On May 2, 12:12 pm, tg
earthlink.net> wrote:> On May 2, 11:43 am, ta
nc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> On May 2, 11:29 am, tg
earthlink.net> wrote:>
>>> On May 2, 11:17 am, ta
nc.rr.com> wrote:>
>>>> On May 1, 2:15 pm, tg
earthlink.net> wrote:>
>>>>> On Apr 30, 2:04 pm, ta
nc.rr.com> wrote:>
>>>>>> On Apr 30, 8:57 am, tg
earthlink.net> wrote:>
>>>>>>> On Apr 29, 10:33 am, ta
nc.rr.com> wrote:>
>>>>>>>> On Apr 29, 6:11 am, tg
earthlink.net> wrote:>
>>>>>>>>> On Apr 29, 2:36 am, turtoni
fastmail.net> wrote:>
>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 29, 2:23 am, Immortalist
yahoo.com> wrote:>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 28, 11:05 pm, turtoni
fastmail.net> wrote:>
>>>>>>>>> All this is nonsense. Humans are not harmoniously part of the
>>>>>>>>> ecosystem because there are too many of us.
>
>>>>>>>> Or it's the other way around . . . there are too many of us because we
>>>>>>>> humans have not and do not perceive ourselves as harmonious parts of
>>>>>>>> the universe.
>
>>>>>>> Cyanobacteria
>>>>>>> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
>
>>>>>>> Cyanobacteria, also known as blue-green algae, blue-green bacteria or
>>>>>>> Cyanophyta, is a phylum of bacteria that obtain their energy through
>>>>>>> photosynthesis. The name "cyanobacteria" comes from the color of the
>>>>>>> bacteria (Greek: κυανός (kyanós) = blue). They are a significant
>>>>>>> component of the marine nitrogen cycle and an important primary
>>>>>>> producer in many areas of the ocean, but are also found on land.
>>>>>>> Stromatolites of fossilized oxygen-producing cyanobacteria have been
>>>>>>> found from 2.8 billion years ago.[2] The ability of cyanobacteria to
>>>>>>> perform oxygenic photosynthesis is thought to have converted the early
>>>>>>> reducing atmosphere into an oxidizing one, which dramatically changed
>>>>>>> the life forms on Earth and provoked an explosion of biodiversity.
>>>>>>> Chloroplasts in plants and eukaryotic algae have evolved from
>>>>>>> cyanobacteria.
>
>>>>>>> You can't really argue that cyanobacteria perceived themselves one way
>>>>>>> or the other. Still, they effectively destroyed their own environment
>>>>>>> with their waste products, due to overpopulation.
>
>>>>>> Ok, but do cynanobacteria have brains and consciousness? Can we apply
>>>>>> the same cause/effect patterns to human overpopulation as we do for
>>>>>> cyanobacteria?
>
>>>>> I don't see why not. Both evolved to reproduce as much as possible.
>>>>> What makes humans different is the capacity to deal with the longer
>>>>> term---you may have more offspring in the long run if you have fewer
>>>>> in the short.
>
>>>> I think there are more relevant differences than that -- for example,
>>>> humans can make choices, and the choices that we've made so far have
>>>> led us to the current predicament. In order to make better choices,
>>>> there has to be a shift in consciousness.
>
>>>>>>> Some human cultures have recognized a limit to growth and practiced
>>>>>>> population control, so the capacity is there.
>
>>>>>> If you are referring to China, I don't think that's accurate to say
>>>>>> that the culture has made that recognition. The government forces
>>>>>> people to refrain from reproducing beyond one child -- I'd hardly call
>>>>>> that a cultural shift. If the government did not enforce this policy,
>>>>>> surely "the culture" would continue to increase its population.
>
>>>>>> As you and others have pointed out in the past, wealthy nations tend
>>>>>> to stabilize their populations as a matter of choice . . .
>
>>>>>>> It isn't necessary to
>>>>>>> moralize about it, only to see it as a matter of self-interest.
>
>>>>>>> -tg
>
>>>>>> What is required (regardless of your beliefs about the causes) is a
>>>>>> global shift in consciousness -- you cannot (and should not try to)
>>>>>> bring about this shift by coercing people to behave in a certain way.
>>>>>> You cannot force people to perceive that something is in their best
>>>>>> interest.
>
>>>>> Which leads to the inevitable silliness about taxation. If we tax
>>>>> people in order to pay for education and other social services, the
>>>>> effect is that people will have fewer children. But of course taxation
>>>>> is coercive and evil and so on....
>
>>>> Taxation is ultimately coercive (you can make a case that it's
>>>> justified, but it is coercive nonetheless), but not as much as forcing
>>>> people not to reproduce. Qualitatively, it's another bag of worms when
>>>> you start enforcing people's reproductive choices. I may agree in
>>>> principle with the desired outcome, but it's not my place to tell
>>>> people how many kids they should have. Unfortunately, that means the
>>>> catholics etc. of the world have every right keep having 10 kids if
>>>> they so choose.
>
>>>> Besides, on a global scale, educating the entire world doesn't
>>>> fundamentally change the scarcity model that benefits the few at the
>>>> expense of the many . . . unless they become both educated and
>>>> armed. ;-)
>
>>>>>> Draconian measure like using governments to force people not to
>>>>>> reproduce is ultimately an unacceptable solution -- at least in non-
>>>>>> communist countries where personal liberty is valued.
>
>>>>>> The ends don't justify the means -- even if that means we humans end
>>>>>> up reducing our numbers the hard way.
>
>>>>> My preference, which is based on a desire not to empathize with the
>>>>> suffering victims, rather than some so-called 'morality', is that
>>>>> forcing people to have 2 or fewer kids be attempted before genocide is
>>>>> attempted. But that's just me.
>
>>>>> -tg
>
>>>> But as a matter of principle, it's not your right to enforce, nor is
>>>> it the gummint's. Give me liberty or give me death . . . literally.
>
>>> I'm at a disadvantage in answering since I don't believe in 'rights'
>>> and other such constructs. But since I do know that rights-ists
>>> believe in hierarchies of rights, I would suggest that such a
>>> hierarchy might exist in this case.
>
>> Well, I mean "right" in the colloquial, common sense use of the term,
>> not the philosophical sense. Corollary: you have no right to punch me
>> in the face.
>
>> Sorry, red herring denied. :-)
>
>>> What we find is that people who say 'give me liberty or give me death'
>>> often will not even move to Somalia to avoid some constraint on their
>>> liberty, so it really is a matter of degree. ;-)
>
>>> -tg
>
>> If the gummint starts telling people how many kids they can and cannot
>> have, I'll sooner grab a pitchfork than a suitcase. And I'll have
>> plenty of catholics by my side. :-)
>
> If you disregard immigrants, US Catholics are not that much more
> likely to have large families---they tend to ignore the Pope on birth
> control. Mormons on the other hand, including those nice folks with
> the multiple teen-age brides, do apparently require massive
> procreation to achieve massive salvation.
>
> -tg
Seems silly to me too, but forcing my beliefs on other people is
surely not the answer. But who knows, it may ultimately come down to
that anyway (or it may not).
As it is, we force people to conform to socially acceptable behaviour
(don't murder, steal etc.), but unfortunately, having fewer kids is
not widely accepted, which is why a shift in consciousness must occur
first.
Even under such circumstances though, I'm still against forcing
fundies to not have kids. People must come to the realization on their
own and do so by choice.
In the meantime, those who benefit from the scarcity model surely
aren't going to be deterred, and that's where the shift has to occur
imo.
>>>>>>>>> There's nothing that we do
>>>>>>>>> that would be a problem if there were .3 billion humans instead of 6.3
>>>>>>>>> billion. You don't need to get all mystical to use a condom.
>
>>>>>>>>> -tg
