4 ms·
> "One universe no babies are aborted" and the other "Universe where babies are aborted". The former has greater opportunity for outpacing the information than
by aneth4 14y ago
> "One universe no babies are aborted" and the other "Universe where babies are aborted". The former has greater opportunity for outpacing the information than the second.
This is the basis of your entire position and it is both false and reduces to absurdity.
Having more babies does increase the genetic diversity of humans. Genetic diversity however is not the only or even primary determining factor in just about any measure of human success, including generating Churchills.
Absurdity: This creates an imperative to reproduce as rapidly as possible and maximize genetic diversity, without regard to the resources or environment available. Why is a fertilized egg more valuable than all the unfertilized eggs that could be fertilized - in this framework, they it is equally imperative to bring both to life?
Even if "overpopulation is a myth," that does not mean maximum population is a virtue.
- marknadal 14y agoI want to first thank you for being nicer! Could you explain why the explosion of human population in the last several thousand years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Population_curve.svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Population_curve.svg) is possible, and why it does not imply success? Particularly with the limited resources we've overcome with the advent of crop rotation, agriculture and farming, technology, etc. - and the limited resources today we are still solving for and continually will do so? It looks like we need a criterion for "success" and "evolution" and "progress"! I would love to hear your input.
- aneth4 14y agoThe explosion of humanity is possible because of the development of technologies, most importantly agriculture. Population is certainly a measure of success for a species, however it is not a particularly good one in my opinion. China's population boom occurred during one of its least successful times in history. China's current success comes at a time of minimal population growth. What's more "successful"? A prosperous society with a static population, or a starving one with a rapidly growing population? Was China of 1970 more successful than Europe of 1450? It had more people...
- marknadal 14y agoThat then depends on your definition of success. Which I still would want you to provide. Plus, I think terms of "success" with respect to a /nation/ is slightly skewed when compared to the "success" of genetics or species. I don't think that is an accurate cross-comparison.
- aneth4 14y agoI don't really need a definition of success, but I'd say a society that has a high chance of survival, has minimal suffering, and creates beauty. Given all those things being equal, certainly a higher population would be more successful. However fast population growth is likely to work against most of those goals.
- aneth4 14y agoI'd also add to the list advanced technology and knowledge of the universe and consciousness.