|
|
#21 | |
|
FFR Simfile Author
|
Quote:
It's pretty evident humans can't continue to reproduce forever. An apocalyptic event would be terrible way to go about fixing our problem temporarily, but I suppose if you scroll far enough into the future it's inevitable in some form. The earth contains a limited amount of resources, as does the universe. The human race will perish eventually, consequently, likely in a very short time period. We've already outgrown our capacity at least once when technology came along to save us, but I doubt that will keep happening. You can continue to produce more and more engineered food and space to fit more people on this planet but it will not be able to hold a growing population forever. Thankfully as countries develop their population growth levels off (see Europe). It's the developing countries that are responsible for the overpopulation, so population control might not even be necessary. An apocalyptic event is still unavoidable though, whether it's a good thing or bad thing, assuming you define it as widespread disaster that involves the death of nearly everyone/everyone.
__________________
Last edited by Reach; 02-28-2008 at 09:12 AM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#22 | |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
⁽ ´ཀ`⁾
|
As overpopulation is the main source of the problem, it's alot easier to control our reproductive nature than to have a large percentage of our population be wiped off. As reach pointed out, population in developed areas such as Europe and America are starting to level off. The cause of this in my opinion is that people are more educated, and more likely to succeed in life within these areas. This means that there is no incentive to create large families like they do in less developed countries. If we could educate the developing countries and improve life conditions there, population growth could be leveled off entirely and we can feasibly control our numbers.
This, in my very honest opinion, is alot better than wishing for an apocolypse. |
|
|
|
|
|
#24 | |
|
FFR Player
|
Quote:
Yes, it is a right to have children. It's not a privilege. It's part of your nature to have them. I do agree that some people are inapt to take care or raise them properly, and should not have children, but I still don't think you should stop them from doing so. I don't think there's anything we can do to stop or reverse the desecration process of our planet on the population aspect.
__________________
Truth lies in loneliness, When hope is long gone by -Blind Guardian, The Soulforged Image removed for size violation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#25 | ||
|
FFR Simfile Author
|
Quote:
Quote:
This is sort of off topic, but why shouldn't we stop them? We enforce laws and regulations for everything else, including adoption. Logically I think we should stop them if they are unfit, much like you stop a drunk driver, because you're potentially endangering the life of a child. I'm not saying enforcing what I conjured up earlier would actually work, since it would never pass, (well, maybe in china...) but that doesn't mean it's a bad thing, since some people practice this anyway if they have genetic disorders like Huntington's. It seems natural to screen for things like this, a long with standards of knowledge and requirements before you are allowed to have a child, but I don't think it will happen either way.
__________________
Last edited by Reach; 02-28-2008 at 03:19 PM.. |
||
|
|
|
|
|
#26 |
|
FFR Player
|
why would people want to even consider the human race committing itself to self extinction
|
|
|
|
|
|
#27 | |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#28 | |
|
FFR Player
|
Quote:
And this "reboot" like you said will happen, either because of humans or natural catastrophe. There already have been 5 massive extinctions on earth so we're not protected.
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#29 |
|
FFR Player
|
Exactly what I was going to say. Hydrogen engines, electric engines... all dissapeared. Most of the patents have been bought off by huge companies and lokced away until they expire.
__________________
Truth lies in loneliness, When hope is long gone by -Blind Guardian, The Soulforged Image removed for size violation. |
|
|
|
|
|
#30 |
|
FFR Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 913
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#31 | |
|
FFR Simfile Author
|
Quote:
Many parents destroy the lives of their children before they're even born with their stupidity: you see it all the time if you are involved in healthcare. This wasn't a problem at all some thousand of years ago, because these children did not go on to reproduce. I am amazingly grateful for Canada's Heathcare system, but at the same time recognize it often keeps alive people that would not have normally reproduced. This unnatural balance and disproportionate growth rate will be a factor in our demise, as it eats up resources faster and decreases the utility and genetic fruitfulness of the population. As a society, we go ahead and remove children from parents that are unfit, assuming the law gets involved. It is quite obvious then, that everyone agrees that some people should not be parents. You can save a whole lot of hassle by inoculating against this early on instead of patching it when problems arise. I do think it's important, if we plan to maximize the utility of our species and not go extinct within the next few centuries. I wouldn't put it on my priority list of things to do in the world right now though, if I had any say in the matter, and I don't think it'll ever happen anyway. Regardless of what I have to say, our government would never support it, and neither would the majority of the worlds governments. But whatever, these are the same people that aren't doing anything about climate change either. The problem will hit us in the face eventually, by the time it's too late to do anything about it.
__________________
Last edited by Reach; 02-28-2008 at 09:33 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#32 | |
|
Little Chief Hare
|
Quote:
*Meaning: Not of necessities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#33 | |
|
FFR Simfile Author
|
Quote:
I suppose by Genetic fruitfulness I mean the portion of the population that is born capable of being productive, leading to utility - or being of practical use in the work force. Disproportionately large numbers of incapable or not useful individuals is not a good thing. I'm not saying we are currently facing any of these problems, but that it's a possibility, as I'm playing the pessimist here. The problem I see with what you're saying about survival of the fittest is that...we won't survive >_> If the majority of the population is not productive and eating excessive resources, they are not adapted to the environment created for them. This is almost like taking a species and sticking it on another continent, where they typically cause a lot of problems. We depend on high technology and our ability to work hard and make progress.
__________________
Last edited by Reach; 02-29-2008 at 03:00 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#34 | ||
|
Little Chief Hare
|
Where are you expecting your problems of scarcity to come from?
Quote:
Quote:
All this, of course, contingent upon the population in question actually becoming that burdensome. It seems unlikely to me. Productivity is too likely to stay ahead of the curve. Of course, other taxing factors might lead to system failure, but then we're really talking about the totality of a given political economy and not just one factor, like the size of the population of disabled people. |
||
|
|
|
|
|
#35 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 144
|
Wow.
If humans did stop reproducing for ten years, imagine all of the negative impacts. Almost all elementary schools, daycares, Preschools, etc. would just crash. Plus, there would be many people who find this insane and rebel against it, causing lots of problems. This list could go on forever |
|
|
|
|
|
#36 |
|
Little Chief Hare
|
It could. What you've given me, however, is a very short list with complaints which don't actually seem valid or significant.
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|