No because we've never really had that, or at least not since prehistoric times. Because the people who have had the best chance to survive aren't the fittest, it's those with money or power.
Just heard a crazy population stat...
- Thread starter clonehenge
- Start date
again, setting aside ethics or morality, sending food and medicine to africa isn't countering a macro-level survival of the fittest? massive population on a continent with poor agriculture doesn't seem like a good decision.
I think one party is considering it. Cull parts of the population by increasing the number of wars and decreasing foreign and domestic aid.
On a non-political stance. Modern medicine is the main culprit in the population explosion. Large plagues are typically a thing the past thanks to vaccinations and the life expectancy has doubled over the last ~200 years.
Last edited:
Simple math I learned in high school. The rich get richer, the poor have kids.
No because it wasn't survival of the fittest before that. Let's use Europe before the modern era as an example. You're a genitically fit peasant, I'm an inbred genetically unfit crown prince. Which one of us has a better chance of survival? Hint: it's not you. A different example: it's the gilded age and you're a worker in a meat packing plant. I'm less fit than you, but I'm the son of an oil baron. Which one of us will have more success? I will. Human society (even excluding morality) doesn't operate on a Darwinian model
i understand that, i'm using the phrase on a macro-population level, not an actual "your body in is good shape" level. take for examples building cities i a flood plain. we waste money rebuilding them. just stop building in a flood plain! our decisions are allowing people to make stupid decisions. if a continent can't grow food maybe we shouldn't huge cities there. let's look at phoenix as another example. it wasn't until AC was invented that their population took off. that' fine. but if/when the water table goes down and they're left without water why should we bail them out? wouldn't that teach people it's okay to build gigantic cities in the middle of an area that's not meant for habitation?
I think I'm gonna use this to explain to my wife why we can't have anymore.
Eh, helping modernize those countries is probably the best thing we can do to slow population growth.
CycloneErik
Well-Known Member
You're either naively or intentionally heading into some dark, dark places with this line of thought.
First, i disagree that Africa is incapable of growing enough food. Second, If we're going to look at it on the macro level, Africa's not the problem. We are, because we're the ones using all the resources. If we're just looking at the math, it's probably better for every American to die than everyone in Africa.
CycloneErik
Well-Known Member
But they're continent is so black and undeveloped and black.......
Dude is practically quoting every European social commentator from the 19th and early 20th centuries, and especially the ones proposing colonization.
Not as dark as the ones, like some German examples, who proposed depopulating Africa entirely and starting over with white blood to make the place work, but well on the way there.
I used it as an example because ee all understand it. I also used phoenix as an example.
"If something cannot go on forever, it will stop" - Herbert Stein, economist (and father of Ben, for your fact of the day)
The population WILL eventually stop growing. The issue is HOW, and the general quality of life for those at the margin.
Eventually what will happen is one of the following:
1) The population will gradually level off and we will find clever ways to use our scarce resources to take care of everyone well enough.
2) Plague
3) War
4) Famine
5) Colonization of other worlds
Place your bets. I've got $2 on the 2-3-1 trifecta.
The population WILL eventually stop growing. The issue is HOW, and the general quality of life for those at the margin.
Eventually what will happen is one of the following:
1) The population will gradually level off and we will find clever ways to use our scarce resources to take care of everyone well enough.
2) Plague
3) War
4) Famine
5) Colonization of other worlds
Place your bets. I've got $2 on the 2-3-1 trifecta.
Population is one of the places the US isn't really a problem. If not for immigration we would be shrinking as are a lot of countries. I think Japan, China, Russia, and Germany are all trending down or are projected to start trending down which could make for some big global power changes. I've seen some people who think China is in big trouble because they don't have immigration and have an out of balance male to female ratio. Once they start shrinking it could take a long time to stabilize. Modernization and education of third world countries is, I think, the biggest opportunity to control population. It turns out people who have options in life tend to not have as many kids.
I would agree with this. My point was that we use so many resources that we do much more damage than a much larger population who uses less resources
I'll be dead and gone before it totally goes to **** but you younger guys are ******. 
Humans aren't wired to prevent bad ****, they can just react to it after it happens and it will be too late.
Humans aren't wired to prevent bad ****, they can just react to it after it happens and it will be too late.
So world population is growing a little over 1.5% annually over 45 years. Not too suprising with better healthcare, food production, no major wars, etc.
I wouldn't be too concerned about the human race, we'll either kill millions of people in the War to end all Wars or live WITH Kevin Costner in Waterworld. Afterall, isn't something like 75% of the earth ocean and growing with global ice melting.
I wouldn't be too concerned about the human race, we'll either kill millions of people in the War to end all Wars or live WITH Kevin Costner in Waterworld. Afterall, isn't something like 75% of the earth ocean and growing with global ice melting.
I can tell just by driving on I-80. When I was a kid back in the olden days you literally maybe passed or got passed on I-80 every 3 or 4 minutes. Now is freaking bumper to bumper.
We hardly went anywhere more than 20 or 30 miles away. A trip to Davenport or Cedar Rapids (about an hour and 15 minutes each) was kind of a big deal.
Like my Dad used to say whenever he got caught in a traffic snarl, "Why don't some of these people just STAY HOME!"
We hardly went anywhere more than 20 or 30 miles away. A trip to Davenport or Cedar Rapids (about an hour and 15 minutes each) was kind of a big deal.
Like my Dad used to say whenever he got caught in a traffic snarl, "Why don't some of these people just STAY HOME!"
If I woke up tomorrow and 4 billion people had died of a pandemic, I wouldn't shed a tear or alternatively I would be dead and would have no opinion on the matter.