It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Conflicting Views - Science and Politics

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 01:45 PM
link   
Firstly i really didn't know where to put this so if any moderator wishes to move it please do.

Ok i should explain what this thread is about i suppose, i'll just tell you a little about my dilema before posting the question at the bottom.

My political views have always been towards complete democracy and freedom of the individual. I don't like the idea of ID cards, cameras, storage of biometric data of non criminals and tracking everywhere i go. I believe in a voting system where everyone can vote, where the parties involved should have equal funding and media exposure. I also believe in science as a great tool for society and this is where my problem has occured.

Scientifically with our current level of technology our planet can only support a certain amount of human beings. This is science fact and simple common sense. There are over 6 billion humans said to be living on this planet and we are continually adding to that number.

This is where my views come into a massive conflict, i believe in freedom of the individual, to do as you like without the state getting involved unless you are breaking the law. Yet we will have to limit human population at some point unless we can get off of this planet and colonise space. To limit human population would mean birth control or some kind, like a licensing system, but this would mean the state interferes a great deal with personal freedoms.

So this thread is really about whether anyone else had come across this sort of problem. Where your political ideals comflict massively with your scientific or even religious views.




posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 12:44 AM
link   
The only methods that have a hope of bringing down the rate of population growth are those we can convince people to adopt voluntarily. Birth control cannot, I think, be enforced without enormous repression. And it would be impossible to achieve globally -- the attempt would lead to wars, massacres, vast social upheavals, unspeakable atrocities and ultimately the collapse of civilization. That would have the desired effect, of course, but the cost would be far too great. The effects of overpopulation itself would be less dire.

Luckily, there is a way to make people have less children on their own initiative. That way is to make them healthy, wealthy and secure. It's a fact solidly established by observation that when a country's GDP rises, its birthrate falls. Eventually it falls to below replacement rate, as it has in countries like Italy and Japan, and people start becoming fewer in number.

Unlike other advanced countries, America's population is still growing, partly through immigration. It's no secret that this is a matter of concern to some Americans.

A good way to reduce the rate of immigration to the United States would be to help its poorer neighbours -- and the rest of the poor world in general -- along the road to prosperity. This should not involve handouts (though some aid is necessary), but investment and support for poor countries' economies. America should confidently open its markets and invest substantially in the industrial and service capacity of such trading partners. Yes: the best way to deal with overpopulation is economic growth through globalization.

People in those countries would then grow more wealthy and have fewer children, who would be more inclined to stay at home anyway if there were jobs and a decent life there. All this would help ensure fewer economic migrants to America in the next generation.

Sadly that policy prescription comes up against the perception -- and to some degree, the reality -- of American job losses as manufacturers and service industries move abroad. It is also opposed, with great energy, by protectionist governments and lobbies in the poor world.

So your question is actually part of the globalization debate. This forum is a pretty good place for it.


[edit on 19-2-2007 by Astyanax]

[edit on 19-2-2007 by Astyanax]



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 08:31 PM
link   
Well the birth rate among western countries is less than 2, this means that the population is shrinking. To counter this, most countries have immigration policies to make up the loss. The only problem is that the developing world has astronomical birth rates, and countries like China and India already have too many people. Really China and India's population should be about 200million each, so that's about 2.5 billion people on the Earth that really shouldn't be here.

So there is no problem controlling birth rates in western countries, in fact western people really should be having MORE children. The increasing global population is being driven by third world countries, which know that they can dump their excess population on the west. If the birth rate of western countries moves above 2, then they will be able to abolish their immigration policies. This will put greater pressure on developing countries to control their population levels, if they don't, nature will kill them anyway (famine. disease, pestilence, war).



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 02:00 AM
link   
Your post makes some unwarranted assumptions, Cthulwho.


Originally posted by Cthulwho
The only problem is that the developing world has astronomical birth rates...

The fact is that some developing countries have very high rates of population increase while others do not. And most of the countries with high rates of increase are small or have relatively low population densities.

Just for your information, the rate of population increase in China (1990-2005) was 0.9 percent.

For the same period, the figure for the USA was 1.0 percent. The population of the United States is increasing more quickly than that of China.

As for Mexico, that bête noir of American nativists, it turns out to have a fairly modest 1.16 percent rate of increase.

In fact, it isn't increases in population size or density that drive economic emigration, but lack of economic opportunities and poor quality of life at home. This is evident from commonly available statistics on demography and migration.


...countries like China and India already have too many people.

Who decides that a country has 'too many' people? And -- by the way -- too many for whom?


Really China and India's population should be about 200 million each...

Who decided that this was the ideal population for these two countries? What was the basis on which the decision was made?


...so that's about 2.5 billion people on the Earth that really shouldn't be here.

Yes? Are you denying these people their right to exist? In which case, how do you justify your own existence? Are you somehow better than these people?


The increasing global population is being driven by third world countries, which know that they can dump their excess population on the west.

Did some third world statesman confide this to you, or are you just guessing? Do you know of any developing-country government that deliberately follows policies that will drive its citizens abroad?

Have you any idea how hard it is for people from poor countries to get into rich ones? Do you know what desperate shifts many economic refugees are driven to? They beggar themselves and their relatives to obtain the necessary clearances or travel documents, forged or genuine, and to finance their passages. Some sell everything they own, or indenture themselves for years to come to gangs of people-smugglers who are also slavedealers and extortionists. They cross stormy seas in leaky boats or crammed thirty or forty at a time into freight containers aboard ships and transcontinental trucks, starving and forced to wallow in their own excrement like African slaves bound for Savannah on the Middle Passage. They brave heat, cold, disease, violence and exposure, crossing deserts, mountain ranges and battle zones. Thousands die along the way.

If and when they finally reach the country of their destination, they receive a grim welcome. Those who aren't turned back immediately face imprisonment, interrogation and possible deportation on the one hand, or life as a poverty-stricken fugitive on the other. Even the ones who are legally accepted must struggle against prejudice, exploitation and hatred.

And you think these people are sent overseas by their governments, as a matter of policy? Believe me: they're not. So ask yourself, my friend: why do they keep coming? How awful must their lives be, back wherever they came from, if they are willing to put up with such discomfort, pain and danger, to accept such risks, bear so many insults and such exploitation?

Your post is written from a certain viewpoint: someone enjoying the benefits of western civilization and unwilling to share them with others -- perhaps, in your mind, with people who haven't 'contributed their share' to that civilization. You're entitled to your point of view, but remember this; the greater part of modern western civilization was built on the exploitation of other societies and the extraction of wealth from other parts of the world. Now the people your forebears looted are coming to your door and demanding restitution. They want what they consider their share of the wealth of nations. You may judge the demand fair or otherwise, but you cannot escape it.

The West has two options. It can help spread economic growth, responsible government and access to opportunity more widely about the world so that more people have a decent chance at life in the country of their birth. Or it can sit selfishly on its hoard till the rest of the world turns up, in a body, and takes the loot back.

And as you so acutely point out in your post, there are a great many more of them than there are of you.

[edit on 26-2-2007 by Astyanax]



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 08:40 PM
link   
I have views similar to yours (babies), but not entirely

1: forced abortion to all new coming babies
2: reproduction illegal
3: most criminal acts are manditory death sentence (killing, rape, robbers who robbed something really big or important)

With forced abortion, all the millions of incoming newborns wont be born.
With reproduction illegal, we can wait until our population diminishes to 3 or less billion. And after that, there will be limits on reproduction. We can also kill off all the "bad guys" and make the world safer. Plus, all bad people in prison are killed too and bodies burned to ash.

[edit on 26-2-2007 by wildcat]



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 09:20 PM
link   
um, cat, aside from the cruelty i see in your ideas
by the time human populations dropped to 3 or so billion, would we even have a population capable of reproduction?



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 09:36 PM
link   
I think so

cruelty? Maybe so, but it's for the good of mankind in the end.

Most killers are bad people, and for that they should be punished with death. As for rape, maybe that is a little harsh, but perhaps only the ones who do it constantly should die.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 01:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by wildcat
cruelty? Maybe so, but it's for the good of mankind in the end.

Don't you just love people who are so eager to indulge a thirst for cruelty 'for the good of mankind'?


Most killers are bad people, and for that they should be punished with death.

Are you personally acquainted with all the world's killers, then? Or are you just assuming they're bad because they're killers?


As for rape, maybe that is a little harsh, but perhaps only the ones who do it constantly should die.

For this relief, much thanks, as the soldier said in Hamlet.



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 09:49 PM
link   
Some interesting views so far.

The original group of humans was said to be under 10,000 individuals that turned into us all, we apparently all share these genes. In this case 3 billion humans would be enough for continuing the species as long as they were young enough.

The only problem i have is the conflict between my views that seemingly can't be solved, if you believe in freedom how can you control birth rates? At the same time logically there is a limit to the amount of humans this earth can sustain and so it has to be done.

I used that as an example but i was hoping someone would post another example where their own views conflict with something.



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 10:21 PM
link   
The alternative which makes my views unreasonable to enforce is to colonize space, the moon, and Mars instead of destroying ourselfs. But that is unlikely with the kind of people who rule this earth, therefor I have those views.

If it was my decision, then space is the way.

-A space prison in orbit around the moon would also be in that alternative.


[edit on 2-3-2007 by wildcat]



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 11:55 PM
link   
In my original post i mentioned colonising space but i think we are to far off that t actually make it viable for the mass populous.

The original idea of this post is about conflicts between views, colonising space isn't possible at the moment so lets stick to the topic of conflicting views please.



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
The only problem i have is the conflict between my views that seemingly can't be solved, if you believe in freedom how can you control birth rates?

The point I made earlier is that you can do it by making people voluntarily have smaller families. And the way to do that is to make them better off economically and offer them better security and public services. It has worked all over the developed world. It has begun to work in China. Just keep up the process of globalization and wealth creation and the problem will be solved worldwide.



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 07:12 AM
link   
Do you mean taxing larger families? Becuase if that is done then you are still not allowing freedom as you are just doing the same by stealth.



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
Do you mean taxing larger families? Becuase if that is done then you are still not allowing freedom as you are just doing the same by stealth.

No, I do not mean taxing larger families. My reply to your original post explains exactly what I do mean.

Here it is, for the last time, in a nutshell.

1. Poor people whose life prospects are not good tend to have lots of children. Why? Because children are insurance for their parents' old age. Infant mortality rates in poor countries used to be very high, so you had to have many kids to ensure a few survived to take care of you when you were old.

2. If people have better life prospects (economic and personal security, access to basic services, etc.), they automatically stop having so many children. This has already happened in country after country around the world. As countries and their citizens get better off, their rate of population increase gradually falls towards replacement level or even lower. An excellent example is Italy, which used to have a booming population till it started becoming a rich country; now its population is actually declining, in spite of the fact that most Italians are Catholics who aren't supposed to use contraceptives!

3. Therefore, the way to stop the world's population boom is to make the poor world richer. When people in sub-Saharan Africa, India, etc. have prospects of a better life than they have now, they'll stop having so many children and the world's rate of population growth will fall faster than it is now (it's already falling, by the way, and has been doing so for about a quarter-century. Did you know that?)

So,

4. The way to stop the population problem is to make the poor world richer.

This can be done through a combination of trade and aid. My preference is for more trade, less aid. I believe globalization and international economic growth are the way forward. You don't have to tax anyone for having children. You don't have to force contraception on anyone. You just have to make the world richer... and share the wealth more equitably.

It's easy enough to do. We know exactly how and we have the means to do it. All that is needed now is the will.



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 03:43 AM
link   
Whilist i see the merits of your ideas, i am afraid that our "developed" countries won't allow places like africa to have good and even trade. Along with the fact that a good portion of africa is having to deal with warlords, your idea would mean we would have to get rid of the warlords before you could start fair and equal trade.



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984


The original idea of this post is about conflicts between views, colonising space isn't possible at the moment so lets stick to the topic of conflicting views please.


I know

But the point of my post was directed toward Astyanax comment of my views that are relative to what our options on overpopulation are right now.



[edit on 6-3-2007 by wildcat]



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join