lemur Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 Lemur. Land area for living space is not at all a factor in the overpopulation problem. What is important, as Ehrlich said 50 years ago, is resources. This includes energy, fertilizer for crops, fresh water for crops, and a healthy ocean. People who are educated enough to understand the problem and ignore it in their procreation decisions, in my opinion, are unethical. Please define paternalism in this context. SM Maybe I just got lured into "feeding the troll" by responding to the post about reducing population instead of building floating habitats. I agree with you that resources-conservation and utilization-efficiency is important. I just think that procreation and population-control shouldn't be the first target for intervention. Obviously there's no problem with explaining to people the basic logic that more people consume more; but it is unethical imo to attribute resource-depletion and other social problems primarily to population number instead of to economic/cultural/social activities of individuals. It gives people the idea that they contribute to resource-depletion because of their very existence instead of due to their actions and choices. So if there's going to be any blaming for resource-depletion, it should be on the basis of individual consumption and behavior instead of on how many children someone has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMF Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 Lemur, it sounds to me that you think that reproductive choice isn't an ethical decision in our current world. I made the choice to keep the number of my offspring to just replacement (one for each parents) 40 years ago with our second child just because of my concern for world population. This is really a moral choice and is the primary drive for all of our ecological problems. Those that don't understand need to be educated, the rest who ignore this, in my opinion, are just plain stupid. SM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lemur Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 Lemur, it sounds to me that you think that reproductive choice isn't an ethical decision in our current world. I made the choice to keep the number of my offspring to just replacement (one for each parents) 40 years ago with our second child just because of my concern for world population. This is really a moral choice and is the primary drive for all of our ecological problems. Those that don't understand need to be educated, the rest who ignore this, in my opinion, are just plain stupid. SM You overlook explicit statements I make about voluntary reproductive choices on the basis of sincere beliefs being legitimate. The problem is when people start trying to force others to conform to their assumptions. What if, for example, someone had told you that you shouldn't/musn't have a second child because it was necessary to reduce global population? Would you have gladly conceded your own view that each parent can be legitimately replaced? If you would have resisted, and you were called "stupid" and "stubborn" for doing so, how would you have felt about that? Some people may have other reasons for choosing to have more than two children. Some may be concerned that they could lose one or more children to war, drugs, or other hazards. Some people may expect that human infrastructure can and will continue to expand in various ways. Without knowing the future, how can anyone definitely assert that anyone else is wrong in their forecast? Personally, I think that it makes sense to procreate carefully, just because each child is an individual who can benefit from all the attention they can get. I don't think it's ethical to treat children or anyone else as merely a part of a larger population. Each individual is responsible for their own resource-utilization and conservation. Overpopulation doesn't happen collectively by numbers, but individually by deeds, imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blahah Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 Lemur, it sounds to me that you think that reproductive choice isn't an ethical decision in our current world. I made the choice to keep the number of my offspring to just replacement (one for each parents) 40 years ago with our second child just because of my concern for world population. This is really a moral choice and is the primary drive for all of our ecological problems. Those that don't understand need to be educated, the rest who ignore this, in my opinion, are just plain stupid. SM lemur has already pointed out the major problems with this position. It is, of course, your choice to make that decision to only have two children. Actually, I currently plan to have certainly no more than two children, if any, for that reason. But there are very many possible ways in which current population limits can be lifted. Asserting your judgement about how many children to have based on the current population limits is not valid - there is no certainty about the carrying capacity of the planet (see the other thread). And it is never just to force others into your way of thinking when it's not based on certain evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horza2002 Posted February 19, 2011 Author Share Posted February 19, 2011 Of course, it is not only the use of land required for people ot live on, you also need a lot of land to support the people already there. Modern agricultural technology is an very important today will be in the future so that we can maximise food product from any given amount of land possible. SMF, all lemur said was that people who suggest population control say that the other group of people should be the ones to do it not the people around them; and in the majority of cases I have heard people talk about that, it is exactly true. It makes sence that with reducing resources, that families limit themselves to having one or two children. HOWEVER, you can't force people to only have one/two children (unless you live in China)...you made the decission to only have two children and in my opinion is a valid and good reason...you obviously thought about the future problems with overpopulation at the like. But if another family decide that they want 4 children, then nobody can force them not too. I agree, people should be educated in this area of concern, resources are rapidly running out and so people need to be aware of problems futuer generations are going to face. But as I said, if even given this information, people decide they want more than two children, you can;t stop them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grouchy Hermit Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 I did not mean to change the subject......population control is going to became a must in the future and the strongest country is going to be the ones with enough balls to do the hard stuff first. I'm not going to kill dumb people or nothing....but in Africa they can't feed themselves and the population is growing. The thinking is I can not feed my first kid so let's have 3 more. Here in USA we give people a tax break for having kids even thou those of us with no kids still support schools and other thing for kids with our taxes...sound like we should get a tax break for not having kids...We have people having kids to get bigger welfare checks. How about we implant birth control in all women at 13 and only after you prove you have a dad for the kid, money to support the kid, and an IQ high enough to raise a kid, will it be removed. The worst side effect is no unwanted kids. Here in Va. we had a liberal governor say the state was sorry for a policy in the 60's that keep retards from breeding. The thought that we are all created equal and should all have the same rights is crap. I think you should be tested or have to earn your rights but ever since we give women the right to vote its been going this way. -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blahah Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 (edited) I did not mean to change the subject......population control is going to became a must in the future and the strongest country is going to be the ones with enough balls to do the hard stuff first. I'm not going to kill dumb people or nothing....but in Africa they can't feed themselves and the population is growing. The thinking is I can not feed my first kid so let's have 3 more. Here in USA we give people a tax break for having kids even thou those of us with no kids still support schools and other thing for kids with our taxes...sound like we should get a tax break for not having kids...We have people having kids to get bigger welfare checks. How about we implant birth control in all women at 13 and only after you prove you have a dad for the kid, money to support the kid, and an IQ high enough to raise a kid, will it be removed. The worst side effect is no unwanted kids. Here in Va. we had a liberal governor say the state was sorry for a policy in the 60's that keep retards from breeding. The thought that we are all created equal and should all have the same rights is crap. I think you should be tested or have to earn your rights but ever since we give women the right to vote its been going this way. Wow, that's pretty extreme stuff there. Implants to prevent people with low IQ from procreating? This thread is marching towards another data point for Godwin's Law. Ever since 'we gave women the right to vote' (were you somehow involved?), the rate of population increase has been decreasing. So you are certainly wrong that it has 'been going this way' ever since that day. And 'the thinking is I can not feed my first kid so let's have 3 more'... really? You're stating that every African mother has no power to make basic logical inferences? High numbers of children per woman is associated with areas of high infant mortality and low life expectancy. I don't presume to know what every African mother is thinking, but I imagine it's more along the lines of "I want at least one child to survive to adulthood" and "We don't have any method of dealing with unwanted pregnancy". Edited February 19, 2011 by Blahah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyMcC Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 A relevant thought (just about) is that some people already elect to spend their retirement as permanent residents of a cruise ship. If you had a complete ship load of people book for this kind of life the ship would to all extents and purposes become a floating city. It could not be self sustaining with regard to food etc. but then cities never are. With computers and satellite links some of the residents might be gainfully employed and so earn their living costs. It wouldn't appeal to me, but might appeal to some people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grouchy Hermit Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 (edited) Ever since 'we gave women the right to vote' (were you somehow involved?), the rate of population increase has been decreasing. So you are certainly wrong that it has 'been going this way' ever since that day. I am a citizen of the USA. The baby boom had ended therefore the rate of increase decreased. And 'the thinking is I can not feed my first kid so let's have 3 more'... really? You're stating that every African mother has no power to make basic logical inferences? High numbers of children per woman is associated with areas of high infant mortality and low life expectancy. I don't presume to know what every African mother is thinking, but I imagine it's more along the lines of "I want at least one child to survive to adulthood" and "We don't have any method of dealing with unwanted pregnancy". Could it be that the people from these places are just stupid? Would that not explain why people in places with lots of natural resources and an almost year around growing season still depends on " OUR " aid. ( OUR as a US citizen, I had nothing to do with that neither ) The point of my first tread was that floating citys is going to happen in some form,but I don't think it will be to house people as much as it will be a place for rich people to get away from the miss this world is/will become because some people LUV people. And I do not think that we should take women rights....in my thinking women are more caring ( thank God I hope ) and that has forced a more caring government even thought in my mind that is not the job of government. Edited February 19, 2011 by Grouchy Hermit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blahah Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 (edited) I am a citizen of the USA.The baby boom had ended therefore the rate of increase decreased. No, the baby boom (assuming you are talking about the post WWII boom in the USA) was a boom, i.e. it started with an increase then decreased. Before the world wars, US birth rates were already in massive decline. Worldwide, women being given the vote is associated with a decrease in birthrate (except where religion gets in the way, e.g. Irish Catholic). Historically it is followed by an increase in the number of women joining the workforce, and making the decision to not spend their lives mothering bucketloads of children. Could it be that the people from these places are just stupid? Would that not explain why people in places with lots of natural resources and an almost year around growing season still depends on " OUR " aid. ( OUR as a US citizen, I had nothing to do with that neither ) That is one of many, many possible explanations. One which is highly unlikely. Far more likely reasons why Africa hasn't achieved food security are: frequent natural disasters rampant disease (malaria, AIDS, various insect-borne fevers) wars resulting from arbitrary borders drawn up by colonial powers and poorly executed transitions to independence terrible economic policies, corruption, etc. All of those factors contribute to the inability of the continent as a whole (except Egypt and South Africa) to set up and maintain effective agricultural policies and structures. Why would you opt to just say that a whole continent of people are stupid? Edited February 19, 2011 by Blahah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grouchy Hermit Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 I can agree that women rights lead to them going to work , being less dependent on men waiting longer to have kids, but the right to vote was the result of women rights not the cause of it. Egypt would be broke if it were not a relic. And most of the middle east would still live in dung huts if it was not for the smart parts of the world needing their oil. South Africa was almost a world power before they did away with apartheid and the natives took over. Now they have taken over the white owned farms, let them get overgrown and depend on my tax dollar to feed them. Let's have a national holiday for Nelson Mandela. Frequent natural disasters?.....like Cuba or China? Who are not dependent on my tax dollars. Rampart Disease? Stupid people live Dirty. inter city disease rates are higher and school grades are lower....huh Wars over stupid things... Economic of stupid people Defended by............ Continent is not the problem as South Africa would tend to prove. Certain parts of the world have been leaders forever. In America where we throw them all in one classroom or job sometimes it shows why. Some people like to think we are all equal. But even if we are we could have different talents or faults and maybe we should be treated different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blahah Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 Perhaps you're on the wrong forum, did you think this was stormfront.org? It's SCIENCEforums. That means when you make claims, you need to back them up with evidence. I hope you get moderated, or preferably banned - your opinions are not founded on evidence and you're making up facts to support your racist opinion. Examples: 'certain parts of the world have been leaders forever' - no, nobody has been a leader 'forever' and no part of the world has been dominant for more than a few hundred years. Power changes; between countries, between continents, between races. 500 years ago the Ming dynasty was dominant. In AD 400 the Gupta empire (in India) was the dominant empire in the world. America has been dominant for less than 100 years, and is on the way out. It has nothing to do with the intelligence of the general populace. 'Egypt would be broke if it were not a relic' - what does that even mean? Egypt was also once a dominant empire (further disproving your previous spurious claim). The causes of the prosperity of the modern nation are far more complex than you could ever hope to quantify. 'And most of the middle east would still live in dung huts' - actually modern civilisation originated in the middle east. Organised civilisation was born in the fertile crescent, also known as 'The Cradle of Civilisation'. 'the right to vote was the result of women rights not the cause of it' - no, it wasn't. The right to vote was a result in most countries of suffrage. It was a movement which started in the UK and spread worldwide, and it was about women demanding rights which they did not previously have. Mods? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 Are we talking about population control or floating cities? Population control only works when it can reduce the reproductive rate of the population, and in general one person voluntarily reducing their own reproduction is going to be insignificant unless the population as a whole does so as well. Hence, population control advocates who actually want to do something toward that goal must involve other people and not just themselves. There is no question that if people don't reduce the rate of population growth then war, disease, or famine will do it for us. However, there does remain the possibility that the population will voluntarily reduce their rate of reproduction as is the case in many developed nations which actually have negative population growth. And all that is probably quite irrelevant to floating cities. These cities are unlikely to be self-sufficient and so would depend on the land dwellers to provide for them. Yes, they will increase the livable surface area, but that would be by an insignificant extent, especially if you compare to the land created by the Dutch. And yes, floating cities would be immune to sea level rise themselves but indirectly they will still be dependent on the land, and so still vulnerable to sea level rise. And they will be much more expensive than moving elsewhere. It's not as if land surface area is our problem. So, I say, go floating cities because they look awesome. Do we really need some big important reason to build these? Isn't it enough that they would make a nice tourist attraction? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grouchy Hermit Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 You decided what part of the world I call leaders.... fancy word suffrage....Still its a right ...one of many that women demanded... Egypt may have had its day but we have very little EVIDENCE that it ruled anyone but the jews and know little about the rest of the world in that time My whole statement was full of the only kind of studies we will ever be able to do on the topic and to call me a racist should get you banned The only empire we know to have had any real rule over anything was the Ottoman and the Persian empire and they ruled over their own and were forced back when trying to take the west and could only deal with the east instead of fighting them......By the way I would consider the east as one of the leaders and this would go to prove I'm not a racist and the ming empire would go to prove my point. The cradle of civilisation more was a result of that is where the people bread more quickly than it was a result of how smart the people were. Why do you not look it the parts of the world that are doing well and ask yourself where their government started....what lead to them having more. Some people will always claim we are all the same in spite of all the EVDENCE NBA NFL your high school debate team You are right thou....this is no plce for this topic.......I just can't let you think your smart just cause u can spel. this will be my last post here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMF Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 I don't think anybody has mentioned houseboats and floating homes. An example is in Seattle, but of course this is on a lake. Not having to deal with yard work and the ability to just tow your home to a different location to get away from an annoying neighbor is appealing. SM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horza2002 Posted February 19, 2011 Author Share Posted February 19, 2011 Yer, this topic has very much spun out of control. But I have got to say, I don't think I've heard as much rubbish on the website than what I've just read from Grouchy Hermit. Im sorry, but that was utterly jaw-dropping stupid!! I don't even know where to start correcting the mistakes in those last few posts! Thanks Mr Sceptic for brining it back...As I said in a previous post, I think something like that would actually make a good great holiday resort. Especially if they were based near other coastal cities to allow quick travel to each of them. Maybe some in the Medderterranian would be good...however, it might interfer with shipping lanes and that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blahah Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 I think I could easily get on board (no pun intended) with this sea living idea. I like living surrounded by technology, I can see it being appealing in that way, and being always at the seaside. But how would we get reliable broadband? No internet would be a real dealbreaker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horza2002 Posted February 19, 2011 Author Share Posted February 19, 2011 I'm not sure that I would like to live on a Lilypad, but I would certainly be interested in visiting them as a tourist. Although I agree, people who enjoy being at sea or living by the coast could potentially be very interested. Especially if there was some sort of harbour so that people could go yatching or using them as a cruise liner base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 ! Moderator Note Since the subject has strayed considerably from engineering, this is closed pending moderator reviewIf you want to discuss politics, do it within the rules (I'm looking at you in particular, Grouchy Hermit) and in the politics section Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts