Yahoo News: Is Having Large Families Irresponsible?
Posted by MerlynHerne
|
Re: Yahoo News: Is Having Large Families Irresponsible? September 11, 2013 |
It's always amusing to read breeders' impulsive, vapid commentary. First, they pretend they've saved humanity from extinction by replicating. Then, they fire off their adolescent 'why don't you kill yourself?' retort as though it were logical and equivalent. Never mind that there is a difference between finding yourself in existence and breeding 
eyes2
Any person who thinks they've considered the ecological and economic ramifications of their breeding is giving them too much credit. These are people who've surrendered to impulses and the lifescript. Unfortunately, they didn't understand Attenborough's point when he said that humans have stopped evolving. He was referring to the fact that evolution makes the strong more likely to survive and those genes have gone on to mutate in interaction with the environment for a greater chance of more survival.
People have essentially stopped evolving because those who should not breed are now helped with the full force of science. Those too feeble for survival and more egregiously for procreation are kept well enough and even supported in breeding. How many times have we read for women with multiple health comorbidities and the fucking doctors care only about preserving their fertility. Because a sickly bitch who can barely live herself just deserves a baybee. I don't fault people for being born sick or developing illness, the heavens know I've struggled with health issues even as a teenager. But fucking stop encouraging the feeble to continue breeding.
Attenborough is trying to tell people that ecology has limits. Rats in a container will breed until food runs out, then the young are fair game and maybe even each other. That's what breeders are doing to the planet. I've read several comments from them about how there is vast, empty land and that you can put billions more of humanseyes2 Yeah, because space to simply stand still is what is being talked about. Never mind that every human being's food, water, clothes, house supplies, etc. have to be pulled from the earth, manufactured in some way, grown in arable land, the waste disposed off, etc.
You just can't argue with breeder brains, though.
eyes2Any person who thinks they've considered the ecological and economic ramifications of their breeding is giving them too much credit. These are people who've surrendered to impulses and the lifescript. Unfortunately, they didn't understand Attenborough's point when he said that humans have stopped evolving. He was referring to the fact that evolution makes the strong more likely to survive and those genes have gone on to mutate in interaction with the environment for a greater chance of more survival.
People have essentially stopped evolving because those who should not breed are now helped with the full force of science. Those too feeble for survival and more egregiously for procreation are kept well enough and even supported in breeding. How many times have we read for women with multiple health comorbidities and the fucking doctors care only about preserving their fertility. Because a sickly bitch who can barely live herself just deserves a baybee. I don't fault people for being born sick or developing illness, the heavens know I've struggled with health issues even as a teenager. But fucking stop encouraging the feeble to continue breeding.
Attenborough is trying to tell people that ecology has limits. Rats in a container will breed until food runs out, then the young are fair game and maybe even each other. That's what breeders are doing to the planet. I've read several comments from them about how there is vast, empty land and that you can put billions more of humans
eyes2 Yeah, because space to simply stand still is what is being talked about. Never mind that every human being's food, water, clothes, house supplies, etc. have to be pulled from the earth, manufactured in some way, grown in arable land, the waste disposed off, etc.You just can't argue with breeder brains, though.
|
Re: Yahoo News: Is Having Large Families Irresponsible? September 11, 2013 |
Quote
CFinPenthouse
Quote
t.
This is actually not true.
Take only CS. Up until yesterday the biggest constrain of our brain getting bigger was the size of female pelvis. Too big head couldn't be birthed, because too-wide pelvis were bad for walking.
Now, with CS becoming the norm, head-size may explode. And if a bigger brain doesn't automathically means a greater intelligence, brain mass/body mass is a rough way to measure intelligence.
So we may become more intelligents. Also, I wouldn't be so cut-clear on whanever science really has that kind of effect anyway, but leave it to another topic.
But the point about resources/population is SPOT ON. Clear way to anger a breeder is mentioning Malthus Law
Increased brain size among humans over the next few centuries may not necessarily equate to greater intelligence, creativity, and scientific output. If anything, higher rates of caesarean sections have made it possible for the sedentary, obese, unhealthy, and largely undereducated to birth multiple large babies with more safety. Take the case of type II diabetes. Those women give birth to big babies and CS has allowed them to produce kids with all the health consequences of their mothers' poor health and/or dietary choices. I get, of course, that large brain mass is not necessarily accompanying large baby sizes. My point is that science has allowed the feeble (in health, intelligence, education, motivation, etc.) to survive at a much higher rate than evolution would have warranted.
I think that, as a whole, more humans are literate and certainly have sped their innovation and development over the last few centuries. However, the problems they've created, overpopulation being one of the primary ones, have far outpaced the achievements they've made. And in the end, you can have an X number of educated people and a Y number of IQs above 130, you still have to deal with the limits of ecology. Once you've stripped the world of its ability to sustain life (not just humans), you've condemned the species to a rapid deceleration and a fight for survival that makes the thought of innovation investment laughable.
De-Evolution doesn't exist. Everything is evolution, even things that may seem a step back. This because evolution is not God, it doesn't have an aim. We are just as evolved as the monocellular organism like bacteria. Everything alive is just as evolved. As long as it survives, evolutionary it is good enough. Also, evolution doesn't progress in a linear way. Some rather awesome experiments on bacteria shows that a genetic mutation that is neutral or even negative may, paired with another, subsequent mutation, be incredibly positive (experiments made on E. Coli, if anybody wants to read about them I can send them out, they are kind of wonderful and I always use them when debating stupid creationists
).Simple brain size is not intelligence. By brain size, whales should be more intelligent than humans. However, brain size/total mass is an important correlator with a general, species-base intelligence (not with singular intelligence). If you read any kind of books about human evolution, we make "lines in the sand" between australopitecine and various kind of homo by cc of brains. Lucy has 450cc (if I remember correctly). On average, we have 1250cc. If in the future the average will be, say, 2000cc, my bet is that those people will be a lot smarter than us. And probably another species entirely, which means pan narrans will have evolved. Perhaps we will truly hit the homo sapiens. Lets hope.
Overpopulation is certainly a big problem. I agree, and it is one of the main reasons I am CF. Wouldn't I agree with it, I wouldn't be here to talk with you. However, the truth about what will happen in the Deep Future is that we don't know what will happen in the Deep Future. Link with paragraph 1. We don't know what will happen in evolution.* We just don't, because evolution works in the hundred of thousand of years, if not in million, and we have problem enough to give guestimate on what is going to happen in the next 50. Climate change is a given, but everything else is sketchy and spotty at best. A good guestimate is that we should make less people. From that to foresee what is going to happen to humanity (or to whanever specie we will have evolved into) in the next hundred or thousands or millions...
*And actually some diseases can give you evolutionary advantages in some conditions. This book is very good at explaining how: Survival of the Sickest.. You mention diabetes. It is possible that during Ice Age, diabetes helped people not freezing to death. Since we are due for another Ice Age in 2000 years or so, keeping people with diabetes genes around may be a smart move...
_______________________
“I was talking about children that have not been properly house-trained. Left to their own impulses and indulged by doting or careless parents almost all children are yahoos. Loud, selfish, cruel, unaffectionate, jealous, perpetually striving for attention, empty-headed, for ever prating or if words fail them simply bawling, their voices grown huge from daily practice: the very worst company in the world. But what I dislike even more than the natural child is the affected child, the hulking oaf of seven or eight that skips heavily about with her hands dangling in front of her -- a little squirrel or bunny-rabbit -- and prattling away in a baby's voice.â€
― Patrick O'Brian, The Truelove
lib'-er-ty: the freedom given to you to make the wrong decision, based on the reasoned belief that you will normally make the right one.
|
Re: Yahoo News: Is Having Large Families Irresponsible? September 14, 2013 |
Quote
darkerthanblack
Of course having large families is irresponsible! Do they even have to ask?
I have read this whacky idea that humanity is led by alien masters who control all of society pn some dubious "conspiracy" website. These aliens supposedly eat humans and are happy that we breed so much, because it means that they will never run out of food. Seeing these moos, it kinda makes me wish this idea to be true.
I think this might be right!
Another thing that might be going on is ~
Humanity is lead by their Corporate Overlords, who control all of society via the media and religion. These Overlords live off of the Serfs labor and profits off their consumption, and are happy that they breed so much, because it means that they will never run out of money.
|
Re: Yahoo News: Is Having Large Families Irresponsible? September 15, 2013 |
Quote
pepper labeija
You wouldn't happen to mean The Reptilians would you, darkerthanblack? Reading about them on the David Icke forums is a guilty pleasure of mineQuote
darkerthanblack
Of course having large families is irresponsible! Do they even have to ask?
I have read this whacky idea that humanity is led by alien masters who control all of society pn some dubious "conspiracy" website. These aliens supposedly eat humans and are happy that we breed so much, because it means that they will never run out of food. Seeing these moos, it kinda makes me wish this idea to be true.
:biggrin2
Oh my goodness, yes, I totally was talking about the Reptilians here! It is my guilty pleasure as well!
winkI didn't even think that I would find anyone on here who would have an interest in such topics!
I am so glad I was proven wrong!There is one weakness in the idea of The Reptilians eating humans, because the rate in which the human population increases just shows that they are doing piss-poor job in eating humans.
|
Re: Yahoo News: Is Having Large Families Irresponsible? September 15, 2013 |
Quote
Snark Shark
Quote
darkerthanblack
There is one weakness in the idea of The Reptilians eating humans, because the rate in which the human population increases just shows that they are doing piss-poor job in eating humans.
REPTILIANS or REPUBLICANS?
larious Might as well be Republicans.Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.