Modern Day Issues Compared To Previous Issues

[Magus]

Originally Posted by Smarty McBarrelpants

Based on what?
Have no kids, you're doing the world a favour.

The concept of having only two kids is the concept of replacement. That way population doesn't go up.

You are right, of course, in saying it doesn't go down. But we might be able to solve the problems brought on by our current overpopulation with technological advances in the future (solar power, algae farms, etc.). If people at least practiced only having two kids max they wouldn't be increasing the population. It's easier for people to accept than saying "don't have any kids".

[Aerozord]

Originally Posted by Magus

The concept of having only two kids is the concept of replacement. That way population doesn't go up.

You are right, of course, in saying it doesn't go down. But we might be able to solve the problems brought on by our current overpopulation with technological advances in the future (solar power, algae farms, etc.). If people at least practiced only having two kids max they wouldn't be increasing the population. It's easier for people to accept than saying "don't have any kids".

you do know that he doesn't live in a country with a birth rate exceeding death rate. US would be decreasing if not for immigration, most 1st world nations this is true. The population growth is from second and third world nations mostly

[Professor Smarmiarty]

The average first world country birth rate is well below the replacement rate (which is like 2.1 or something- I think the average first world birth rate is 1.4ish) but those countries populations go up by immigration. China which is the biggest grower is actually well below replacement not but is still going up massively because of the echoing effects of past generation boom- it takes a while to level. I don't see why it matters. Are we at a magical population level we should try to maintain? Why do we have a right to maintain our population at the level it is? Why should we try?
The concept of replacement is pretty meaningless.

I have heard arguments like "the poorer countries are having most kids, they should stop" which is ridiculous- it's a world problem, there should be a world solution- first world kids consume far far more resources than 3rd world kids- and yes they should stop but they are not going to.

But I'm not even arguing a world demographic problem here or anything. I'm just arguing you personally- if you want to help the world, not having children will help the world immensely.

[Aerozord]

as you said, we aren't at some magical population level that should be maintained, works both ways. Earth can still sustain this many humans with space and renewable resources. As for non-renewable, they are non-renewable. All a lower consumption rate would do is delay the inevitable. Saying not having kids help the world is like saying an individual human life is inherently parasitic and by that logic mass murder would "help the world immensely".

Its also very unrealistic goal. Its like trying to push abstinence as a form of birth control. These are strong instinctual urges, not to mention the psychological desire to have a family of your own and offspring to pass on your knowledge, possessions, and genes to.

Still convinced we need a decreasing population? Fine, I actually agree, but telling people to only have a single child is far more realistic and still decreases population. But if you really think the world needs a sudden drop then just give Seil the war he wants, because increasing the death rate is the only way that will happen in the near future.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Originally Posted by Aerozord

as you said, we aren't at some magical population level that should be maintained, works both ways. Earth can still sustain this many humans with space and renewable resources. As for non-renewable, they are non-renewable. All a lower consumption rate would do is delay the inevitable. Saying not having kids help the world is like saying an individual human life is inherently parasitic and by that logic mass murder would "help the world immensely".

It depends who you murder. If you're murdering anyone who is above like 5 then the world has invested lots of resources in them and to make the deficit back we're relying on their productivity in latter life/current life. Same problem with wars- you're murdering all the most useful people. That's why we are murdering people in potentia.

Its also very unrealistic goal. Its like trying to push abstinence as a form of birth control. These are strong instinctual urges, not to mention the psychological desire to have a family of your own and offspring to pass on your knowledge, possessions, and genes to.

We also have strong instinctual urges to murder each other, steal each others shit and go kick the shit out of lesser animals so they know what's coming to them. We can curb that, we can also curb reckless child mongering.
We're not cavemen anymore. Fuck you nature!
Edit: Also it's not like we don't already do it. Birth rates have plummeted in first world countries last 100 years or so. Also later developing countries are also seeing it- as societies become more prosperous birth rates drop. We just going to extend that. With horrible mutagenic gas.

Still convinced we need a decreasing population? Fine, I actually agree, but telling people to only have a single child is far more realistic and still decreases population. But if you really think the world needs a sudden drop then just give Seil the war he wants, because increasing the death rate is the only way that will happen in the near future.

Nah but you see then you get the problems of babies born outside the limit- they going to get hidden from the government, not have welfare, not looked after problem. That is why enforced sterilisation is the proper answer.
Think about how awesome it would be, we're the last generation, we can do whatever the fuck we want, can't get pregnant, no real consequences for anything, just have a bitching party, trash the earth- who cares?

[Aerozord]

I am going to assume you are joking because I hope you are not so short-sighted as to believe voluntarily making out own species extinct is a good thing. While I view nihilism as a legitimate philosophy, by its logic you will be dead before overcrowding is an issue so what do you care. Do whatever you want anyways.

[Overcast]

Everyone should just be more selfish. Saving the world isn't really important, it is bigger than you are and unless you think you can get enough people behind you to do something radical and different you'll never make an impact worth caring about anyway. So do all you can to save and serve yourself above anyone else, you'll regret it much less later and it might even earn you the prestige to make a difference at some point.

But you won't want to because, fuck the world you're rich.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Originally Posted by Aerozord

I am going to assume you are joking because I hope you are not so short-sighted as to believe voluntarily making out own species extinct is a good thing. While I view nihilism as a legitimate philosophy, by its logic you will be dead before overcrowding is an issue so what do you care. Do whatever you want anyways.

Why do I care if the human race is extinct? Why do you care? What reason is there to propogate it? I don't understand why it would a bad thing. I'm not saying extinction is a good thing, I don't really care either way.
It's pretty low (read: non-existant) on my list of priorities. I don't care whether the human race goes extinct, I see no reason why I should. We had a good run.
Like the adsolute last group of people alive will have a rough time, being old with no youngies around to do work but eh, what you going to do?

Also that is totally not what nihilism is about.

Edit: And my philosophy is about maximising the partay.

Originally Posted by Overcast

Everyone should just be more selfish. Saving the world isn't really important, it is bigger than you are and unless you think you can get enough people behind you to do something radical and different you'll never make an impact worth caring about anyway. So do all you can to save and serve yourself above anyone else, you'll regret it much less later and it might even earn you the prestige to make a difference at some point.

But you won't want to because, fuck the world you're rich.

What a dick!

Edit2: No wait, instead of outlawing children we'll say you can have children but you have to buy a license and the license costs like $50,000 and that money is earmarked for social services. Man, I totally just solved all society's problems.

[Aerozord]

Originally Posted by Smarty McBarrelpants

Why do I care if the human race is extinct? Why do you care? What reason is there to propogate it? I don't understand why it would a bad thing. I'm not saying extinction is a good thing, I don't really care either way.
It's pretty low (read: non-existant) on my list of priorities. I don't care whether the human race goes extinct, I see no reason why I should. We had a good run.

because without progress, without continuity, all of our pursuits of knowledge and advancement from the time first organisms formed in the primordial ooze would all be meaningless. This very mindset is inherently selfish and self serving and serves no purpose but satisfying base short term desires with no regard for sacrifices that came before to make your own very existence and pleasure possible. Everything you enjoy you can only do so because of sacrifices of others. Food you are eating, from the hard work of farmers, butchers, truck drivers, not to mention the animal and plant that had to die for it.

Sex? true can do this without much sacrifice, if not for your goal to not have children which required centuries of study in contraception to allow.

Probably argue that, what do you care, long as you can party. And thats why I said that outlook is nothing but short-sighted and selfish. It is the real parasitic and detrimental existence because all you'd do is feed off of all the hard work of others and never contribute anything of consequence to future generations because as far as you are concerned only you, and by extension your generation, matter.

I care about reproducing, and continuation of our species because I care about others. I want my hard work, my knowledge, my contributions to our species to benefit those that come after me and for them to take that and make something even better and help even more people. Perhaps I wont succeed, after all pretentious to assume I will have a significant impact, or anything down my line. But it wont be from lack of trying

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Originally Posted by Aerozord

because without progress, without continuity, all of our pursuits of knowledge and advancement from the time first organisms formed in the primordial ooze would all be meaningless. This very mindset is inherently selfish and self serving and serves no purpose but satisfying base short term desires with no regard for sacrifices that came before to make your own very existence and pleasure possible. Everything you enjoy you can only do so because of sacrifices of others. Food you are eating, from the hard work of farmers, butchers, truck drivers, not to mention the animal and plant that had to die for it.

Meaning to whom? What does "progress" mean? It means humans can live better lives than those of generations past. It has no instrinic value.
People in the past might be all like - we worked really hard to invent shit and things so you can live your lives now you want to throw it away- and be real sad, but that will be quite sad because I don't lynch black people so I don't care. Besides they are dead, they got more important things to worry about.

.
[QUPTE]
Probably argue that, what do you care, long as you can party. And thats why I said that outlook is nothing but short-sighted and selfish. It is the real parasitic and detrimental existence because all you'd do is feed off of all the hard work of others and never contribute anything of consequence to future generations because as far as you are concerned only you, and by extension your generation, matter. [/QUOTE]
I can't help people in the past, people in the future don't exist, don't have to exist, people in the world now exist, can be helped.

I care about reproducing, and continuation of our species because I care about others. I want my hard work, my knowledge, my contributions to our species to benefit those that come after me and for them to take that and make something even better and help even more people. Perhaps I wont succeed, after all pretentious to assume I will have a significant impact, or anything down my line. But it wont be from lack of trying

I care about others too. I care about people who are alive though, not potential future babies who don't exist. If they are not born, I'm not exactly harming them am I? They don't exist- why do we care about them- they are imaginary!
I just imagined hundreds of people getting shot to death, does that make me a mass murderer?