4 ms·

> 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 persi

by 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.

qrendel 11y ago
> you do not understand evolution. A pointless and inflammatory statement that you had, in fact, not made up until this point. This is getting ridiculous, and sidetracking from the original discussion on the viability or necessity of population controls. This discussion seems to have been reduced to your assumption that there exists no series of favorable mutations which lead to increased desire to reproduce or to circumvent population controls. You know as well as I do that it is infeasible for me to give you an exact list of mutations which will affect biochemical pathways in such a way to as dictate the outcome of reproductive behavior, just as it is infeasible for you to show that no such series of mutations exists. This would include, among other things, no mutations affecting psychological attitudes regarding children, effectiveness of various birth control methods, or the balance of desire for sexual intercourse against other biological imperatives, and despite changes in external environment and other selection pressures. Your argument could as well be used to argue against evolution entirely, since there are plenty of biological traits across species for which the exact series of favorable mutations that lead to them is not known. This is basically a claim that you will not believe evolution towards a specific outcome is possible unless you are shown the exact series of favorable mutations that maintain stable biochemical pathways in the organism the entire way. If you really believe that genetic changes affecting reproductive behavior are that unlikely, or that humans have already maximized such things despite major and recent environmental changes to selection pressures such as the introduction of birth control are so unlikely as to be effectively impossible, that's your own belief which I doubt you have any extensive evidence to support. I really doubt that I am the one with a poor understanding of evolution here, but since this has been reduced to a basic difference of opinion about the likelihood of an occurrence (development of mutations favoring the particular outcome) that neither of us seems able to quantify, I see little reason to continue. This seems to be the fundamental disagreement here. > Do you think the following summaries are wrong? My claim was that those were not the only two possible outcomes, meaning genocide of the Native Americans versus a Malthusian population collapse amongst the settlers. The expansion west at the expense of native peoples was also due to the fact they devalued the lives of Native Americans relative to their own desire for expansion. Why inhabit smaller territory when you can claim more at the expense of the lives of others you do not value? Had the value of human life been greater to them than the value of the land they stole, the expansion would not have proceeded as it did. What is the relevance of the genocide of the Native Americans to the original discussion? This was about reasons for continuing population growth versus stabilizing it, which led to whether reproduction is a natural right, and what the advantages of larger population are. If you think population growth has led to genocide throughout history, and will continue to do so in the future, you must be arguing against the agricultural revolution entirely (some do think the agriculture was a net negative, e.g. Jared Diamond). Population controls should have been imposed in the ancient past and the world's population is already too large. That would negate most of the advances made by civilization since then, as well as all the cultural processes and technologies that can only be sustained by a larger civilization. It would also certainly be an attempt to impose your judgment about superior ways of life onto the rest of the world. I'm fairly skeptical that's actually your claim, though. If this is going to continue, I'd really rather refocus on the original discussion, regarding the pros vs. cons of larger populations or the need for controls, not whether I do/don't "understand evolution" or what caused the genocide of Native Americans. Edit: Actually, I'm done here. Feel free to respond and correct me if you still think I'm mistaken, but this is becoming more confrontational and pointless, and since the thread is long dead, it seems best to just move on now.

by dalke 11y ago

qrendel 11y ago

> you do not understand evolution. A pointless and inflammatory statement that you had, in fact, not made up until this point. This is getting ridiculous, and sidetracking from the original discussion on the viability or necessity of population controls. This discussion seems to have been reduced to your assumption that there exists no series of favorable mutations which lead to increased desire to reproduce or to circumvent population controls. You know as well as I do that it is infeasible for me to give you an exact list of mutations which will affect biochemical pathways in such a way to as dictate the outcome of reproductive behavior, just as it is infeasible for you to show that no such series of mutations exists. This would include, among other things, no mutations affecting psychological attitudes regarding children, effectiveness of various birth control methods, or the balance of desire for sexual intercourse against other biological imperatives, and despite changes in external environment and other selection pressures. Your argument could as well be used to argue against evolution entirely, since there are plenty of biological traits across species for which the exact series of favorable mutations that lead to them is not known. This is basically a claim that you will not believe evolution towards a specific outcome is possible unless you are shown the exact series of favorable mutations that maintain stable biochemical pathways in the organism the entire way. If you really believe that genetic changes affecting reproductive behavior are that unlikely, or that humans have already maximized such things despite major and recent environmental changes to selection pressures such as the introduction of birth control are so unlikely as to be effectively impossible, that's your own belief which I doubt you have any extensive evidence to support. I really doubt that I am the one with a poor understanding of evolution here, but since this has been reduced to a basic difference of opinion about the likelihood of an occurrence (development of mutations favoring the particular outcome) that neither of us seems able to quantify, I see little reason to continue. This seems to be the fundamental disagreement here. > Do you think the following summaries are wrong? My claim was that those were not the only two possible outcomes, meaning genocide of the Native Americans versus a Malthusian population collapse amongst the settlers. The expansion west at the expense of native peoples was also due to the fact they devalued the lives of Native Americans relative to their own desire for expansion. Why inhabit smaller territory when you can claim more at the expense of the lives of others you do not value? Had the value of human life been greater to them than the value of the land they stole, the expansion would not have proceeded as it did. What is the relevance of the genocide of the Native Americans to the original discussion? This was about reasons for continuing population growth versus stabilizing it, which led to whether reproduction is a natural right, and what the advantages of larger population are. If you think population growth has led to genocide throughout history, and will continue to do so in the future, you must be arguing against the agricultural revolution entirely (some do think the agriculture was a net negative, e.g. Jared Diamond). Population controls should have been imposed in the ancient past and the world's population is already too large. That would negate most of the advances made by civilization since then, as well as all the cultural processes and technologies that can only be sustained by a larger civilization. It would also certainly be an attempt to impose your judgment about superior ways of life onto the rest of the world. I'm fairly skeptical that's actually your claim, though. If this is going to continue, I'd really rather refocus on the original discussion, regarding the pros vs. cons of larger populations or the need for controls, not whether I do/don't "understand evolution" or what caused the genocide of Native Americans. Edit: Actually, I'm done here. Feel free to respond and correct me if you still think I'm mistaken, but this is becoming more confrontational and pointless, and since the thread is long dead, it seems best to just move on now.