Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
WCDT: 2377-2381 (4-8 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Shogouki:
--- Quote from: mustang6172 on 05 Feb 2013, 23:05 ---WE ARE WORKING ON THAT TECHNOLOGY!
Does anyone else find it unethical to apply technology to procreation while there are still orphans in the world?
--- End quote ---
I doubt that the money that gets spent on that research would go to helping orphans get homes, it'd likely just go to something else along research lines. I think its good helping those who are unable to have a child of their own to have that option, the more variety in the gene pool the better. What we really need people to do is stop having so many kids per family. Earth needs a couple billion fewer humans. :-\
Valdís:
--- Quote from: Shogouki on 06 Feb 2013, 00:16 ---Earth needs a couple billion fewer humans. :-\
--- End quote ---
I would only ever agree with this sentiment if it meant we'd have a couple billion on off-world colonies. :wink:
westrim:
--- Quote from: Valdís on 06 Feb 2013, 00:08 ---Even if you believe the debunked overpopulation stuff: We're below replacement levels here; we're not the problem if there was one.
--- End quote ---
That's because even with for place near the top of almost every measure of good places to live, you're still cold and dark for half the year. Elsewhere, people are cranking out kids at up to 3 times replacement level.
We'll probably reach a balance worldwide sometime in the next couple decades. Currently it's about 20 births/1000 population and 8 deaths/ 1000 population for the world, still double replacement level.
The real problem is there will be lots of old people around and cluttering up space until they finally die off. Western nation will clear out the deadwood (pun slightly intended) in about 30 years, and China in 50 thanks to their one child policy, but many countries won't get over their bubbles for 60-80 years depending on when their peak was.
But to directly address your beliefs, overpopulation is hardly debunked, there are just lots of variables, some of them unknown and some of them estimates, and different estimates naturally give different results. Overpopulation is a matter of how many resources each person uses, not how many people there are, ultimately. It's simply not possible on water resources level for everyone to live like Americans, or even Swedes, in the places everyone is now, for example.
ukrayf:
--- Quote from: Valdís on 06 Feb 2013, 00:08 ---
--- Quote from: ukrayf on 05 Feb 2013, 23:52 ---This doesn't really have anything to do with ethics.
--- End quote ---
Sure it does. I'm saying it isn't immoral to fulfill such a desire.
Just because it's more complicated for me to eventually have a kid doesn't automatically mean I'd be a bad person for not adopting.
(Even if you believe the debunked overpopulation stuff: We're below replacement levels here; we're not the problem if there was one.)
--- End quote ---
I'd basically agree with the sentiment, but base biological urges do not moral argument make.
Not even gonna touch that last sentence, sheesh.
Shogouki:
--- Quote from: Valdís on 06 Feb 2013, 00:18 ---
--- Quote from: Shogouki on 06 Feb 2013, 00:16 ---Earth needs a couple billion fewer humans. :-\
--- End quote ---
I would only ever agree with this sentiment if it meant we'd have a couple billion on off-world colonies. :wink:
--- End quote ---
Well I certainly didn't mean killing them off, simply for humanity to reduce our population by having fewer children until we get to a healthy population level that isn't consuming more than Earth can handle.
I grew up with ST:TNG and the idea of humans colonizing other worlds was an incredible dream of mine. Now I'm not certain we'll make it another few centuries... :cry:
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version