European Tribune

Display:
Corn isn't an efficient bio-fuel.  It's being promoted because the agricultural establishment makes so much money off of it.  There are better alternatives in bio-fuel, but the choice of corn is about money only.  The farmers are as bad as the oil companies when it comes to greed.

The only solution to the over-arching problem of over-exploitation of resources is to reduce the human population, and there is no way any political, ethnic or religious group is going to volunteer for castration.  I don't see any way we are not totally, completely, absolutely screwed.

PS: I'm a vegetarian.

¤¤¤ It is good to live in a time of great depravity, for one may earn a reputation for virtue at little cost. ~ Montaigne ¤¤¤

by Andhakari (andhakari at yahoo dot com) on Wed Nov 14th, 2007 at 03:14:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The only solution to the over-arching problem of over-exploitation of resources is to reduce the human population, and there is no way any political, ethnic or religious group is going to volunteer for castration.

and the people who would decide not to breed are those whose values we would probably want to pass onto the next generation.

(says man with pile of furry child substitutes)

Life should consist in at least fifty percent pure waste of time, and the rest doing what you please.

by ceebs (bunchofwankers (at) gmail (dot) com) on Wed Nov 14th, 2007 at 03:33:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And when your furry child substitutes turn 14 you will preparing yourself for their passing, with grief.
And when your children turn 14, they will wishing you were dead, and you'll be wondering why you didn't just get some furry child substitutes.

¤¤¤ It is good to live in a time of great depravity, for one may earn a reputation for virtue at little cost. ~ Montaigne ¤¤¤
by Andhakari (andhakari at yahoo dot com) on Wed Nov 14th, 2007 at 04:17:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And when your children turn 14

they may be in the time of "granny's death"; whether granny's demise be imminent, imagined, or already happened.  The generation gap, the generational angst is certainly not, I think, a given.  It is a product--heh!  Disagree!--of cognitive dissonance (created by parents and society in contradistinction.)

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Wed Nov 14th, 2007 at 08:27:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The current civilization is not the way to live on Earth with 10 or 20 billion people. But there might be a comfortable way... only we would learn it in a hard way.

If the civilization goes downhill, we may be crudely reminded of some ancient selection pressures. Say, how would people go out without modern dentistry? That booming business consumes a lot of energy, and needs a lot of special chemistry. Depending on the degree of decline, we would have to do without anesthetics, or with slower drills, or with no drills at all. Ouch!

Other turmoil could be caused by lesser availability of optics for ever more near-sighted population.

by das monde on Thu Nov 15th, 2007 at 06:21:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The only solution to the over-arching problem of over-exploitation of resources is to reduce the human population, and there is no way any political, ethnic or religious group is going to volunteer for castration.

There is another solution: increase the natural resources available.  Meaning, get serious about space exploration, increase funding for Materials Science research, and increase funding for other scientific and technological research.  

Population Control is a non-starter.  Too many people with rocks in their heads and axes to grind, e.g., Benny-with-the-Beanie-on-Top in Rome, eliminate the potential for rational discussion.

Either we get off the dime or we can expect the next 100 years to get gruesome.


A doo run-run-run, a doo run-run

by ATinNM on Wed Nov 14th, 2007 at 07:31:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think we have to accept a world population approaching 14 billion--or catastrophies or ameliorations, but no more than 14 bilion--that's everyone alive making a copy of his or her self, while he or she stay alive.  So we have reproduction and no death!  Okay!  But that's the end of it.  We start dying, and two plus two (minus the original two) equals two, so the population settles...

I think (I humbly think) that renewable resource policies should (and I think they do) understand the basic dynamic:

We are many and we reproduce
We can find an upper limit
We can reproduce effectively

Strange times!  No humans have them this with the tools we have.

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Wed Nov 14th, 2007 at 08:16:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The more I think about it the more a one-child-per-woman policy seems necessary. I'm trying to work out the ethical, social and legal implications. It might make for good background for a science-fiction story. For instance: under such a policy rape becomes the ultimate crime, punishable by castration.

What? Not a liberal paradise? And who thinks the world in the next 100 years is going to be a liberal paradise if we allow population to keep growing at its current pace, and add a helping of resource wars, famine due to crop failure, and natural disasters?

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Nov 15th, 2007 at 05:19:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So what's wrong with a one-child-per-man policy?
by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Thu Nov 15th, 2007 at 05:25:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Harder to pin down.

Note: when I say one child per woman it has serious implications for me personally, as "my" child is not biologically mine. Over to you.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Nov 15th, 2007 at 05:28:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well look, if we're going to go to all the trouble of running around checking on the fertility status of all the ladies, performing (one assumes) mandatory sterilizations and/or administration of birth control, or at least fining and/or imprisoning female offenders, what's wrong with a little DNA bank and screening system to determine which men should be rounded up and sent off to the repeat-procreator prison camps?

Don't get me wrong, I'm an avid proponent of zero population growth, and I do not intend to have children myself.  I think people should be encouraged to have smaller families, but I don't think we can or should be in the business of enforcing it, especially not in a gender-discriminatory manner.

Hey, though... if we used a carbon-credits approach, maybe I can sell off my "childbearing right" to a woman who wants to have a second one, for the right price....

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Thu Nov 15th, 2007 at 05:38:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
This is shaping up to be a really fun science-fiction novel.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Nov 15th, 2007 at 05:41:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, we shouldn't want to be in the business of managing folks' families, but the reality is that as population increases the regulation, explicit and implied of ALL of our activities becomes increasingly certain.  But I don't believe that society will regulate family size until it's too late to preserve what we recognize as civilization.  China managed it, and that's about the only worthwhile thing that government's managed to do.  Maybe it could be argued that they did it too late to help.
Catholicism and Islam and all the other militaristic religions are committed to making more babies to fill the armies to do god's dirty work.  As population increases, individual worth declines.  Self-reliance declines.  Median relative income declines.  Exploitable resources decline.  But organizational power increases.  Government power increases.  And the wealth of the very rich increases, too.
No politician is going to stick his neck out for population controls.  Even sympathetic listeners have your `moral' qualms about regulating family size.  And where the hell did we get the idea that big families aren't the concern of society.  Society promoted big families to provide cannon fodder for ages, but some nations are getting past that now.  It may be time to recognize that a big family is more than a little selfish.

¤¤¤ It is good to live in a time of great depravity, for one may earn a reputation for virtue at little cost. ~ Montaigne ¤¤¤
by Andhakari (andhakari at yahoo dot com) on Thu Nov 15th, 2007 at 06:23:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
China still has a fertility rate of 1.73 and a growth rate of 0.6%. So it hasn't succeeded in enforcing one child per family (the resulting fertility rate would have to be at most 1) nor in estabilizing its population.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Nov 15th, 2007 at 06:41:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Nov 15th, 2007 at 06:41:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Actually, I wasn't concerned with meeting an arbitrary ratio goal.  One child per couple is fine, but I was thinking more of long term, non-precipitous general population decline.  As long as the fertility rate is less than 2.0, population control is achievable in the long run.
I don't know if that's good enough in the short term.  Someone mentioned sustaining 14 billion as doable.  No thanks.  I'd like us (the world) to think about what the IDEAL human population on the planet might be and come up with a plan to achieve that over many years, with sensitive frequent re-evaluation, and respect for all cultures, races, nationalities, etc.  Nobody needs to get screwed.
But that's not going to happen.  The pope wants more catholic souls, the Muslims want more Islamic soldiers, etc etc.  Everyone will push for more than can be sustained.  Everyone will be looking for the exception to the rule (as in China).  And eventually (tomorrow, next year, next decade -- but not too long now) something's going to crack and world's guts are going to spill out.
And all our moralizing about abortion and compulsory family planning -- and maybe even global warming -- is going seem like a bad joke from the good ol' days.
I live in an under-populated country at the edge of the world, and you couldn't drag me back into thick of humanity with a whale harpoon -- present company excepted, of course.


¤¤¤ It is good to live in a time of great depravity, for one may earn a reputation for virtue at little cost. ~ Montaigne ¤¤¤
by Andhakari (andhakari at yahoo dot com) on Thu Nov 15th, 2007 at 08:10:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Isn't the replacement rate 2.1?

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Thu Nov 15th, 2007 at 08:14:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, but mortality is still lower than birth rate and the one-child policy has only been in place for about 30 years.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Nov 15th, 2007 at 04:19:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Nobody is arguing that it isn't serious business.  My original point, however, was about the idea of restricting the number of children a woman could bear without also restricting the number of children a man could father.

China managed it

China "managed" it thanks to a policy that, in part, involved forced abortions.  No, thanks, I'd rather not take the Chinese path.

Look, if we aren't talking about dragging people off to prison camps and forced-sterilization centers (which I hope we're not) then we're talking about a system of fines or other (probably financial) disincentives for people to have children.  In which case we develop a two-tiered system in which the rich can afford to pay the consequences and do as they please, while the poor would be the ones really restricted.  "Fine," I can hear some people saying, "the poor are the ones who shouldn't be breeding so much anyway."  And that sort of eugenics argument is really chilling.  Extend it out to brown people, those who practice a certain religion, etc.... Sorry, I can't envision a way in which enforcing such restrictions wouldn't be a nightmare.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Thu Nov 15th, 2007 at 06:54:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Alternatively we can all have as many children as we can muster in the hopes of increasing the odds that one of them will survive WWIII.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Nov 15th, 2007 at 07:01:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The odds of getting this to work in a way which would be even marginally acceptable morally are much, much lower than persuading the governments and people of the world to work together to build a sensible and sustainable economy in which fertility rates would drop below replacement pretty naturally.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Nov 15th, 2007 at 07:05:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Not that the odds of persuading the governments and people of the world to work together to build a sensible and sustainable economy are particularly high.

It comes down to this - either you enforce birth control, humanely if at all possible, or a lot of people die of starvation and war.

I suppose it sorts itself one way or another, but humans at this stage are pretty much one big roiling ball of stupid, and expecting sensible behaviour doesn't seem very realistic.

Or rather - if all the sensible people got together and decided to stage simultaneous coups in many countries, resulting in some kind of decentralised but unified world government, and they really were sensible enough not to allow that to turn into the usual bloodbath that follows coups, and civil wars didn't break out everywhere, then some kind of sustainable planning might be possible.

But otherwise - where is the leadership going to come from? Western governments are rotten through with an infestation of free market and security-state drones. Eastern governments suffer from the same problems, with an added dose of violent authoritarianism.

We can have our intelligent conversations here, but we have to remember that most of the population doesn't agree with us, even in the West, and the leaders believe we're entertaining idiots - to the extent that they take environmentalism seriously at all, sui generis, without seeing it as an exercise in marketista droning.

Aside from a few windmills here and there, and some tentative edging into other sustainables, not only is no one doing the right thing, but our beloved leaders are aggressively doing exactly the wrong thing, combining a 19th century resource war with a 12th century crusade.

Turning this around is not going to be easy.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Thu Nov 15th, 2007 at 06:55:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Sorry.  That's an interesting point (question?).  I have no idea how one achieves that or if anyone anywhere has tried.  I suppose you could certify fatherhood and give the culprit a vasectomy...
It doesn't sound unreasonable to me, but I think the unwashed masses will be more accepting of the 'heir and a spare' goal: a maximum fertility rate of 2.0, with reductions from infertility, childless couples by choice, early death, etc.


¤¤¤ It is good to live in a time of great depravity, for one may earn a reputation for virtue at little cost. ~ Montaigne ¤¤¤
by Andhakari (andhakari at yahoo dot com) on Thu Nov 15th, 2007 at 08:22:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Hey, though... if we used a carbon-credits approach, maybe I can sell off my "childbearing right" to a woman who wants to have a second one, for the right price....

I don't know as you could even begin to justify it moraly, but there might be good money in those "Right to life" people who find themselves pregnant.

Life should consist in at least fifty percent pure waste of time, and the rest doing what you please.

by ceebs (bunchofwankers (at) gmail (dot) com) on Thu Nov 15th, 2007 at 07:32:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I seem to remember that theres figures from DNA studies stating that a significantly larger percentage than were expected proved to be unknowingly of different paternity than was claimed. somewhere in excess of 10%

Life should consist in at least fifty percent pure waste of time, and the rest doing what you please.
by ceebs (bunchofwankers (at) gmail (dot) com) on Thu Nov 15th, 2007 at 07:37:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Why is rape the ultimate crime? And why is castration the ultimate punishment? Surely neglecting to abort an unsanctioned pregnancy is the ultimate crime, regardless of how the pregnancy started?
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Nov 15th, 2007 at 06:42:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Because rape forces someone else to give up their quota involuntarily for your sake. And the threat of castration is the only thing I can think of as enough of a deterrent.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Nov 15th, 2007 at 06:44:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No it doesn't: abortion fixes that. It may force someone to undergo a medical procedure but that's no worse than any other serious assault (WITHIN THE FRAME WE'RE DISCUSSING).
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Nov 15th, 2007 at 06:47:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Recommended Diaries
On Rhetoric
by rg - Dec 3
82 comments

Bugger Thy Neighbour
by redstar - Dec 3
264 comments

Not quite the 'perfect fix'?
by djhabakkuk - Dec 3
4 comments

After Democracy
by marco - Dec 3
44 comments

Dancing in the Streets
by rdf - Dec 4

Me and my son, a Shministim
by shergald - Dec 4
3 comments

Georgia on my mind...[Updated]
by Frank Schnittger - Dec 3
22 comments

Early Friday Photography Blog No. 64
by LEP - Dec 4
6 comments

Debates
Campaigns
Occasional Series