Quote:
Originally Posted by P-hack
But again, you are acting like reproduction rate is a single variable function, and that that variable has and always will be the variable of choice.
|
Nobody is suggesting that "choice" is the single overwhelming variable. Choice itself is a variable affected by many other variables. And those variables are what I'm pointing out.
Having a child doesn't have to be a conscious decision. You either have a child or don't have a child. That's binary.
You can choose to have/not-have a child, and you can still not-have/have that child whatever your actual choice.
But socio-economic factors will affect both the choice and the act, in the ways described.
Quote:
Originally Posted by P-hack
Anyway, it is pretty clear that you guys are operating on some pre-programmed moral imperative, and that seems like it is beyond anything you can question.
|
What moral imperative? Here, I am simply pointing out conflict zones, poverty zones and high-birth rate zones more often than not overlap.
Which means either conflict/poverty are not good ways to curb high birth rates, high birth rates create conflict/poverty, or all three are (partially) caused by the same factors.
Simply put: conflict is not the only means to solve overpopulation. Any reduction of population is short term, after which it rebounds. If a conflict scenario is long and drawn out, the population adapts, and the birth rate goes up again, anyway.
Some theorists proclaim we breed like rats. When long-term survival of the individual is uncertain, we breed like crazy to ensure to survival of the species itself. Not sure I buy that this is the be-all and end-all of it, but the only way to not act like a rat is to be smarter than one. (again, education)
Long-term population removal via conflict will require a scorched earth scenario, which doesn't leave much in terms of a viable ecology for the human and non-human species that survive the conflict.
Quote:
Originally Posted by P-hack
you are looking at the data with foregone conclusions.
|
I had an opinion on poverty and population, formed only after looking at the data and reading all the reports.
I looked for counter-arguments, but though there is data showing a correlation between lower birth rates and depressions in the USA, the lower birth rates preceded the depressions, so it didn't seem likely that the latter caused the former.
I had *no* opinion on conflict versus birth rate until you mentioned conflict, at which point, I looked it up, and noted that the correlations were positive, rather than negative.
No conclusion is foregone. And my opinion can be changed by a show of convincing evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by P-hack
one would hope we are smart enough by now to realize just how stupid we are.
|
The mere fact that we're here on ecomodder, I think, is a testament to the fact that we do realize our current civilization is pretty dumb.
Are we headed towards disaster? Maybe. Likely. Is overpopulation part of the cause? Most likely.
Is the population trend slowing down? Yes.
Is it slowing down fast enough? I'm not ashamed to admit: I don't know.
Will slowing it down faster be better? Maybe. Maybe not. It's a pretty safe bet there will be negative repercussions either way.