Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on November 13, 2016, 07:13:11 PM
-
Thought this was a well presented set of data
http://www.vox.com/2016/11/12/13600834/human-world-population-video
-
thanks NS
judging by that I don't think I would have enjoyed living in a later period.
-
I wonder if a decline will/would happen as rapidly.
-
I was interested to read this in the write-up below the video screen.
Around 4:10, in the 18th century, the world population begins to explode thanks to the Industrial Revolution and modern medicine. From 1800 to 2015, the global population grew from about 1 billion to nearly 7 billion. And the population is projected to peak at about 11 billion around 2100.
I wonder whether we have missed the point of disease - nature's way of maintaining a manageable population? After all, when one combines it and warfare, the world's population was kept manageable for millennia. Will the 11 billion peak occur because the earth simply can't cope and, in effect, reject humanity in the same way that human bodies often reject 'foreign bodies'?
Could it be that we are, to all intents and purposes, creating our own demise?
-
I was interested to read this in the write-up below the video screen.
I wonder whether we have missed the point of disease - nature's way of maintaining a manageable population? After all, when one combines it and warfare, the world's population was kept manageable for millennia. Will the 11 billion peak occur because the earth simply can't cope and, in effect, reject humanity in the same way that human bodies often reject 'foreign bodies'?
Could it be that we are, to all intents and purposes, creating our own demise?
The 11 billion bit is predicted to flatten due to widespread contraception, abortion as developing nations follow the previous path of developed nations. I take it with a pinch of salt, as I struggle to see why advances in medicine won't continue. There is also the question of an age demographic if there is flatlining due to lower numbers of births.
I think it's odd to say that disease has a point, and if you said that to someone who had just been saved from a serious disease, I would suggest you should prepare to be punched, as it translates to 'you should have died. I also find it odd for a Christian to effectively suggest war as something as a policy for population control.
In addition I think the most likely population 'control' in the future will be climate change.
-
I think it's odd to say that disease has a point, and if you said that to someone who had just been saved from a serious disease, I would suggest you should prepare to be punched, as it translates to 'you should have died. I also find it odd for a Christian to effectively suggest war as something as a policy for population control.
I don't know whether you might have missed one of your biology lessons NS, but the fact is that we are all going to die.
(sorry if this comes as a bit of a shock)
-
I don't know whether you might have missed one of your biology lessons NS, but the fact is that we are all going to die.
(sorry if this comes as a bit of a shock)
Eh?
-
Eh?
It doesn't matter whether people are offended by the suggestion or not, the cycle of life will continue.
e.g.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218
-
It doesn't matter whether people are offended by the suggestion or not, the cycle of life will continue.
e.g.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218
And again eh! I was neither suggesting that they wouldn't die, nor that their offense would stop that. Just arguing that saying medical advances miss the 'point' of disease is a bit odd. Or do you think that saving someone from cancer is missing the point of disease so we shouldn't save them?
-
And again eh! I was neither suggesting that they wouldn't die, nor that their offense would stop that. Just arguing that saying medical advances miss the 'point' of disease is a bit odd. Or do you think that saving someone from cancer is missing the point of disease so we shouldn't save them?
I don't know whether you are being deliberately obtuse or just a bit thick.
your post said:
I think it's odd to say that disease has a point, and if you said that to someone who had just been saved from a serious disease, I would suggest you should prepare to be punched, as it translates to 'you should have died. I also find it odd for a Christian to effectively suggest war as something as a policy for population
control.
My point is that medical advances make no difference to the end result - WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE.
In that sense the mechanism of population control is 'built in' to the cycle of life.
-
I don't know whether you are being deliberately obtuse or just a bit thick.
your post said:
My point is that medical advances make no difference to the end result - WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE.
In that sense the mechanism of population control is 'built in' to the cycle of life.
which is a non sequitur to the issue raised by Hope that medical advances which have in part lead to the increase in world population ate somehow 'missing the point of disease'
-
which is a non sequitur to the issue raised by Hope that medical advances which have in part lead to the increase in world population ate somehow 'missing the point of disease'
Which is totally missing the point I was making:
Whether you regard it as 'The will of God' or 'Natures Way' or simply the inevitable consequence of our bio-chemical processes makes not the slightest difference. The outcome is exactly the same.
-
Which is totally missing the point I was making:
Whether you regard it as 'The will of God' or 'Natures Way' or simply the inevitable consequence of our bio-chemical processes makes not the slightest difference. The outcome is exactly the same.
And your point remains a non sequitur
-
Thought this was a well presented set of data
http://www.vox.com/2016/11/12/13600834/human-world-population-video
Superb animation, thanks for posting.
-
I was interested to read this in the write-up below the video screen.
I wonder whether we have missed the point of disease - nature's way of maintaining a manageable population? After all, when one combines it and warfare, the world's population was kept manageable for millennia. Will the 11 billion peak occur because the earth simply can't cope and, in effect, reject humanity in the same way that human bodies often reject 'foreign bodies'?
Could it be that we are, to all intents and purposes, creating our own demise?
Downward pressure on our numbers can come from war, epidemics, astronomical events and climate change, but also as the animation shows, fertility rates are falling worldwide, maybe this is nature's own inbuilt mechanism for regulating population levels.
-
Er... why would "nature" have an inbuilt mechanism for regulating population levels? Can we leave it up to "nature" then?
-
Er... why would "nature" have an inbuilt mechanism for regulating population levels? Can we leave it up to "nature" then?
Because it works. It's an ecosystem.
When there is a glut of food the population of feeders breeds and goes up.then the predators eat them and breed in turn. When the glut is over the feeders starve or get eaten by the increasing population of predators.
Then the predators starve when the population of feeders drops, but there is usually a balance which is enough to keep the whole process going.
it's a system that is in constant flux.
Sometimes it's better left to nature as interference can tip the balance.
We upset it by using some pesticides. We kill the good insects too.
-
Some people think we will either poison ourselves like bacteria in a closed environment or that a plague will come along, killing all but those naturally immune ( which is also seen as an inbuilt mechanism so the species survive)
In the past, plagues decimated populations, keeping numbers down.
Now we have medicines, but the viruses and bacteria are fighting back, themselves becoming immune.
So in a way nature is looking to right the balance.
Antibiotics are becoming less effective, there are superbugs in our hospitals.
We are in a constant war with nature to keep the balance in our favour.
Some people think one day our luck will run out.
-
Don't know about "works" .. it's just what happens by random.
Something "works" when it achieves some desired purpose - but there isn't one as far as we know. Nature does not have any particular balance or result in mind.
Fertility falls because we choose to have fewer children. We wouldn't just have them and let them die from disease or starvation. We might have more to fight more wars though.
Superbugs aren't fighting us, it's we that create them, or rather the spaces where they can grow.
-
I wonder if a decline will/would happen as rapidly.
Given how things are going, possibly yes. If a perfect storm forms in the shape of lack of food, lack of water, lack of usable land, wars, revolutions or conflicts, then the toll could be extremely heavy.
-
I was interested to read this in the write-up below the video screen.
I wonder whether we have missed the point of disease - nature's way of maintaining a manageable population? After all, when one combines it and warfare, the world's population was kept manageable for millennia. Will the 11 billion peak occur because the earth simply can't cope and, in effect, reject humanity in the same way that human bodies often reject 'foreign bodies'?
Could it be that we are, to all intents and purposes, creating our own demise?
Yes, Gaia can be nice and nasty.
-
And again eh! I was neither suggesting that they wouldn't die, nor that their offense would stop that. Just arguing that saying medical advances miss the 'point' of disease is a bit odd. Or do you think that saving someone from cancer is missing the point of disease so we shouldn't save them?
But if you save lives and extend life expectancy then that causes a problem of resources etc. hence wars and conflicts and so on.
-
But if you save lives and extend life expectancy then that causes a problem of resources etc. hence wars and conflicts and so on.
so you refused vaccination then?
-
so you refused vaccination then?
You do come up with some crap. I'm talking about the general picture and effect of the increase in the population to unmanageable numbers not my personal outlook. As you would say a non sequitur.
-
The 11 billion bit is predicted to flatten due to widespread contraception, abortion as developing nations follow the previous path of developed nations. I take it with a pinch of salt, as I struggle to see why advances in medicine won't continue. There is also the question of an age demographic if there is flatlining due to lower numbers of births.
The World Health Organisation and various other groups suggest that contraception has little to do with 'following the previous path of developed nations'. Instead it has to do with achieving a particular average life expectancy - 50 is apparently the pivot point. If we, as developed nations, fail to help the developing nations improve their life expectency, many won't reach that level.
I think it's odd to say that disease has a point, and if you said that to someone who had just been saved from a serious disease, I would suggest you should prepare to be punched, as it translates to 'you should have died. I also find it odd for a Christian to effectively suggest war as something as a policy for population control.
Well, it's the logical conclusion of evolutionary principles that deny that anything has any meaning or value.
In addition I think the most likely population 'control' in the future will be climate change.
Sadly, it will have most impact on the developing nations, thus reducing their average life expectancy.
-
Given how things are going, possibly yes. If a perfect storm forms in the shape of lack of food, lack of water, lack of usable land, wars, revolutions or conflicts, then the toll could be extremely heavy.
Let's hope it doesn't become like Calhoun's rats:
" Using a variety of strains of rats and mice, he once more provided his populations with food, bedding, and shelter. With no predators and with exposure to disease kept at a minimum, Calhoun described his experimental universes as "rat utopia," "mouse paradise." With all their visible needs met, the animals bred rapidly. The only restriction Calhoun imposed on his population was of space--and as the population grew, this became increasingly problematic. As the pens heaved with animals, one of his assistants described rodent "utopia" as having become "hell."
Males became aggressive, some moving in groups, attacking females and the young. Mating behaviors were disrupted. Some males became exclusively homosexual. Others became pansexual and hypersexual, attempting to mount any rat they encountered. Mothers neglected their infants, first failing to construct proper nests, and then carelessly abandoning and even attacking their pups. In certain sections of the pens, infant mortality rose as high as 96%, the dead cannibalized by adults. Subordinate animals withdrew psychologically, surviving in a physical sense but at an immense psychological cost. They were the majority in the late phases of growth, existing as a vacant, huddled mass in the centre of the pens (with their mobile phones,Twitter accounts and virtual reality goggles ;)). Unable to breed, the population plummeted and did not recover. The crowded rodents had lost the ability to co-exist harmoniously, even after the population numbers once again fell to low levels. At a certain density, they had ceased to act like rats and mice, and the change was permanent. "
-
Let's hope it doesn't become like Calhoun's rats:
" Using a variety of strains of rats and mice, he once more provided his populations with food, bedding, and shelter. With no predators and with exposure to disease kept at a minimum, Calhoun described his experimental universes as "rat utopia," "mouse paradise." With all their visible needs met, the animals bred rapidly. The only restriction Calhoun imposed on his population was of space--and as the population grew, this became increasingly problematic. As the pens heaved with animals, one of his assistants described rodent "utopia" as having become "hell."
Males became aggressive, some moving in groups, attacking females and the young. Mating behaviors were disrupted. Some males became exclusively homosexual. Others became pansexual and hypersexual, attempting to mount any rat they encountered. Mothers neglected their infants, first failing to construct proper nests, and then carelessly abandoning and even attacking their pups. In certain sections of the pens, infant mortality rose as high as 96%, the dead cannibalized by adults. Subordinate animals withdrew psychologically, surviving in a physical sense but at an immense psychological cost. They were the majority in the late phases of growth, existing as a vacant, huddled mass in the centre of the pens (with their mobile phones,Twitter accounts and virtual reality goggles ;)). Unable to breed, the population plummeted and did not recover. The crowded rodents had lost the ability to co-exist harmoniously, even after the population numbers once again fell to low levels. At a certain density, they had ceased to act like rats and mice, and the change was permanent. "
Yes; the worldwide fall in human fertility might be analogous to this experiment; living in high stress overcrowded overpolluted cities with bad diet and poor exercise is a direct consequence of our success as a species but those conditions are not those from which our success was conceived, hence we suffer health problems. and falling fertility. We evolved to prosper in hunter gatherer groups of maybe 30 to 150 people, our physiology and mental outlook are optimised to that scenario and we are still like that; we cannot change ourselves through technology in any short or medium term. Despite never ending breakthroughs in medical science I think the future looks set to get steadily worse, not better, for most people.
-
Let's hope it doesn't become like Calhoun's rats:
" Using a variety of strains of rats and mice, he once more provided his populations with food, bedding, and shelter. With no predators and with exposure to disease kept at a minimum, Calhoun described his experimental universes as "rat utopia," "mouse paradise." With all their visible needs met, the animals bred rapidly. The only restriction Calhoun imposed on his population was of space--and as the population grew, this became increasingly problematic. As the pens heaved with animals, one of his assistants described rodent "utopia" as having become "hell."
Males became aggressive, some moving in groups, attacking females and the young. Mating behaviors were disrupted. Some males became exclusively homosexual. Others became pansexual and hypersexual, attempting to mount any rat they encountered. Mothers neglected their infants, first failing to construct proper nests, and then carelessly abandoning and even attacking their pups. In certain sections of the pens, infant mortality rose as high as 96%, the dead cannibalized by adults. Subordinate animals withdrew psychologically, surviving in a physical sense but at an immense psychological cost. They were the majority in the late phases of growth, existing as a vacant, huddled mass in the centre of the pens (with their mobile phones,Twitter accounts and virtual reality goggles ;)). Unable to breed, the population plummeted and did not recover. The crowded rodents had lost the ability to co-exist harmoniously, even after the population numbers once again fell to low levels. At a certain density, they had ceased to act like rats and mice, and the change was permanent. "
Maybe we will not meet exactly the same fate as the rats....but we can see at least some symptoms of the 'rat hell' already.
In humans I think the feeling of 'not belonging' and alienation can be more powerful factors than just overpopulation. An easy life with minimum physical activity can also contribute to significant mental disturbance.
-
Yes; the worldwide fall in human fertility might be analogous to this experiment; living in high stress overcrowded overpolluted cities with bad diet and poor exercise is a direct consequence of our success as a species but those conditions are not those from which our success was conceived, hence we suffer health problems. and falling fertility. We evolved to prosper in hunter gatherer groups of maybe 30 to 150 people, our physiology and mental outlook are optimised to that scenario and we are still like that; we cannot change ourselves through technology in any short or medium term. Despite never ending breakthroughs in medical science I think the future looks set to get steadily worse, not better, for most people.
Yes, I remember a UN Population Fund report a few years ago which contained the following:
"Urban populations are set to double in African and Asian cities over the next 30 years, warns UNFPA. This will add 1.7 billion people to those cities, more than the populations of China and the US combined, it says. This growth threatens the world with disaster, unless politicians undertake a radical rethink, the report says. The report, entitled The State of World Population 2007: Unleashing the Potential of Urban Growth, says every week the number of people living in cities in Africa and Asia increases by approximately one million. And by 2030 the UN Population Fund says the number of city inhabitants will be over five billion, or 60% of world population.
To cope, the UN says, politicians have to stop trying to prevent people moving to cities Urbanisation is inevitable and a good thing, it adds. "What happens in the cities of Africa and Asia and other regions will shape our common future," says UNFPA Executive Director Thoraya Ahmed Obaid. "We must abandon a mindset that resists urbanisation and act now to begin a concerted global effort to help cities unleash their potential to spur economic growth and solve social problems." According to the report, this wave of growth in urban living is without precedent. And while the megacities (more than 10 million people) of the world will continue to grow, the majority of the population growth will be in urban areas of 500,000 people or fewer. Without adequate planning, the report says this growth in urban living will create huge slums, degrade the environment and radicalise the young. "
-
Let's hope it doesn't become like Calhoun's rats:
" Using a variety of strains of rats and mice, he once more provided his populations with food, bedding, and shelter. With no predators and with exposure to disease kept at a minimum, Calhoun described his experimental universes as "rat utopia," "mouse paradise." With all their visible needs met, the animals bred rapidly. The only restriction Calhoun imposed on his population was of space--and as the population grew, this became increasingly problematic. As the pens heaved with animals, one of his assistants described rodent "utopia" as having become "hell."
Males became aggressive, some moving in groups, attacking females and the young. Mating behaviors were disrupted. Some males became exclusively homosexual. Others became pansexual and hypersexual, attempting to mount any rat they encountered. Mothers neglected their infants, first failing to construct proper nests, and then carelessly abandoning and even attacking their pups. In certain sections of the pens, infant mortality rose as high as 96%, the dead cannibalized by adults. Subordinate animals withdrew psychologically, surviving in a physical sense but at an immense psychological cost. They were the majority in the late phases of growth, existing as a vacant, huddled mass in the centre of the pens (with their mobile phones,Twitter accounts and virtual reality goggles ;)). Unable to breed, the population plummeted and did not recover. The crowded rodents had lost the ability to co-exist harmoniously, even after the population numbers once again fell to low levels. At a certain density, they had ceased to act like rats and mice, and the change was permanent. "
I know about Calhoun's experiment. Every time I read it it really hits home about what is going on with mankind. And the last concluding bit is a real dystopian picture.
The bit that says, "Subordinate animals withdrew psychologically, surviving in a physical sense but at an immense psychological cost. They were the majority in the late phases of growth, existing as a vacant, huddled mass in the centre of the pens." Brings to mind that the poor never start (or rarely) revolutions because they are in this state where all they are doing is struggling to survive another day. Their minds have been befuddled, and the power of be know this and seek to grind the masses to this point - this is what Neo-Liberalism is doing. The rich elites seek to further this with things like TTIP which would grind the people down by excoriating the nature states to their will.
One of the effects of the slave trade was that black slaves on the plantations etc. stopped breeding as they saw it as being inhumanly cruel to bring a child into such a life.
-
The 11 billion bit is predicted to flatten due to widespread contraception, abortion as developing nations follow the previous path of developed nations. I take it with a pinch of salt, as I struggle to see why advances in medicine won't continue. There is also the question of an age demographic if there is flatlining due to lower numbers of births.
Because as societies become more affluent and more educated, women have fewer children. Once the birthrate drops to two children per woman, the only thing that can keep the population growing is increasing life expectancy. I am assuming that demographers have predicted the flattening out based on the current birth rate trend and the current life expectancy trend. As you video points out, if they get it even slightly wrong, the results can vary enormously.
-
Yes; the worldwide fall in human fertility might be analogous to this experiment; living in high stress overcrowded overpolluted cities with bad diet and poor exercise is a direct consequence of our success as a species but those conditions are not those from which our success was conceived, hence we suffer health problems. and falling fertility. We evolved to prosper in hunter gatherer groups of maybe 30 to 150 people, our physiology and mental outlook are optimised to that scenario and we are still like that; we cannot change ourselves through technology in any short or medium term. Despite never ending breakthroughs in medical science I think the future looks set to get steadily worse, not better, for most people.
Living in cities is not bad for humans on average compared to the alternative for most of us which is back breaking labour in an agricultural setting where the wrong kind of weather will starve you to death.
The rat experiment is interesting but humans are vastly more intelligent than rats. The most densely populated parts of the world are actually less violent and "dystopian" than they were say two hundred years ago.
-
Let's hope it doesn't become like Calhoun's rats:
" Using a variety of strains of rats and mice, ... "
Well, we are not rats and are far from those '60s anthropomorphic comparisons and doom-laden projections.
More people are far "better off" than people have been in the past. That is why the birth rate drops - the ideal two or so children that people want are likely to survive, so why keep producing more?
Of-course there are plenty, especially in the wealthy west, who long for the economic slumps and depressions of the past, and seem determined to bring them back so they can act out their fantasies of fighting for survival in a zombie filled apocalypse.
-
More people are far "better off" than people have been in the past. That is why the birth rate drops - the ideal two or so children that people want are likely to survive, so why keep producing more?
.... and yet the birth rate isn't dropping on the planet. There are approximately 380,000 births per day and 150,000 deaths. When it comes to the sex drive, logic doesn't always hold sway. However, China adopted a 1 child per couple policy which seemed to have had an effect but it resulted in a disproportionate percentage of people over working age needing support and so a 2 child policy has being introduced, but because of social and economic pressures, apparently couples are not applying, which could eventually lead to a quarter of China's population being over working age.
-
Ekim,
I found this article quite informative: Population Bomb? So Wrong (http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/programs/conservation-and-development/population-bomb-so-wrong/?utm_source=buffer&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Buffer&utm_content=bufferaaf0b)
It is true that the total population may continue to grow as life expectancy increases, and we will need to find ways of working with aged populations. Hopefully we will be able to address and solve these issues with logic and rational policies for world trade, immigration and education.
However we do live in a china shop and will suffer badly if the bulls of climate change and war are not kept well in hand.
-
Ekim,
I found this article quite informative: Population Bomb? So Wrong (http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/programs/conservation-and-development/population-bomb-so-wrong/?utm_source=buffer&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Buffer&utm_content=bufferaaf0b)
It is true that the total population may continue to grow as life expectancy increases, and we will need to find ways of working with aged populations. Hopefully we will be able to address and solve these issues with logic and rational policies for world trade, immigration and education.
However we do live in a china shop and will suffer badly if the bulls of climate change and war are not kept well in hand.
what we need to do is build cannons. the world is overrun with fodder
-
Let's hope it doesn't become like Calhoun's rats:
" Using a variety of strains of rats and mice, he once more provided his populations with food, bedding, and shelter. With no predators and with exposure to disease kept at a minimum, Calhoun described his experimental universes as "rat utopia," "mouse paradise." With all their visible needs met, the animals bred rapidly. The only restriction Calhoun imposed on his population was of space--and as the population grew, this became increasingly problematic. As the pens heaved with animals, one of his assistants described rodent "utopia" as having become "hell."
Males became aggressive, some moving in groups, attacking females and the young. Mating behaviors were disrupted. Some males became exclusively homosexual. Others became pansexual and hypersexual, attempting to mount any rat they encountered. Mothers neglected their infants, first failing to construct proper nests, and then carelessly abandoning and even attacking their pups. In certain sections of the pens, infant mortality rose as high as 96%, the dead cannibalized by adults. Subordinate animals withdrew psychologically, surviving in a physical sense but at an immense psychological cost. They were the majority in the late phases of growth, existing as a vacant, huddled mass in the centre of the pens (with their mobile phones,Twitter accounts and virtual reality goggles ;)). Unable to breed, the population plummeted and did not recover. The crowded rodents had lost the ability to co-exist harmoniously, even after the population numbers once again fell to low levels. At a certain density, they had ceased to act like rats and mice, and the change was permanent. "
Something else I've noticed here in the last line. Even for rats the instincts weren't strong enough to kit start them back to normal. Seems the upbringing and environment affects their futures in a similar way it affects humans - once 'down' it is hard to get back 'up' again. That then links back to NS's thread on Animal Minds.
-
Living in cities is not bad for humans on average compared to the alternative for most of us which is back breaking labour in an agricultural setting where the wrong kind of weather will starve you to death.
The rat experiment is interesting but humans are vastly more intelligent than rats. The most densely populated parts of the world are actually less violent and "dystopian" than they were say two hundred years ago.
Once resources start to be scarce that'll change.
-
I have another idea as to why advance nations have smaller families. Their wealth allows them to keep their 'toys' in adulthood so making them more neoteric. Why would you burden yourselves with lots of kids if you could keep on 'playing' and partying?
-
I have another idea as to why advance nations have smaller families. Their wealth allows them to keep their 'toys' in adulthood so making them more neoteric. Why would you burden yourselves with lots of kids if you could keep on 'playing' and partying?
Actually, many rich families in the US have huge families with four to five kids (especially orthodox Christians). So..I don't think there is a direct link between wealth and number of children. I think it is more to do with beliefs.
People who are more religious and conservative would have more children regardless of wealth. People who are more materialistic would have less or no children because they are more concerned about their immediate comforts.
Humans need only religion or some form of spiritual belief for them to be happy and comfortable regardless of the over population or the living conditions. I have seen many people living in miserable and overcrowded conditions but very cheerful and happy with themselves. They usually have deep faith in God and in destiny. They treat life as just a journey and don't take their living conditions too seriously. They treat it as a temporary problem to be tolerated cheerfully. Most of them are happy with whatever falls to their lot.
-
I have another idea as to why advance nations have smaller families. Their wealth allows them to keep their 'toys' in adulthood so making them more neoteric. Why would you burden yourselves with lots of kids if you could keep on 'playing' and partying?
Judging by the growth in domestic pets, perhaps some are happy with surrogate babies, which has its own impact on global ecology.
-
Actually, many rich families in the US have huge families with four to five kids (especially orthodox Christians). So..I don't think there is a direct link between wealth and number of children. I think it is more to do with beliefs.
People who are more religious and conservative would have more children regardless of wealth. People who are more materialistic would have less or no children because they are more concerned about their immediate comforts.
Humans need only religion or some form of spiritual belief for them to be happy and comfortable regardless of the over population or the living conditions. I have seen many people living in miserable and overcrowded conditions but very cheerful and happy with themselves. They usually have deep faith in God and in destiny. They treat life as just a journey and don't take their living conditions too seriously. They treat it as a temporary problem to be tolerated cheerfully. Most of them are happy with whatever falls to their lot.
OK. I won't argue with that. They have their 'toy' in their religion which actually supplements their urge to procreate.
I have another idea to add to my last one which relates to the role that religion plays in peoples' lives. One thing that religion provides which people need is a sense of belonging; a tribe or clan that produces a safe environment. Modern life and our civilization tends to foster an individual attitude that has caused a dysfunction in our society's cohesion, and it is this that dampens the ardour to procreate due a sense of apathy. We see a similar thing with animals in zoos who won't bred.
-
OK. I won't argue with that. They have their 'toy' in their religion which actually supplements their urge to procreate.
I have another idea to add to my last one which relates to the role that religion plays in peoples' lives. One thing that religion provides which people need is a sense of belonging; a tribe or clan that produces a safe environment. Modern life and our civilization tends to foster an individual attitude that has caused a dysfunction in our society's cohesion, and it is this that dampens the ardour to procreate due a sense of apathy. We see a similar thing with animals in zoos who won't bred.
Yes...there are several positive aspects to religious belief.
1. It instills a sense of peace and contentment, regardless of circumstances.
2. It instills a feeling of belonging and kinship.
3. It helps in stabilizing marriage and in procreation.
Materialism on the other hand breeds discontent, egocentricism and a sense of entitlement. This leads to competitiveness and a feeling of inequality.
-
Yes...there are several positive aspects to religious belief.
1. It instills a sense of peace and contentment, regardless of circumstances.
2. It instills a feeling of belonging and kinship.
3. It helps in stabilizing marriage and in procreation.
Materialism on the other hand breeds discontent, egocentricism and a sense of entitlement. This leads to competitiveness and a feeling of inequality.
very droll
you should be on MOCK THE WEEK
-
Yes...there are several positive aspects to religious belief.
1. It instills a sense of peace and contentment, regardless of circumstances.
2. It instills a feeling of belonging and kinship.
3. It helps in stabilizing marriage and in procreation.
Materialism on the other hand breeds discontent, egocentricism and a sense of entitlement. This leads to competitiveness and a feeling of inequality.
Some like to be cattle and others don't.
-
very droll
you should be on MOCK THE WEEK
Or do you mean Mock The Weak?
-
.... and yet the birth rate isn't dropping on the planet. There are approximately 380,000 births per day and 150,000 deaths.
The birth rate is dropping. Anyway, it doesn't need to. At some point in the 22nd century, the death rate will catch up and then the population will stabilise - or crash.
When it comes to the sex drive, logic doesn't always hold sway. However, China adopted a 1 child per couple policy which seemed to have had an effect but it resulted in a disproportionate percentage of people over working age needing support and so a 2 child policy has being introduced, but because of social and economic pressures, apparently couples are not applying, which could eventually lead to a quarter of China's population being over working age.
That's actually not really important. It seems that as populations get richer and more educated, the birth rate drops naturally.
-
Yes...there are several positive aspects to religious belief.
1. It instills a sense of peace and contentment, regardless of circumstances.
Really?
Heard of suicide bombers?
2. It instills a feeling of belonging and kinship.
3. It helps in stabilizing marriage and in procreation.
There's this myth that staying married is always for the best, but people change and they fall out of love. What is the point of making yourself miserable in a marriage that is dead?
Materialism on the other hand breeds discontent, egocentricism and a sense of entitlement. This leads to competitiveness and a feeling of inequality.
Like all those Christians and Muslims who feel entitled to tell the rest of us what we can and cannot do?
-
Or do you mean Mock The Weak?
nice ;)