5 ms·

Evolution - You seem to be assuming no mutation will come into existence which will promote increased desire to reproduce. Since there are behavioral and psycho

by qrendel 11y ago

Evolution - You seem to be assuming no mutation will come into existence which will promote increased desire to reproduce. Since there are behavioral and psychological traits influenced by genetics that promote greater desire for children, this seems far fetched. (I don't have a citation, but this seems almost certain.) Rate of evolutionary change depends on the selection pressures on the allele in question. There are formulas for calculating both the probability a mutant allele goes to fixation[1] as well as the expected number of generations for it to do so[2]. With high selective pressures evolution on the scale of a few thousand years is certainly possible - the time taken for lactase persistence to develop in humans is estimated at around 3,000 years.[3] In the extreme case, if all individuals lacking a given dominant allele are removed from the population, it would only take a single generation. So, no. Though I admit the number of generations does increase with the natural log of the population size, so it would take longer with greater population sizes. [1] http://www.biology.arizona.edu/biomath/tutorials/applications/MutantGene01.html http://www.biology.arizona.edu/biomath/tutorials/application... [2] https://books.google.com/books?id=2zVqBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA466&lpg=PA466 https://books.google.com/books?id=2zVqBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA466&lpg=... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactase_persistence#Evolutionary_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactase_persistence#Evolutiona... Buffalo - Current population estimates are around 500,000 in the US. Given that large herds of protected buffalo and many locations with low light pollution still exist, you've failed to provide any examples of experiences that are forever gone. Of course some situation can always be constructed. You can't find 20-30 million buffalo anymore, just as extinct animals are gone (ignoring current work by George Church and others on de-extinction), just as no two people can simultaneously be the US President or first man on the moon. Some particular version of experiences are constantly being made unavailable, and that's a fact of life regardless of population. As for the Plains Indians, I don't think that genocide was caused by overpopulation so much as the US government's desire for westward expansion. Sure, it might not have happened if the population had stayed much smaller, but those aren't the only two possible outcomes. It's not as if resource availability had been exhausted in the east. Aside from that, if you go back and read, you'll see my claim was that there are advantages to larger population, not that it was necessarily a moral imperative. (The only argument for it as a moral imperative I can think of would rely on the assumption that future unborn lives should have moral relevance to us now.) Even if I were arguing that claim, it would be equally paternalistic for one to dictate what state the world should be in simply to protect experiences they prefer.

dalke 11y ago
> I don't have a citation, but this seems almost certain Like I said, you do not understand evolution. Yes, I know about the short timescale for lactase persistence. You'll note that it's two mutations. Now you need to demonstrate that "increased desire to reproduce" is something that 1) is directly traceable to genetics, 2) is only a few mutations away, and 3) the intermediate forms lead to better evolutionary advantage. All you have is an unfounded belief. From a paleobiology perspective, human population was stable for a much longer time than this relatively recent exponential expansion phase. If there were such thing as a genetic imperative pushing humans towards higher fecundity, it would have occurred long ago. > Buffalo This is why I said millions, not 500,000. You'll notice that there are no Plains Indians living as they once did. > Some particular version of experiences are constantly being made unavailable Yes. And who are you to say that your belief in exponential population growth gets priority over the experiences that others want to have? > I don't think that genocide was caused by overpopulation so much as the US government's desire for westward expansion Interesting how you managed to decouple population pressure and western expansion. (Note that I don't say "overpopulation" but "population pressure".) Do you think the following summaries are wrong? "With the Louisiana Purchase and subsequent land acquisitions, U.S. territory grew exponentially in the first half of the 19th century. Populations huddled on the east coast saw grand opportunities to move into more expansive areas where land was cheap and more arable than it was back east, particularly in New England." - http://www.ask.com/history/were-reasons-westward-expansion-95b101956f21f5e http://www.ask.com/history/were-reasons-westward-expansion-9... "As the population of the original 13 Colonies grew and the U.S. economy developed, the desire and attempts to expand into new land increased" - http://www.pbs.org/kera/usmexicanwar/prelude/md_introduction.html http://www.pbs.org/kera/usmexicanwar/prelude/md_introduction... "In order to grow, the capitalistic economy and republican form of government needed surplus land and abundant natural resources such as wood, fossil fuels, minerals, and water. Many feared that without a surplus the parceling of limited resources to a growing population would eventually lead to class conflict. Not everyone embraced this philosophy." - http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3406401030.html http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3406401030.html "The most important forces [in the westward expansion] are population growth and the decrease in transportation costs," Vandenbroucke said. "Population growth is mostly responsible for the investment in productive land - without it less than half of the land accumulated in 1900 would have been accumulated." - http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-02/uosc-wcw022808.php http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-02/uosc-wcw02280... Or this quote regarding Manifest Destiny, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_destiny https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_destiny : > The United States, while intending never to acquire lands from the Indians otherwise than peaceably, and with their free consent, are fully determined, in that manner, progressively, and in proportion as their growing population may require, to reclaim from the state of nature, and to bring into cultivation every portion of the territory contained within their acknowledged boundaries. In thus providing for the support of millions of civilized beings, ... All of those are explicit statements that the US expansion was strong driven by a growing population.

by qrendel 11y ago

dalke 11y ago

> I don't have a citation, but this seems almost certain Like I said, you do not understand evolution. Yes, I know about the short timescale for lactase persistence. You'll note that it's two mutations. Now you need to demonstrate that "increased desire to reproduce" is something that 1) is directly traceable to genetics, 2) is only a few mutations away, and 3) the intermediate forms lead to better evolutionary advantage. All you have is an unfounded belief. From a paleobiology perspective, human population was stable for a much longer time than this relatively recent exponential expansion phase. If there were such thing as a genetic imperative pushing humans towards higher fecundity, it would have occurred long ago. > Buffalo This is why I said millions, not 500,000. You'll notice that there are no Plains Indians living as they once did. > Some particular version of experiences are constantly being made unavailable Yes. And who are you to say that your belief in exponential population growth gets priority over the experiences that others want to have? > I don't think that genocide was caused by overpopulation so much as the US government's desire for westward expansion Interesting how you managed to decouple population pressure and western expansion. (Note that I don't say "overpopulation" but "population pressure".) Do you think the following summaries are wrong? "With the Louisiana Purchase and subsequent land acquisitions, U.S. territory grew exponentially in the first half of the 19th century. Populations huddled on the east coast saw grand opportunities to move into more expansive areas where land was cheap and more arable than it was back east, particularly in New England." - http://www.ask.com/history/were-reasons-westward-expansion-95b101956f21f5e http://www.ask.com/history/were-reasons-westward-expansion-9... "As the population of the original 13 Colonies grew and the U.S. economy developed, the desire and attempts to expand into new land increased" - http://www.pbs.org/kera/usmexicanwar/prelude/md_introduction.html http://www.pbs.org/kera/usmexicanwar/prelude/md_introduction... "In order to grow, the capitalistic economy and republican form of government needed surplus land and abundant natural resources such as wood, fossil fuels, minerals, and water. Many feared that without a surplus the parceling of limited resources to a growing population would eventually lead to class conflict. Not everyone embraced this philosophy." - http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3406401030.html http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3406401030.html "The most important forces [in the westward expansion] are population growth and the decrease in transportation costs," Vandenbroucke said. "Population growth is mostly responsible for the investment in productive land - without it less than half of the land accumulated in 1900 would have been accumulated." - http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-02/uosc-wcw022808.php http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-02/uosc-wcw02280... Or this quote regarding Manifest Destiny, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_destiny https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_destiny : > The United States, while intending never to acquire lands from the Indians otherwise than peaceably, and with their free consent, are fully determined, in that manner, progressively, and in proportion as their growing population may require, to reclaim from the state of nature, and to bring into cultivation every portion of the territory contained within their acknowledged boundaries. In thus providing for the support of millions of civilized beings, ... All of those are explicit statements that the US expansion was strong driven by a growing population.