US Space program future?

Dark,

Calling Richard Dawkin's work a "navel gazing book" is a glaring misnomer. He's arguably one of the formost ethologists and evolutionary biologist of our time. I suppose if you have a beef with his work, that'll have be bewteen you two. Your mention that it makes us more destructive than other species when I pointed out that other species are prone to wasteful behavior as well makes me think you're not reading all I've posted. Again, I think you're mistaking our culture with our speices. Two distinct things. As for the NTY article, if proves Richard Dawkin's point. What you're seeing in that event is the letter of the law (of limited competition). What you failed to mention was human encroachment as a leading factor in the chimps motives for seeking new territory. I go on to say that I never mentioned that pre-agricultural tribes were complete angels. Only that they had in place a culture that was sustainable for the continuation of our species. Tribalism works well for human beings as a whole. Any anthropologist who studies these societies would echo this.

The meme that human beings are inherently evil or seperate from the rest of the natural world is absured. There is no evidence that I've seen, read or heard about that would place humans in this light.

Are you serious? Dawkins is a Evolutionary BIOLOGIST first and uses that for any thing else that he may argue for. He has shown himself to be quite... what's the word... not quite as studied in other areas that he argues in. I have no problem listening and seeing what he says, but his opinion on those matters are equal or less qualified than a lot of other people.

Also I know for a fact that the origin of your statements do not come from Dawkins and even if they were you're parroting something that is known to be wrong.

You've mentioned that it's wrong without any evidence of such as of yet. Prove me wrong sir, I beg.

You need to be prevented from entering any position even close to having anything to say about public policy.

Edit: This says it all.

Wasteful behavior is a bit of an underplay, especially when one considers the possibility of human role in the extinction of the megafauna. Wasteful is not using every part of the animal to some purpose. Driving entire herds off cliffs is just a touch more than "wasteful".

It directly contradicts your previous assertation of not purposely seeking out rival tribes to eliminate them in the gain for resources. When that is exactly what those chimps did. The ones listed in that article were in a park, namely a place where human encroachment is not reducing or eliminating their food supply.

Tribalism is the exact opposite of something that works well for engendering your law of limited competition. It's evident in everything from nations down to high school cliques.

We do what we need to do to survive. Inside each and every one of us are the genes of murderers and thieves. By our definition, "evil". By the definition of those ancestors, "what it took to survive".

We have taken ourselves out of the chain of the natural world. We are no longer truly subject to natural evolutionary forces. Look at how many people are alive that wouldn't otherwise be (myself included). We keep deleterious genes in play (cancer-prone, those with poor eyesight, etc) that end up making for a weaker species. We counter the natural forces that would otherwise remove those genes. We are no longer natural creatures beholden to natural forces.

To add to this there are plants that produce their own selective herbicides to cut down on competition in their area for resources. The question of whether it is morally good to limit population by controlling births is going to be a big one in the coming decades possibly century. Looking at the bigger picture it may become neccessary for the well being of future generations to limit the population. The way I would suggest doing that follows.

The law itself is simple all births must be licensed and are limited to no more than two per person, fathered or mothered, with stricter requirements for the second license. The first license would cost a small proccessing fee and require proof of ability to care for the child, which I'll leave undertermined so that it doesnt cause a further and worse derailment of the thread. The second license would be much stricter and take into account the physical and mental health/ability and genetic history of the parents as well as the normal requirements.

Willful violation of the law if proven would be punished by a fine of $2000, sterilization of both parents, the man immediately and the woman after she has given birth as well as the removal of the child into the care of the state and placement into a home of someone who is unable to have children but has a license or into the home of someone who has already reached the limit but is willing to care for more. Unintentional violation of the law would be punished by sterilization of the parents, the man immediately and the woman after she has given birth. If they can qualify for the license and pay a fine of $500 they are allowed to keep and raise the child. If the child is a third child for both parents or if they cannot qualify for a license and pay the fine the child shall be removed into the care of the state and placed accordingly. If the violator(s) are not of age then their parents are fined $1000 and in order to avoid sterilization the underage violator(s) must attend a parenting class at their own or their parents expense with a maximum of three unexcused absences allowed. Any sterilization that occurs is billed to the violator(s) if they are unable to pay 5% of their pay would be garnished until the debt is payed.

The law can be temporarily revoked if there is a population decline.

Calling me a troll does little to further this conversation. If you care to add something, please do so.

I don't agree this. We don't need more laws or prohibitions and even of this was inacted, I find it doubtful that it would be effective in limiting the population.

I completely disagree. That tribes still exist today is mostly due to a policy of non-intervention by the governments of the nations they reside in. You say that current technology allows us to leave undesirable genes in the gene pool but your not taking into account the fact that as a species we are still evolving. Look at the traits still appreciated by our culture today. The ideal person has intellegence while still being athletic. Yes we also have an overabundance of obesity. Give it time. Our technology both industrial and agricultural has just advanced faster than society has. We will catch up.

Agreed though I might add that I fear that there are people in public office at all levels of government that are ideologically similar.

I didn't call you a troll. A troll is someone who provokes arguments by advocating controversial points of view he doesn't personally believe in. I'm sure you actually believe what you're posting, which is the problem. The page title comes from Buffy and has nothing to do with the Internet connotation of the word "troll".

There is nothing to add because your argument takes a flying leap off the Cliffs of Insanity. Your argument makes less sense than creationism or Holocaust denial. You've pole-vaulted past "wrong" and barreled right into "unintentional parody". As the linked page says, "It's the kind of logic that just can't be argued with, not because it's right, but because the insane troll is so demented, so lost in his own insanity that any attempts to correct him will be met with more gibberish." I'm sure that it will do no good, for instance, to point out that the nations that have the highest agricultural production (industrialized nations) also have the lowest birth rates, most of them below the 2.3 births/couple required for zero population growth. You've gone so far from the path of reason that you can't even see the street lights any more.

It would be effective if it had absolute enforcement. Of course to limit home births and such there would have to be an authoritarian government as powerful as the one that existed in Orwell's 1984. But it seems like the people of Western Europe and now the United States are increasingly okay with handing over their freedoms to increasily authoritarian governments in exchange for the perception of security and safety. I'd rather it not go this route though. I'd rather that society across the earth change its view to seeing that 1-2 child households are acceptable, 3 child homes being occasionally acceptable, and anything more than that is irresponsible likening those who choose to have too many children to what we view as trailer trash nowadays.

For the love of god or whatever you believe in stop linking to TV Tropes. My curiosity is beginning to overide my willpower.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Edit: Please don't lose any sleep about my aspiraitons for public office. There aren't any. Why you'd be so fearful of such confuses me. I never said I wanted to see people starve.


Venture,

If you would've read prior to posting you would've seen that we've been over Industrialized birth rates ad nausem and it's been shown that the 1st worlds birth rate decline DOES NOT cancel out the robust 3rd world birth rate increase. The net result is an increase in the global population, not a decrease. This was my point the entire time. Please read through the posts before you start your crusade.

Us vs Them mentality (ie tribalism) is only good when moderated. When it is the dominant force it is only a force of destruction. Just about everything that you think is bad with this world or was bad was and is the result of tribalism. (like the holocaust and other genocides) Everything good is pretty much people over coming tribalism. (like the ending of slavery in parts of the world and the 1st amendment)

Oh yeah that was part of the second time i tried to respond to you. If what you said was accurate America would have the largest population on Earth, Europe would have like no population. That's sorta the problem and one of the reasons that the model you are talking about is completely idiotic. We've shown the model doesn't work by the fact that the two extremes are in a stable state of population growth while the middle doesn't. We can also show that the two biggest population growth places have completely opposite extremes as to the ability to produce food. Africa has lots of arable land, but not the technology or infrastructure to get it to everyone and China has nearly no arable land Yet both of these areas have population growth problems.

This shows that the model you propose doesn't just have a flaw in it or is better explained with a different model... the model you propose is COMPLETELY 100% wrong

So the cure would be to make every country into first world countries. Chances are that the world would be too messed up by then, if it isn't already too late.

Keep digging.

I saw this movie. It was called "Fortress", and it managed to be terrible (and not really the entertaining kind of terrible, either) despite the presence of Jeffrey Combs, Kurtwood Smith, and Christopher Lambert in the lead role.

Food production in one area is not causative of a population growth in another area. Especially when said food production is on an entirely different continent from the population growth and when there is an extremely limited infrastructure to distribute said food to said populace. You're ignoring the fact that the population growth in the food production place is completely opposite of your stated position.

If they aren't getting the food from the 1st world in the 3rd world, how is it population rates there continue to grow generation after generation? The fact of the matter is that we do ship our surplus food over seas. Does it all get parceled out in an egalitarian manner. I doubt it as well. None the less, it's artificially propping up a human population that couldn't be sustained there otherwise. So when a famine does take place in said 3rd world region (it's happening right now in Ethopia...surprise) the people there get hit hard. These aren't the rantings of some crank. This is how it works. My belief is we need to try another, less futile way that prevents this kind of prolonged suffering.

No, that was Lambert's evil twin, Kristof Lambear.