The 'right' to have children and overpopulation

Post Reply New Topic

Interesting that all 5 poll options are pretty much equal at the moment.

The fact that you are a third child Orwell, should have nothing to do with your opinion. I'm not planning that you should be exterminated (together with my sister and several cousins and friends). The awareness of a population problem has come relatively recently (to popular consciousness at least).

I understand and almost sympathise with the libertarian point of view, that any intervention by the government is a loss of personal freedom. However, when the alternative will be mass starvation, wars for resources and environmental degradation that may result in the earth becoming much less inhabitable, can this position really be defendable from a moral point of view? Must we really just accept that humans are selfish and stupid and won't self-regulate and so their self-destruction will be inevitable because freedom is more important than quality of life (or even life itself)?

Interesting that all 5 poll options are pretty much equal at the moment.

The fact that you are a third child Orwell, should have nothing to do with your opinion. I'm not planning that you should be exterminated (together with my sister and several cousins and friends). The awareness of a population problem has come relatively recently (to popular consciousness at least).

I understand and almost sympathise with the libertarian point of view, that any intervention by the government is a loss of personal freedom. However, when the alternative will be mass starvation, wars for resources and environmental degradation that may result in the earth becoming much less inhabitable, can this position really be defendable from a moral point of view? Must we really just accept that humans are selfish and stupid and won't self-regulate and so their self-destruction will be inevitable because freedom is more important than quality of life (or even life itself)?

Interesting that all 5 poll options are pretty much equal at the moment.

The fact that you are a third child Orwell, should have nothing to do with your opinion. I'm not planning that you should be exterminated (together with my sister and several cousins and friends). The awareness of a population problem has come relatively recently (to popular consciousness at least).

I understand and almost sympathise with the libertarian point of view, that any intervention by the government is a loss of personal freedom. However, when the alternative will be mass starvation, wars for resources and environmental degradation that may result in the earth becoming much less inhabitable, can this position really be defendable from a moral point of view? Must we really just accept that humans are selfish and stupid and won't self-regulate and so their self-destruction will be inevitable because freedom is more important than quality of life (or even life itself)?

Interesting that all 5 poll options are pretty much equal at the moment.

The fact that you are a third child Orwell, should have nothing to do with your opinion. I'm not planning that you should be exterminated (together with my sister and several cousins and friends). The awareness of a population problem has come relatively recently (to popular consciousness at least).

I understand and almost sympathise with the libertarian point of view, that any intervention by the government is a loss of personal freedom. However, when the alternative will be mass starvation, wars for resources and environmental degradation that may result in the earth becoming much less inhabitable, can this position really be defendable from a moral point of view? Must we really just accept that humans are selfish and stupid and won't self-regulate and so their self-destruction will be inevitable because freedom is more important than quality of life (or even life itself)?

[quote=Orwell]The problem is that you are presenting a false alternative. Malthusian thought is just wrong, and has been demonstrated to be such repeatedly throughout history.[/quote]

There is nothing wrong with Malthusian thought except his assumption of a very limited capability for land to produce food. Agricultural science has increased that capability tremendously but even that increase is not capable of supporting an infinite increase in population. Eventually, no matter how much science can increase agricultural output the limits of Malthus will re-appear. The ultimate limit will be the total conversion of the energy from the sun into food and that may be large but it is not infinite. Your faith in science is commendable but it is no more valid than a religious faith. If you believe in miracles you should immediately set about some practical method for invoking them.

I'm not saying there's no limit to population, Sand. There obviously is. But, the world population is beginning to level off, and we are probably still below carrying capacity. Especially in wealthier countries, any population growth at all is almost solely due to immigration. I'm not predicting infinite population growth, just dismissing the idea that humans are likely to continue exponential growth to be well over the carrying capacity.

What is disconcerting for an observer who judges human mental agility as being supreme is the nexus of severe problems and real solutions that might, at least for the near future, push Malthus away for the next few generations. To speak of a lack of water on a planet that is covered for about two thirds of its area with water is quite strange. The obstacle that it is salty and not suitable for current food crops does not take into account that nature has already solved many of those problems with seaweed which humans have paid little attention to for food crops. Genetic engineering could probably do a great deal in that area. And if those consumable seaweeds could be induced to flourish on the now polluting fertilizer runoff it would be a successful change to benefit everybody. There is great concern that atmospheric CO2 is acidifying the oceans and causing oxygen depletion that is killing fish. Ocean crops which turn CO2 into edible products could help greatly in this direction. So far I have heard of no groups that are looking at the problems in this direction. It's worthwhile investigating instead of harebrained schemes to run off to the highly hostile and uninhabitable planets.

Another possibility that has not been considered in ridding the atmosphere of its burgeoning CO2 is the use of photosynthetic airborne bacteria. The skies of Earth are filled with water in the form of vapor and clouds and all that is needed to join this water to the excess of CO2 is the energy of sunlight and a self reproducing organic bacteria that will remain airborne until it sinks to the ground of its weight to fertilize the plants on the ground. It is known that bacteria do fill the skies but not that they are photosynthetic. It should be a solvable problem and prove unnecessary the bulky clumsy expensive machinery now contemplated to reduce CO2. Again genetic engineering could come to the rescue.

not only should people not even be allowed to get ONE kid anymore, but...

just VOTE FOR ME for global president, thats all im saying.

hah

muhah...

MOHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! !!