Go Back   EcoModder Forum > Off-Topic > The Lounge
Register Now
 Register Now
 


Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 07-17-2015, 06:06 PM   #51 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
P-hack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 1,408

awesomer - '04 Toyota prius
Thanks: 102
Thanked 249 Times in 201 Posts
perhaps it is the wrong way to state it, it is pretty volatile, little to do with long term perceptions of poverty/prosperity.



Either way I don't see blaming poverty or "education" as terribly related.

  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 07-17-2015, 06:24 PM   #52 (permalink)
The PRC.
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Elsewhere.
Posts: 5,304
Thanks: 285
Thanked 535 Times in 384 Posts
Redo that for a specific country.
__________________
[I]So long and thanks for all the fish.[/I]
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2015, 08:11 PM   #53 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
P-hack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 1,408

awesomer - '04 Toyota prius
Thanks: 102
Thanked 249 Times in 201 Posts
ok
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2015, 09:29 PM   #54 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
IamIan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: RI
Posts: 692
Thanks: 371
Thanked 227 Times in 140 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by P-hack View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by IamIan
Results = reality .. not what one 'chooses'

Observation to-date does not agree with your if above.
Oh, so populations of animals with low fertility rates don't die out :/
Three aspects:

#1>
Results = Reality .. weather that result was 'chosen' or not.

'choose' to have a child .. but fail to conceive .. Result = no child = reality.

Choice has finite influence on result ... Result = Reality .. even if the result is not what one 'chose'.

- - - - - -

#2>
That low fertility group you describe might die out , or it might not die out at all .. it might thrive , it might not thrive .. it depends on more than just fertility rate ... Survival of the fittest .. fittest does not necessarily mean the most fertile.

There have been numerous species that have died out .. even if they had a higher fertility rate than other species that did not die out.

A high fertility rate is only one contributing factor toward how 'fit' a group / species is in a given environment / context.

- - - - - - -

#3>
Yes Observations to-date (reducing population % growth rate) .. does not agree with your previous hypothetical :
"if we breed out those who choose to self-reduce"

Soo far ... data , to-date .. refutes .. shows that specific hypothetical is not happening.

If that changes in the future .. than it will manifest itself as a increasing % global growth rate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by P-Hack
My take on it is that a large number of people want a "peaceful" reduction of the population, but observations about evolution have shown that conflict/struggle is necessary for evolutionary progress. I mean if the pacifists die out, then who is left to breed?
My take .. major (globally significant) conflict (war) has numerous other destructive / damaging / counter-productive effects ... it doesn't just kill people.

And (My take) this last ~40 years has had a faster and more globally effective negative contributing influence on total global human population ... than any war in history ever has.

WW2 was about ... ~0.6%/yr influence .. around ~14mil/yr .. for all of ~6 yrs.

The ~2Billion .. not born due to reduced % growth rate .. has been about ~0.7%/yr influence .. ~50mil/yr .. on average for ~40 years .. this is larger total , faster , for longer period of time.
__________________
Life Long Energy Efficiency Enthusiast
2000 Honda Insight - LiFePO4 PHEV - Solar
2020 Inmotion V11 PEV ~30miles/kwh

Last edited by IamIan; 07-17-2015 at 09:41 PM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2015, 09:38 PM   #55 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
P-hack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 1,408

awesomer - '04 Toyota prius
Thanks: 102
Thanked 249 Times in 201 Posts
but you are ignoring basic evolutionary mechanisms, I think you miss my point, and thus unintended consequences are made. But perhaps since it will only be felt by future generations (like many other problems) you don't think it worthy of consideration?

I'm not promoting conflict (though reality=results), nor condoning it.

Basic, how we got here, fundamental question (I got a million of 'em):
should you personally care for your own kids more than all the others? equally? less?
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2015, 10:28 PM   #56 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
IamIan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: RI
Posts: 692
Thanks: 371
Thanked 227 Times in 140 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by P-hack View Post
but you are ignoring basic evolutionary mechanisms
Please elaborate.

Because it seemed to me .. like you had done that ignoring of basic evolutionary mechanisms .. with the previous over simplification of fertility .. while ignoring all (non-fertility) factors that influence 'survival of the fittest'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by P-hack View Post
I think you miss my point, and thus unintended consequences are made.
Perhaps.
Can you re-state / elaborate your point?

You've refused to answer some of my previous probing questions .. which makes it more difficult for me to figure it out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by P-hack View Post
But perhaps since it will only be felt by future generations (like many other problems) you don't think it worthy of consideration?
Incorrect derogatory 'perhaps' about me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by P-hack
I don't know of any reliable answers aside from conflict.
Quote:
Originally Posted by P-hack View Post
I'm not promoting conflict , nor condoning it.
Please explain .. I don't see how the 2nd claim agrees with the previous ??

Quote:
Originally Posted by P-hack
Basic, how we got here, fundamental question (I got a million of 'em):
I'd like you to answer the questions I've asked you as often as I answer yours.


Quote:
Originally Posted by P-hack
should you personally care for your own kids more than all the others? equally? less?
'should' is very subjective .. and variable depending on specifics of desired outcome , context , etc .. Given that question I can think of numerous various potential answers .. 1st 3 that come to mind.

#1>
For the purpose 'context' of directly my own genetic contribution to the whole of the species .. yes I 'should' care for my own kids more than others.

#2>
However .. as a 'pack' animal it is a benefit to the pack if I cared for the other kids equally to my own .. that benefits the pack .. being a part of a pack benefits me and my kids .. soo in that context there is a potential evolutionary positive feed back that .. I 'should' care for them equally... but only others of my 'pack' , that are part of my 'benefit feedback'.

#3>
If my kid is about to murder/rape/etc someone else .. I 'should' ethically care more about that other innocent/good/etc kid than my own sadistic murder/rapist/etc.

etc ... etc.
__________________
Life Long Energy Efficiency Enthusiast
2000 Honda Insight - LiFePO4 PHEV - Solar
2020 Inmotion V11 PEV ~30miles/kwh
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2015, 10:47 PM   #57 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
P-hack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 1,408

awesomer - '04 Toyota prius
Thanks: 102
Thanked 249 Times in 201 Posts
there is a difference between condoning something, and being realistic about it.

So, you don't fault someone for looking after their kids more than someone elses? or if they are part of a pack (or say a "tribe")? unless the actions of the kid disagrees with your moral viewpoint?
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2015, 06:36 AM   #58 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurcher
 
mort's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 322
Thanks: 145
Thanked 101 Times in 73 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by P-hack View Post
ok
What happens in the future:

-mort
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	china_pop.jpg
Views:	202
Size:	61.5 KB
ID:	18335  
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2015, 08:14 AM   #59 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
P-hack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 1,408

awesomer - '04 Toyota prius
Thanks: 102
Thanked 249 Times in 201 Posts
circular reasoning hiding behind graphs, like this thread subject.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2015, 08:58 AM   #60 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Philippines
Posts: 2,173
Thanks: 1,739
Thanked 589 Times in 401 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by P-hack View Post
there is a difference between condoning something, and being realistic about it.

So, you don't fault someone for looking after their kids more than someone elses? or if they are part of a pack (or say a "tribe")? unless the actions of the kid disagrees with your moral viewpoint?
Reading what he said, he answered that, from an evolutionary standpoint, he "should"... he doesn't say what value he gives to any of these actions. You're the one assigning values to them for him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by P-hack View Post
population growth was fairly steady through affluent periods, I don't think affluence, which is largely a matter of perspective, explains everything, or possibly anything, regarding growth or lack of it.
Regardless of what we may think, the statistics paint a fairly consistent picture: The more productive your citizens are, the less children they have.





Do note that a large decrease in fertility is associated with the big depressions in the United States... but they often precede them rather than follow them.

-

If you're looking towards conflict to reduce the population, it's important to note that the Baby Boom was a direct result of World War 2.


More food for thought:





Last edited by niky; 07-18-2015 at 09:12 AM..
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to niky For This Useful Post:
RedDevil (07-18-2015)
Reply  Post New Thread


Tags
lies, scam

Thread Tools




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com