5 ms·

qrendel is clearly wrong about genetics as the timescale isn't long enough evolutionary changes to take place. Only 2-3 generations back, it wasn't uncommon in

by dalke 11y ago

qrendel is clearly wrong about genetics as the timescale isn't long enough evolutionary changes to take place. Only 2-3 generations back, it wasn't uncommon in the US to have 8+ children, so clearly cultural effects are much stronger than inheritable genetic factors. See also the one child policy in China as a example of how the timescale is too short for evolutionary feedback. qrendel is clearly wrong about population dynamics, as 'greater base of working-age citizens to support the non-working portion (retired, children)' only applies for an exponentially growing population, which must stop at some point, for clearly physical reasons like the Sun not providing enough energy. qrendel also prefers city life, as seen in the assumption that the presence of more people means that those with uncommon interests "will be able to form communities of people with similar interests". This view excludes those who want to go for long walks alone on the beach, or hate living where they can see the lights of their neighbors, or want the local ecosystem to continue to support wildlife that does poorly around dense human habitation. As qrendel does not believe there is resource scarcity, than that's only because qrendel does not regard things like '5 million wild buffalo freely roaming the US plains' or 'ability to see the Milky Way in the night sky' as resources. These are certainly not critical to what's needed for the human body to survive, but survival is only the bottom of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Despite those wrong statements, and incorrect generalization, I cannot tell from what qrendel wrote if "natural right" is used as something other than how it's generally used. However, it is possible to have both reproductive rights and a stable population, as we see in many of the countries which are below the replacement level of fertility, so these are not in direct opposition. When you said 'Reproduction is not a natural right', I think you meant to say 'population growth to resource limits is not a natural right'. I and (it appears) ryanwaggoner were thrown off by your use of qrendel's phrase with your interpretation of what qrendel meant.

danbruc 11y ago
One of the bad things when discussing online - you can't quickly interrupt someone, wait, no, that is not what I meant, I wanted to say...
qrendel 11y ago
> the timescale isn't long enough evolutionary changes to take place. Stabilizing population at a limited number would presumably be done indefinitely, not for a brief period and then removed. Therefore natural selection would have time to take effect. It obviously has not since the institution of the one child policy or the development of birth control, which were recent developments on an evolutionary timescale. > only applies for an exponentially growing population, which must stop at some point, for clearly physical reasons like the Sun not providing enough energy. This discussion keeps going back and forth between needing to implement population controls now, or sometime in the foreseeable future, versus the fact that the entire Hubble volume of the universe likely has some total carrying capacity. Saying that even something like a Dyson sphere surrounding the sun would only provide finite energy is not a valid reason for population controls here and now. > prefers city life Not really, but preferences aside, most living apart from civilization still benefit from a larger civilization to support their needs. Some may prefer to "live off the land" with no technology, but even those living the quiet life can still enjoy things like advanced medical care or a broader range of products and services delivered to them, if they so choose. Population doesn't remove any possibility of quiet walks in nature or ability to see a starry sky at night, though would perhaps make them a scarcer resources. They are, for example, still available to people now, despite a world population of over seven billion. The fact that in some distant future unbounded population growth would lead people to outnumber the number of atoms in the universe isn't a remotely relevant consideration towards whether implement population controls soon.
- dalke 11y ago
  > Therefore natural selection would have time to take effect Again, evolution does not work that way. Evolution doesn't care if a species goes extinct because it doesn't breed enough. Plus, consider a 1% growth rate per year. In 1,000 years the population will increase over 20,000-fold. With 0.05% growth it takes a bit under 2,000 years for the same growth. But 2,000 years is nowhere near enough for evolution to influence humans. > not a valid reason for population controls here and now I never said it was. Not only that, I say that they were not incompatible, and used as my examples the many counties with full reproductive rights and a birth rate which is below what's needed for replacement and which don't have population controls. > though would perhaps make them a scarcer resources Yes, that's exactly my point. I'm glad you agree that these are scare resources. > They are, for example, still available to people now, despite a world population of over seven billion. No. Some of these scare resources are gone. I gave one example, our buffalo resources which once numbered it the millions. You probably rejected it out of hand, but that's because you grew up in a culture which doesn't have it. But the US destroyed that resource in part to destroy the way of life for the Plains Indians, and open up the Plains for the expansion of the predominately white population with a very different culture. You are repeating the same paternalism when you write "most living apart from civilization still benefit from a larger civilization to support their needs." Who are you to say that everyone must live with that tradeoff? What ways of life will you want destroyed to support the 1000x large population you urge on us?

by dalke 11y ago

danbruc 11y ago

One of the bad things when discussing online - you can't quickly interrupt someone, wait, no, that is not what I meant, I wanted to say...

qrendel 11y ago

> the timescale isn't long enough evolutionary changes to take place. Stabilizing population at a limited number would presumably be done indefinitely, not for a brief period and then removed. Therefore natural selection would have time to take effect. It obviously has not since the institution of the one child policy or the development of birth control, which were recent developments on an evolutionary timescale. > only applies for an exponentially growing population, which must stop at some point, for clearly physical reasons like the Sun not providing enough energy. This discussion keeps going back and forth between needing to implement population controls now, or sometime in the foreseeable future, versus the fact that the entire Hubble volume of the universe likely has some total carrying capacity. Saying that even something like a Dyson sphere surrounding the sun would only provide finite energy is not a valid reason for population controls here and now. > prefers city life Not really, but preferences aside, most living apart from civilization still benefit from a larger civilization to support their needs. Some may prefer to "live off the land" with no technology, but even those living the quiet life can still enjoy things like advanced medical care or a broader range of products and services delivered to them, if they so choose. Population doesn't remove any possibility of quiet walks in nature or ability to see a starry sky at night, though would perhaps make them a scarcer resources. They are, for example, still available to people now, despite a world population of over seven billion. The fact that in some distant future unbounded population growth would lead people to outnumber the number of atoms in the universe isn't a remotely relevant consideration towards whether implement population controls soon.

dalke 11y ago
> Therefore natural selection would have time to take effect Again, evolution does not work that way. Evolution doesn't care if a species goes extinct because it doesn't breed enough. Plus, consider a 1% growth rate per year. In 1,000 years the population will increase over 20,000-fold. With 0.05% growth it takes a bit under 2,000 years for the same growth. But 2,000 years is nowhere near enough for evolution to influence humans. > not a valid reason for population controls here and now I never said it was. Not only that, I say that they were not incompatible, and used as my examples the many counties with full reproductive rights and a birth rate which is below what's needed for replacement and which don't have population controls. > though would perhaps make them a scarcer resources Yes, that's exactly my point. I'm glad you agree that these are scare resources. > They are, for example, still available to people now, despite a world population of over seven billion. No. Some of these scare resources are gone. I gave one example, our buffalo resources which once numbered it the millions. You probably rejected it out of hand, but that's because you grew up in a culture which doesn't have it. But the US destroyed that resource in part to destroy the way of life for the Plains Indians, and open up the Plains for the expansion of the predominately white population with a very different culture. You are repeating the same paternalism when you write "most living apart from civilization still benefit from a larger civilization to support their needs." Who are you to say that everyone must live with that tradeoff? What ways of life will you want destroyed to support the 1000x large population you urge on us?