I read posts here that call different things, "harmful to humanity." Others call something, "good" or "bad" or "evil."
A very simple question, who gets to decide the definition of "harmful to humanity" and what is there critieria? The same for "good," "bad," and "evil?" These are not material terms. If everything is material isn't there just "is" and not these moral declarations if one is being thoroughly atheist?
Help me understand your position so I am fair and honest about the views. Thanks.
@John - "I am sorry that I had to point out your inconsistencies in your argument. "
You just keep telling yourself that, sparky, if it makes you feel better about yourself. After, it's all about YOU , isn't it? LMAO
Is the starvation problem due to an underabundance of food or an overabundance of people? The wrong answer to that question will simply make matters worse, won't it? What happens if we feed all those starving people? Do they show their gratitude be not having any more babies?
New to TA and not sure we shouldn't start a new thread. It's an excellent question and it is very important moving forward with world policy to answer it correctly.
Starvation is due to poverty. Poverty in most places is due to lack of education, incentive, specialization and exchange usually due to corruption or oppression. The early solution is education and empowerment of woman.
As populations climb from poverty they statistically have less babies, for the most part, unless strong held religious beliefs dictate otherwise.
No one altruistically stops having babies, they stop having babies because their own quality of life improves and there is less incentive to have them.
Ross, you say no one altruistically stops having babies. Of course some people do, and have done, just that.
As a general rule, people in the places where poverty and starvation are problems do not practice birth control to the degree people in prosperous parts of the world do. Poor people need help just to survive. Every child is a probable helper.
A lot of poverty is geographical in nature. Living in a desert or hundreds of miles from a major city with no convenient means of transporetation.
Increasing the population of well-educated people won't necessarily solve the population problem. Take some sparsely-populated Northern African country. It can't become a wealthy country with a vibrant economy without growing its population.
Anyway, ultimately only reducing the population, not the birthrate, will really go toward solving a lot of the problems we're facing in coming decades. And I don't mean slightly reducing the population, I mean greatly reducing the population.
People who want to feed the world are the goat leading the sheep to slaughter. Bad for the few is better than bad for everyone.
"Take some sparsely-populated Northern African country. It can't become a wealthy country with a vibrant economy without growing its population."
That would be incorrect. One of the major problems with these sparsely populated countries is than any economic growth is/was killed off by a quickly growing population (pop growth rates have plummeted many places as of late). There are many ways to spur growth - labor participation rates, technological progression, education, infrastructure investments, urbanization, etc - increasing population is not one of them. It's actually the anathema to growth on a per capita basis.
Almost everyone here who has expressed a great concern about human overpopulation, has also said they themselves have children. So, yes, those saved from starvation will have more babies.
Well fed, healthy, educated people have few children. Starving, sickly, uneducated people have many children. Also, the more religious people are, the more children they have.
Has anyone a few practical solutions to offer? Shall we move this topic elsewhere?
Ross, the bias is against those who are childless because of overpopulation. Such choices are seen as self-righteous, just as veganism is. Those who have children feel angry at those who have chosen not to.
My point was to the personal bias in weighting the factors affecting the choice, not the judgement of others. I agree that social judgement bias exists too ( a form of attachment justifying one's choice), I don't know whether that judgement and anger is held by the majority? I certainly would never feel malice towards someone making that choice, whatever the reason. I think it's about time we start a new thread on overpopulation?
It may at first appear ironic and may at first appear to favor those who want to feed the hungry, that starving people are more fertile than people who are not food-deprived. It is just nature's way of making up for a higher death rate. Of course, there comes a death rate that even increased fertility can't keep up with, and if we can't get people to voluntarily stop having children, what's left but letting the situation get out of hand?