These are not things I'm suggesting. They are things that are in progress in every major first world country as a whole. Birth rates are going down. They work, and they are not tyranny nor do they limit free will in any way. The issue is third world countries where these things are not available.
As an example, look at India's declining birthrate. As living standards go up, birth rate is falling. From 4 children per woman on average now down to 2.6.
In fact, these things make more ROOM for free will. By encouraging society in it's natural tenancies and working with human nature we allow for the outlier family with 4, 6 or 8 kids. We can allow for choice. When you do NOT work with society, with human nature as China does not for example, then you have government mandates.
Two kids each family. So the family kills girl children because they want boys. Or they abort pre-birth for the same reason. Both of which are major problems in China right now.
So then the choice is yours. Allow for choice and encourage good stewardship by education and information. Or wait till things get MUCH worse and the choice is made for you and instead, you get quotas.
Are you sure that it is not tyranny, or that you are simply just going with the flow of things? There is not much of a difference when you think about it.
I am more than merely aware of the fact that when living conditions improve, birth rates do tend to drop. I am not arguing against that. What I am arguing against is that you are setting artifical goals that life forms in general will not adhere to. And when you try to fool yourself that by simply making contraception available, you will cause the birth rate to either slow down to a trickle, or simply match the death rate. As I said in the other comments, if you wanted the world to switch to eating dogfood, making it available is not going to make everyone to want to eat it. After a while, to meet your artifical goals, you are going to have to enforce it. This has been proven time and time again through out history, and the reason why tyranny always starts out through good intentions.
When you make contraception available birth rates DO drop. Period. This is proven from India to Africa. When you make education available, people are HUNGRY for it. See the girls in Iran that try to go to school despite threats and violence. And as education improves, birth rates drop. Again, proven.
Also I take issue with "Tyranny starts out with good intentions" It Can, but rarely DOES. Good intentions are always a curtain dictators use to hide their real intentions. Our founding fathers started out with very good intentions and did a credible job, so credible that our country dispite the problems it has is STILL one of the most free in the world today.
You do not have to enforce something when a people actively want it. Education is a fine example everywhere. So is birth control in Africa, India. People are stupid, rough creatures at times. But you give them less credit then they deserve.
It is so cute to see you struggle with the fact that "tyranny starts out with good intentions," it's like watching naivety in fast forward.
Education is a good thing, but do people really want it? You really want to believe with the drop out rate in this country as it is, and the numbers of students that graduate but still can't read their own diplomas that people want it?
First off, cute? You're being rude. Second, I reiterate my point about the founding of this country. And if Tyranny may start with good intentions, then it will CERTAINLY start out with bad intentions.
Third, Yes people DO really want education. In this country it's so ubiquitous that in a few cases it's not valued. And if there are students that graduate without basic reading skills then that is a failure of the education system. Something we are constantly working to repair.
Yes people want education. Or do you think the billions spent by students and their parents every year to send their kids to college is an aberration?
I am only "rude" in that I do not automatically accept your premise, and have stated reasons why it is flawed. You are the one being stubborn and holding on to your opinion built upon a base of sand.
I don't see why you keep going back to the founding of this country, as great of an event as it was. Our forefathers tried their best to prevent the tyranny they were escaping from in the first place, but in the last 70-100 years a new type of tyranny has been worming its way into our nation. A brand of tyranny that also includes population control, to which you are dabbling with at this moment. Again, I point out that just because you put it out there for them to get to it, does not mean they will come and get it. And when they will not come, if you want to hold on to these artifical goals, you are going to have to force them to do it at some point. This is a fact, and has been proven through out history. Hell, go to any large office and tell me that the goals set on a spreadsheet that were put there out of "good intentions" are not eventually enforced by force. China is a prime example; education is becoming more available, conceptration is available, and they have a one child policy. But because people still try to have more children, either for their own personal desires or to make up for having lost a child due to death, sickness, or their contraceptions just failed. And at that point, those people become enemies of the law and state, and the legal version of "..or else" tramples all over the free will which in the end always becomes the victim of any "good intention" because like a stream of water, it always tries to flow around any wall or obstacle that you put in its way. Your argument falls apart because of the silent "...or else" that you are overlooking.
I think your third comment would only be correct if you stated that "most people want education." But the sad fact of the matter is there are certain parts of our population that do not want education for themselves, or for others to get it. That is a difficult situaiton in of itself to deal with.
As to your final comment, are people throwing billions of dollars at education or the preceived value of the education that is being offered to them? Because from what I can tell, many of these people are getting ripped off.
No, rude is belittling my opinion and speaking condescendingly. I've offered examples as to why my opinions are valid while you offer little more then cynical rhetoric and reasons that have no backing, no details.
I bring up our country's founding because the so called "good intentions" you value so little are exactly why we've had as good a country as we have. Maybe it's getting worse, maybe there are problems, but it started with good intentions and I say they've served us well! Maybe good intentions aren't enough to serve against tyranny, but they are a damn good start, and far better than evil intentions or no moral hope at all!
And of course not everyone will seek out opportunities. That's why they are opportunities and not mandates. The very tyranny you are so worried about!
China is a HORRIBLE example. They instituted the one child policy LONG before there was any hint of social progress. Specifically this is what I'm arguing against. The particular threats you fear are exactly what happens when you don't have education, available birth control and opportunity. You end up with a mess where there are no good options and the state turns to the stick to deal with a problem. Then it goes bad and gets out of control. Then, there is your tyranny.
Fine, state it as MOST people want education. Now, keeping in mind most is a huge majority. But that was never the point. Availability is the point. Not holding a gun to someone's head and saying, "Do this or else." You don't NEED the or else because the or else happens when your children are better prepared than the smith's down the street that decided to avoid the chances handed to them.
Lesson of the internet: Just because you put out an opinion does not mean you are immune from criticism or being questioned. You knew the risk when you made your post, so no point in complaining now. I have never been one who lavished wet kisses on anyone's opinion or ass just because it would be a nice thing, and I am certainly not starting now. Just be glad that for an internet argument, no one has been called Hitler, yet.
And I just want to laugh at you trying to compare the "good intentions" of our founding fathers to the "good intentions" you are trying to push. There is nothing to make the comparison with. Our nation's founding was based upon the prevention of "top down control" tyranny that existed in other countries at the time, and still up to this day. They felt that if the people decided that it was "the right thing to do," they have the power to make the change. There is no "be free...or else" in our founding.
What you are proposing is tyranny, you are decreeing that everyone should restrain our reproductive desires to meet an artificial number that is based on faulty science, logic, just because you think so, and so called "good intentions." I can remember back in the 70s when they were predicting the so called population bomb to explode in a few years at the time. And they were concerned about global cooling then, which was supposed to be around the corner too. Oddly enough there were concerns about global warming 40-60 years prior to that too, funny how that always comes in cycles.
And China is a good example how your logic does not work. Its current form all started from the good intentions of setting up a fair and proper society, but in the course of their development they decided to get to that point, that the individual will must be made subservient to the government force, where a select few who "know better" will guide the direction of the country.
You can not escape it, when you set a goal like this that goes against nature, you are going to have to use force to enforce the goal. Whether your good intentions is to keep the population from getting "out of hand," or to keep people from stealing each other's stuff and killing each other. Control becomes tyranny, no matter how good or benevolent your intentions were in the beginning.
Bleh. You argue like a troll. You don't even want to learn or teach you just want to argue until you "win".
I'm not arguing anyone should restrain anything. Though it seems like you are hoping for that argument.
Your argument about nature is silly. If anything we are "naturally" approaching a near zero population growth.
Control in some degree is good. No control is bad. The only thing that matters is where the control comes from. Control comes in many forms. Self control and Law are two sides. There's a balance to be found.
Besides, you preach about tyranny but you offer no other solutions or ideas yourself. Say something, anything positive or useful. So far I just hear a sort of entrenched negativity. Tell me something useful!
::chuckles:: So just because I have not been convinced by you makes me a troll, and you not a poor salesman? Interesting the levels that your logic has gone, especially since I expected much better from you.
Want a positive attitude? What is more positive than believing that Mother Earth is a capable and dynamic old girl, and that she is more than capable of supporting larger numbers of life forms on her surface than we give her credit for. That she is not a static unchanging form that is the same as she was day one as she is now. There have been countless studies that have shown for example that the entire population of the United States could live fairly comfortable in an area about the size of the state of New York or New Hampshire, with the same population density as there is in Times Park? And that if there is the remote possiblity that the so called climate change nonsense might be right and mankind is affecting the Earth's climate, what is more positive than believing that mankind can also meet whatever changes may come from it?
If you want alternatives, how about let nature take its course? If population gets too dense, let people move away and settle in other areas. Give them incentives to make up their own minds and choose if you have to. It works on the African plains after all! As the population centers go down in density, the remaining citizens can take the oppurtunity to make use of the new space. And if there is no new lands to expand, why not go up or down? What about land reclaimation like they are doing in Japan? They have been talking about colonizing space and the oceans for years, why not let loose the great minds that would like to work on the challenges involved and get things done?
At least I am more open minded than you to think we can put a line down in the sand and expect mankind to simply expand to its edge and no more? Try to put a puppy in a box, and tell me how often it tries to get out if you want a better visual.
I wasn't trying to sell anything. That's the problem. I wanted to hear thoughts, ideas, new takes on things. But from the outset you wanted to be adversarial.
If you want that kind of discussion, fine I'm more than up for it. In that case though, you source everything you say, and I'll do the same. I'll attack your sources and you can freely do so to mine. Also, I'd expect the initial argument to be laid out and agreed on by both parties. Same as you do in an organized debate. That's the only way an adversarial argument will get anywhere meaningful. I'm not about to waste my time with various fallacies laid out as facts.
Let's recap what has happened so far: You start off with a situation that is questionable in of itself. Then you follow up with a list of solutions to the described situation, and then you ask for opinions on what you have written.
Then you got what you asked for. I said that I reject your premise that there is a population problem. And then that your proposed solutions to it would not work because of the natural reluctance that is rooted in all known life forms against obstacles, natural or imposed. Then I followed up with the only plausible way that your solutions would work is through them being enforced against the will of the of the population in question, hence the only real solution is tyranny itself.
Again, if you do not want to accept my counter propsal to your premise as I have given it to you, I suggest that you get a puppy, and try to keep it in a small box for as long as possible. The animal is going to refuse to stay in the confined container, and will repeatedly try to get out of it so it can resume bouncing about your feet. At this point, it should be pretty clear that it will take much spanking and many "corrective actions" to make the puppy stay in the box. And as a result, you will have become the one thing you did not want to be; an over bearing and oppressive force to the dog, which is only doing what it is inclined by nature to do. And as far as I can tell, genetic engineering is not close to creating a breed of box dwelling canines just yet.
Now, is that non-adversarial enough for you? Or are you going to continue to complain that some one has the audicity to disagree with you? The ony waste of time I see occuring here is your automatic rejection of anything I may have to bring to the debate, no matter how well researched or documented it may be. So at this point I see no reason to even accept the conditions you have laid out because of the lack of evidence to suggest you would comply to them as well.
And please keep in mind that my background is in engineering, in particular to automation controls with closed and open loop systems. I have dealt with systems that require equilibrium at any given moment, either routine or unexpected. So it is not as if I am simply seeking to borrow your own echo chamber just to hear myself talk.
Yeah this would have been nice if you'd started with it. But now? No. Sorry I don't accept your good faith at this point. Since you've no interest in the debate form I laid out, I've no further interest in discussing this topic with you.
Actually I take the previous back. It was mean spirited.
I'd rather say that I'm not interested in the discussion any more. I don't like the back and forth arguments I see all to often in congress and the talking heads on TV. I'm much more interested in a mutual pursuit of information by working together to find what's real, what's not, what works and what doesn't. They don't go anywhere, and even if you win the argument by application of blunt facts and figures, no one is convinced. It's a waste of time.
I'm also sorry I suggested a formal style debate, since again, even if you win, nothing is gained.
Alright, and I will take back what I was going to say in response. And thank you, I was really not liking where this was going.
I agree that if education and contraceptives were made available it would make a change in the living conditions of people over time, but you are going to keep hitting that wall when it comes to getting that one portion, no matter how small or large it may be, of the population to cooperate. Which will then only lead to the tyranny that I keep bringing up. We can try to sum it up through any form of explaination, be it the laws of thermal dynamics to even the rule of mechanical loss. It is not a cynical view point, it is just how things are. People are dynamic and will not completely conform to any static form for very long or at all. And with anything as dynamic as that, you can rest assure that any population will push back against that pushes it.
I don't think overpopulation is going to materialize as a eal problem, for the reasons you cite. Most first world countries already have under-population problems from a birthrate below the replacement rate. India and China (with, what, 1/4 of the global population between them?) are modernizing quickly and their birth rates have fallen/are falling (China's through misguided draconian controls, India's naturally).
I don't think 'we' need to do anything in particular to encourage this trend: we just need to let countries modernize and support the natural desire of people in a modern society with low mortality rates, which is to have fewer children. The only way we could get birth rates to start climbing is to destroy access to birth control and actively try to institute a new dark age. Which no one is suggesting or attempting, so I think we're on the winning track already here. :)
As an example, look at India's declining birthrate. As living standards go up, birth rate is falling. From 4 children per woman on average now down to 2.6.
In fact, these things make more ROOM for free will. By encouraging society in it's natural tenancies and working with human nature we allow for the outlier family with 4, 6 or 8 kids. We can allow for choice. When you do NOT work with society, with human nature as China does not for example, then you have government mandates.
Two kids each family. So the family kills girl children because they want boys. Or they abort pre-birth for the same reason. Both of which are major problems in China right now.
So then the choice is yours. Allow for choice and encourage good stewardship by education and information. Or wait till things get MUCH worse and the choice is made for you and instead, you get quotas.
Reply
I am more than merely aware of the fact that when living conditions improve, birth rates do tend to drop. I am not arguing against that.
What I am arguing against is that you are setting artifical goals that life forms in general will not adhere to. And when you try to fool yourself that by simply making contraception available, you will cause the birth rate to either slow down to a trickle, or simply match the death rate. As I said in the other comments, if you wanted the world to switch to eating dogfood, making it available is not going to make everyone to want to eat it. After a while, to meet your artifical goals, you are going to have to enforce it. This has been proven time and time again through out history, and the reason why tyranny always starts out through good intentions.
Reply
When you make education available, people are HUNGRY for it. See the girls in Iran that try to go to school despite threats and violence. And as education improves, birth rates drop. Again, proven.
Also I take issue with "Tyranny starts out with good intentions" It Can, but rarely DOES. Good intentions are always a curtain dictators use to hide their real intentions. Our founding fathers started out with very good intentions and did a credible job, so credible that our country dispite the problems it has is STILL one of the most free in the world today.
You do not have to enforce something when a people actively want it. Education is a fine example everywhere. So is birth control in Africa, India. People are stupid, rough creatures at times. But you give them less credit then they deserve.
Reply
Education is a good thing, but do people really want it? You really want to believe with the drop out rate in this country as it is, and the numbers of students that graduate but still can't read their own diplomas that people want it?
Reply
Second, I reiterate my point about the founding of this country. And if Tyranny may start with good intentions, then it will CERTAINLY start out with bad intentions.
Third, Yes people DO really want education. In this country it's so ubiquitous that in a few cases it's not valued. And if there are students that graduate without basic reading skills then that is a failure of the education system. Something we are constantly working to repair.
Yes people want education. Or do you think the billions spent by students and their parents every year to send their kids to college is an aberration?
Reply
I don't see why you keep going back to the founding of this country, as great of an event as it was. Our forefathers tried their best to prevent the tyranny they were escaping from in the first place, but in the last 70-100 years a new type of tyranny has been worming its way into our nation. A brand of tyranny that also includes population control, to which you are dabbling with at this moment.
Again, I point out that just because you put it out there for them to get to it, does not mean they will come and get it. And when they will not come, if you want to hold on to these artifical goals, you are going to have to force them to do it at some point. This is a fact, and has been proven through out history. Hell, go to any large office and tell me that the goals set on a spreadsheet that were put there out of "good intentions" are not eventually enforced by force.
China is a prime example; education is becoming more available, conceptration is available, and they have a one child policy. But because people still try to have more children, either for their own personal desires or to make up for having lost a child due to death, sickness, or their contraceptions just failed. And at that point, those people become enemies of the law and state, and the legal version of "..or else" tramples all over the free will which in the end always becomes the victim of any "good intention" because like a stream of water, it always tries to flow around any wall or obstacle that you put in its way.
Your argument falls apart because of the silent "...or else" that you are overlooking.
I think your third comment would only be correct if you stated that "most people want education." But the sad fact of the matter is there are certain parts of our population that do not want education for themselves, or for others to get it. That is a difficult situaiton in of itself to deal with.
As to your final comment, are people throwing billions of dollars at education or the preceived value of the education that is being offered to them? Because from what I can tell, many of these people are getting ripped off.
Reply
I bring up our country's founding because the so called "good intentions" you value so little are exactly why we've had as good a country as we have. Maybe it's getting worse, maybe there are problems, but it started with good intentions and I say they've served us well! Maybe good intentions aren't enough to serve against tyranny, but they are a damn good start, and far better than evil intentions or no moral hope at all!
And of course not everyone will seek out opportunities. That's why they are opportunities and not mandates. The very tyranny you are so worried about!
China is a HORRIBLE example. They instituted the one child policy LONG before there was any hint of social progress. Specifically this is what I'm arguing against. The particular threats you fear are exactly what happens when you don't have education, available birth control and opportunity. You end up with a mess where there are no good options and the state turns to the stick to deal with a problem. Then it goes bad and gets out of control. Then, there is your tyranny.
Fine, state it as MOST people want education. Now, keeping in mind most is a huge majority. But that was never the point. Availability is the point. Not holding a gun to someone's head and saying, "Do this or else." You don't NEED the or else because the or else happens when your children are better prepared than the smith's down the street that decided to avoid the chances handed to them.
Reply
And I just want to laugh at you trying to compare the "good intentions" of our founding fathers to the "good intentions" you are trying to push. There is nothing to make the comparison with. Our nation's founding was based upon the prevention of "top down control" tyranny that existed in other countries at the time, and still up to this day. They felt that if the people decided that it was "the right thing to do," they have the power to make the change. There is no "be free...or else" in our founding.
What you are proposing is tyranny, you are decreeing that everyone should restrain our reproductive desires to meet an artificial number that is based on faulty science, logic, just because you think so, and so called "good intentions."
I can remember back in the 70s when they were predicting the so called population bomb to explode in a few years at the time. And they were concerned about global cooling then, which was supposed to be around the corner too. Oddly enough there were concerns about global warming 40-60 years prior to that too, funny how that always comes in cycles.
And China is a good example how your logic does not work. Its current form all started from the good intentions of setting up a fair and proper society, but in the course of their development they decided to get to that point, that the individual will must be made subservient to the government force, where a select few who "know better" will guide the direction of the country.
You can not escape it, when you set a goal like this that goes against nature, you are going to have to use force to enforce the goal. Whether your good intentions is to keep the population from getting "out of hand," or to keep people from stealing each other's stuff and killing each other. Control becomes tyranny, no matter how good or benevolent your intentions were in the beginning.
Reply
I'm not arguing anyone should restrain anything. Though it seems like you are hoping for that argument.
Your argument about nature is silly. If anything we are "naturally" approaching a near zero population growth.
Control in some degree is good. No control is bad. The only thing that matters is where the control comes from. Control comes in many forms. Self control and Law are two sides. There's a balance to be found.
Besides, you preach about tyranny but you offer no other solutions or ideas yourself. Say something, anything positive or useful. So far I just hear a sort of entrenched negativity. Tell me something useful!
Reply
Want a positive attitude? What is more positive than believing that Mother Earth is a capable and dynamic old girl, and that she is more than capable of supporting larger numbers of life forms on her surface than we give her credit for. That she is not a static unchanging form that is the same as she was day one as she is now.
There have been countless studies that have shown for example that the entire population of the United States could live fairly comfortable in an area about the size of the state of New York or New Hampshire, with the same population density as there is in Times Park?
And that if there is the remote possiblity that the so called climate change nonsense might be right and mankind is affecting the Earth's climate, what is more positive than believing that mankind can also meet whatever changes may come from it?
If you want alternatives, how about let nature take its course? If population gets too dense, let people move away and settle in other areas. Give them incentives to make up their own minds and choose if you have to.
It works on the African plains after all! As the population centers go down in density, the remaining citizens can take the oppurtunity to make use of the new space.
And if there is no new lands to expand, why not go up or down? What about land reclaimation like they are doing in Japan?
They have been talking about colonizing space and the oceans for years, why not let loose the great minds that would like to work on the challenges involved and get things done?
At least I am more open minded than you to think we can put a line down in the sand and expect mankind to simply expand to its edge and no more? Try to put a puppy in a box, and tell me how often it tries to get out if you want a better visual.
Reply
If you want that kind of discussion, fine I'm more than up for it. In that case though, you source everything you say, and I'll do the same. I'll attack your sources and you can freely do so to mine. Also, I'd expect the initial argument to be laid out and agreed on by both parties. Same as you do in an organized debate. That's the only way an adversarial argument will get anywhere meaningful. I'm not about to waste my time with various fallacies laid out as facts.
Reply
You start off with a situation that is questionable in of itself.
Then you follow up with a list of solutions to the described situation, and then you ask for opinions on what you have written.
Then you got what you asked for.
I said that I reject your premise that there is a population problem. And then that your proposed solutions to it would not work because of the natural reluctance that is rooted in all known life forms against obstacles, natural or imposed.
Then I followed up with the only plausible way that your solutions would work is through them being enforced against the will of the of the population in question, hence the only real solution is tyranny itself.
Again, if you do not want to accept my counter propsal to your premise as I have given it to you, I suggest that you get a puppy, and try to keep it in a small box for as long as possible. The animal is going to refuse to stay in the confined container, and will repeatedly try to get out of it so it can resume bouncing about your feet. At this point, it should be pretty clear that it will take much spanking and many "corrective actions" to make the puppy stay in the box. And as a result, you will have become the one thing you did not want to be; an over bearing and oppressive force to the dog, which is only doing what it is inclined by nature to do. And as far as I can tell, genetic engineering is not close to creating a breed of box dwelling canines just yet.
Now, is that non-adversarial enough for you? Or are you going to continue to complain that some one has the audicity to disagree with you? The ony waste of time I see occuring here is your automatic rejection of anything I may have to bring to the debate, no matter how well researched or documented it may be. So at this point I see no reason to even accept the conditions you have laid out because of the lack of evidence to suggest you would comply to them as well.
And please keep in mind that my background is in engineering, in particular to automation controls with closed and open loop systems. I have dealt with systems that require equilibrium at any given moment, either routine or unexpected. So it is not as if I am simply seeking to borrow your own echo chamber just to hear myself talk.
Reply
Reply
I'd rather say that I'm not interested in the discussion any more. I don't like the back and forth arguments I see all to often in congress and the talking heads on TV. I'm much more interested in a mutual pursuit of information by working together to find what's real, what's not, what works and what doesn't. They don't go anywhere, and even if you win the argument by application of blunt facts and figures, no one is convinced. It's a waste of time.
I'm also sorry I suggested a formal style debate, since again, even if you win, nothing is gained.
Reply
And thank you, I was really not liking where this was going.
I agree that if education and contraceptives were made available it would make a change in the living conditions of people over time, but you are going to keep hitting that wall when it comes to getting that one portion, no matter how small or large it may be, of the population to cooperate. Which will then only lead to the tyranny that I keep bringing up. We can try to sum it up through any form of explaination, be it the laws of thermal dynamics to even the rule of mechanical loss.
It is not a cynical view point, it is just how things are. People are dynamic and will not completely conform to any static form for very long or at all. And with anything as dynamic as that, you can rest assure that any population will push back against that pushes it.
Reply
I don't think overpopulation is going to materialize as a eal problem, for the reasons you cite. Most first world countries already have under-population problems from a birthrate below the replacement rate. India and China (with, what, 1/4 of the global population between them?) are modernizing quickly and their birth rates have fallen/are falling (China's through misguided draconian controls, India's naturally).
I don't think 'we' need to do anything in particular to encourage this trend: we just need to let countries modernize and support the natural desire of people in a modern society with low mortality rates, which is to have fewer children. The only way we could get birth rates to start climbing is to destroy access to birth control and actively try to institute a new dark age. Which no one is suggesting or attempting, so I think we're on the winning track already here. :)
Reply
Leave a comment