IMHO the biggest problem we face is...

POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Friday, August 4, 2006 06:38
VIEWED: 3202
PAGE 3 of 4

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

SIGNYM

Tuesday, August 1, 2006 11:20 PM

Okay, since the usual suspects aren't around: Capitalism isn't particularly good at thinking up new things. Heck, most of the major advances were made before the invention of ownership. For example, how do you "own" a language and especially a written language? 'Cause languages work best when shared most...

But to get back to my point... What capitalism is especially good at is IMPLEMENTING new technologies. By forcing "savings" (otherwise known as "profits"), establishing a motivation (more profits) for investing in something new, and then swinging the whole political system in the direction of whichever sector has the biggest surge ("the technology boom") capitalism has created a bi-stable... or perhaps unstable... system geared towards widspread distribution and use of new technology.

Which doesn't get to my essential argument. So now I'm going to have to play devil's advocate and explain why six billion folks aren't the problem, they're the "solution".

PS I didn't see Rue squirming... exactly...

---------------------------------
I can be a devil's advocate too!

STAKETHELURK

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 6:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Rue:
My sense is no - look at the 'demographic transition' - which is the natural reduction of reproduction after a transition to a higher quality of life. (I haven't read anywhere why it happens. It seems to be a mystery.)

It’s not a mystery, at least not according to the college course I took on “Human Geography.” One of the reasons for this demographic transition is purely economic. In a pre-industrial, agricultural society having many children was valuable--they supplied you with extra (and free labor) and they looked after you when you aged. The more kids, the more hands to do the work. In short, having kids in this type of society is profitable.

In a modern industrial or post-industrial society, children don’t provide you with any economic benefit and rather require substantial investments of time and money. With child labor laws and the different type of labor required in a post-industrial society, there really isn’t much of a way for children to help with their parents’ jobs--and they’re not expected to. Instead, parents are expected to provide for the children, to save for their education, to escort them to and from extracurricular activities, etc, etc. And with Social Security, the need for children to care for you in your old age is somewhat lessened (though obviously not eliminated by a long shot). In short, having kids in a post-industrial economy is expensive. And it’s much more difficult to provide for many children than it is to care for just a few.

So essentially, economic pressure tends to guide people in industrial and post-industrial societies towards having fewer children. What should really be noted, though, is the clash between culture and economics for people moving from agricultural to industrial societies. Since the agricultural model has been in place for centuries, it tends to be ingrained in the traditional culture of that society. Parents are expected raise many children, it is seen as healthy and beneficial--because, in the old economy, in was. And this cultural imperative tends to hang on for a generation or two after the shift. There’s a time lag between when countries (or individual families) make the economic transition and when they make the demographic transition (I’ve seen the charts). Inevitably they make the transition, but there’s always at least one embattled generation struggling to uphold the traditional cultural norms (“many children is good”) within the economic reality (“many children is expensive”).

There are probably other factors behind the demographic transition, but economics is the one that was emphasized the most to me and the argument seems sound.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 4:02 PM

So the answer to the population problem is to industrialize all world economies?

I'm not sure if that is entirely the issue or the solution, altho the demographic transition is an important indicator of SOMETHING going on. Let's use Sub-Saharan Africa as an example. The issue with Rwanda (and many naitns) is that the family land is inherited by male children. Since more than one male child has been surviving for several generations, the land is broken up into plots that are too small to support even one family. I've heard that many women would be happy to limit their family size, even in rural/ agricultural circumstances, with two provisos:

They can be assured that at least two children live to maturity and...
They have the means for family planning.

Unfortunately, given the instability, wars, droughts, famine, lack of clean water and medical care, it is impossible to assure that even TWO children will survive. And male-dominant culture will not allow women to choose family size.

But what if a measure of stability and female empowerment can come to places like India, Pakistan, etc? Would that reduce population growth?

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

STILLFLYIN

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 5:09 PM

IMO, the problem facing humanity in general and the first-world specifically is the that we have stagnated evolution toward a more intelligent gene pool. For millenia the prime killers of concentrated human populations have been disease and to a lesser extent war. Thus those who survived to pass on their genes were those with some genetic resistance to crowd diseases and those lucky enough to not have been killed in battle. Neither of these qualifications have anything to do with encouraging intelligence in the gene pool. I agree that the best way to rectify this problem is to colonize space. Colonizing a new planet means that the colonists must display ingenuity and intelligence to survive and prosper. Therefore I belive that the industrial nations should look to expanding their space programs with emphasis on long-range deep space human transport capabilities. Call me when the first ship leaves

RUE

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 5:38 PM

Yes, I see that now. The purity of the gene pool is our most important problem.

ANTIMASON

Thursday, August 3, 2006 2:42 AM

you cant curb population growth..that is satanic, either way you go about it. you can encourage people to be more responsible..but that is not the wisdom of the world of this age

but for those of you who feel that way, rest assured that the Elitists running the world have plans to eradicate most of us through engineered wars, famines, poverty and disease..so your time is coming.

hopefully youll be the lucky few on the top though right?

"when the Lamb opened the fourth seal, i heard the voice of the fourth living creature say, "come!" i looked, and there before me was a pale horse! its rider was named Death, and Hades was following close behind him. they were given power over a fourth of the earth to kill by sword, famine and plague, and by the wild beasts of the earth" REV. 6:7-8

RUE

Thursday, August 3, 2006 3:02 AM

Now my eyes are truly open. The Elitists are doing God's work ending God's earth. They will be the lucky ones left behind.

ANTIMASON

Thursday, August 3, 2006 3:14 AM

thats funny..

...the Elitists are doing Satans work, bringing upon us the totalitarian global government which he will proside over during his 7 yr reign. i was illustrating the point that during the epitomy of Satans rule on earth, those seeking a purge of the population will recieve their wishes

STILLFLYIN

Thursday, August 3, 2006 4:52 AM

Purging the population or imposing draconian population control measures are not the way to solve the planet's problems. Getting some of the population to leave is.

HERO

Thursday, August 3, 2006 2:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Dayve:
Agent Smith: I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not.

Yeah, he was an idiot. In the Matrix, all the humans were real, everthing else is computer generated, including all the mamals. They are approximations and clearly the Matrix never had to deal with deer overpopulation, or foriegn species (like African-ized honeybees) upsetting an ecosystem.

I've always thought humans are as natural as any other species. If a lion can hunt a gazelle, Man can build a minimall and both be natural and harmonic acts. Hunt too many gazelles and the lions suffer resulting in less lionlike behaivor (less lions too). Build too many minimalls and the economy suffers resulting less economic behaivor and if its really, really too much then fewer humans (just look at the big cities for a good example of economic overpopulation).

Anyway, IMHO the biggest problem we face is all about our identity...as humanity its terror. As Americans its liberals. As men its feminization of the American culture. As scifi fans its reality television. As Firefly fans its Fox. As Browns fans its heat-related preseason injury. And so on...and Pirates (and people with 'Pirate' names), they threaten us all...aargh.

H

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE