World over population and Eugenics, I not a nazi.

[CitizenX]

I knew the topic title would make some eye balls to bulge out. But before you think I'm some sort of weirdo Nazi, thoughtless freak hear me out. This is a two part question that are not really related directly.

Question 1: I believe that almost every problem that the world faces is directly linked to overpopulation.

Pollution, Over consumption of natural resources, Global warming, ect.. My question is as a

global community do we have a responsibility to organize for some system of population control.

Do you have a right to have as many children as you want, an example is the Duggar Family 19

kids and counting (freaks)?

Question 2: This one might get me called heartless. I direct this question to the people that believe in

evolution. My question is do you think that helping to cure genetic diseases is detrimental to

the human race? Over time will this make us weaker as a species. I'm sure in the future that

these genetic disease problems might be solved before reproduction. I'm not an expert on

this subject, and I'm not a heartless bastard just curious.

[Remiel]

Question 1: I believe that almost every problem that the world faces is directly linked to overpopulation.

Pollution, Over consumption of natural resources, Global warming, ect.. My question is as a

global community do we have a responsibility to organize for some system of population control.

Do you have a right to have as many children as you want, an example is the Duggar Family 19

kids and counting (freaks)?

I would argue that you have a right to have children, and would further argue that if you are going to have overt population control that you ought to be able to have two living children (as it takes two to make one). Not so sure I am a big fan of it though.

Question 2: This one might get me called heartless. I direct this question to the people that believe in

evolution. My question is do you think that helping to cure genetic diseases is detrimental to

the human race? Over time will this make us weaker as a species. I'm sure in the future that

these genetic disease problems might be solved before reproduction. I'm not an expert on

this subject, and I'm not a heartless bastard just curious.

Why would reducing the occurence of good people being sidelined by horrible genetic conditions possibly be bad for the human race? That is assuming that those genetic conditions serve some kind of purpose, which I am sure they do not.

Edited August 6, 2011 by Remiel

[WIP]

I want to get to this topic later when I have time. Overpopulation is at the heart of all of the other problems we are dealing with today. There are already more people on Earth than the planet can sustain for the indefinite future, and the present situation of "overshoot" keeps growing because of the total inaction in reducing population.

Exactly how many people the Earth can support cannot be exactly defined, because it depends crucially on how much of the planet's resources we are using. So, the main problem for the overpopulation in East Africa and Sub-Sahara Africa is over-use of available fresh water; while in the West, we are hoovering out water, metals, rare-earth elements, and stored carbon in the form of oil, coal and natural gas. How many people the planet can support one, two or three centuries from now will depend on what sort of lifestyle the people have, and how much of the resource base they are using....my guess is that it will be far lower than 7 billion...the number we are going to reach in just a few months.

[Bonam]

Question 1: I believe that almost every problem that the world faces is directly linked to overpopulation.

Pollution, Over consumption of natural resources, Global warming, ect.. My question is as a

global community do we have a responsibility to organize for some system of population control.

Do you have a right to have as many children as you want, an example is the Duggar Family 19

kids and counting (freaks)?

First, I will categorically state that no governmental or transgovernmental organization should have the authority to forcefully prevent law-abiding adult citizens from having children. Anything else is a grotesque submission of the freedom of the individual to the power of a tyrannical state.

Secondly, whether the world is in fact "overpopulated" depends on what you evaluate its carrying capacity to be. Carrying capacity is determined by (1) the resources available in the natural environment, (2) how quickly these resources regenerate, and (3) our efficiency at utilizing these resources to sustain our population. Rather than reducing population, we can instead look to increase carrying capacity. Indeed, this is the approach human civilization has taken throughout its history, which has allowed our population to grow. To increase the carrying capacity we can look at all 3 of the above stages:

We can utilize new resources that we previously did not utilize (for example, new forms of energy: geothermal, tidal, solar, etc). This effectively increases the available resources.

We can increase the rate at which resources regenerate. For example, by utilizing sustainable fertilizers on farmland, we can increase the crop yield produced by the same area of land.

We can improve the efficiency of our use of the resources, for example by lowering the amount of energy needed to heat a home through better insulation.

The three above are simple examples to illustrate the point. As technology progresses, we will continue to be able to attack all 3 of the aspects of the carrying capacity in more and more innovative ways. Furthermore, technological progress will also let us access resources in locations previously inaccessible, whether it is the ocean floors, the arctic and antarctic, Earth orbit, other planetary bodies, etc. I contend that through the proper application of our advancing technology, we can always keep the aggregate carrying capacity of the environments we have access to in excess of our population.

Question 2: This one might get me called heartless. I direct this question to the people that believe in

evolution. My question is do you think that helping to cure genetic diseases is detrimental to

the human race? Over time will this make us weaker as a species. I'm sure in the future that

these genetic disease problems might be solved before reproduction. I'm not an expert on

this subject, and I'm not a heartless bastard just curious.

It depends on the cure. If the cure is to fix the broken DNA, then no, it is not detrimental, since if the genetic defect is repaired, it will not be passed on. If the cure is a drug that suppresses/inhibits the symptoms, then yes, it is reasonable to expect that future generations will have a higher prevalence of that defect. As with your first question, it is a matter of technology. Embryonic genetic re-sequencing (fixing genetic defects in an embryo) is something that has already been experimented with, and mainstream application may well begin within the current decade.

[Remiel]

First, I will categorically state that no governmental or transgovernmental organization should have the authority to forcefully prevent law-abiding adult citizens from having children. Anything else is a grotesque submission of the freedom of the individual to the power of a tyrannical state.

I would go further in that I do not really think the state should be in the business of forcefully preventing anyone from having children. As I said, I am not keen on limiting the number of children forcibly either, but I think it could be disincentivized if not prevented... Such as, " You may have more than X children, but if you do, you forfeit Y benefit, or must pay +Z% in taxes. "

[CitizenX]

First, I will categorically state that no governmental or transgovernmental organization should have the authority to forcefully prevent law-abiding adult citizens from having children. Anything else is a grotesque submission of the freedom of the individual to the power of a tyrannical state.

As a self described Left Libertarian I struggle with this. The Libertarian side of me agrees with you whole heartly. But as a person that believes overpopulation is the root of the problem I am conflicted by the solution. We could just wait for nature to solve the problem, Gaia theory. I'm not the hippy type.

Edited August 6, 2011 by CitizenX

[Remiel]

It depends on the cure. If the cure is to fix the broken DNA, then no, it is not detrimental, since if the genetic defect is repaired, it will not be passed on. If the cure is a drug that suppresses/inhibits the symptoms, then yes, it is reasonable to expect that future generations will have a higher prevalence of that defect. As with your first question, it is a matter of technology. Embryonic genetic re-sequencing (fixing genetic defects in an embryo) is something that has already been experimented with, and mainstream application may well begin within the current decade.

I think it is important to question " for whom " it is better no to have people who have these irrepairable genetic defects that must be continually treated. Better for " the species " only makes sense if it would lead to humanity dying off completely. Otherwise, " better for species " is merely a matter of convenience, in essence. And mere convenience is not a particularly good reason, if you ask me, for denying someone life. If it were, I should suspect it would be morally valid to off anyone who might be considered an incovenience to anyone...

[CitizenX]

A good debate on the subject on overpopulation.

[TimG]

I believe that almost every problem that the world faces is directly linked to overpopulation.

Human population self-limits when a society reaches a certain level of affluence. There is no need for anything other than a strategy to increase global economic wealth.

My question is do you think that helping to cure genetic diseases is detrimental to the human race? Over time will this make us weaker as a species.

You have a misunderstanding of what evolution is and what it means. Evolution means creatures adapt to the environment and if that environment includes things that significantly reduce or limit the disadvantage caused be a genetic trait then that trait will no longer be a "weakness".

For example, many people are near sighted. That used to be a serious defect but with wide spread use of glasses near sightedness is not a problem. Now you could argue that if our civilization collapsed and people went back to living in caves then all of those near sighted people would be ill equiped to survive. But we don't evolve traits to help in inplausible hypothetical environments. We evolve traits for the real environment we live in so near sightedness is not a genetic weakness anymore.

Edited August 6, 2011 by TimG

[Oleg Bach]

A big wind - a big flood - a big famine - a big war ....what are we worried about - earth is more than capable of getting rid of pesky humans. AS for eugenics..the people who are big on it should be the first to go..Those that propose this stuff are not that smart - just highly ego driven twits - and I hope all social engineers and genociders of all kinds suffer a slow and painful death...evil is so tiresome - If they don't like it on earth - they should leave.

[CitizenX]

Why would reducing the occurence of good people being sidelined by horrible genetic conditions possibly be bad for the human race? That is assuming that those genetic conditions serve some kind of purpose, which I am sure they do not.

The mechanisms of natural selection. There is a reason in nature that the weak dieing improves the overall strength of the species over time.

[CitizenX]

Human population self-limits when a society reaches a certain level of affluence. There is no need for anything other than a strategy to increase global economic wealth.

You have a misunderstanding of what evolution is and what it means. Evolution means creatures adapt to the environment and if that environment includes things that significantly reduce or limit the disadvantage caused be a genetic trait then that trait will no longer be a "weakness".

For example, many people are near sighted. That used to be a serious defect but with wide spread use of glasses near sightedness is not a problem. Now you could argue that if our civilization collapsed and people when back to living in caves then all of those near sighted people would be ill equiped to survive. But we don't evolve traits to help in inplausible hypothetical environments. We evolve traits for the real environment we live in so near sightedness is not a genetic weakness anymore.

I agree that humans are very adaptive and through tools (like glasses) can overcome genetic weaknesses. But whether we live in a world that doesn't see the fact that you use glasses as a weakness, the fact that you do use glasses to compensate for a real natural world genetic defect remains. This is then passed onto your children. And yes if a civilization collapsed occurred you would instantly see the results of humans over all weakness. People that are currently walking around only because of life saving medication like diabetics (I'm one) would die off.

I hope to see a world when any genetic defect might be detected at birth and then cured. By the time you are ready to reproduce you won't pass on your genetic defect to your children. But this is not part of my question. Imagine this is not an option and never will.

[Oleg Bach]

I agree that humans are very adaptive and through tools (like glasses) can overcome genetic weaknesses. But whether we live in a world that doesn't see the fact that you use glasses as a weakness, the fact that you do use glasses to compensate for a real natural world genetic defect remains. This is then passed onto your children. And yes if a civilization collapsed occurred you would instantly see the results of humans over all weakness. People that are currently walking around only because of life saving medication like diabetics (I'm one) would die off.

I hope to see a world when any genetic defect might be detected at birth and then cured. By the time you are ready to reproduce you won't pass on your genetic defect to your children. But this is not part of my question. Imagine this is not an option and never will.

Cross breeding is helpful sometimes. Inbreeding works on occassion - but breeding out of love creates wonderful children - look at that Jesus guy--- a love child...his mum and dad really were deeply in love - Today and through out history people couple for all the wrong and superfical reasons - hence - two hater get together and they create through genetics and environment - a child that grows up to be a creep...the world has only two types of people and families - those that hate and destroy and those that love and create.

[TimG]

But whether we live in a world that doesn't see the fact that you use glasses as a weakness, the fact that you do use glasses to compensate for a real natural world genetic defect remains.

You missed my point. We don't live in caves. Everyone who needs glasses is able to get them. Needing glasses is no longer a weakness that we need to worry about. It should not even be called a weakness.

Here is another example: diabetes is a disease today but in the past people with the dietary tendencies that lead to diabetes had an advantage: http://healthblog.ncpa.org/blame-evolution-for-diabetes/

Humans evolved strong tastes for fats and sweets, tastes that conferred a reproductive advantage in the days when starvation was common. But these tastes can be a burden when were confronted with such supernormal stimuli as the 400-calorie Frappuccino at Starbucks. An evolutionary adaptation that once promised survival is more likely nowadays to produce Type 2 diabetes.

If short: you are wrong to class traits as weaknesses simply because they require technology to compensate. Technology is an inseperable part of our environment today.

Edited August 6, 2011 by TimG

[Oleg Bach]

Technological thread - I am not qualified...excuse the intrusion.

[Oleg Bach]

When my youngest was 16, he got preturbed with some very stupid people. He said he wished he could give them a hard bop in the head. I told him that the number of dummies in the world are so vast..that if you started to do that - Your arm would fall off the first day. Eugenics is not the answer - we would deplete 98% of the human genetic pool...and destory a lot of people by mistake - and in the end we would have less people - and just as stupid. Human intelligence and genetic value and worth are very fleeting and no one can put their finger on what is good and what is not ...The human race is not qualified to cull or alter the human race.

[CitizenX]

When my youngest was 16, he got preturbed with some very stupid people. He said he wished he could give them a hard bop in the head. I told him that the number of dummies in the world are so vast..that if you started to do that - Your arm would fall off the first day. Eugenics is not the answer - we would deplete 98% of the human genetic pool...and destory a lot of people by mistake - and in the end we would have less people - and just as stupid. Human intelligence and genetic value and worth are very fleeting and no one can put their finger on what is good and what is not ...The human race is not qualified to cull or alter the human race.

I think you should read some of the comments before you comment. No one is talking about Nazi Eugenics or the extermination of "undesired" population groups. As far as altering the human race that is what is happening now. That is my question. is it right?

I don't know if anyone has seen this movie but I found it very funny.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXRjmyJFzrU&feature=related

[Remiel]

The mechanisms of natural selection. There is a reason in nature that the weak dieing improves the overall strength of the species over time.

You really do no understand how and why evolution works if you think the act of dying is what makes a species stronger.

[CitizenX]

You really do no understand how and why evolution works if you think the act of the weak dying is what makes a species stronger.

Did you take the short bus too school?

Edited August 7, 2011 by CitizenX

[Remiel]

Did you take the short bus too school? What are you talking about?

I was talking about what you said. If you cannot understand the relationship between what you said and what I said, well, then that is your problem.

[CitizenX]

You really do no understand how and why evolution works if you think the act of dying is what makes a species stronger.

I never said the act of dying is what makes a species stronger.

I Said. There is a reason in nature that the weak dying improves the overall strength of the species over time.

Edited August 7, 2011 by CitizenX

[Remiel]

I never said the act of dying is what makes a species stronger.

I Said. There is a reason in nature that the weak dying improves the overall strength of the species over time.

" Weak dying " , " act of dying " , same difference.

" Weak " is so incredibly circumstancial in evolutionary terms that it renders generalizations such as the one you have made meaningless. We talk about genetic " defects " , but we can imagine at least a situation in which people with, say, diabetes, miraculously survive a plague that kills everyone without diabetes. And just like that the " weak " and the " strong " are reversed. Except there is abolutely no rule saying that the " strong " must be " strong enough " . Numbers are themselves a weakness or a strength at the species level, and it could easily be the case that having all the " weak " members die off suddenly makes the entire species " weak " because they just do not hae the numbers to keep things going well.

Edited August 7, 2011 by Remiel

[CitizenX]

" Weak dying " , " act of dying " , same difference.

???????????????

Your logic makes me dizzy

Edited August 7, 2011 by CitizenX

[CitizenX]

Edited August 7, 2011 by CitizenX

[Bonam]

Really? You think to impress people here with such arcane knowledge as the exponential function? Seriously?