Thread: Overpopulation....a threat or a myth?

It is the education of women that leads to a fall in Birth rate. It is counter productive in the long run though, if you look at where say japan is to where kenya is (for example) kenyas population could go on like that indefinatly, and has done in fact - Japan will simply die out.

It does not defy logic at all. In countries where the chances some of your children will die - you have a couple more to compensate - and then you have a couple more because your fella wants to show how fertile he is. In the 'developed' (ha) world, you know the chances are your child will survive, and you also know in order to survive you've got to make a living - so you have fewer kids and later. Nothing in that defys logic.

eugenics doesn't work because men are not meant to run that system. People are arrogant and people do not fully understand the implications of their actions, how humane you are has nothing to do with it and I never suggested it did. What we have at the moment, however, is probably just as absurd as Eugenics. People live too long and don't reproduce - that sounds like a dead end street to no where to me.

just to qualify all this a bit, I'm not just making it up as I go along, I have actually studied some of this stuff lol.

Originally Posted by gregs656

It is the education of women that leads to a fall in Birth rate. It is counter productive in the long run though, ...

I know that women's literacy is certainly a factor in declining birth rates, but I thought that it was simply one factor among many. When you say that "It is counter productive", I assume you mean the lower birth rate, not the education of women. Though I don't see a negative birth rate as a bad thing at the present, I may change my mind in a few centuries when the total world population drops below a billion or so. Check with me them

It does not defy logic at all. .... Nothing in that defys logic.

I suppose my sarcasm wasn't so obvious. Sorry about that.

eugenics doesn't work because men are not meant to run that system. People are arrogant and people do not fully understand the implications of their actions, how humane you are has nothing to do with it and I never suggested it did. What we have at the moment, however, is probably just as absurd as Eugenics. People live too long and don't reproduce - that sounds like a dead end street to no where to me.

just to qualify all this a bit, I'm not just making it up as I go along, I have actually studied some of this stuff lol.

Again, I will say this; Eugenics is pseudo science.

To say that men are not meant to run that "system" is like saying that men shouldn't practice astrology because it goes against nature to know the future. Astrology and eugenics are both bull $#!+. Neither one has a shred of scientific merit behind it. Astrology can't predict the future, and eugenics can do nothing to improve the human species. Eugenics is based on a misunderstanding of Darwin's theory of natural selection. It was proposed by non-scientist bigots and embraced by those who found it useful to further their own racist and political ends. Those who feel that it's truth is self evident clearly don't understand evolution.

Eugenics is not science, it is not supported by any scientific research. It has never been verified experimentally. It is nothing but an excuse to persecute, sterilyze, and murder people who are different. It has never been anything but that.

I'm sorry, but I get a bit wound up over this issue because I'm noticing an alarming trend among some atheists and libertarians to embrace eugenics as if it were a the natural extrapolation of evoloution. It's a dangerous trend. Sorry if I come across as combative. I can't stomach the misuse of science to promote bull $#!+.

Whether it is or isn't a science (and I agree with you) does not come into it for me, even if it was a science we would still mess it up.

Well, it seems neither of us are going on a crack pot 'kill the weak' spree, and that is probably the most important thing.

It's funny how discussions get further and further away from the point and get more and more focused, interesting though, keeps the clock ticking.

Originally Posted by joesixpack

Again, I will say this; Eugenics is pseudo science.

I'd say that Eugenics is a potentially useful science that has been abused in the past to become an abhorrent pseudo-religion. As in: "I feel good believing my race is a superior one, so let's wipe out some people we can look down on."

Did you know that the initial ideas around Eugenics were formulated by Sir Francis Galton (Darwin's cousin)? I find this fascinating, because Galton was one of the founding fathers of modern statistics, bringing us such tremendous concepts as the standard deviation and Regression!!

Not that I think that makes eugenics a good idea, I just found that little fact personally interesting. It also makes me wonder whether it may not have started life as something a little bit more robust than a pseudo-science, as Galton had a first-rate mind, at least for some parts of his life. In any event, I am sure the logic was flawless, even if the underlying principle was misguided.

James.

Originally Posted by Jimbo

In any event, I am sure the logic was flawless, even if the underlying principle was misguided.

James.

Well, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. At the very least some entertainment has been attempted along those lines

Logan's Run! heh, I own it.