5 ms·

This has been tried by many regimes and has proven to be disastrous - especially for the children involved. Take a look at this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik

This has been tried by many regimes and has proven to be disastrous - especially for the children involved. Take a look at this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensborn https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensborn

jayajay 10y ago
I'm not talking about "racial purity", I am talking about minimizing the probability of a critical population dwindling to zero. These are very different things. That you would immediately put words into my mouth reflects what is in your heads. Do you guys really think you can avoid population engineering when we reach critical values for the population count, e.g. N = 2, 3, 100, 500, 1000, ... Do you really think that careful consideration of breeding will not be made for critical populations? How can you think that the same rules that govern large N societies or resource-unsaturated societies also apply to societies whose population counts are critical or societies who are oversaturated in resource consumption? It's all fun, games, and comparing everyone you disagree with to Hitler until our lives depend on it. We never know what the future will bring us. Maybe one day, when I'm dead and you guys are lucky enough to survive a nuclear catastrophe, you will actually remember these offensive words. Fuck, have I watched too much televsion!
- pjc50 10y ago
  N is near 10 billion, which makes reasoning about N=2 kind of irrelevant. > Fuck, have I watched too much televsion! Yes.
  - jinfiesto 10y ago
    This. The idea that small societies behave differently than large ones seems inherently obvious to me. Then extrapolating the proposed optimal behavior of small societies (not that I think that the advocated behavior is even correct) to large is beyond bizarre.
    - jayajay 10y ago
      No one is extrapolating that way, please re-read. All of my words are really applied to small N societies, which I made very clear to anyone reading this.
  - jayajay 10y ago
    It's not as simple as "we are fine now, so we don't need to think". These words are typical of people in first world countries who have grown comfortable with civilization. You should think about things more deeply, first. Here are some questions you might want to think about: Do you think being prepared for a possible scarcity situation is not useful? Will the human population continue to grow indefinitely? Will humans ever run into resource saturation? Are cataclysmic environmental events actually possible? Name 3 examples. How would each of these example events effect population size and resource availability? Are there societies in our world today which are more or less social islands (hint: yes)? How would the luxuries and rights you have grown comfortable with fare in those societies? After pondering these questions, it's hard to justify that nobody should be thinking about these issues, or that it's too early or not the right time to be thinking about these things. It is never not the right time to think. Do not let anyone convince you otherwise. You can and should think about anything and everything. I am deeply saddened to see your statement, actually. Is this what we are?

jayajay 10y ago

I'm not talking about "racial purity", I am talking about minimizing the probability of a critical population dwindling to zero. These are very different things. That you would immediately put words into my mouth reflects what is in your heads. Do you guys really think you can avoid population engineering when we reach critical values for the population count, e.g. N = 2, 3, 100, 500, 1000, ... Do you really think that careful consideration of breeding will not be made for critical populations? How can you think that the same rules that govern large N societies or resource-unsaturated societies also apply to societies whose population counts are critical or societies who are oversaturated in resource consumption? It's all fun, games, and comparing everyone you disagree with to Hitler until our lives depend on it. We never know what the future will bring us. Maybe one day, when I'm dead and you guys are lucky enough to survive a nuclear catastrophe, you will actually remember these offensive words. Fuck, have I watched too much televsion!

pjc50 10y ago
N is near 10 billion, which makes reasoning about N=2 kind of irrelevant. > Fuck, have I watched too much televsion! Yes.
- jinfiesto 10y ago
  This. The idea that small societies behave differently than large ones seems inherently obvious to me. Then extrapolating the proposed optimal behavior of small societies (not that I think that the advocated behavior is even correct) to large is beyond bizarre.
  - jayajay 10y ago
    No one is extrapolating that way, please re-read. All of my words are really applied to small N societies, which I made very clear to anyone reading this.
- jayajay 10y ago
  It's not as simple as "we are fine now, so we don't need to think". These words are typical of people in first world countries who have grown comfortable with civilization. You should think about things more deeply, first. Here are some questions you might want to think about: Do you think being prepared for a possible scarcity situation is not useful? Will the human population continue to grow indefinitely? Will humans ever run into resource saturation? Are cataclysmic environmental events actually possible? Name 3 examples. How would each of these example events effect population size and resource availability? Are there societies in our world today which are more or less social islands (hint: yes)? How would the luxuries and rights you have grown comfortable with fare in those societies? After pondering these questions, it's hard to justify that nobody should be thinking about these issues, or that it's too early or not the right time to be thinking about these things. It is never not the right time to think. Do not let anyone convince you otherwise. You can and should think about anything and everything. I am deeply saddened to see your statement, actually. Is this what we are?