What would it take to have a sustainable civilization?

reply to post by Balkan

I believe you are absolutely right, except for this part:

It seems to me that truly intelligent, rational beings wouldn't squander and pollute the very resources we need to survive.

In animals, such as we are, instinct will always, or nearly always, trump reason. Intelligence is not what drives us.

reply to post by Maslo

That’s it? ‘If we had some ham, we could have ham and eggs... if we had some eggs’?

You have me seriously worried now. I hope you live far away from me.

reply to post by Astyanax
That's really what I was saying. I agree completely. Trying to get humans to see their basic nature is nearly impossible. It opens a can of worms most people don't want to even look at because it would horrify them and destroy their illusions of entitlement.

reply to post by Astyanax

If the foregoing is a sample of your logic, I shouldn’t discount the possibility. Children, as the cliché has it, are the future. This is true for everyone, but it is particularly true for the world’s poor, who, lacking any hope for themselves, can only pin their aspirations on their children. You propose to strip them of the one thing they can have that makes life worth living.

I consider the right of children to grow up in good conditions much more important than pleasing their parents with their presence. Children are not pets, and your emotional BS is just that, a BS.

Also, for the poor, children also represent old-age insurance in poor countries where no social safety net exists. Take away the children, and you may well be taking their lives.

I do indeed support the existence of extensive social safety nets as an alternative.

And all for what? So that you and other rich, well-fed, privileged people like yourself may multiply and spread yourselves in comfort. How utterly purblind, selfish and nauseating.

You dont get it, do you? Its for the sake of the poor that I want it done, not the rich. The rich are better off without it. Their procreation perpetuates and exacerbates the cycle of poverty. Good luck eradicating it without reproduction control.

Perhaps you have some harebrained social-Darwinist argument that justifies your insane – and, I am happy to say, ridiculously impracticable – proposal. Well, it won’t wash.

It is not insane, stop with your unwarranted condescending attitude. It may be impractical, I can admit that.

Show us how it can be. Reassure us that you are, after all, neither evil nor insane, just naïve and misguided.

Yeah, maybe you should actually explain why it is evil, insane or unethical instead of insults. I take it that 1.3 billion Chinese are also all little Hitlers? Or maybe they actually care about sustainability and the future of their children instead of short-sighted and unwarranted demonisation of responsible reproduction policies based in nothing more than knee-jerk reactions.
Quality over quantity.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Maslo

 

That’s it? ‘If we had some ham, we could have ham and eggs... if we had some eggs’?

You have me seriously worried now. I hope you live far away from me.

What does ‘If we had some ham, we could have ham and eggs... if we had some eggs’ in common with my post? I dont understand.

reply to post by Maslo

I consider the right of children to grow up in good conditions much more important than pleasing their parents with their presence.

So, in order to ensure the happiness of the unborn children of a privileged few – children who do not yet exist – you would deprive already-living people of a basic human right?

Children are not pets, and your emotional BS is just that, a BS.

Can you explain how regarding children as a source of meaning and satisfaction in life, or hoping that your children will look after you when you are old and feeble, equates to treating them as pets?

Could you also explain what makes your life worth living, if you think emotional values are just BS?

And could you please explain exactly who would benefit if poor people were prevented from reproducing?

I do indeed support the existence of extensive social safety nets as an alternative.

That is what I mean by ‘if we had some ham, then we could have ham and eggs... if we had some eggs.’ Where is the money to construct these social safety-nets going to come from? The savings incurred by preventing people from having children? :shk:

You dont get it, do you? Its for the sake of the poor that I want it done, not the rich. The rich are better off without it. Their procreation perpetuates and exacerbates the cycle of poverty. Good luck eradicating it without reproduction control.

Oh, I get it. You want to eliminate poverty by eliminating poor people. It’s been tried before.

It doesn’t work.

It is not insane, stop with your unwarranted condescending attitude.

Believing one can cure the problems of humanity by eliminating most of humanity is not insane?

Yeah, maybe you should actually explain why it is evil, insane or unethical instead of insults.

I should have thought it was obvious. Your plan is evil because it is tyrannous, socially divisive and makes war upon the poor. It cannot be implemented without the use of oppressive measures. Such measures are guaranteed to be resisted – as they were when they were tried in India during the 1960s. The resulting social unrest would be far more destructive of life and property than any threat presented by Earth’s enormous, yet slowly stabilizing population.

Your plan is insane because it attempts to increase the sum of human happiness through oppression and coercion. It is insane because it attempts to solve human problems by removing human beings from the picture.

I take it that 1.3 billion Chinese are also all little Hitlers?

First, China is a despotism. 1.3 billion Chinese have only the rights and privileges the Communist Party allows them. They are obliged to conform to Party policy; that doesn’t mean they approve of it. Many Chinese subvert the policy, having ‘unregistered’ children, sending surplus kids out to the country be fostered, etc.

Second, it may have escaped your notice, but the one-child policy is creating a frightening future shortage of women.

This rule has caused a disdain for female infants; abortion, neglect, abandonment, and even infanticide have been known to occur to female infants... Draconian family planning has resulted in the disparate ratio of 114 males for every 100 females among babies from birth through children four years of age. Source

You may consider this a good thing (fewer women means fewer babies) but a large surplus of womanless males is a recipe for increased crime, social unrest and militancy, heightened levels of violence against women, war with other states, etc. That is China’s real future.

Third, China’s one-child policy does target the underprivileged in Chinese society; it targets the privileged.

[The one-child policy] is not an all-encompassing rule because it has always been restricted to ethnic Han Chinese living in urban areas. Citizens living in rural areas and minorities living in China are not subject to the law.

Source as above

Or maybe they actually care about sustainability and the future of their children instead of short-sighted and unwarranted demonisation of responsible reproduction policies based in nothing more than knee-jerk reactions.

It may have escaped your notice, but China is a filthy, polluted pit. It has also clearly escaped your notice that 1.3bn Chinese placed relatively little strain on world resources and the environment before one of them decided (for all the rest, of course) that is was ‘glorious to get rich’.

Quality over quantity.

That’s right, quality rich, first-world children over inferior poor, third-world ones! What a great idea.

reply to post by Astyanax

So, in order to ensure the happiness of the unborn children of a privileged few – children who do not yet exist – you would deprive already-living people of a basic human right?

I dont consider it a basic human right, but a privilege that only mentally and materially ready huamns should possess. The answer is yes, without a doubt.

Can you explain how regarding children as a source of meaning and satisfaction in life, or hoping that your children will look after you when you are old and feeble, equates to treating them as pets?

Pets are also a source of meaning and satisfaction in life. Its not enough as a reason to jusify reproduction anarchy, IMHO.

Could you also explain what makes your life worth living, if you think emotional values are just BS?

I said your particular appeal to emotional is BS as an argument, not all emotional values. Procreation is not the only thing that makes life worth living, especially excess procreation, and emotional state of future children deserves consideration, too.

And could you please explain exactly who would benefit if poor people were prevented from reproducing?

Their future nonexistent children, the smaller number of children they would still have, and society as a whole, both theirs and ultimately ours.

That is what I mean by ‘if we had some ham, then we could have ham and eggs... if we had some eggs.’ Where is the money to construct these social safety-nets going to come from? The savings incurred by preventing people from having children?

There is enough money in the world so that everyones basic needs could be satisfied. And yes, it would also save some money.
Without population control being coupled to universal global welfare, even if we give enough money to all people in the world to live comfortably, it will just go to increase their numbers, not quality of life (as we see with welfare abusers in our countries). With privileges (other people paying for your quality of life) come responsibilities (not make more people which would have to be paid for, at least not A LOT more - I think everyone would be allowed at least 2 children).

Oh, I get it. You want to eliminate poverty by eliminating poor people. It’s been tried before. It doesn’t work.

Source?

Believing one can cure the problems of humanity by eliminating most of humanity is not insane?

Not at all.

I should have thought it was obvious. Your plan is evil because it is tyrannous, socially divisive and makes war upon the poor. It cannot be implemented without the use of oppressive measures. Such measures are guaranteed to be resisted – as they were when they were tried in India during the 1960s. The resulting social unrest would be far more destructive of life and property than any threat presented by Earth’s enormous, yet slowly stabilizing population.

I admit that corruption and practical obstacles could make my plan problematic. Whether the resulting social unrest would be more destuctive than reproduction anarchy is debatable, tough. But ideologically, I dont see any issuewith the plan.

Your plan is insane because it attempts to increase the sum of human happiness through oppression and coercion. It is insane because it attempts to solve human problems by removing human beings from the picture.

Thats not insane, that is a sane solution, IMHO.

First, China is a despotism. 1.3 billion Chinese have only the rights and privileges the Communist Party allows them. They are obliged to conform to Party policy; that doesn’t mean they approve of it. Many Chinese subvert the policy, having ‘unregistered’ children, sending surplus kids out to the country be fostered, etc.

Benevolent despotism is better than non-functional democracy.

Nonetheless, a 2008 survey undertaken by the Pew Research Center reported that 76% of the Chinese population supports the policy.[8]

en.wikipedia.org...

Second, it may have escaped your notice, but the one-child policy is creating a frightening future shortage of women.

Its caused by specific cultural thing (preffering boys over girls for cultural reasons), not the policy itself. Still a better alternative than reproduction anarchy. And if it was up to me, Id go with two-child policy.

You may consider this a good thing (fewer women means fewer babies) but a large surplus of womanless males is a recipe for increased crime, social unrest and militancy, heightened levels of violence against women, war with other states, etc. That is China’s real future.

I beg to differ. Its effects will be insignificant, IMHO.

Third, China’s one-child policy does target the underprivileged in Chinese society; it targets the privileged.

The real privileged pay the fine or bribe and have the children either way. But yeah, I would have targeted it more on the poor. I am not mentioning Chinese population control as a way I imagine it, there is plenty I disagree with. I am merely mentioning it to show that it can be done, and that your moral objections have more to do with western social conditioning against population control programs than honest inquiry.

reply to post by Astyanax

It may have escaped your notice, but China is a filthy, polluted pit. It has also clearly escaped your notice that 1.3bn Chinese placed relatively little strain on world resources and the environment before one of them decided (for all the rest, of course) that is was ‘glorious to get rich’ (if it increases quality, not quantity).

China is a developing country, its not going to be perfect, stop comparing it with wealthy west. It is one of the best governed developing countries in the world, IMHO. And what the hell are you talking about? What is wrong with getting rich? Strain on resources and environment is justified if it actually gets the people rich.(if it increases quality, not quantity).

That’s right, quality rich, first-world children over inferior poor, third-world ones! What a great idea.

Yes, it is.

Second, it may have escaped your notice, but the one-child policy is creating a frightening future shortage of women.

There are countries with similar, in some categories even worse gender imbalance than China. This means that population control policy is not really a major factor behind gender imbalance.

en.wikipedia.org...

Believing one can cure the problems of humanity by eliminating most of humanity is not insane?

Its not most. My basic tenet is that people who are not materially or mentally ready should not procreate (or at least not excessively - more than 2 children - assuming they get welfare). Id say its no more than 2-3 billion people globally.

We need a one world democracy,we need to produce goods by the people for the people,goods that will last as long as we can scientificlly make them last,houses for a thousand years,computers for twenty,vehicles for a hundred years,we need a moneyless economy that is run by as few people as possible with no human being required to work more than four hours a day,but all are required to contribute four hours a day doing what they choose for humanitys benefit economicly,economic competition will come from new technology streamlining old technology,with properly allocated long term houseing,communities can work on being completly self sufficient,for example it is really cheaper to build domes and grow bananas in Canada long term,so to eliminate the costs and resource waste to ship them we just permanently grow them insitu.

Free education online,free healthcare,and a job is all anyone needs,people need a direction a global humanitarian direction,free food and clothing,a free ticket for entire communities out of barren countries to anywhere they choose with all these things waiting for them and for an obligation for four hours a day attatched doing anything they choose.

reply to post by Maslo

I dont consider [having children] a basic human right, but a privilege that only mentally and materially ready huamns should possess.

Something as natural as breathing, eating or sleeping, and it’s not a basic human right?

The essential drive that motivates all life – not just human life – and it’s something that people should have a licence to do?

Somebody has the right to stop people reproducing?

Who?

You?

Procreation is not the only thing that makes life worth living.

Who gave you the contract to decide what makes life worth living for the whole human race?

[The benefits of my tyrannous proposal would go to] future nonexistent children.

Right. The benefit would go to nonexistent children. Sure it would.

Who do you think you’re fooling?

It is abundantly clear that you hope and expect that the benefit of your little eugenics programme would go to your children, your relatives’ children, and the children of other Western citizens like yourself. One last, grand, glorious grab, eh? – the final triumph of Empire, the whole world for your privileged posterity and nothing for the rest of us. Expropriation and larceny on a global scale – coupled with genocide. Entire races wiped out to build your secular scientific Utopia.

And yes, it would also save some money.

I bet it would.

I’m afraid it comes down to this:

Astyanax: Believing one can cure the problems of humanity by eliminating most of humanity is not insane?

Maslo: Thats not insane, that is a sane solution, IMHO.

Diagnosis confirmed, I should say.

And as for this:

Nonetheless, a 2008 survey undertaken by the Pew Research Center reported that 76% of the Chinese population supports the policy.

I am not surprised you believe that an opinion poll concerning state policy, held in a despotic one-party state, could possibly deliver an answer that accurately reflects the public mind. It is of a piece with the other crashingly naïve political assumptions that underpin your proposal. Someone who thinks the average Chinese is going to tell an opinion pollster what he really thinks about his government is obviously living in a reality all his very own. And you had the gall to ask me whether I was nuts!