"Earth population 'exceeds limits',"

[Peikko 1,575]

How counter productive? The species isn't getting 'better' as a species due to education and wealth. It has no impact on the human species.

Unless consumption of GM 'genetically' modifies the species...

I don't agree FP, on a global scale, I think the human race is well beyond the species limit for the earth. That we are surviving and multiplying on a grand scale is more down the consumption of our reserves than because we have evolved a sustainable method of existence.

Edited April 1, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I don't agree FP, on a global scale, I think the human race is well beyond the species limit for the earth. That we are surviving and multiplying on a grand scale is more down the consumption of our reserves than because we have evolved a sustainable method of existence.

MC - for one, population control on even a national scale would be difficult and controversial to say the least. From what I've read on birthrates - their seems to be a natural slow down among industrialized nations. In fact, many have a negative growth rate. Western Europe in fact is facing a future crisis over it. The second thing is - it's difficult to define just what constitutes overpopulation on a large scale. In the animal kingdom, when there is an overpopulation problem, it is an indication of the eco-system being thrown out of balance. There are environmental factors that effect ovulation in females - even among human populations. But again - the real concern is natural resources and all that I've read and understood, those resources are more than enough to sustain our current population.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

How counter productive? The species isn't getting 'better' as a species due to education and wealth. It has no impact on the human species.

Unless consumption of GM 'genetically' modifies the species...

I don't agree FP, on a global scale, I think the human race is well beyond the species limit for the earth. That we are surviving and multiplying on a grand scale is more down the consumption of our reserves than because we have evolved a sustainable method of existence.

Natural selection is based on survival of the fittest. Without intervention by the hand of man, that is how evolution is supposed to work. Civilization creates sets of new rules, since man intervenes in his own developement. How do you apply those rules to evolution? Do you feed a starving population that would normally die from a lack of food. Should they be allowed to reproduce at an already unsustainable rate? Where do you apply the ethics? Should a portion of the population that is less successful breed at a faster rate than that portion that is more successful? These are all ethical questions.

[Peikko 1,575]

No, they are not, those are relative questions. Ethical questions are immutable.

As far as genetics go, there is nothing genetically superiour about having an education or a full bank balance.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Natural selection is based on survival of the fittest.

That's a misnomer. For example - my ancestors came from Ireland ...very light skin and blue eyes, which maximized their skin's ability to absorb vitamin D from the sun. However, my great grandfather moved his family all the way out to the Southern Arizona desert, where light skin will lead to skin cancer. Natural selection is more accurately about adaption, rather than the concept that there are superior traits over others. It really depends on the eco-system.

Edited April 1, 2009 by Mister Fancypants

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

No, they are not, those are relative questions. Ethical questions are immutable.

As far as genetics go, there is nothing genetically superiour about having an education or a full bank balance.

The opposite actually - I'd say its hardly typical behaviour but there are people who believe that their wealth and social position makes them inherently superior - and that their success in life is linked to that inherent superiority.

It does explain a number of quite distasteful opinions, not least that the failings of less successful people were deserved.

Edited April 1, 2009 by Private Pike

[Peikko 1,575]

Or a fully tummy either.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

No, they are not, those are relative questions. Ethical questions are immutable.

As far as genetics go, there is nothing genetically superiour about having an education or a full bank balance.

And so, either there is a non-issue, as Steve says, or there is an issue, which we are ethically unable to discuss and come to terms with.

[Peikko 1,575]

The ethical question is, knowing that the population is not sustainable, how do we solve the problem of overpopulation?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The ethical question is, knowing that the population is not sustainable, how do we solve the problem of overpopulation?

If overpopulation is a problem, then the humans have to reproduce at a reduced rate. How do we as a species manage that as a worldwide effort?

[Peikko 1,575]

Excellent question Mr Bill.

That is really my point. That is the problem, how does one ethically solve it? Most of the time, most people do not try but avoid it and concentrate on for example, selling us GM crops as the solution.

Edited April 1, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[justashooter 430]

How counter productive? The species isn't getting 'better' as a species due to education and wealth. It has no impact on the human species.

Unless consumption of GM 'genetically' modifies the species...

I don't agree FP, on a global scale, I think the human race is well beyond the species limit for the earth. That we are surviving and multiplying on a grand scale is more down the consumption of our reserves than because we have evolved a sustainable method of existence.

typical liberal naivete. the human animal is evolving in subtle ways due to education and creature comfort that wealth affords. the human animal is becoming more creative and functional than ever before where education and wealth exist. the human animal is even evolving physically, as improved diet and living conditions lead to increase in height that is inheritable. the average American in 1794 was almost 20% shorter than the average American is now.

[Peikko 1,575]

Hence we end up back at post #2 and post 9

How counter productive? The species isn't getting 'better' as a species due to education and wealth. It has no impact on the human species.

Unless consumption of GM 'genetically' modifies the species...

I don't agree FP, on a global scale, I think the human race is well beyond the species limit for the earth. That we are surviving and multiplying on a grand scale is more down the consumption of our reserves than because we have evolved a sustainable method of existence.

typical liberal naivete. the human animal is evolving in subtle ways due to education and creature comfort that wealth affords. the human animal is becoming more creative and functional than ever before where education and wealth exist. the human animal is even evolving physically, as improved diet and living conditions lead to increase in height that is inheritable. the average American in 1794 was almost 20% shorter than the average American is now.

Oh dear, Shooter is back at stage 2 of the argument. Re read the thread and maybe this will become obvious.

Edited April 1, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[DeadPoolX 9]

Natural selection is based on survival of the fittest.

That's a misnomer. For example - my ancestors came from Ireland ...very light skin and blue eyes, which maximized their skin's ability to absorb vitamin D from the sun. However, my great grandfather moved his family all the way out to the Southern Arizona desert, where light skin will lead to skin cancer. Natural selection is more accurately about adaption, rather than the concept that there are superior traits over others. It really depends on the eco-system.

Survival of the fittest has very little to do with "who's stronger" or whatever. It's been taken to mean that nowadays, but Darwin's originally described direct and indirect fitness. Direct fitness was a creature's ability to produce offspring, thereby assuring that creature's family line would go on (i.e. children), as would the species overall. Indirect fitness revolved around assisting those whose family line you were a part of, but not those directly created from you. In other words, if you help to raise your nephew, that's indirect fitness, since that nephew is related but not your own.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The ethical question is, knowing that the population is not sustainable, how do we solve the problem of overpopulation?

Define overpopulation...in your words...and on a global scale.

Natural selection is based on survival of the fittest.

That's a misnomer. For example - my ancestors came from Ireland ...very light skin and blue eyes, which maximized their skin's ability to absorb vitamin D from the sun. However, my great grandfather moved his family all the way out to the Southern Arizona desert, where light skin will lead to skin cancer. Natural selection is more accurately about adaption, rather than the concept that there are superior traits over others. It really depends on the eco-system.

Survival of the fittest has very little to do with "who's stronger" or whatever. It's been taken to mean that nowadays, but Darwin's originally described direct and indirect fitness. Direct fitness was a creature's ability to produce offspring, thereby assuring that creature's family line would go on (i.e. children), as would the species overall. Indirect fitness revolved around assisting those whose family line you were a part of, but not those directly created from you. In other words, if you help to raise your nephew, that's indirect fitness, since that nephew is related but not your own.

Again, adaptation is the key element in natural selection.