Maintaining healty - Natural Selection in human populations

If the Georgia Guidestones are any indication, then there are people on this Earth concerned about the expanding human population and its negative effects on Earths natural resources and living systems. It is a legitimate concern.

I think this conversation is important in the sense that there very well may be a powerful group of people who intend to reduce the worlds population. I would not be surprised. Maybe we can explore in this thread, ways of living that would maintain both - a healthy population and natural selection.


In many places in the world, we see natural habitats shrinking and being destroyed by expanding populations, who might for example slash and burn habitats and forests to make way for agriculture. On the other hand, there are still vast expanses of nature in colder regions like Russia, Canada, BC, etc. However in warmer climates, it is very apparent that expanding human populations are taking their tolls on living systems.

----

In the animal world, animals who are physically and mentally incapable of surviving or sustaining themselves typically die before they can reproduce. a grazer who cannot run as fast, or is not healthy (possibly due to genetics) might fall prey before one who is able to run away from predators. Or a predator who is more capable and cunning might survive, while ones who are lesser able might not survive. In this way, Natural Selection weeds out less capable animals in that sense.


In the cities, welfare supports people with food and shelter for people who are not able to sufficiently produce those things, so people survive for the most part, regardless of their abilities. I guess in a sense, people with lesser abilities/qualities are less likely to mate/reproduce since they might be less attractive as mates. In this sense there might be some sort of Natural Selection that is actively in progress, but for the most part humans survive regardless of their abilities.



So the question is - is there a way to have a living system or way of living, that maintains a world population at healthy numbers, and retains all of the best qualities of humans, without having to cull the population (like how some groups seems to believe is necessary)?


If it is their idea that the rich and wealthy, are the culmination and best part of human culture, then I think that they are wrong. Some of the greatest assets, talents and arts come from people in the middle/lower classes (financially speaking). In fact, retaining only the rich and wealthy might be retaining the worst of human culture.

Yup disease and famine.

Too anyone who suggested culling the population I always retort, please you first so I can see your resolve. Sounds harsh but I believe the selective culling of people is harsher.

There is still plenty of room for humans and with advances in hydro/aquaponics appied to vertical farms we should have food for a long time yet. Also advancements in growing meat in the lab have come a long way using a lot less land and water per pound of beef.
We still have many options left and are far from being backed into the corner by population.

a reply to: nOraKat

a reply to: nOraKat

So the question is - is there a way to have a living system or way of living, that maintains a world population at healthy numbers, and retains all of the best qualities of humans, without having to cull the population (like how some groups seems to believe is necessary)?

Yah, Decentralization.

Good luck, the power mongering, money grubbing control freaks would rather destroy everything than let that happen.

a reply to: nOraKat

The human species is still at the mercy of Malthusian doctrine. Not just for breakfast anymore....


cgge.aag.org...

originally posted by: nOraKat
If the Georgia Guidestones are any indication, then there are people on this Earth concerned about the expanding human population and its negative effects on Earths natural resources and living systems. It is a legitimate concern.

In many places in the world, we see natural habitats shrinking and being destroyed by expanding populations, who might for example slash and burn habitats and forests to make way for agriculture. On the other hand, there are still vast expanses of nature in colder regions like Russia, Canada, BC, etc. However in warmer climates, it is very apparent that expanding human populations are taking their tolls on living systems.

----

In the animal world, animals who are physically and mentally incapable of surviving or sustaining themselves typically die before they can reproduce. a grazer who cannot run as fast, or is not healthy (possibly due to genetics) might fall prey before one who is able to run away from predators. Or a predator who is more capable and cunning might survive, while ones who are lesser able might not survive. In this way, Natural Selection weeds out less capable animals in that sense.


In the cities, welfare supports people with food and shelter for people who are not able to sufficiently produce those things, so people survive for the most part, regardless of their abilities. I guess in a sense, people with lesser abilities/qualities are less likely to mate/reproduce since they might be less attractive as mates. In this sense there might be some sort of Natural Selection that is actively in progress, but for the most part humans survive regardless of their abilities.



So the question is - is there a way to have a living system or way of living, that maintains a world population at healthy numbers, and retains all of the best qualities of humans, without having to cull the population (like how some groups seems to believe is necessary)?


If it is their idea that the rich and wealthy, are the culmination and best part of human culture, then I think that they are wrong. Some of the greatest assets, talents and arts come from people in the middle/lower classes (financially speaking). In fact, retaining only the rich and wealthy might be retaining the worst of human culture.

Over population is a myth. The issue is that there are too many people who want to live in specific areas - big cities. There is plenty of land, open spaces, and elbow room if people weren't so concerned about living in urban environments.

Modern society has made it where the mentally and physically weak can survive. Overall, I guess this is a good thing. However, I'd go so far to say some people are down right parasitic in a way in their dependence on society (think 2nd and 3rd generation welfare queens).

In addition, a lot of our modern systems are not designed for everyone to survive and it is causing cracks. See pensions, health care, and social security. A big problem is that mathematically speaking, too many people are living far too long and thus draining the system. These systems work when people are dying naturally at say 65-70, but now because of advancements in medicine, people are living to 90 at great expense. None of the actuarial tables were designed around people living so long. You have people getting social security at 62 for like 30 years. The amount of money they put doesn't even come close to covering what they actually get out in benefits.

a reply to: Athetos

I think there is greater concern than having enough food or space to live in. It is about maintaining healthy living systems on Earth that do not necessarily include humans but do at moment.

Also the question is about natural selection. Are we maintaining a way of living that is conducive to healthy natural selection of the human population?

originally posted by: nOraKat
a reply to: Athetos

I think there is greater concern than having enough food or space to live in. It is about maintaining healthy living systems on Earth that do not necessarily include humans but do at moment.

Also the question is about natural selection. Are we maintaining a way of living that is conducive to healthy natural selection of the human population?

You start going down a very dangerous rabbit hole... in general, most humans are compassionate unlike most animals who just let nature run it's course. Nature is unforgiving and down right brutal at times. I don't think modern humans want to be that heartless.

If humans were truly survival of the fittest, we'd send our sick and infirm to just go die out in the woods after a certain point. We wouldn't even bother trying to save them. Someone get's hurt we just let them die. Should have looked both ways before crossing the street. We wouldn't need hospitals. Kid born with defects, just throw them away. I mean this is how things work in nature.

The problem is where do you draw the line and who determines what the "optimal balance" is...

‘I guess in a sense, people with lesser abilities/qualities are less likely to mate/reproduce since they might be less attractive as mates.’ wrong, all they do is sit around, eat, get their drank on, smoke sum s@ir,have sex and reproduce.visit any major Americancity for proof. The natural culling happens with ghetto violence between themselves for the most part!

a reply to: nOraKat

So the question is - is there a way to have a living system or way of living, that maintains a world population at healthy numbers, and retains all of the best qualities of humans, without having to cull the population (like how some groups seems to believe is necessary)?

Eugenics.

The answer is Yes.

Eat proper meals, work out, exercise like every PREDATOR does (if that's what people believe they are meat eaters, meat eaters hunt and kill and feast in the dead).

Have healthy relationships, take care of self hygiene, have good thoughts and be independant on self sustainability.

Depending on society for income because of poor life choices only works in this society because the state wants dependable people. Thats the design of the machine we are all cogs to.

I understand the other side of what I'm saying, poor genetics and injury, sickness can prevent one from being self sustaining.

But one must hold their power as much as they can and be the strongest and most independent they can to the best of their ability.

Dependability is a weakness.

a reply to: Edumakated

Over population is a myth.

It may not be readily apparent in some places, but in others where there are more natural habitats, we see it more apparent. We are also seeing drastic changes in ocean chemistry.

Even if population is concentrated in some places and less in others, we are seeing effects.

a reply to: Edumakated

My motivation for the post is to explore a way of living that naturally maintains human population at healthy levels and avoids culling; that also retains the best of what humanity has to offer - and that is not just people who know how to generate money, or who has the "best" genetics (like physical characteristics - strong body, abilities, living long, etc.). I think human value goes beyond those things.

I think there is a way to accomplish that without throwing compassion out the window, or leaving people out in the cold or to die. Not saying anyone should do that. Just exploring ways of living that might accomplish first paragraph.

Actually those with less education often reproduce more.

a reply to: WUNK22


I know I know idiocracy isn't a documentary but it's still an interesting premise.

Oh and here's some real data.
blogs.worldbank.org...

I guess the trick is highly educate as many people as possible so we can all be on the same page. The more you know the broader your horizons become and the more you think about not just the here and now but the when and how.

a reply to: nOraKat
Another start with the Georgia Guidestones. If I had my way I would totally obliterate these so called guidestones.
Listen very carefully nOra. The Georgia stones were made (recently I may add) and are updated by a group that believe in Eugenics. Please, please look up the Eugenics movement. People think it died after WW2, but it is just as active today.
Yes, there are powerful people in it but they don't have controlling power yet.
The "stones" are their way of drip feeding their ideas into the mainstream and people like you give them credence. They put enigmatic stories on the stones that get conspiracy people spreading the stories over the net.
What you propose cannot be implemented without biases, selective breeding, culling etc. and it ALWAYS comes down to who selects the "breeders". Who gets to survive, who gets to eat, who gets to breathe. And it's ALWAYS the healthy rich ones who decide. Do you want me to go on.
LOOK UP EUGENICS THEN TELL ME THAT IT'S WHAT YOUR OP WAS ABOUT.

a reply to: crayzeed

I really don’t think the Guidstones are about Eugenics. The main concern it expresses is the effect humans have on nature. It says “leave room for nature”.

It does not necessarily imply culling other than that it wants human population at very low levels. I don’t think it is necessary that somebody has to decide who stays and who does not. Given an adequate time span, perhaps there is a natural way of living and a philosophy that would allow us to live with nature in a way that prevents overpopulation (naturally), without having to kill anyone or cull a population.

The purpose of this post was to explore what ways we can live that can naturally accomplish those things.