How to Stop War: Birth Control?

Puppycow · 31st May 2007, 07:50 AM

From "Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors" by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan

Quote:

In the ways of Nature," said Marcus Aurelius, "there is no evil to be found." Animals are aggressive not because they are savage, or bestial or evil--those are words with very little explanatory power--but because such behaviour provides food and defense against predators, because it spaces out the population and avoids overcrowding, because it has adaptive value. Aggression is a survival strategy, evolved to serve life. It coexists, especially in the primates, especially in the primates, with compassion, altruism, heroism, and tender, self-sacrificing love for the young. These are also survival strategies. Eliminating aggression would be a foolish as well as an unachievable goal--it's built too deeply into us. The evolutionary process has worked to achieve the right level of aggression--not too much, not too little--and the right inhibitors and disinhibitors.

Quote:

When all the world is overcharged with inhabitants, then the last remedy of all is war . . .
Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan

When a population in a given area approaches or exceeds the carrying capacity, it will result in starvation and/or conflict, so in many ways it is not suprising to see so much violence in Africa and other developing regions. Food aid may even exacerbate the problem by allowing the population to remain unnaturally large. I don't know how many times I've seen appeals for food aid for Africa on TV, or Band Aid, etc. I'm sure they are well intentioned, but I think that condoms would be a lot more useful than food aid. Limiting births seems to be the most humane way to control the population. The alternative is slaughter. I don't think it is an accident that there are genocidal wars happening in many of the countries with the highest rates of population growth.

The only form of aid for these countries that makes sense if you think about it rationally, is family planning aid, not food aid or military intervention.

Darth Rotor · 31st May 2007, 08:06 AM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

From "Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors" by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/gl...p/worldpop.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...rate_world.PNG
When a population in a given area approaches or exceeds the carrying capacity, it will result in starvation and/or conflict, so in many ways it is not suprising to see so much violence in Africa and other developing regions. Food aid may even exacerbate the problem by allowing the population to remain unnaturally large. I don't know how many times I've seen appeals for food aid for Africa on TV, or Band Aid, etc. I'm sure they are well intentioned, but I think that condoms would be a lot more useful than food aid. Limiting births seems to be the most humane way to control the population. The alternative is slaughter. I don't think it is an accident that there are genocidal wars happening in many of the countries with the highest rates of population growth.

The only form of aid for these countries that makes sense if you think about it rationally, is family planning aid, not food aid or military intervention.

Hi

Recycled Zero Population Growth memes, thirty five years later. Thanks, I was getting nostalgic for some of that rhetoric.

The only place it has worked is where it isn't needed. The only place it isn't working is where it is needed.

Irony, thy name is population control.

DR

Puppycow · 31st May 2007, 08:21 AM

Why hasn't it worked? Do believe in food aid or military intervention, or benign neglect? Maybe there just isn't any answer?

casebro · 31st May 2007, 08:24 AM

I noticed that the population really started climbing at about the year 1500. What changed? A global warming cycle? Trade with the new world? Tobacco boosted fertility rates? Inca gold?

Darth Rotor · 31st May 2007, 08:24 AM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Why hasn't it worked? Do believe in food aid or military intervention, or benign neglect? Maybe there just isn't any answer?

1. It is hard to legislate against stupidity.

2. It is hard to transform cultures. Many of the habits people have related to procreating are embedded in their culture.

3. In some cultures, a large family is both a product of habits, and a sign of status and health.

The world isn't all urbanized Western Civ. Some folks find it irritating that the urbanized Western Civ folks condescend to tell them how many children to have.

Some people don't mind a lot of things that get the Kumbaya Globalist's panties in a bunch.

DR

Beerina · 31st May 2007, 12:48 PM

Originally Posted by casebro

I noticed that the population really started climbing at about the year 1500. What changed? A global warming cycle? Trade with the new world? Tobacco boosted fertility rates? Inca gold?

Two things: The Renaissance, and it really picked up steam with the Industrial Revolution.

But also, these "hockey stick" graphs are somewhat misleading -- they liken the current population in terms of some original, tiny amount. Population grows exponentially -- if each kid has 4 kids (per couple), then the next generation has twice as many, and the next, twice as many again.

Here's your hockey stick:

2
4
8
16
32
64
128
256
512
1024
etc.

Pick any linear scale you choose and, sooner or later, probably sooner, you'll get the hockey stick.

A logarithmic scale, which is what you need, probably shows a decrease in population growth, in terms of "# of children per couple or per capita", thanks to the Industrial Revolution, though the wealthy West pouring money into poor nations allows 3rd World rates of breeding (as per pre-Industrial West) to explode, leaving the next famine all the worse, a common philosophical problem for the West.

Of course, in a relatively free economy, the more people, the better because the faster technology develops. A free world with a trillion people on it would be inventing more productive ways to generate food so fast we couldn't even conceive of it, and thus could handle growth far better than we can imagine.

Freedom, though, is the key.

Puppycow · 31st May 2007, 04:51 PM

Originally Posted by Beerina

Pick any linear scale you choose and, sooner or later, probably sooner, you'll get the hockey stick.

Yes, it would look somewhat like a hockey stick, but a "linear scale" means a uniform rate of growth, right? Between 1 and 1000 AD, the population didn't even double; it did double in the 2nd half of the 20th century, so the rate of growth is much faster than in the past. (And the rate is slowing down somewhat now, but it is expected to grow by about 50% in the first half of this century, although I don't know if those projections account for the possibility of massive genocidal wars).

Quote:

Of course, in a relatively free economy, the more people, the better because the faster technology develops. A free world with a trillion people on it would be inventing more productive ways to generate food so fast we couldn't even conceive of it, and thus could handle growth far better than we can imagine.

Freedom, though, is the key.

A trillion people? No thanks, man! I need elbow room. OK if you have infinite space and resources, but you do not.

DanishDynamite · 31st May 2007, 04:59 PM

Yes, puppycow, you are obviously correct.

The main source of war-fever is that others exist. Others who either have land worth getting, have resources worth getting, have women worth getting or.... have something worth getting rid of (an unacceptable religion, an unacceptable set of values, etc, etc).

Your suggested solution....reducing population....might reduce the pressure to act violently for a while. Perhaps.

The real solution...is simpler.

Puppycow · 31st May 2007, 05:05 PM

Originally Posted by DanishDynamite

The real solution...is simpler.

Oh good! There's a simple solution! Great, let's hear it.

DanishDynamite · 31st May 2007, 05:06 PM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Oh good! There's a simple solution! Great, let's hear it.

Space.

The final frontier.

Puppycow · 31st May 2007, 05:14 PM

Originally Posted by DanishDynamite

Space.

The final frontier.

What about transcendental meditation?

DanishDynamite · 31st May 2007, 05:20 PM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

What about transcendental meditation?

Please use the lavatory. Thanks.

31st May 2007, 07:50 AM	#1
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 15,730	How to Stop War: Birth Control? From "Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors" by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan Quote: In the ways of Nature," said Marcus Aurelius, "there is no evil to be found." Animals are aggressive not because they are savage, or bestial or evil--those are words with very little explanatory power--but because such behaviour provides food and defense against predators, because it spaces out the population and avoids overcrowding, because it has adaptive value. Aggression is a survival strategy, evolved to serve life. It coexists, especially in the primates, especially in the primates, with compassion, altruism, heroism, and tender, self-sacrificing love for the young. These are also survival strategies. Eliminating aggression would be a foolish as well as an unachievable goal--it's built too deeply into us. The evolutionary process has worked to achieve the right level of aggression--not too much, not too little--and the right inhibitors and disinhibitors. Quote: When all the world is overcharged with inhabitants, then the last remedy of all is war . . . Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan When a population in a given area approaches or exceeds the carrying capacity, it will result in starvation and/or conflict, so in many ways it is not suprising to see so much violence in Africa and other developing regions. Food aid may even exacerbate the problem by allowing the population to remain unnaturally large. I don't know how many times I've seen appeals for food aid for Africa on TV, or Band Aid, etc. I'm sure they are well intentioned, but I think that condoms would be a lot more useful than food aid. Limiting births seems to be the most humane way to control the population. The alternative is slaughter. I don't think it is an accident that there are genocidal wars happening in many of the countries with the highest rates of population growth. The only form of aid for these countries that makes sense if you think about it rationally, is family planning aid, not food aid or military intervention.
	Last edited by Puppycow; 31st May 2007 at 07:54 AM.

31st May 2007, 08:06 AM	#2
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,255	Originally Posted by Puppycow From "Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors" by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/gl...p/worldpop.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...rate_world.PNG When a population in a given area approaches or exceeds the carrying capacity, it will result in starvation and/or conflict, so in many ways it is not suprising to see so much violence in Africa and other developing regions. Food aid may even exacerbate the problem by allowing the population to remain unnaturally large. I don't know how many times I've seen appeals for food aid for Africa on TV, or Band Aid, etc. I'm sure they are well intentioned, but I think that condoms would be a lot more useful than food aid. Limiting births seems to be the most humane way to control the population. The alternative is slaughter. I don't think it is an accident that there are genocidal wars happening in many of the countries with the highest rates of population growth. The only form of aid for these countries that makes sense if you think about it rationally, is family planning aid, not food aid or military intervention. Hi Recycled Zero Population Growth memes, thirty five years later. Thanks, I was getting nostalgic for some of that rhetoric. The only place it has worked is where it isn't needed. The only place it isn't working is where it is needed. Irony, thy name is population control. DR
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

31st May 2007, 08:24 AM	#4
casebro Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 6,792	I noticed that the population really started climbing at about the year 1500. What changed? A global warming cycle? Trade with the new world? Tobacco boosted fertility rates? Inca gold?
casebro Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 6,792	__________________ Please pardon me for having ideas, not facts. Some have called me cynical, but I don't believe them. It's not how many breaths you take. It's how many times you have been breathless that counts.

31st May 2007, 08:24 AM	#5
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,255	Originally Posted by Puppycow Why hasn't it worked? Do believe in food aid or military intervention, or benign neglect? Maybe there just isn't any answer? 1. It is hard to legislate against stupidity. 2. It is hard to transform cultures. Many of the habits people have related to procreating are embedded in their culture. 3. In some cultures, a large family is both a product of habits, and a sign of status and health. The world isn't all urbanized Western Civ. Some folks find it irritating that the urbanized Western Civ folks condescend to tell them how many children to have. Some people don't mind a lot of things that get the Kumbaya Globalist's panties in a bunch. DR
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis Last edited by Darth Rotor; 31st May 2007 at 08:28 AM.

31st May 2007, 12:48 PM	#6
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	Originally Posted by casebro I noticed that the population really started climbing at about the year 1500. What changed? A global warming cycle? Trade with the new world? Tobacco boosted fertility rates? Inca gold? Two things: The Renaissance, and it really picked up steam with the Industrial Revolution. But also, these "hockey stick" graphs are somewhat misleading -- they liken the current population in terms of some original, tiny amount. Population grows exponentially -- if each kid has 4 kids (per couple), then the next generation has twice as many, and the next, twice as many again. Here's your hockey stick: 2 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 1024 etc. *Pick any linear scale you choose* and, sooner or later, probably sooner, you'll get the hockey stick. A logarithmic scale, which is what you need, probably shows a decrease in population growth, in terms of "# of children per couple or per capita", thanks to the Industrial Revolution, though the wealthy West pouring money into poor nations allows 3rd World rates of breeding (as per pre-Industrial West) to explode, leaving the next famine all the worse, a common philosophical problem for the West. Of course, in a relatively free economy, the more people, the better because the faster technology develops. A free world with a trillion people on it would be inventing more productive ways to generate food so fast we couldn't even conceive of it, and thus could handle growth far better than we can imagine. Freedom, though, is the key.
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

31st May 2007, 08:21 AM	#3
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 15,730	Why hasn't it worked? Do believe in food aid or military intervention, or benign neglect? Maybe there just isn't any answer?

31st May 2007, 04:51 PM	#7
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 15,730	Originally Posted by Beerina *Pick any linear scale you choose* and, sooner or later, probably sooner, you'll get the hockey stick. Yes, it would look somewhat like a hockey stick, but a "linear scale" means a uniform rate of growth, right? Between 1 and 1000 AD, the population didn't even double; it did double in the 2nd half of the 20th century, so the rate of growth is much faster than in the past. (And the rate is slowing down somewhat now, but it is expected to grow by about 50% in the first half of this century, although I don't know if those projections account for the possibility of massive genocidal wars). Quote: Of course, in a relatively free economy, the more people, the better because the faster technology develops. A free world with a trillion people on it would be inventing more productive ways to generate food so fast we couldn't even conceive of it, and thus could handle growth far better than we can imagine. Freedom, though, is the key. A trillion people? No thanks, man! I need elbow room. OK if you have infinite space and resources, but you do not.

31st May 2007, 04:59 PM	#8
DanishDynamite Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: In the cold Posts: 10,802	Yes, puppycow, you are obviously correct. The main source of war-fever is that others exist. Others who either have land worth getting, have resources worth getting, have women worth getting or.... have something worth getting rid of (an unacceptable religion, an unacceptable set of values, etc, etc). Your suggested solution....reducing population....might reduce the pressure to act violently for a while. Perhaps. The real solution...is simpler.

31st May 2007, 05:05 PM	#9
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 15,730	Originally Posted by DanishDynamite The real solution...is simpler. Oh good! There's a simple solution! Great, let's hear it.

31st May 2007, 05:06 PM	#10
DanishDynamite Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: In the cold Posts: 10,802	Originally Posted by Puppycow Oh good! There's a simple solution! Great, let's hear it. Space. The final frontier.

31st May 2007, 05:14 PM	#11
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 15,730	Originally Posted by DanishDynamite Space. The final frontier. What about transcendental meditation?

31st May 2007, 05:20 PM	#12
DanishDynamite Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: In the cold Posts: 10,802	Originally Posted by Puppycow What about transcendental meditation? Please use the lavatory. Thanks.