Except that it doesn’t work like that. Money doesn’t come from nowhere, and simply educating eveyrone in Sierra Leone won’t make SL a duplicate of the USA. However by allowing the USA to continue we allow it to continue providing aid and industry to SL. As living standards in SL rise then the birth rate should fall as has happened everywhere else on the planet. But this hinges on having viable 1st world economies to catalyse the change in living conditions. Simply allowing the first world nations to become unpopulated will not in any way decrease global population. In fact exactly the opposite.
Not necessarily in the biblical sense, but a great scientist/leader/humanitarian that will come up with a way to save the world (or extend the carrying capacity). i.e. a savior.
And I wasn’t talking about educating everyone in Sierra Leone (although the level of education in a country has a strong correlation to the birth rate, so wouldn’t be a bad thing). I was talking about educating the people in industrialized countries. I don’t know if you have been in a public school lately, but they are horribly overcrowded. There have been many studies linking teacher to student ratio to the quality of education. We’re not getting enough new teachers (can’t afford to pay em anyway), so the only way to improve that ratio is to reduce the number of students. Better ratios, better education, higher chance one of em will save the world.
No, I don’t think anyone should breed. Not for the next fifty years anyway.
Again, doesn’t have to be biblical, but to counter your point: Any potential parent who rationalizes having kids because they think their kids might grow up to save the world is a born again Mary.
I’m with tastycorn. To paraphrase the VHEMT, humans are no longer a part of the eco-system but a parasitic invader. I cannot defend bringing new children into the world.
Huh? That doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. Where do you think humans invaded from? Outer space? How are humans not part of ‘the ecosystem’?
This disinction between man and nature is a purely religious one. It has no basis in science. As such any instruction to not have children based on it is no more sensible than the Mormon instruction to have lots of kids.
We don’t live in (relative) harmony with the rest of nature. Instead we take what we need, shape nature as we wish and damn the consequences. We’re not in symbiosis with our planet any more, we’re a parasite.
I have made no distinction between man and nature, and as is obvious to anyone reviewing my posting history I’m not religious. Man obviously evolved in nature, like any other animal. But we’re now different from other animals in that we’re doing enormous amounts of harm to our planet. We are destroying the Earth. I trust you can see this around you.
Cars. Planes. Factories. These things steal resources and return pollution. We rule the world with an iron fist, acting entirely in our own interest, driving countless other species extinct and little by little sucking the Earth dry. Those are the actions of a parasite.
Humans aren’t separate from ‘the rest of nature’. We are in harmony with nature as much as any other species because, to the extent that there are any harmonics, anything we do must be part of that harmony.
This doesn’t make any sense and hinges entirely on a non-scientific distinction between ‘man’ and ‘nature’ which in turn stems from religious myths.
You mean like every single other lifeform on this planet? Can you name a lifeform that doesn’t adopt this strategy? It’s hard to see how any other strategy is evolutionarily viable.
This doesn’t make any sense and hinges entirely on a non-scientific distinction between ‘man’ and ‘nature’ which in turn stems from religious myths.
By ‘the planet’ I take it you mean the chunk of rocks and gases we call Earth? When were we or any other species ever in a symbiotic relationship with a rock? How can a species be in a symbiotic relationship with a rock?
This doesn’t make any sense and hinges entirely on a non-scientific distinction between ‘man’ and ‘nature’ which in turn stems from religious myths.
The how exactly can we not be living in harmony with something of which we are an integral part? This doesn’t make any sense.
How exactly are we harming this chunk of rock?
You skip between ‘the planet’ and ‘the ecosystem’ as though the are somehow interchangeable. They aren’t Man isn’t harming the rock we call Earth simply because we have barely managed to scratch the dust of the mantle. We can’t be harming the ecosystem because whatever we do is inherently part of that ecosystem.
What is your standard for ‘harm’?
From whom? This is surely a quasi religious viewpoint. Who do you believe is the rightful owner of these resources that they can be stolen?
And that is bad because? Again, this implies a quasi religious viewpoint on exactly what is acceptable? What is your standard of acceptance for species behaviour?
While that is very melodramatic, would you care to explain how we are sucking the chunk of rock and gas knows as Earth dry. In order to suck something dry one needs to place the moisture elsewhere. We have removed a total of about half a ton of material from this planet permanently. Is this what you mean by sucking it dry? If so then I agree it is very little.
Blake, kindly quit implying that I make a distinction between man and nature. Also kindly quit implying that I have religious motives. Neither is true.
What separates us from other animals is greater power than they have. Rabbits couldn’t destroy the Earth if they wanted to. We can. That means we have to make a decision that rabbits never face: destroy the Earth or not? I pick “not”, and given humanity’s track record so far I’d say the only way to do so is to stop creating humans.
I use the words “Earth” and “planet” to add variety to my writing. I was also speaking metaphorically when I said “sucking dry”, as you well understood, but pretended not to.
As for “harm”, we are driving species extinct, a nice little fact that I can’t help noticing you skipped. You know this to be true. Do you think it’s a good thing? Do you think pollution is a good thing?
Finally, the stealing of resources is done from all other species that live on Earth, that outnumber us by billions to one, and whose well-being we totally disregard in our relentless quest to tear our home apart. Sure, some of these resources aren’t of any use to any other species than ourselves, in which case there’s no harm done (apart from pollution created by mining and so on). Other resources, such as the rainforests, are.
Aside from the fact that that depends entirely on how you define power, how does this in any way mean that we aren’t part of ‘the ecosystem’? It seems completely irrelevant.
You haven’t yet explained how a human can destroy the chunk of rock we know as the Earth. We don’t have anywhere near enough power to destroy the Earth. As I pointed out above, we have barely scuffed the dust of the mantle. We couldn’t destroy the Earth by dedicated design, much less any unintentional process.
Well could you clarify please. Do you intend ‘Earth’ to be interchangeable with ‘ecosystem’? How exactly can humans do harm to an ecosystem of which they are a part? Anything we do is an inherent part of that ecosystem. You seem to be trying to open a box with the key locked inside. By definition anything we do is part of normal ecosystem process. It is enhancing it, not destroying it.
Well no, I didn’t understand that. But I will ask again. How exactly are we sucking this planet dry? In what way? What exactly is ‘sucking dry’ a metaphor for?
99% of all species that ever existed have been driven to extinction by other species. What exactly is harmful about Homo sapiens doing the same thing?
For the fifth time I ask you, what is your standard for good? Good compared to what? Good in what context, defined by whom, and for what end? Good is a human value judgement and unrecognised by ecology. The first photosynthetic bacteria produced far more pollution than humans ever will, and engendered far greater climate change and lead to the extinction of far more species. Is that bad?
The problem I that you have yet to state in any way what your criteria of good and bad are. You seem to assume they are self evident, and yet they are anything but. That is why I am forced to assume a quasi-religious basis.
And by what standard do those resources belong to them? In what way does a buffalo own a blade of grass more than I do?
Again, you appear to be applying two mutually contradictory notions. You say that humans are a part of nature and ‘the ecosystem’. And then you say that we don’t have any right to the resources of that ecosystem because they belong to other species.
Would you care to reconcile this apparent contradiction?
Would you also care to explain where you believe humans invaded from? Do you believe we came form outer space?
Look, ** Priceguy**, I really don’t understand what your position is. Humans are a product and a part of ‘the ecosystem’. Whatever we do is an integral and ‘natural’ part of ecosystem function. There are no property or title deeds in ecology.
And yet you still claim that other species own resources. You stil claim that the changes to ecosystem functionality effected by humans are destructive, without ever clarifying exactly how they are destructive.
Yes we have driven species to extinction, as has every single other species on this planet. But tha doesn’t in any way explain your assertion that humans “don’t live in (relative) harmony with the rest of nature” and ‘are no longer a part of the eco-system but a parasitic invader”. These were your dramatic assertions, yet you haven’t even explained what you mean by them. Extinctions are the rule, not the exception. How does humans causing exinctions show that we aren’t in harmony with nature? What is your standard of harmony? Wha is that standard based on if not a quasi-spiritual belief? If it isn’t spiritual then you will be able to tell us what the standard is.
In short, your position to date is based on standards of ‘correct’, ‘non destructive’ and ‘harmonic’ behaviour which you have never defined.
More importantly you have never stated what these standards of ‘correct’, ‘non destructive’ and ‘harmonic’ behaviour are derived from or based on. They appear to be based entirely and arbitrarily on your beliefs. It has no basis in science. As such any instruction to not have children based on it is no more sensible than the Mormon instruction to have lots of kids.
You are obviously unfamiliar with the concept of a “Dutch Oven”. Or a running car in a closed garage. Or really, science in general, if you really thing a closed system cannot be harmed by something inside it.
Priceguy is right, in a way. If you define the organism as the outermost layer of the earth, not the rock underneath, then we are indeed behaving in a parasitic fashion. Most other animals will adapt to their surroundings without making modifications greater than eating and defecating. Some (beavers, monkeys, hermit crabs, etc…) will make changes to their immediate environment to better protect themselves or increase comfort. We, on the other hand, have had a negative effect on almost every aspect of our ecosystem.
We may not spill very much, but we have definitely turned on the blender.
I mean that we no longer act as a part of the ecosystem, unlike other animals. I apologize for saying that we’re no longer a part of the ecosystem, that was artistic license. Obviously, we are.
When I said “destroy”, I should have said “render uninhabitable for its indigent species”. I apologize.
I guess we’ll never see eye to eye on this. If we drive species extinct directly and indirectly, poison the air, water and ground, and use up all resources for our exclusive purposes, I see that as destroying the ecosystem.
Take a car. Run said car into a brick wall. Repeatedly. Afterwards, it’s still a car, but it’s useless for driving, which is (in my opinion) the raison d’etre of a car. Same deal with the ecosystem. If humanity continues on its present course, the ecosystem (as the abstract concept it basically is) will still exist, but it doesn’t do what it used to.
Using up resources without replenishing them.
I would have tried to save the dinosaurs, sabretooth tigers, megatheria and Neanderthals as well, had I been there.
It’s all in terms of pleasure and pain. My system of morals hinges on the view that pleasure (physical and emotional) is good, whereas pain (physical and emotional) is bad. Good means maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain, even potential pleasure and pain, so far as it is possible to ascertain.
Example: Poisoning rivers makes fish ill. That’s pain, that’s bad.
Yup, it was. I’m not blaming the bacteria; they weren’t doing it on purpose. Humans are.
No way, you own it equally.
I’ve never said that. We have no more right to the resources than other species.
Again, that wasn’t meant to be taken literally. I meant we’re acting as an invader, not literally being an invader.
We also have the ability to see what we’re doing and foresee consequences. I feel we should use that ability to better life for all species in the long term, not our own species in the short term.
I’ve always felt that there are two defensible general stances, for want of a better word. The first is “give what you can, get what you need”, augmented by “greatest gain for greatest number”. The second is the one you appear to be holding, namely that the very ability to perform an act contains the right to perform said act. Fine. It’s not a position I can reason anybody out of, for it is a sound position. In the end, it comes down to what kind of society (or world) you want. I want one based on the first principle, and I won’t apply it only to my own species.
If that’s established, I’d like to say that I’d love humanity to turn around, stop polluting, stop chopping down rainforests, stop driving species extinct and so on, but looking back over history, I just can’t see it happening. I think the better solution is the one advocated by VHEMT, namely to stop breeding and step back gracefully.
Finally, Blake, a couple of questions for you, hopefully avoiding any moral issues at all.
Are you saying that, if you were given the power to stop pollution, you would not do it?
Are you saying that, if you were given the power to stop human-driven extinction of species, you would not do it?
Does anyone remember what Clintons definition of “is” was? I have a feeling Priceguy and I might need it.
blake: I am fully aware that occasionally definitions are required to successfully debate a concept, but don’t you think you are taking the semantic dissection thing a little far?
Hmmmm. If you currently engage in sex with your partner, and your partner is female and not sterilised, you can’t ensure you will never procreate yourself.
Now, I wouldn’t judge you or your intensity of belief based only upon your possible fertility, but many would, especially if you spout so sanctimoniously. Perhaps you should put your money where your mouth is ? I mean, if you’re still only “considering” it, perhaps you shouldn’t be chastising others, until you’re past the “considering” stage ?
I’m afraid I’m not a perfect human being. Pricegal doesn’t want me to get a vasectomy, and I won’t risk losing her over it. A better man might do differently, and I won’t say I haven’t given the matter a lot of thought.
Do they have contraception over there yet? Here, I have several lines of defense.
Latex
Spermicidal Lubricant
Morning After Pill
The Big A
The only reason I am in the considering stage is A) I don’t have health insurance and B) I have a deathly fear of being punctured in any way. Needles, knives, whatever. Gives me great big heebie Jeebies. If, however, you would like to take up a collection to help with A, I think I could get past B.
Given the effectiveness of the other measures, however, and the fact that I don’t in fact have kids, I think your arguement that I am not flexible enough to reach my wallet with my mouth rather weak.
Yes, I can.
a) Spontaneous regeneration can occur with a tubal ligation. Not with a tubal occlusion. I have had a tubal occlusion.
b) I can always abort. The male however, has no say, and there is always the possibility your partner will change her mind.
I am also not a perfect human being. That is why I refrian from telling others what they should be doing with their bodies, and worry only about what I do with mine. IOW, I try to mind my own business. Try it sometime, it’s amazingly stress-free
Sorry to disagree. You only have two lines of defence. Your partner can access the morning after pill, and abortion, but she can also change her mind and there isn’t a thing you can do should that happen.
My only point is, Tastycorn, that telling others what to do with their reproductive organs is not only arrogant and rude, but it also can make you look a little silly when the only difference between you and those you are berating, is a little spermicide and a breakable condom. Oh, and they are a little more polite and respectful than you’ve been to them. How about letting others run their own lives, hmmm ?
Personally, I am sympathetic with many of your views. I have been voluntarily sterilised, and I chose a method that is completely irreversible. I am studying environmental science at university and am a bit of a greenie. Much of what you are saying I agree with. However, I violently disagree with the way you’re doing it. If your cause is to have the human race become extinct, let me know and I will argue with you both no further. If your cause is to reach a point where the human race stops completely raping the environment, I will continue to argue, as I believe you are actually contributing to its degradation with your attitudes. And so the wheel turns.
I truly do not care what other people do with their reproductive organs. As far as I’m concerned, the more creative, the better. It’s only the new humans that result from carelessness or selfishness I have a problem with.
I give up trying to prove a negative with you. My wife and I have decided, as a couple, that we do not want kids. To date, we have been 100% successful at not having kids. The sum of the methods we are employing until we can afford a permanent solution are 100% effective. Whether or not she decides to divorce me and have a kid on her own isn’t really on topic. That could happen regardless of whether or not I was sterilized.
Besides, intent it really the key here, isn’t it? The decision to have kids and its ramifications? Otherwise, we might as well bring up the possibility of virgin birth.
So, basically, you are free to give any advice or opinions you feel like because of a history of minding your own business, while I am supposed to either keep my strong opinions to myself, or come up with something warm and fuzzy?
I don’t think either Priceguy or I is arguing for the complete extinction of the human race, regardless of our VEHMT support. We both see many problems with the way the human race is managing things, and one of many possible ways to help fix things is to reduce the population.
would you mind answering the following questions to satisfy my curiosity ?
