[mgoetze]

http://www.peakprosp...26/bill-ryerson

Stop having children already, you're destroying the planet!

Also, a nice quote showing how harmful religion is:

Quote

In Pakistan, 38% of the non-users give as their reason the number of children I have is up to God. So this type of fatalism, not even [accepting] that it is in one’s ability and one’s right to determine the number and spacing of their children, is a critical stumbling block.

[Fluffy]

I remember how I felt when I knew that chinese were forbidden to have more than 1 child, it was a mixture of outrage and rejection like "this cannot be true". Funny how different I see things now.

Genocide/war is not really needed to cure this problem althou it is what most likelly will happenin the end. Mass esterilization would do the trick pretty fast as well, but child control is probably the most "civilised" one.

Sadly for the most part, it will be rich people and politicians who save their genes, its the modern natural-selection.

My first child will be born in may or june BTW

[mgoetze]

 Fluffy, on 2013-January-05, 08:13, said:

Sadly for the most part, it will be rich people and politicians who save their genes, its the modern natural-selection.

In Germany, there is a negative correlation between fertility and education.

[blackshoe]

 Fluffy, on 2013-January-05, 08:13, said:

My first child will be born in may or june BTW

Congrats! I fear though, that today's children will grow up, and live through, what the Chinese call "interesting times".

"What did I want?
I wanted the hurtling moons of Barsoom. I wanted Storisende and Poictesme, and Holmes shaking me awake to tell me, "The games' afoot!" I wanted to float down the Mississippi on a raft and elude a mob in company with the Duke of Bilgewater and the Lost Dauphin. I wanted Prester John and Excalibur held by a moon-white arm out of a silent lake. I wanted to sail with Ulysses and with Tros of Samothrace and eat the lotus in a land that seemed always afternoon.
I wanted the feeling of romance and the sense of wonder I had known as a kid. I wanted the world to be what they had promised me it was going to be -- instead of the tawdry, lousy, fouled-up mess it is." -- Robert Heinlein, Glory Road

[Fluffy]

 mgoetze, on 2013-January-05, 08:32, said:

In Germany, there is a negative correlation between fertility and education.

I've heard of this, and althou Germany is worse, most of Europe is having the same problem. But when it comes to mass-whatever the rich and powerful will get the best. If you do it violently, most of them avoid the danger (at least on upper-hand countries), but if you do it controlled, they have their own laws.

[Fluffy]

 blackshoe, on 2013-January-05, 08:37, said:

"What did I want?
I wanted the hurtling moons of Barsoom. I wanted Storisende and Poictesme, and Holmes shaking me awake to tell me, "The games' afoot!" I wanted to float down the Mississippi on a raft and elude a mob in company with the Duke of Bilgewater and the Lost Dauphin. I wanted Prester John and Excalibur held by a moon-white arm out of a silent lake. I wanted to sail with Ulysses and with Tros of Samothrace and eat the lotus in a land that seemed always afternoon.
I wanted the feeling of romance and the sense of wonder I had known as a kid. I wanted the world to be what they had promised me it was going to be -- instead of the tawdry, lousy, fouled-up mess it is." -- Robert Heinlein, Glory Road

I'm 32 and still spend hours doing this things with my imagination.

I even won a debate on BBF once

[Vampyr]

 Fluffy, on 2013-January-05, 09:42, said:

I've heard of this, and althou Germany is worse, most of Europe is having the same problem. But when it comes to mass-whatever the rich and powerful will get the best. If you do it violently, most of them avoid the danger (at least on upper-hand countries), but if you do it controlled, they have their own laws.

I believe that the strong negative correlation between education levels (also per-capita GDP) is true everywhere in the world; not sure what the rich and powerful are supposed to be able to do about it.

[mgoetze]

 Vampyr, on 2013-January-06, 22:23, said:

I believe that the strong negative correlation between education levels (also per-capita GDP) is true everywhere in the world; not sure what the rich and powerful are supposed to be able to do about it.

You should definitely read the full interview I linked to for an interesting point of view on the correlation with per-capita GDP though.

[billw55]

I think that overpopulation is the number one problem humanity faces going into the future. Most other problems are either consequences of overpopulation, or irrelevant in the shadow of it. Unfortunately human nature is such that this very solvable problem will IMO never be solved. When the next fall of civilization comes, this will be the cause.

And to save posting in two threads, I predict this will happen before the advent of autonomous cars

[FM75]

Discussions of topics like this always end up with simplistic arguments. Very few have even learned to think in terms of complex systems, much less solve them. So they focus on one variable of a system, usually one in which they have a particular interest or knowledge, ignoring the fact that the system has hundreds or more significant variables, and make extrapolations based on a one variable model.

There was a deer population control problem in our community. Both the human and deer population densities are high. Hunting is nearly non-existent, as are natural predators. Needless to say, the inevitable result was thousands of deer being killed by vehicle collisions. But the Bambi lovers would protest that reducing the population - by very aggressive hunting - would cause deer fertility to increase. It is true, of course. Healthy well fed deer will have more multiple births than less healthy deer! What they seemed to miss was the inanity of that argument, since the large growth rate was dependent upon a smaller population.

For fun, try modeling a predator-prey population. Predators can multiply in the presence of prey. Prey do better in the absence of predators. Trying to achieve a stable solution is very hard. If the predators are too successful, they multiply and eradicate themselves by eating all of the available prey. Of course, that model is too simplistic, because the prey has to eat as well. To make it realistic, you have to include feeding resources for the prey. Now, you have to throw that in the model, because they prey can eat themselves out of existence as well, or reach the point where their fertility balances the replenishment of the resources. The argument of course needs to continue, to include the resource that the prey can consume - perhaps shared by other consumers. Weather and other stochastic processes play a significant role.

Prediction is very hard - especially about the future.

[TimG]

 mgoetze, on 2013-January-05, 08:32, said:

In Germany, there is a negative correlation between fertility and education.

Probably because educated people are more likely to wait to have children and those in their 20s are generally more fertile than those in their 30s (or 40s).

[Vampyr]

 TimG, on 2013-January-16, 11:17, said:

Probably because educated people are more likely to wait to have children and those in their 20s are generally more fertile than those in their 30s (or 40s).

I don't think it's a question of fertility; educated people tend to choose to limit their family size.

[TimG]

 mgoetze, on 2013-January-05, 08:32, said:

In Germany, there is a negative correlation between fertility and education.

 Vampyr, on 2013-January-16, 11:50, said:

I don't think it's a question of fertility; educated people tend to choose to limit their family size.

mgoetze said it was "between fertility and education", not between "family size and education". I assume he meant what he said.

[billw55]

I think it's another language gap. There are two meanings for fertility. The common meaning is "ability to conceive". The technical meaning in demographics is (roughly) "births per female". I took mgoetze to mean the latter; it seems that Vampyr assumed the former.

[dwar0123]

 TimG, on 2013-January-16, 12:05, said:

mgoetze said it was "between fertility and education", not between "family size and education". I assume he meant what he said.

Fertility can be taken two ways.

How easy it is for you to have children.
How many children you actually have.

You two are assuming different uses.

[Vampyr]

 billw55, on 2013-January-16, 12:08, said:

I think it's another language gap. There are two meanings for fertility. The common meaning is "ability to conceive". The technical meaning in demographics is (roughly) "births per female". I took mgoetze to mean the latter; it seems that Vampyr assumed the former.

Please read more carefully. It was TimG who indicated, in two posts, that he assumed the former. I then responded using his meaning.

I would appreciate it if you would not quote or paraphrase me if you cannot accurately represent what I said, or if you are going to invent assumptions made by me.

[Vampyr]

 mgoetze, on 2013-January-06, 22:38, said:

You should definitely read the full interview I linked to for an interesting point of view on the correlation with per-capita GDP though.

I did see the bit about two populations having more children when they could afford them; I suspect that this is a temporary blip, and will probably improve when those populations start to obtain more education (which is, of course, normally correlated with per-capita GDP).

[billw55]

 Vampyr, on 2013-January-16, 12:39, said:

Please read more carefully. It was TimG who indicated, in two posts, that he assumed the former. I then responded using his meaning.

I would appreciate it if you would not quote or paraphrase me if you cannot accurately represent what I said, or if you are going to invent assumptions made by me.

So I see.

[Vampyr]

 billw55, on 2013-January-16, 12:53, said:

So I see.

Sorry if I was a bit aggressive.

[kenberg]

This is sort of an odd thread in that I doubt anyone has any really solid workable ideas . I gave some thought to whether I have known people who did not have children because of the threat of overpopulating the world I can't think of any. I have known several couples who chose not to have children, but I have never heard that given as the reason. In the opposite direction, I know of only person in the last several years who regarded it as his duty to God to have children. After eleven or twelve, his wife put her foot down. Exactly where she placed her foot was not made clear, but no more kids. Fifty or sixty years ago maybe it was different, but at least with people I know, religious conviction does not interfere with the practice of birth control.

But of course my life experiences are not the norm for people living on this planet, and the same is true for all of us sitting in comfortable surroundings, fully fed, typing out our thoughts. Other cultures, other environments, both physical and financial, lead to different results. And then we really cannot ignore that fact that I, and everyone I know, consumes a lot more of the world's goodies on a percapita basis than do those struggling for existence.

I have absolutely no idea how to deal with this. Raising everyone's living standard to a point where they "act like us" and have fewer kids sounds like an idea, but two problems: One is how you going to do that? The other is that besides not having scads of kids, we higher living standards folks also drive SUVs. (Well, I don't but ...) The world is not ready for three or four billion SUVs.

So it beats me.