Syzygys: Looks like you dropped the ball, George St. Pierre. No illness is going to spread over so many generations as to severely destroy mankind. And has killed only about one thousand people in the worse area of the world. Chances are an ebola outbreak on a large scale would drop its mortality rate to 10 percent at worse, and more like 2 percent in the first world. As Roman pointed out, natural selection selects for less virulent diseases. The more it kills quick, the worse it is for it. It didn't happen. It shows you how good MAD is to stop crap, as is human knowledge of not doing bullshit that will end the world unnecessarily. Cooler heads -do- prevail. There is too much at stake.
By the time I'm dead, I hope there are billions upon billions of more human beings, a colonized moon, a colonized Mars, and projects to colonize the rest of the solar system, if not the galaxy. Humanity should grow exponentially. The more the merrier.
We are clearly not in the same league when it goes to debates, but let's educate you: It DOES grow exponentially. Now I am curious, why do you think it SHOULD? It was good back in the old times when mortality rate was high, but when survival rate increased, fertility rates should go down....
One generation can be sufficient. Again, I never said it would whipe out humankind,but could help with the overpopulation problem. Let's start with a history lesson: "The 1918 flu pandemic was a category 5 influenza pandemic between 1918 and 1920 caused by an unusually severe and deadly Influenza A virus strain of subtype H1N1. By far the most destructive pandemic in history, it killed some 50 million to 100 million people worldwide in just 18 months," Now this was back when there was no airtransportation, people spreading all over the world in a few hours. Since people today are not immune to the very same virus, it is safe to say today's casualties would be ten times more, easily. That is 1 billion people lost to a simple FLU.... Let's make an outbreak in a big metropolitan area and see how far it goes... Or not. Since this thread is not about Ebola, I will pass on this, although I am happy to discuss a possible Ebola outbreak scenario. Lucky for us. It COULD HAVE happened. You probably haven't heard of the Russian guy who saved the world by overriding the system and not retaliating against a computerglitch. Your ignorance is showing. There were quite a few accidents, when humankind got lucky, not to mention the political hottimes, when we almost had a full blown nuclear war...
Syzygys: The more human beings, the most we are assured of survival. The more human beings, the more great ones. The more human beings, the more great things in this universe. Man is the meaning of his existence. There is no point in there being a universe without him. Accordingly, he must master it. And the first step? Start populating it.
Syzygys: You fail to remember: 1. Most people didn't have electricity. 2. Most people didn't have indoor plumbing. 3. Most people did not have clean water. 4. Most people had no access to medical care worth a damn. 5. There were no modern hospitals and care. 6. The population had just been devestated by one of the most deadly wars in human history. It isn't apparently that contagious, as again, only a thousand people... Not only could it be contained, it would be relatively easy to do so. The panic would be worse, as ebola is known to be a horrible disease. I actually have. I'm glad he did so, like any rational being would. Double check before causing the apocalypse. MAD protected us int he bay of pigs, good sir. That is why the Russians pulled out as Kennedy had his hand on the button. There was no luck, only human rationality.
Here is a list of pandemics in history, where 10-25% mortality rate occured. Sure, today we have better healthcare and everything you listed, but that is counterbalanced with the possibility of faster spread and the aviability of more hosts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandemic
There was rationality, for sure, but not on Kennedy's behalf. It was Chruschov who saved the world after the Americans QUIETLY agreed to his rational demands.
Hey, here is a philoso-mathematical argument against more people: Since it is safe to say that there will be another world war or pandemic in the future, the more people we have, the more will die.... Argue against that! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Syzygys: Even the third world is significantly better off today. But you are correct that we are more connected, which can cause a greater strain. But whether or not the pandemic could hurt us because of this is really less of an issue than local care quality. THe worse place to be in the case of a pandemic is where the modern world really is not too existent. Central Asia or sub-Saharan Africa are good examples. Aka: Kennedy screwed up majorly. But yes. A lot of deaths doesn't much bother me if the war is worth it.
I find this sentence very interesting, although not surprising from you. So what if the whole goal of the war is just to decrease population? Is that a worthy goal?
Want to colonize Mars? Whatever for? We haven't finished colonizing the earth yet. I read in some book, in some chapter On Fertility Control, 3 reasons why they say that humans are so prone to go on reproducing. In many parts of the world, they don't understand the physiology of sex, and so family size is still thought to be "uncontrollable." Yeah, right, like who doesn't know what makes babies? No, it's more like I read in some conservative newsletter, of people who won't use condoms (to supposedly prevent AIDS), because they actually want children and want to get pregnant. They say of the poor, that children are their only wealth, and the rich have so many excuses not to have children, maybe that's why God gives so many of the children to the poor? Another reason is some vestigal pride in big populations or large families. Tradition or natural pronatalism or something, we could probably call it. Apparently, most people still haven't got the message that the world is "full up," especially since it isn't even true. And then the third reason, I thought a bit amusing, being almost what I had suggested. Late motivation is a factor, as many people don't do anything to not have children, until they have a "multiparity" of children, and by then their sexual behavior has become routinized. Yeah, they are so used to enjoying sex naturally, why stop now, now that they have a house full of kids? I had previous suggested that many large families aren't exactly "planned," but rather many parents find that they have had their 4th child already, and haven't got around to choosing a "satisfactory" means of "birth control." Often, if they love children, why bother to contracept at all, as more children really wouldn't be that much a "problem" or "bother" anyway, should they come along? Also, I notice that the more populated we get, the better we get at supporting large populations. Human population growth, especially under good leaders, naturally tends towards technology acceleration, which in turn, helps accomodate all the more human population. That's a vicious circle in the morally positive sense, all the more reason not to oppose basic human rights, and not even bother to try to "limit" our numbers, which we aren't so sure we can practically do anyway. What if a baby in the womb was to "panic," and refuse to grow further, when the womb began to get "crowded?" What if women didn't switch to maternity clothes and let their bellies bulge naturally, when pregnant? No, it's necessary to put on that extra weight and bulge, if ever humans might, which I doubt anyway, spread to more worlds. We aren't even near ready for such a global "birth."
I am offering $5 for anyone who actually reads Pronatalist's post and an additional $5 if you can summarize it in 3 not too long sentences. In the maintime, another stats: Number of undernourished people (million) in 2001-2003, according to the FAO, the following countries had 5 million or more undernourished people [2]:Country Number of Undernourished (million) India 198.0 China 150.0 Bangladesh 43.1 Democratic Republic of Congo 37.0 Pakistan 35.2 Ethiopia 31.5 Tanzania 16.1 Philippines 15.2 Brazil 14.4 Indonesia 13.8 Vietnam 13.8 Thailand 13.4 Nigeria 11.5 Kenya 9.7 Sudan 8.8 Mozambique 8.3 North Korea 7.9 Yemen 7.1 Madagascar 6.5 Colombia 5.9 Zimbabwe 5.7 Mexico 5.1 Zambia 5.1 Angola 5.0
OK I posted a pic with lots of people and water, so let's try the opposite of it: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I think we could put up a suburb there...
I'm sure those people like being that crowded at the swimming pool, and freely choose it over a less crowded one. Lets take the wayback machine to the old thread. Posted by Fukushi. I'm just giddy in anticipation for when it is like that here as well! I can hardly wait.
Are we supposed to figure out this magic "cure" for the 3rd world? They gotta come up with the lion's share of the solution themselves. We can help, but they must be able to come up with the solution themselves. Any solution we have is external and will be viewed as such, wrong, even if it right.
