Population Control.

[Fish Tank]

Do you think we should have a method of population control? And if so; what exactly would you do?


I have two different solutions both of them couldnt work right now with our current technology and moral ideals.


First you could only have a child between 20-50 years of age, and be limited to a certain number of children. To make sure this is enforced there would have to be a birth control agent that everyone would have to take. Simplest way would be through ingestion of water or food products. To get pregnant you would have to be artificially inseminated.


Or genetically alter human beings to have a "mating season". Maybe 2 months out of the year when females can get pregnant. And during those two months males will be less fertile than normal. Drastically dropping the birth rate. Of course this would take longer. As we'd have to cut off normal human reproduction. Which if that were easy we wouldn't need population control.

The key goal of course is to create an Earth in which humans are a natural element. I think to create such an Earth we'd have to first control our population.

[Rei]

What are we, then, some sort of alien parasite that we aren't a natural element on this planet?

[Fish Tank]

How are we a "natural" element on this planet now? We create things that aren't meant to be created and things that nature wouldn't produce itself. Modifying crops, making concrete, creating plastic?

[Rei]

So what you are suggesting is not so much population control as taking back technology. Because from what I can see, those are things that humans do, which is different from humans themselves. Either way, I do not think that any sort of population control would effectively lead humans to cease using or creating technologies which we find useful.

[Fish Tank]

As I said, population control is the start. I never said, "taking back technology". But we do not need to build gigantic skyscrapers, infinite highways and farms that stretch a few thousand square miles.

Feeding us takes a big chunk out of the Earth as does our living quarters. Do people really need 50 rooms in a house for 2 people? Does that help humanity in any way? No.

Humans would be fine if we didn't need food, water, and shelter.



Im suggesting we be less materialistic.

Im suggesting population control is the only way to stop us from destroying the Earth.

[suminonA]

Im suggesting population control is the only way to stop us from destroying the Earth.

We're not destroying the Earth... We're destroying our own chances of survival on a chunk of dirt in the vastness of space. Earth will be here long after we're done doing our extinction.
Long live Earth!

A.

PS: there is no such thing as "unnatural" substance/element in this Universe. Humans are natural occurrences, and all their "products" are done using the matter/energy in this Universe. The fact that plastic doesn't fall from the sky doesn't make it less "natural" than rain.

[Fish Tank]

Im suggesting population control is the only way to stop us from destroying the Earth.

We're not destroying the Earth... We're destroying our own chances of survival on a chunk of dirt in the vastness of space. Earth will be here long after we're done doing our extinction.
Long live Earth!

A.

PS: there is no such thing as "unnatural" substance/element in this Universe. Humans are natural occurrences, and all their "products" are done using the matter/energy in this Universe. The fact that plastic doesn't fall from the sky doesn't make it less "natural" than rain.

Destroying the Earth in the sense that we will make it unlivable for us. Which I happen to find very important.

So you see bottles of Coke form naturally? And here I am buying it from the store. No it requires manufacturing that does not occur in nature. Roads do not occur naturally in nature. The individual substances that make a road do. Obviously when you combine the substances that make a road you make something unnatural. Something that does not occur in nature without human intervention.

[suminonA]

Destroying the Earth in the sense that we will make it unlivable for us. Which I happen to find very important.

Well, that would be a natural concern for any self-aware being in this Universe. Human or not.
Your “solution” does lack a moral backbone, though.

So you see bottles of Coke form naturally? And here I am buying it from the store. No it requires manufacturing that does not occur in nature. Roads do not occur naturally in nature. The individual substances that make a road do. Obviously when you combine the substances that make a road you make something unnatural. Something that does not occur in nature without human intervention.

Well, are diamonds “natural”? They do occur in nature, in “exceptional” conditions of temperature and pressure. Conditions even less exceptional than those needed for your bottle of Coke.

Remember that most of the atoms in the Universe were formed in the Big Bang (except those that suffered fission, fusion or radioactive decay) so there is nothing more natural about ones than the others. The fact that they combine to form complex crystals or (organic) molecules is a natural property they have. Sure, some systems are more than the mere sum of their parts, but the relations between parts are still part of this Universe.

And the fact that a natural (highly complex) product (i.e. a human being) using natural resources of matter and energy produces another complex combination of atoms does not take it “out of the natural Universe”.

BTW: do you consider human ability to “invent” unnatural?

A.

[eriador]

Meh. I say let the humans go. I'm not gonna be around to see us go to hell, and in some ways, we are a natural part of the environment. What's going to happen is that there is a boom (known human history) and eventually will be a bust, that takes us back to sustainable levels. Repeat. That's life guys. Oh well. It takes many generations anyways.

[suminonA]

eriador, are you over your solipsist phase by now ?

A.

[eriador]

Dude, my philosophy is so f****** up I don't think you can even begin to describe it with words.

[suminonA]

Dude, be careful, you seem to have an unnatural system of philosophy (words are still of this world ), so you risk extermination by Fish Tank's standards!

A.

[eriador]

Oh noes!! Me is quaking in fears!

[Fish Tank]

Well, are diamonds “natural”? They do occur in nature, in “exceptional” conditions of temperature and pressure. Conditions even less exceptional than those needed for your bottle of Coke.

So how long would it take nature to create a bottle of coke with coke in it? Without human intervention?

Remember that most of the atoms in the Universe were formed in the Big Bang (except those that suffered fission, fusion or radioactive decay) so there is nothing more natural about ones than the others. The fact that they combine to form complex crystals or (organic) molecules is a natural property they have. Sure, some systems are more than the mere sum of their parts, but the relations between parts are still part of this Universe.

The atoms were not formed during the Big Bang they were simply changed by a natural occurrence. Conservation of mass tells us that every atom in the Universe has always existed and will continue to exist. The Big Bang would just rearrange the atoms that already exist.

And the fact that a natural (highly complex) product (i.e. a human being) using natural resources of matter and energy produces another complex combination of atoms does not take it “out of the natural Universe”.

BTW: do you consider human ability to “invent” unnatural?

A.

You're missing the point. If nature doesn't create it; it is unnatural. If you make a tree into a box it is no longer natural despite it being taken from a living being. Do you see boxes growing in a forest? No. You see trees.

Thoughts and ideas cannot be unnatural.

[eriador]

Uh. There's no such thing as conservation of mass. It's conservation of energy. Matter can change into energy (and potentially back), so that doesn't work.

I would say that humans are "natural" and that their acts are as well, making the products "natural". You have to remember that manmade and "natural" are not opposites.

[Fish Tank]

Actually the definition of manmade is the opposite of natural creation.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/manmade

Also it's "The Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy".

[Eaquae Legit]

Any sort of coercive population control would be a gross violation of human rights. We're not such a big deal that we will destroy the earth. But we ARE a big enough deal as sentient, volative creatures that we have our own say.

It's the law of conservation of mass and energy, and as a matter of fact, atoms WERE created from the big bang. The first of ANYTHING that existed was some very, very intense energy, which quickly collapsed into sub-atomic particles, and from there to hydrogen. Maybe some helium. Anything else took a little longer to show up. The total amount of mass AND energy in the universe is a constant. Things are more variable as to how much of each is around.

Conservation of Mass does not mean all atoms will continue to exist. We destroy it all the time in our nuclear reactors. That's what E=mc^2 gets us.

You can live as naturally as you want. Me, I live where I do and I kind of enjoy having, you know, clothing in the winter. Not to mention heating, a bed, and food I can eat.

Actually, if you're so danged concerned about wastefulness and resources and conservation, I've got some tips to get you started.

1. Turn off your computer. Get rid of it. (Preferably give it to someone with fewer scruples than you.)
2. Cut up your debit card. And your credit card.
3. Sell all of your CDs and DVDs. They are a horrible waste of fossil fuels.
4. Refuse to travel by any motorised vehicles.
5. Ditch the running shoes - also a waste of fossil fuels. Not to mention they were probably made with exploitative labour. Buy (or better yet, make) some moccasins.

Let me know when you've accomplished these steps. Oh wait. You'll be living naturally and in harmony with the earth. When I stop hearing from you, I'll assume you've made it past Step 1.

[Fish Tank]

1. Turn off your computer. Get rid of it. (Preferably give it to someone with fewer scruples than you.)
2. Cut up your debit card. And your credit card.
3. Sell all of your CDs and DVDs. They are a horrible waste of fossil fuels.
4. Refuse to travel by any motorised vehicles.
5. Ditch the running shoes - also a waste of fossil fuels. Not to mention they were probably made with exploitative labour. Buy (or better yet, make) some moccasins.

Let me know when you've accomplished these steps. Oh wait. You'll be living naturally and in harmony with the earth. When I stop hearing from you, I'll assume you've made it past Step 1.

I'll do these things as soon as the human population is reduced to about 500 million. And when the human population as a whole does it with me.

[hive_king]

someone's gotta start it.

[Eaquae Legit]

Precisely. You can sit here and wank, but it means nothing - NOTHING - unless you go and do something. YOU are the one who's all gung-ho. You go get things started. Maybe you'll inspire others.

[Firegirl]

The inherently strange concept on this thread that's being thrown around is that Humans are not natural. Hum, ergo that anything that humans (people) touch is unnatural. Which maybe the case, if seperate laws and forces influence humans versus "Nature".

With the earth's population reaching approximately 6.5 billion people, it would be conceiveable (no pun intended) that some forms of population control are already in effect. This methods, granted for other purposes usually; are war, famine, abortion, diseases, some technological advances (i.e. the internal combustion engine), the advent of artificially introduced hormones, socio-economic pressure, education level, and other factors. These factors that together achieve a measure of population control could be more effective if strategically used by countries on more than a regional scale.

Wow, Fish Tank your version of population control really sounds suspiciously like China's version of population control only worse. There are many problems associated with it. First is requiring everyone to take a birth control agent in the water or food, the problem with that is not every woman can take birth control agents. Most of the birth control drugs, as I assume that's what you mean by birth control agents, are based on either a variant of Progesterone or Estrogen (Female Hormones) or altering these hormones. There are many women out there who could have adverse reactions to these drugs or birth control agents. Also that a certain number of women out there have the potential of getting breast cancer that grows more due to the increased levels of hormones in their systems.
Second that artificial insemination is brutal on a woman's body, that in order to get a woman's ovaries to produce an egg, she is given large amounts of hormones, which have all sorts of side effects, some not so beneficial.
As for genetically altering humans to have a mating season, the numbers and human biology are against that plan. The last few genetic trials on humans have resulted in death or painful side effects.

[Fish Tank]

Yeah I can convince several billion people to never have children and selectively pick the ones who are able to. I'm on it. So how about it guys? I'll start here. Don't you want to make this planet a better place? h_k you and Firegirl can have 2 kids the rest of you can't have any.

Humans are natural of course, but we do very unnatural and stupid things. Animals do not use resources faster than they can be replenished because if they do they die. If elephants overgraze then their young aren't likely to survive. If humans "overgraze" we just go to the supermarket. Using the word "overgraze" as the total depletion of a food resource.


What's even worse is that we are more aware of our actions than any other species and we still continue to be so ignorant.

[Fish Tank]

Wow, Fish Tank your version of population control really sounds suspiciously like China's version of population control only worse. There are many problems associated with it. First is requiring everyone to take a birth control agent in the water or food, the problem with that is not every woman can take birth control agents. Most of the birth control drugs, as I assume that's what you mean by birth control agents, are based on either a variant of Progesterone or Estrogen (Female Hormones) or altering these hormones. There are many women out there who could have adverse reactions to these drugs or birth control agents. Also that a certain number of women out there have the potential of getting breast cancer that grows more due to the increased levels of hormones in their systems.
Second that artificial insemination is brutal on a woman's body, that in order to get a woman's ovaries to produce an egg, she is given large amounts of hormones, which have all sorts of side effects, some not so beneficial.
As for genetically altering humans to have a mating season, the numbers and human biology are against that plan. The last few genetic trials on humans have resulted in death or painful side effects.

I was thinking more along the lines of a male birth control. Females will always produce eggs males just won't produce sperm. Also this process would have to be perfected first. I don't think we have the capabilities now. Or if we do, it would probably be to expensive to be effective.

Same goes for genetic alteration.

[Rei]

I'm still stuck on a certain point. What on EARTH does a smaller population have to do with going back to nature, and yes, reversing or destroying our technology? I mean, why would you choose to start with letting the population die off? And you DO realise that it would not really apply that much to the first world where most of these resources are being used, right? The greatest number of people in the world are found in 3rd world countries. Aside from the fact that people have babies and produce technology at the same general time (assuming not all at once), I do not see a corrolation between population control and your suggested goal.

[neo-dragon]

Humans are natural of course, but we do very unnatural and stupid things. Animals do not use resources faster than they can be replenished because if they do they die. If elephants overgraze then their young aren't likely to survive. If humans "overgraze" we just go to the supermarket. Using the word "overgraze" as the total depletion of a food resource.

That seems like a contradiction. If humans are natural, how can our actions be unnatural unless we are being influenced by some outside force? "Unusual" or "unwise" does not equal unnatural. The only difference between us and the elephants in your example (aside from the fact that we should know better) is that we've found ways to avoid the more immediate negative effects of our actions because of these nice big brains we've evolved. Other animals got claws, or sharp teeth, or wings, or gills... We got ingenuity, and it's every bit as natural even if we don't use it in the best ways.

[Firegirl]

I was thinking more along the lines of a male birth control. Females will always produce eggs males just won't produce sperm. Also this process would have to be perfected first. I don't think we have the capabilities now. Or if we do, it would probably be to expensive to be effective.

Same goes for genetic alteration.

Male birth control is in clinical trials (meaning at least five to ten years before marketing), the one I am referring to is a patch as a pill form might not be as effective. Here is a link to the article I found on male birth control from a respected English Online science magazine, Newscientist.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex ... icles.html

[Eaquae Legit]

Glad you're making a start. Me, I don't see the population as as much a problem as our wasteful use of resources. So no, I won't commit to having no kids. (Especially since religious beliefs bar me from using artificial birth control.)

I will, however, teach them to be responsible stewards of what they've been given.

[Fish Tank]

We need a reduced population in order to restore natural habitat.

If we don't reduce it the population will continue to increase. Thus causing more natural habitat to decrease.

What would be the point in trying to restore a species and a habitat that is probably going to be destroyed in 20 years?

The Greatest number of people are found in developed countries.

Over 3.5 billion of the population are in India, China, the U.S., Russia, Japan and the U.K.

If we don't decrease the population we can't decrease consumption and if we can't decrease consumption and population we cannot increase the natural element. We need to get off of the land and restore it to it's natural state as much as possible.

We have to decrease the predator in order for the prey to survive. And with humans, every living thing that we have come into contact with has become our prey.

Less people are less obtrusive on the environment. I really do not understand how you don't get that.

[Firegirl]

Yeah I can convince several billion people to never have children and selectively pick the ones who are able to. I'm on it. So how about it guys? I'll start here. Don't you want to make this planet a better place? h_k you and Firegirl can have 2 kids the rest of you can't have any.

Why would you start with the Pwebbers for your version of unnatural selection (which is also called in some circles, selective breeding), sure most of us are reasonably intelligent, healthy and of childbearing age, but you are facing a limited gene pool.

[neo-dragon]

We need a reduced population in order to restore natural habitat.

If we don't reduce it the population will continue to increase. Thus causing more natural habitat to decrease.

What would be the point in trying to restore a species and a habitat that is probably going to be destroyed in 20 years?

The Greatest number of people are found in developed countries.

Over 3.5 billion of the population are in India, China, the U.S., Russia, Japan and the U.K.

If we don't decrease the population we can't decrease consumption and if we can't decrease consumption and population we cannot increase the natural element. We need to get off of the land and restore it to it's natural state as much as possible.

We have to decrease the predator in order for the prey to survive. And with humans, every living thing that we have come into contact with has become our prey.

Less people are less obtrusive on the environment. I really do not understand how you don't get that.

Still making humans and our creations out to be some unnantural alien force...

[Fish Tank]

Ahh firegirl wouldn't it still be natural selection if I am doing the selecting? My actions and ideas are natural according to most of you who posted. Therefore wouldn't selective breeding be natural because a human thought of the idea and acted upon it?

[hive_king]

Not all living things, ft. We get along with cats fairly well.

[Firegirl]

Are human products and behaviors natural or unnatural? That is part of what it boils down to and the issue has not been settled by anyone.
Fish Tank, don't fall prey to idea that you could direct the utilitarian selective breeding of humans to be beneficial without examining all the factors and getting at least a Phd in genetics. I don't have one so I don't claim to select and eliminate people from having children based off of whim, after all there are more factors to be evaluated in the matter. Also have you heard of the 1910's to 1940's pseudo-scientific movement called Eugenics? It used the idea of selective breeding of humans and was employed for seemingly high goals by Antisemitics and the Nazi party for reducing parts of the population and for creating a so-called master race. Today the scientific community ridicules at such nonsense. Arbitrarily selecting who can or can't have children is degrading humanity, if one does not factor in human dignity and current scientific knowledge.

[Fish Tank]

We euthanized about 3 million cats last year. And we will euthanize about 3 million more this year.

That's not exactly, "getting along with" when we decide which cats will live and which will die. More like we control the domestic cat population.

lol oh no FG I am not claiming I could. I didn't mean to sound that way. I was being sardonic.

[Matty]

Fish,

You're right that less people would have less impact on the environment. But to get back to "sustainable" (medieval) levels, where everyone farms what they eat and only reusable resources are used, you need dramatic, catastrophic drops in population. Several billion people would have to die without having any children, and without any large-scale, Earth-hurting violence, pretty soon.

That is unacceptable. (And probably impossible, but I don't want to speculate on how to carry such a thing out).

The only way to not commit mega-genocide and still keep the environment non-lethal is bigger, better technology. We don't need to give up cars, we need to invent cars that run on less, or no, gasoline. We don't need to give up industrial agriculture, we need to find better ways to keep the soil nutrient-rich year after year, while producing even more so we can finally feed everyone. We don't need less power generation, we need way more, to power the carbon sequestration plants, the seawater distillers, and the new electric cars. And we need a big new carbon-free power infrastructure, based on nuclear, wind, solar, and geothermal, to make all that possible. Industry is here to stay. It's either that, or cataclysm.