The Choice: Population of 7.5 Billion or 500 Million. What would you choose?

originally posted by: rossacus
a reply to: ScientificRailgun
Don't plan for that. Don't deny yourself the privelage.

Why not? There are already millions of kids around the world that need parents. Why shouldn't I adopt instead of having my own? I never said I wouldn't be a mother. Just that I wouldn't reproduce.

originally posted by: DaRAGE
a reply to: Aazadan

THANK YOU for an answer to the question I was asking.

It was a simple question and a lot of the posts don't answer it. Many accuse me of wanting depopulation instead.

I was just putting in a hypothetical question. Thanks for the answer.

You talk as though that post was the only straight up answer you got...i suppose you missed mine then?

I'll make an addition though...Option B...first given to the elite, ruling classes and their families with instructions to change or else.

Then we will see the idea of rampant profit becoming much less important, and a focus on sustainability, minimising waste and pollution, and the drive for ever more personal acquisition petering out pretty fast.

Isn’t over populating happening only in Africa, Asia, Middle East and South America and Central America? I guess the best way to solve over population is to give them good hobbies and a lot of masturbating.

a reply to: Harvin

A lot of masturbating?

The Catholics would disagree...'every sperm being sacred' etc.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

Just that I wouldn't reproduce.

The practice is the best part anyway.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun
If you can't physically have children then it's no problem what so ever. I see it as my ancestors dating back billions of years from a single cell lifeform reproduced for over a billion years for you to exist, for you to make a social choice to deny passing on your genic material. You are denying the very foundation of life. Many many animals die after reproducing, emphasising the importance reproduction. Your entire family tree will stop at you. From an evolutionary perspective it's a cognitive/genetic failure to derive at your choice. This is not directly pointed at you, it is my perspective on reproduction as a whole in terms of humans. I mean no offense as I ultimately respect your choice. I just can't think like that as I admire the lineage that allowed me to exist. Imagine if cavemen felt the same, the population would be less than a billion.

a reply to: rossacus

My family line will continue. I have brothers with children, and my sister has children as well.

I see no reason to have my own children when there are so many out there already that want a good home.

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: Harvin

A lot of masturbating?

The Catholics would disagree...'every sperm being sacred' etc.

They would have to get over it, but the Catholic church was right for awhile there in pointing out that there is a lot of dis-respect for women and these things seem to go together.

What do you do if males are over sexed then? I mean if we were to get down to brass tacks - this is a male problem. So, i dont know.

a reply to: rossacus

There is no obligation to reproduce genetic, social, or otherwise. That's all in your head. The only thing that would matter is if there is enough children to carry on to subsequent generations, which is the case.

I don't plan on reproducing either. Children are expensive and I don't want that expense.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
I'm already doing my part.

I have no plans to reproduce.

Of course, not planning to reproduce is a personal choice, neither right nor wrong. But the very basic human animal trait as to why we're here is ensuring the survival of the species, passing along our DNA.

a reply to: Krazysh0t
That thing in the head you are referring to is the driving force in nature, genetics producing hormones that creates an overwhelming desire to reporduce/ pass on DNA, beyond the point of self satisfaction. Those that don't have this are a result of genetic disposition/abnormality, compunded by social norms. We as humans ARE animals and all animals main purpose is to pass on genes. For many animals it seems their SOLE purpose based on life expectancy.

I'm not mocking your choice, you just don't secrete large amounts of hormones to want to reproduce. Most animals aren't "concious" (by our terms)so don't have a "choice" they act on their instincts, instincts that are gradually declining in humans due to effects of society (diet, socialising, careers, awareness of trauma with preganancy).

originally posted by: rossacus
a reply to: Krazysh0t
That thing in the head you are referring to is the driving force in nature, genetics producing hormones that creates an overwhelming desire to reporduce/ pass on DNA, beyond the point of self satisfaction. Those that don't have this are a result of genetic disposition/abnormality, compunded by social norms. We as humans ARE animals and all animals main purpose is to pass on genes. For many animals it seems their SOLE purpose based on life expectancy.

I'd say it is closer to ignoring animal instincts, which humans do all the time.

I'm not mocking your choice, you just don't secrete large amounts of hormones to want to reproduce. Most animals aren't "concious" (by our terms)so don't have a "choice" they act on their instincts, instincts that are gradually declining in humans due to effects of society (diet, socialising, careers, awareness of trauma with preganancy).

How do you know what my level of hormones I secrete are? I happen to like sex. I just don't want to reproduce. I've got other things I'd like to do instead of raising children. I also suggest you stop viewing people who don't want to have children as "genetic abnormalities", it's insulting.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Agreed. My "genetics" are working just fine thank you. I imagine my "biological clock" will start ticking soon, and I'll have the urge to become a mother.

But I'm a person, that is not ruled by my instincts. Despite what my body/instincts tell, I have no actual desire to have a biological child. An adopted one? You bet! When the time is right.

a reply to: Krazysh0t
I would say the desire for a child (maternal desire more than male desire simply due to sexual organs) and desire for sex are completely different sensations derived from different hormones. Why do people stoop to you don't know me stance, it's one of the lowest forms of debate. Im not insulting you or challenging your choices, I'm simply giving my perspective on reproduction. I'm sure many don't agree.

a reply to: Harvin

Sex bots...as real as can be made...that's the answer.

If a man can have sex with a sex bot that is actually better than a living Woman (or man come to that...) that would solve a burgeoning population in a very short time...the problems would then be one of underpopulation because blokes would then say why would i want to shag a Woman when i have a sex bot 3000, the one without the voice box...

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Fair point. You know I'm not trying to correct you, just trying to help you visualise the way I see it. I'm glad you want to adopt, not enough people want to. If anything you are doing better by saving a child from a system of neglect and poor social learning which fails kids in all countries. Technically a more noble cause outside evolutionary terms.

a reply to: rossacus

I understand your point of view. I had a very similar discussion with my sister when she decided she wanted kids. I tried to urge her to adopt rather than have her own, but she just "knew" that she wanted her own. I can respect that choice.

She also respects that I just "know" I don't want to have my own.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

And just to state your genetics aren't working fine, like every other human being. You have the same poor genetic mutations and undesirable traits as all of us. Dispositions to life threatening illnesses and primal instincts that provide no benefit in today's society (e.g depression). Had to clarify that point cos none of us are working "just fine", we are adapting.

But back to the matter in hand....I would say reduce it to 100 million. More time before the next culling.

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: Harvin

Sex bots...as real as can be made...that's the answer.

If a man can have sex with a sex bot that is actually better than a living Woman (or man come to that…) that would solve a burgeoning population in a very short time...the problems would then be one of underpopulation because blokes would then say why would i want to shag a Woman when i have a sex bot 3000, the one without the voice box...

That is too much delusion with sex bots, but it may work and they may have some uses. Issuing sex bots to males early on with instruction manuals, but then also letting them know that females are for companionship and you should not replace a human with a bot. It is still so far into the future that this would even be considered feasible.

It is more about education, self control and societies play a part in this also since so many behaviors seem to be learned behaviors. Like i said, i think that males are 70% of this issue. Many people would worry that this too much like THX 1138 or Logans Run.

Like everything else it boils down to intelligence and education. That is the simplest explanation.