Birth control = population control.

[1wlimo]

I think GBs post would have more bite if someone had brought up euthanasia.

There is a certain party of people in Congress that believe physician assisted suicide (the closest you'll ever get to euthanasia) is a viable option for folks. There is a another certain party of Congress that keeps that from being a reality. Therefore, it's really a non-issue. But honestly, I don't see the point of wallowing around in joint pain, incontinence and dementia for the last 10 years of my life. I'd rather end things while I've got some semblance of senility.

I suggest you read Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. While not being a factual account of what could happen when a society decides to enforce eugenics, it offers a very well written 'what if' scenario when something like that happens. I believe that eugenics becomes slippery slope very quickly that doesn't end well, and one in which I'm glad I don't have to make any decisions.

Remember, the road to he!! is paved in gold.

There can only be bad things happening from population manipulation, by what ever method is used.

Due to the "American way of life" the life expectancy is dropping in the developed world. It is forecast that our children will not live as long as we do.

China has a looming labour supply crisis due to the one child policy.

As a world we produce the food to feed every one now and a while into the future as the population grows. Distribution and waste is the problem, then there are the other resources that we use. The US has lead the way in the consumption of nearly every thing, and most of the rest of the world wants the same.

 

[bball]

drzr, you weren't invited to do anything. It was a conditional statement, started with an if. Merely offered you a solution IF you were upset or bothered by the thread. If you arent, there isn't a problem. If you are, I offered you a possible solution. There are other solutions as well.

 

[Drzr]

drzr, you weren't invited to do anything. It was a conditional statement, started with an if. Merely offered you a solution IF you were upset or bothered by the thread. If you arent, there isn't a problem. If you are, I offered you a possible solution. There are other solutions as well.

Such as???

 

[bball]

drzr, you weren't invited to do anything. It was a conditional statement, started with an if. Merely offered you a solution IF you were upset or bothered by the thread. If you arent, there isn't a problem. If you are, I offered you a possible solution. There are other solutions as well.

Such as???

I'm certain you will figure something out on your own.

 

[Drzr]

drzr, you weren't invited to do anything. It was a conditional statement, started with an if. Merely offered you a solution IF you were upset or bothered by the thread. If you arent, there isn't a problem. If you are, I offered you a possible solution. There are other solutions as well.

Such as???

I'm certain you will figure something out on your own.

It's your statement.

 

[bball]

Seems like you are already executing a solution.

 

[Drzr]

?????

 

[Drzr]

Seems like you are already executing a solution.

?????

 

[bball]

There can only be bad things happening from population manipulation, by what ever method is used.

Due to the "American way of life" the life expectancy is dropping in the developed world. It is forecast that our children will not live as long as we do.

China has a looming labour supply crisis due to the one child policy.

As a world we produce the food to feed every one now and a while into the future as the population grows. Distribution and waste is the problem, then there are the other resources that we use. The US has lead the way in the consumption of nearly every thing, and most of the rest of the world wants the same.

The Devils advocate argument to this statement goes something like: we already select for the best traits in cattle , hogs, corn, beans, grass, just about everything we produce. Is there absolutely no good that comes from genetically selecting for the best?

For the record, I don't disagree with you, but this is a question that will be asked. And comparing humans to animals or plants is a big no no for those with religious conviction, but for those that aren't convicted by a faith, religion is an argument that they will not entertain generally.

 

[True Grit Farms]

I'm not for euthanasia for anybody that's not a murder, child molester, or rapist or convicted habitual felons. But is assisted suicide and abortion such a bad thing? I don't know the answers myself, and everyone has their own beliefs about living and dieing.

 

[greybeard]

China does not have a 1 child policy any more. They dropped it last year. With a 1 billion population, they currently have a labor force to easily get them thru the next 20 years, but beyond that, with an average 6% annual economic growth (currently at 6.7%) they could foreseeably need more workers, so they doubled the allowable family unit to 2 children.
(US current economic growth rate is somewhere around 2.45% depending which #s you look at tho OECD has downgraded both the US and Canada's rate of economic growth for 2016 and 2017. US-2.0% Canada 1.4%)

 

[hurleyjd]

China does not have a 1 child policy any more. They dropped it last year. With a 1 billion population, they currently have a labor force to easily get them thru the next 20 years, but beyond that, with an average 6% annual economic growth (currently at 6.7%) they could foreseeably need more workers, so they doubled the allowable family unit to 2 children.
(US current economic growth rate is somewhere around 2.45% depending which #s you look at tho OECD has downgraded both the US and Canada's rate of economic growth for 2016 and 2017. US-2.0% Canada 1.4%)

Rich folks and people trying to get a leg up have fewer children than the ones in the poor folks section. Rural children in China are moving into cities and taking jobs and sending money home to the parents who are aging and getting unable to take care of the farm. This is happening worldwide when people have a little freedom to move. Happening in America as we speak.

 

[CottageFarm]

The Devils advocate argument to this statement goes something like: we already select for the best traits in cattle , hogs, corn, beans, grass, just about everything we produce. Is there absolutely no good that comes from genetically selecting for the best?

For the record, I don't disagree with you, but this is a question that will be asked. And comparing humans to animals or plants is a big no no for those with religious conviction, but for those that aren't convicted by a faith, religion is an argument that they will not entertain generally.

One could certainly argue with the devil that the extensive research into, and the use of the best genetics stills manages, fairly regularly, to produce a less than ideal specimen. When we have a calf that isn't up to the standards of its EPDs, its no big deal...ship em....But ....What do we do when that happens with people??? On whom do we practice these lofty goals for the perfect human specimen. Who decides what will be the perfect specimen? What happens when it goes wrong? Do we just reduce everything to moral relativism? I think there are an awful lot of people out there without any religious convictions, who still understand when something is simply wrong.

For the record, I too, disagree with the OP, and do not see an overpopulation problem here or elsewhere in the world.
What I do see, however, is a problem in this country with a large, overindulged population of elitists, whiners, those who covet their neighbors goods, and generally, lazy idiots. I dont see birth control or Eugenics can fix that.

And speaking of history....the last time the world had a massive population die off, it plunged civilization into a period sometimes referred to as the dark ages...

 

[Nesikep]

I don't think we have a population problem as a whole... we have a population concentration problem.. Too many people cramped in to too small places.

I was actually thinking about this the other day.. As a species, we're really setting ourselves up for extinction... It's all fine and dandy that we're finding cures to a lot of diseases, we're able to do amazing surgeries to fix problems, genetic or otherwise, but today everyone's got allergies to *everything*, and they're becoming more common, not less...Slowly slowly we're diluting our 'good' gene pool with all sorts of unwanted genes that cause problems... and the stupid gene is right at the top of the list!

I don't have the magic solution to this, but I can just think of what's over the horizon... A failure in our medical system (perhaps brought on by economic problems), and we'll have a massive casualties... from all the people with pacemakers, dialysis, organ anti-rejection drugs, etc.

Many species survive not because of a concentrated, uniform gene pool, but because of a diverse one.. the difference between those species and us, is that the 'unsuccessful' matings are dead ends.. I don't like the idea of eugenics, and that is just one reason.. Look at the popular breeds, and go back 10 generations... with the advent of AI and ET, there's some sire out there that are incredibly influential in the breed.. It might be good from a production standpoint, but is it good from a long term evolutionary one? Same goes for human eugenics.. I'm sure there's going to be some committee
that picks out a few dams and sires, and will think that basing the future of humanity on their genes is doing us a favor.. because every guy needs to be 6'2" and 220lbs.

Cottagefarm, you kinda beat me in typing

 

[Deepsouth]

The Devils advocate argument to this statement goes something like: we already select for the best traits in cattle , hogs, corn, beans, grass, just about everything we produce. Is there absolutely no good that comes from genetically selecting for the best?

For the record, I don't disagree with you, but this is a question that will be asked. And comparing humans to animals or plants is a big no no for those with religious conviction, but for those that aren't convicted by a faith, religion is an argument that they will not entertain generally.

One could certainly argue with the devil that the extensive research into, and the use of the best genetics stills manages, fairly regularly, to produce a less than ideal specimen. When we have a calf that isn't up to the standards of its EPDs, its no big deal...ship em....But ....What do we do when that happens with people??? On whom do we practice these lofty goals for the perfect human specimen. Who decides what will be the perfect specimen? What happens when it goes wrong? Do we just reduce everything to moral relativism? I think there are an awful lot of people out there without any religious convictions, who still understand when something is simply wrong.

For the record, I too, disagree with the OP, and do not see an overpopulation problem here or elsewhere in the world.
What I do see, however, is a problem in this country with a large, overindulged population of elitists, whiners, those who covet their neighbors goods, and generally, lazy idiots. I dont see birth control or Eugenics can fix that.

And speaking of history....the last time the world had a massive population die off, it plunged civilization into a period sometimes referred to as the dark ages...

Good post. Right on the money.

 

[Deepsouth]

I don't think we have a population problem as a whole... we have a population concentration problem.. Too many people cramped in to too small places.

I was actually thinking about this the other day.. As a species, we're really setting ourselves up for extinction... It's all fine and dandy that we're finding cures to a lot of diseases, we're able to do amazing surgeries to fix problems, genetic or otherwise, but today everyone's got allergies to *everything*, and they're becoming more common, not less...Slowly slowly we're diluting our 'good' gene pool with all sorts of unwanted genes that cause problems... and the stupid gene is right at the top of the list!

I don't have the magic solution to this, but I can just think of what's over the horizon... A failure in our medical system (perhaps brought on by economic problems), and we'll have a massive casualties... from all the people with pacemakers, dialysis, organ anti-rejection drugs, etc.

Many species survive not because of a concentrated, uniform gene pool, but because of a diverse one.. the difference between those species and us, is that the 'unsuccessful' matings are dead ends.. I don't like the idea of eugenics, and that is just one reason.. Look at the popular breeds, and go back 10 generations... with the advent of AI and ET, there's some sire out there that are incredibly influential in the breed.. It might be good from a production standpoint, but is it good from a long term evolutionary one? Same goes for human eugenics.. I'm sure there's going to be some committee
that picks out a few dams and sires, and will think that basing the future of humanity on their genes is doing us a favor.. because every guy needs to be 6'2" and 220lbs.

Cottagefarm, you kinda beat me in typing

Nesikep, I completely agree with your theory about the population being to concentrated. The closer people live together the worse they seem to get. I understand why it happens and do not have a solution for it but I do believe if we were more spread out it would change things.

Good post Nesi.

 

[bball]

The Devils advocate argument to this statement goes something like: we already select for the best traits in cattle , hogs, corn, beans, grass, just about everything we produce. Is there absolutely no good that comes from genetically selecting for the best?

For the record, I don't disagree with you, but this is a question that will be asked. And comparing humans to animals or plants is a big no no for those with religious conviction, but for those that aren't convicted by a faith, religion is an argument that they will not entertain generally.

One could certainly argue with the devil that the extensive research into, and the use of the best genetics stills manages, fairly regularly, to produce a less than ideal specimen. When we have a calf that isn't up to the standards of its EPDs, its no big deal...ship em....But ....What do we do when that happens with people??? On whom do we practice these lofty goals for the perfect human specimen. Who decides what will be the perfect specimen? What happens when it goes wrong? Do we just reduce everything to moral relativism? I think there are an awful lot of people out there without any religious convictions, who still understand when something is simply wrong.

For the record, I too, disagree with the OP, and do not see an overpopulation problem here or elsewhere in the world.
What I do see, however, is a problem in this country with a large, overindulged population of elitists, whiners, those who covet their neighbors goods, and generally, lazy idiots. I dont see birth control or Eugenics can fix that.

And speaking of history....the last time the world had a massive population die off, it plunged civilization into a period sometimes referred to as the dark ages...

I completely agree with all your points cottage. Very well articulated. One of my concerns is how we as a society have a tendency to embrace moral relativism -it actually concerns me a great deal. My second concern is how things like genome/eugenics are being heralded to our youth as basically flawless. One of the things i point out to young folks when discussing this is that eugenics CAN NOT account for the human spirit and it's ability improvise and excel in the face of adversity- almost like a spiritual heterosis. No amount of genetic testing will ever be able to pinpoint that I feel (the greatest difference between us and plants or animals). My final concern is something you touched on- the less diverse any organism becomes, the easier it is to be obliterated by things like disease, pestilence, famine, etc.
As always, great, well thought out post.
One final thought, you asked who would have the final say in determining what genomes are utilized? (Paraphrase) I think we can agree, it would typically be the economic elite utilizing 'the science' to form those determinations....after convincing humanity that it is the moral, ethical and appropriate thing to do.

 

[Jogeephus]

I've always believed if you can't feed them you shouldn't breed them. Today everyone is so eager to criticize someone who has too many animals they are unable to properly care for but when it comes to children this negligence is accepted. Even encouraged and rewarded.

I read a book once that said a person should be fruitful and multiply. This book also said you should work six days and rest on the seventh so to me the word "fruitful" means being productive in your work and then and only then should you multiply. This book, though filled with love and charity, also said that those who do not work should not eat.

I see no solution to any of these problems other than more people following the instructions in this book but that is a choice left up to each of us and sadly mentioning the name of this book is frowned upon in far to many places.

 

[bball]

I've always believed if you can't feed them you shouldn't breed them. Today everyone is so eager to criticize someone who has too many animals they are unable to properly care for but when it comes to children this negligence is accepted. Even encouraged and rewarded.

I read a book once that said a person should be fruitful and multiply. This book also said you should work six days and rest on the seventh so to me the word "fruitful" means being productive in your work and then and only then should you multiply. This book, though filled with love and charity, also said that those who do not work should not eat.

I see no solution to any of these problems other than more people following the instructions in this book but that is a choice left up to each of us and sadly mentioning the name of this book is frowned upon in far to many places.

Amazing how many of the principles in this book you speak have been not only abandoned, but twisted and perverted by moral relitivism. We, as a society, have actually embraced several of the principles the book cautioned humanity against embracing. Moral relitivism? Enlightement? Is it the natural function of an age in which scientific and technological advancement moves at a rate far quicker than humanity can morally process and consider the implications? It's fascinating and frightening at the same time. I have always believed the thing that scares people the most is the unknown.

 

[kjonesel]

The "problem" of overpopulation has been around for generations. Daniel Boone moved west because it was way too populated. If you have faith in God he tells us to procreate. Why does mankind consistently try to out think our creator. I use as proof that God will provide one instance of his provision. The average yield per acre for corn here in Indiana has almost tripled just in my lifetime.
This could turn out to be a lengthy discussion but if you study history, population has never been the biggest problem that we have.