Over-Population (?) - Page 6

Robot Jesus · 10-04-2004, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adamark

What's with all the quaint little darwinian statements that are used so often?
Remember, if you find yourself making a statement about overpopulation that darwin would agree with, you're probably in the upper or middle class = you're a rich s.o.b. that doesn't care about the people that would suffer in a darwinian world.

Ok here’s a statement Darwin would have agreed with. Due to the removal of natural selection mankind has stopped evolving. Now humanity is merely mutating. So all statement of the strong surviving are now moot. Now the only way to control the population is birth control.

Dark Black · 10-04-2004, 04:05 PM

Mankind isn't mutating at all. It takes millions of years for evolution to occur (tachnically speaking it could happen at absolutely any time, but were being realistic, so...). Man hasn't been around as a 'civilised' group long enough to tell things like that. And natural selection usually occurs within one race, it's not affected by other races (the 'ole 'I wouldn't sleep with you if you were the last guy/girl on Earth' thing. It doesn't matter if another species wipes out all the weak individuals in a race if the survivors aren't found attractive by the opposite sex).

Muffin Mage · 10-04-2004, 04:14 PM

Let's look at overpopulation objectively. If, for some bizarre reason, we as a world reach the Earth's magical carrying capacity, those who cannot survive will end up providing nitrogenous compounds to any passing fungoids. That's all there is to it. None of this "Oh but we're killing off the orange-with-a-light-green-spot-on-the-left-wing butterfly! I'm going to go commit sepuku!" rubbish that's been pushed by some. If a species dies out, those in different parts of the food chain will eventually find something else to eat or be eaten by. And even if all life on Earth is destroyed, it will merely be different, not better or worse.

Robot Jesus · 10-04-2004, 04:37 PM

You left out a bit
And the more simplified a food chain becomes the more susceptible to disease, natural deserters, environmental damage it becomes. The more species become extinct the more damage everything does to the ecosystem and the less the ecosystem can support (remove pollution, o2 production that sort of thing).
While yes life will persist and one day return, we won’t. We do not yet have the technology to exist separately from the natural environment. It will not just be different from our prospective it will be worse. All our food thrives in the current environment. If the environment changes we will not be able to survive as well and many people will die.

I don’t know how you qualify worse but i would assume that that falls within you definition.

Tommathy · 10-04-2004, 04:42 PM

It takes many generations for evolution to occur, not years. Certain bacteria have been observed to change their genomes in a matter of days.

Of course, yes, it does take a while for higher-level beings to evolve, but not millions of years (maybe a couple tens of thousand for humanity, if that).

As for "darwinism"... Humanity's main evolutionary advantages have always been community-building and information sharing. It's what makes us "fit to survive".

To believe that community building makes us un-natural (like those damn ants and prarie dogs and dolphins!), and removes natural selection is hubris of the nth degree. Survival of the fittest is a species concept, not an individual organism one.

Robot Jesus · 10-04-2004, 05:38 PM

Quite correct but who would you say are the fittest in our society? Who are the least fit? Who has more children?

By the simple fact that the weak are no longer dieing off our genome is weakening. Varying factors are accelerating this. Later pregnancies are leading to more birth defects in the children. An increase in certain chemicals in our environment could be held partly responsible for the genetic damage. Every generation serious birth defects are becoming more and more common.
Our community nature is not the cause of this. Its out technology that allows this to happen.
Now we get into eugenics and genetic engineering but if you want to discus that start another thread.

adamark · 10-04-2004, 11:52 PM

Quote:

And even if all life on Earth is destroyed, it will merely be different, not better or worse.

Perhaps in your world-view, which sounds nihilistic and down right rationalized.

But to a romantic like myself, the universe wouldn't be as good without the oasis of life on earth. Life is preferable to no life, beauty is preferable to dullness. It's your right to disagree.

Dark Black · 10-05-2004, 08:36 AM

What we consider 'beautiful' or 'right' is completely irrelavant to how things should happen, as it simply a being of redundant genetic code that is designed to help you survive in what is now no longer the human environment. Adamark, I don't think anyone here *wants* all life to nearly be destroyed or humans to become extinct, simply that if it happens it will simply be evolution at work (gah! I hate it when concepts get personified! Dang you, poor literacy skills!).
Oh, and Robot Jesus, the fit are whoever are alive. Whoever is the fitter among the living is a completely subjective point. And birth defects have been occuring since life began, it isn't caused by chemicals in the air. The only difference is that today we don't call birth defects works of the devil and proceed to bash the poor babies head against the wall (which you seem to advocate. Seriously, do you have any idea how much of a Nazi you sound by saying stuff like 'Our genome is becoming unpure! Destroy all those who would taint it with inpurities! BURN THE IMPURE!!!)..... Ok, maybe I dramatised what you said just a *teeny* bit...

adamark · 10-05-2004, 08:47 AM

Dark Black, there is no comparison between evolution and out-right destruction. If all life (or most) were destroyed on earth, that would be a drastic revolution, a natural inequality. I would also avoid calling the destruction of species due to human development "evolution."

Robot Jesus · 10-05-2004, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Black

Oh, and Robot Jesus, the fit are whoever are alive. Whoever is the fitter among the living is a completely subjective point. And birth defects have been occuring since life began, it isn't caused by chemicals in the air. The only difference is that today we don't call birth defects works of the devil and proceed to bash the poor babies head against the wall (which you seem to advocate. Seriously, do you have any idea how much of a Nazi you sound by saying stuff like 'Our genome is becoming unpure! Destroy all those who would taint it with inpurities! BURN THE IMPURE!!!)..... Ok, maybe I dramatised what you said just a *teeny* bit...

I never said that birth defects where new. I said that they are becoming much more common.

And yes our genome is becoming impure. I don’t believe it’s urgent enough to warrant culling the heard, or institute selective breading programs. I believe genetic engineering will become advance enough to deal with these problems before they truly manifest on a societal level. Of course technology might not advance fast enough then we have the choice some very difficult choices to make.

10-04-2004, 04:37 PM	#54
Robot Jesus Libertarian Socialist Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 377	You left out a bit And the more simplified a food chain becomes the more susceptible to disease, natural deserters, environmental damage it becomes. The more species become extinct the more damage everything does to the ecosystem and the less the ecosystem can support (remove pollution, o2 production that sort of thing). While yes life will persist and one day return, we won’t. We do not yet have the technology to exist separately from the natural environment. It will not just be different from our prospective it will be worse. All our food thrives in the current environment. If the environment changes we will not be able to survive as well and many people will die. I don’t know how you qualify worse but i would assume that that falls within you definition. __________________ We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. ---Richard Dawkins there was only one true Christian, and he died on the cross. ---Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche These are rumors spread by the liberal, elite media. Much like civil rights and Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion.

10-04-2004, 04:42 PM	#55
Tommathy Holier Than Thou Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Cloud Nine, Turn Left and I'm There~ Posts: 191	It takes many generations for evolution to occur, not years. Certain bacteria have been observed to change their genomes in a matter of days. Of course, yes, it does take a while for higher-level beings to evolve, but not millions of years (maybe a couple tens of thousand for humanity, if that). As for "darwinism"... Humanity's main evolutionary advantages have always been community-building and information sharing. It's what makes us "fit to survive". To believe that community building makes us un-natural (like those damn ants and prarie dogs and dolphins!), and removes natural selection is hubris of the nth degree. Survival of the fittest is a species concept, not an individual organism one. __________________ I always make passes at boys who wear glasses.

10-04-2004, 05:38 PM	#56
Robot Jesus Libertarian Socialist Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 377	Quite correct but who would you say are the fittest in our society? Who are the least fit? Who has more children? By the simple fact that the weak are no longer dieing off our genome is weakening. Varying factors are accelerating this. Later pregnancies are leading to more birth defects in the children. An increase in certain chemicals in our environment could be held partly responsible for the genetic damage. Every generation serious birth defects are becoming more and more common. Our community nature is not the cause of this. Its out technology that allows this to happen. Now we get into eugenics and genetic engineering but if you want to discus that start another thread. __________________ We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. ---Richard Dawkins there was only one true Christian, and he died on the cross. ---Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche These are rumors spread by the liberal, elite media. Much like civil rights and Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion.

10-04-2004, 04:05 PM	#52
Dark Black Even eviller than black! Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 114	Mankind isn't mutating at all. It takes millions of years for evolution to occur (tachnically speaking it could happen at absolutely any time, but were being realistic, so...). Man hasn't been around as a 'civilised' group long enough to tell things like that. And natural selection usually occurs within one race, it's not affected by other races (the 'ole 'I wouldn't sleep with you if you were the last guy/girl on Earth' thing. It doesn't matter if another species wipes out all the weak individuals in a race if the survivors aren't found attractive by the opposite sex).

10-05-2004, 08:36 AM	#58
Dark Black Even eviller than black! Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 114	What we consider 'beautiful' or 'right' is completely irrelavant to how things should happen, as it simply a being of redundant genetic code that is designed to help you survive in what is now no longer the human environment. Adamark, I don't think anyone here wants all life to nearly be destroyed or humans to become extinct, simply that if it happens it will simply be evolution at work (gah! I hate it when concepts get personified! Dang you, poor literacy skills!). Oh, and Robot Jesus, the fit are whoever are alive. Whoever is the fitter among the living is a completely subjective point. And birth defects have been occuring since life began, it isn't caused by chemicals in the air. The only difference is that today we don't call birth defects works of the devil and proceed to bash the poor babies head against the wall (which you seem to advocate. Seriously, do you have any idea how much of a Nazi you sound by saying stuff like 'Our genome is becoming unpure! Destroy all those who would taint it with inpurities! BURN THE IMPURE!!!)..... Ok, maybe I dramatised what you said just a teeny bit...