius has been spawned somewhere down the line of the mentally deficient, there's a minute chance that another might crawl out the woodwork from an otherwise daft family. So do we advocate letting these people breed in the hope that another Nobel Prize Winner comes along once in a blue moon? Surely it makes more sense to keep the good factories open and shut the bad ones down.
Click to expand...
That's not really what I said, the core to continue the use of the apple analogy is that a bad tree can make good apples if it's tended to correctly.

Simply educating people is a far more effective & less ethically hazardous way of reducing population growth, also of reducing the amount of people having an unsustainable amount of children (on a personal level, not social).

How exactly do you stop them from breeding?, or implement a method which doesn't indirectly punish the child & increase the propensity of later life problems? (which in turn cost the taxpayer more).

Being a massive douch to children by punishing them for the mistakes of the parents makes no sense ethically or economically.

By what criteria do you prevent breeding?, as I'm sure you could be considered 'fit for castration' by some parts of society (for say, believing in magic - which many would say is a key sign of mental deficiency).
 
Last edited:
Frightful Boar said:
I drove up to Gairloch last year and on the way I kept thinking:

"I hope Scotland get independence and don't let anyone build on this beautiful countryside"
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be too sure that is the way it will work, especially if there is money on the table. For example Alex Salmond approved Donald Trump's golf resort plan (including bulldozing environmentally sensitive areas of the Scottish coast) over the heads of local planners and against local opinion.

Can probably find a Daily Mail link if required :D
 
stuie said:
Would you like to explain who does?
Click to expand...

I'm sure some people pay for others to procreate...but what they do in their bedroom is of no interest to me.

My point is, we don't pay for others to procreate. If someone doesn't wish to contribute to the rest of society to support them, then they really should go elsewhere. If you do not feel that others should be allowed to live based on the fact that they can't pay for themselves (a system created by humans, may I add) then I think you're very selfish and cold hearted, and I hope the system fails you.
 
What I'm reading from this, and forgive me if I'm wrong, is that not all bad trees grow bad apples. Occasionally, because some genius has been spawned somewhere down the line of the mentally deficient, there's a minute chance that another might crawl out the woodwork from an otherwise daft family. So do we advocate letting these people breed in the hope that another Nobel Prize Winner comes along once in a blue moon? Surely it makes more sense to keep the good factories open and shut the bad ones down.
Click to expand...

With the exception of very rare genetic defects, there's no such thing as good factories and bad factories. What you consider a "bad factory" can make both "good" things and "bad" things. Similarly, "good factories" can make both "good" things and "bad" things. If you prevent "bad factories" from creating anything, you do not decrease the overall percentage of "bad factories" that occur. You only decrease the variety of the gene pool and weaken the species as a whole. In other words you shoot yourself in the foot while trying to "heal" it.
 
dirtychinchilla said:
I'm sure some people pay for others to procreate...but what they do in their bedroom is of no interest to me.

My point is, we don't pay for others to procreate. If someone doesn't wish to contribute to the rest of society to support them, then they really should go elsewhere. If you do not feel that others should be allowed to live based on the fact that they can't pay for themselves (a system created by humans, may I add) then I think you're very selfish and cold hearted, and I hope the system fails you.
Click to expand...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom