/sci/ - Science & Math

Yes.

>>6899208
>How do we fix this?

Either everybody goes on strict birth control a la Ender's Game, or some subsection of the global population takes everybody else to the proverbial cleaners, and then lives in harmony for a few more centuries.

Will /sci/ join my tribe?

pic related

>>6899208
It's not that bad, providing we continue to increase women's equality and access to education and work.

http://youtu.be/ezVk1ahRF78?t=10m

Abigger problem is rich world's overconsumption.

>>6899208
>How do we fix this?

It will fix itself. Fertility has a very strong inverse relationship to GDP. As countries go richer, they also grow much less fertile- even the small movement from $1,500/person to $5,000/person causes fertility to drop b 25%. By the time countries reach even shitty levels of $15,000/year they're below replacement rate net of immigration.

At current rates of global growth, I will be shocked if we aren't below replacement rate in 20 years.

>>6899253

>Children per woman

This has nothing to do with women's equality it merely has to do with the standard of living for society as a whole. If you improve society's lot you improve women's lot, as standard, there is no objective difference.

>>6899355

Improving women's equality usualy means better acces to things like birth control, abortions, the Pill, etc., all things which 1.) only pertain to women, and 2.) directly reduce the birthrate.

>>6899365
How would an increase in the standards of living not contribute to that?

If you have $5000 a month instead of $1500 a month, you'd without a doubt have access to whatever resources you need.

Liberal pls. This isn't women's studies.

>>6899371
>>6899365
Yeah true also consider that most of the non- Christian (Western) countries that have seen a reduced birthrate and increased standard of living; Mid-East and Eastern countries, have not undergone any significant reforms in women's equality. The position of the speaker is interesting, but flawed. Birth rates have nothing at all to do with women and everything to do with the (formerly) slow and steady pace of male advancement across the board in developed nations.

>>6899371

Unless, say, you live in a country where such things were banned despite comparativley high living standards for religious or political reasons- communist Romania, for instance, banned all forms of contraception and abortion to artificially inflate birthrates. Furthermore, it's not like a woman living in rural India can pop down to her local CVS and grab some Plan B. There's plenty of reason to believe that it's possible to do so or portion a lofty impact birthrates by targeting women's health instead of broad brush economic improvement.

>>6899396
ehhh there's fairly strong evidence that womens' education levels are directly correlated with low fertility.

I say this as a gay misogynist, as well.

but it's a moot point because we're probably well past the point of no return when it comes to the whole Malthusian catastrophe thing

>>6899408
ehhh did you not read what I wrote? Nowhere did I suggest that women's education is a factor in the birth rates of such nations that have little or no regard to 'women's health' ( as if having children is somehow unhealthy). As gay misogynist - as if any other kind of gay exists - you are obviously well indoctrinated into feminist lies, and you also can have nothing of worth to add on issues of birth rates and fertility. So kindly fuck off.

>>6899433
You said
>Birth rates have nothing at all to do with women
which is not only patently false by observable data but absurd on its face -- birth rates have nothing to do with the sex that gives birth. right.

How do you explain the fertility gap between educated and less-educated women in first world countries?

Get fucked.

>>6899461
How stupid are you? Nowhere did I say that. Birth rates have as much to do with men as they have with women, and absolutely nothing to do with gays. I don't stick my nose into your 24 hr a day Grinder orgy and you should have the same tact where straight people and their habits are concerned. So I reiterate, but without the kindness this time, FUCK OFF

>>6899485
6/10

go back to /pol/

>>6899485
>Nowhere did I say that.
Yes, you did.

China. They did it.

>>6899208
>How do we fix this?
you can start "fixing" this by killing yourself

>>6899499
Point to me where I said it. And don't forget to add the context.

>>6899326
This. This right here.

>>6899499
>>6899496
Ah I see. Confusion may have arrised where I said 'developed nations'. I am including Eastern and Middle Eastern nations here. If you don't think that these constitute developed then perhaps it you who would feel more at home on pol than me.

>>6899516
Right here >>6899396

You say that birth rates have nothing to do with women and everything to do with standards of living in the country as a whole.

Which falls apart when you realize that fertility rates vary between women of different education levels in the same country.

>>6899208
lol, silly alarmist.

Tell the masses that longevity treatment sterilises you.
Make coca cola sterilise people.
Eugenic totalitarianism
Or, you know, we could let things run its course and it would probably still be fine. We're not ALL going to die, just the most unlucky and unsustainable. There's always spess

>>6899536
See
>>6899531
You're still bringing this down to women. Why? Men play an equal or greater part in all of these societies. What is stopping you from recognising this obvious factor?

>>6899208
More people means less jobs. Less jobs means poorer people. Poorer people means more welfare. More welfare means poorer government. Poor government means shitty country. Shitty country means high murder rates and a ton of abortion and pills. (At least in the future).

>>6899551
Why does more people equal less jobs?

>>6899557
The increase in government regulations (in America) means that business owners, the prime job givers, have no reason to not outsource their jobs.

>>6899561
But the government is out-sourcing to countries with higher populations than America, in general. So the problem, as you state it, isn't population its regulation.

>>6899548
>Men play an equal or greater part in all of these societies

Yeah, but men don't play an "equal or greater role" in reproductive decisions, even in patriarchal societies.

You're just stating over and over again that "a rising tide raises all ships" when it's pretty obvious by now that a woman's fertility is directly related to her socioeconomic status.

>>6899569
How can you say that men don't play a greater role in reproductive decisions in patriarchal societies? If they don't, then those societies aren't patriarchal; by definition.

Furthermore, are you not contradicting yourself? If women have the final say when it comes to reproduction, across all kinds of societies, then there is no need to increase their level of equality anywhere. They are already above men in that sphere.

>>6899575
>How can you say that men don't play a greater role in reproductive decisions in patriarchal societies? If they don't, then those societies aren't patriarchal; by definition.

In patriarchal societies,
men play a relatively greater role in reproductive decisions, but it's still the woman who determines the conditions of the family. Even in patriarchal societies, if a man has no socioeconomic status, do you think a woman will consider him a candidate for marriage and fathering of children?

>If women have the final say when it comes to reproduction, across all kinds of societies, then there is no need to increase their level of equality anywhere

No, because I am arguing from the perspective that increasing women's equality will decrease fertility and thereby stem population growth.

If a woman has no reproductive rights, she has to make an all-or-nothing choice:

Forming a family, being provided for and possibly raising sons that will care for her in her old age (the patriarchal model)

OR

Being a lonely, childless spinster living in poverty who is somewhat ostracized and shamed for not having children (the default route for childless women under strict patriarchal societies)

Which do you think she will choose? She certainly won't choose the second option because of her desire to curb exponential population growth.

>>6899208
>there are people who actually believe can sustain this (and billions more)
Bird populations can number in billions and they don't even have tech, why shouldn't mankind be able to support a few tens of billions?

The key is transition to a vegan diet which will eventually be required to survive as a species. Livestock in the US eats apporx 85% of the grain we produce. If we werent doing that we, the US alone, could feed 800 million people.

Also Fossil FUels need to be doen away with which will happen in the next century or so.

Once those two things happen man will be able to make it into space which is the key to long term survival

>>6899326
>implying the problem countries are progressing at all
Anyway, that's a short-term effect, a natural selection process.

Those who are affected by modern affluence to reduce their breeding rates are being selected out of the population.

There are people who aren't so affected, who reliably pass this resistance to their offspring, and they are going to just go on breeding exponentially.

If we keep preventing starvation, we're going to end up being swarmed with useless slugs who just fuck and hate condoms and hate birth control pills and live shameless lives of taking without giving back.

This is the end result of "universal human rights": refusal to acknowledge the concept of subhumanity greases the slide toward it. Our moral progress hasn't been progress at all. It has been dismissing the bitter lessons of millennia, the things we need to know that are beyond the logic of individuals, and have to be beaten into a culture over generations like instincts bred into beasts by the death of those which lacked them.

>>6899208
If we drastically decrease our consumption of animal products and make nuclear fusion a viable way of producing energy, we'll be set for a couple more generations. Some mild eugenics and birth control should take care of the rest of our problems.

>>6899813
If I didn't like your writing style, I'd tell you to go back to >>>/pol/

>>6899250
>YOU CANT CUT MY BUDGET YOU WILL REGRET THIS!
top kek.

>>6899813
careful with those edges m8.

>>6899843

>>6899855
Careful with those Milhouse

>>6899857
butthurt

>>6899866
Hug it out Milhouse

>>6899825
Every moral doctrine will be twisted to justify self-interest, the pursuit of power, and oppression of others.

The Nazi concept of subhumanity was a simpleminded one, with no real sense of fostering nobility, which has to be founded in a contempt for the masses and their slow slide downward. It's a comic-book version which aimed to make the unworthy masses feel like an elite, by abusing global perspective, trotting out the old scapegoat of the cartoon Jew, and focusing attention (and brutality) on harmless inviable victims of nature.

The collapse of the aristocratic order in Europe was the product of its victory, not of its fundamental unsoundness, as is commonly implied in the modern age. Droit du seigneur as open, official law may be mythical, but the myth is grounded in the practical reality that noblemen had many opportunities sleep with and impregnate common women, both in their own territory and during their military adventures.

Their culture kindled a spark of nobility and fanned it into a flame. But the culture was not prepared for this unprecedented plethora of talent and ambition. The results were the colonial age and the industrial revolution, as too many lords were born without land and peasants to dominate.

The special brutality of the colonial age was that the true elites were especially targetted for extermination (with the undeserving among the upper classes cultivated for complicity), to selectively reduce populations to their servile components, a crime against races which goes beyond anything done to individuals. And the industrial revolution was a new promiscuity of wisdom, which gave over power won by intelligence into the hands of the unintelligent.

This is how the evolutionary process works for humans. It is not exactly selection by mindless nature or deliberate breeding, but selection dominated by human intelligence and culture, yet without clear intent and understanding or sensitivity to long-term considerations.

>>6899930
You should be a politician, you manage to say nothing while pumping out sentence after sentence.

>>6899930

>>6899936
This is the intellectual climate we live in now, that I can say these things, and have them be heard only as a crime of words or as "nothing".

>Big Brother is ungood.

>>6899940
>hurr durr i am so wise look at me spew BS
>you are just stooped for not seeing my wisdom
pol pls go

>>6899734
>transition to a vegan diet
hah no.
Livestock is useful because it can eat what's inedible to human and produce high value food.

>Fossil FUels need to be doen away with
Replaced with nuclear, good luck getting that through the political hoops though.
>renewables(?)
Doesn't make sense because they're energy intensive to produce. To replace fossil fuels with renewable we most first expand the fossil fuel energy production to be able to create all those renewables, and that amount of renewables will be ungodly huge. Transitioning to renewables would cause us to multiply our energy use several times.

>>6899208
We fix it like we normally do.
We create false hope, which brings unhappiness.
This leads to unrest and chaos.
Chaos are the seeds of hunger and war.
Problem solved.
The Hunger Games are more real then some give it credit for.
O wait, it's the story of the Minotaur, a Greek Myth and used by politician on a global scale to run this world,
for about 2500 years now. And it keeps coming over and over again. That's why the movie feel so ... strange.
Or was it the Matrix, or Blade Runner, their all the same. It's the Happening, World War Z and the ruling class call it Just, meant They.

But Olympus Has Fallen, the worth is out, White House Down. Thanks to the WWW we now have access to all knowledge that is been hidden for the general public for so long. Too bad youngsters waste so much time on something so pointless, consul games. If they only liked getting smart, wiser and rich in spirit and intellect...

Is it a honorable way?
Wrong question.
Do the people who live a good life want to give it up?
No they don't.
So to them, this is just.

Man, our world isn't that bad as it used to be when we were animals trying not to being eaten and find food for our own and hunt,
but it sure still is a fuckin' mass.

>>6899930
>The collapse of the aristocratic order in Europe was the product of its victory, not of its fundamental unsoundness, as is commonly implied in the modern age.

Kind of interested in this idea, any more reading on this?

This reads like
>I'm Off My Anti-Psychs: The Thread

>>6899941
At least now you're calling it "BS" rather than claiming I didn't say anything.

This is the reality of the problem OP presented. If you treat the global population as a collection of precious individuals who must all be fed and clothed and have their universal equality respected, then you have a logistical problem that will just grow exponentially until it can't be handled anymore.

If we insist that every descendant of every human is human, it's a genetic inevitability that we will erase the meaningful distinction between humans and the lower animals, as breeds emerge which lack the capacity for speech and reason. If we use charity and advanced medicine to support every human, in the end, the results will not even have the grace of animals.

Anything that restrains population growth is a selective force on genetics. Anything that relaxes restraint on population growth removes selective forces on genetics. In the absence of a selective force, mutations accumulate unchecked and destroy the traits needed to overcome it.

So fundamentally, the problem of how to deal with population growth can't be treated as a mere logistical problem of providing food and shelter, but must be a question of what we are willing to allow humanity to become. That is a question that must be approached without flinching from unpopular truths.

If you want to say that after acknowledging that reality, pursuing it would be off-topic for /sci/, which is concerned with empirical matters and not value judgements, I won't argue.

>>6899208
>How do we fix this?
'We' can't.
It's not us western nations that's the problem. It's countries like India, China, and Nigera.
It's solely up to them to control their population as they develop into 1st world nations.

>>6899840
lel
>Raise taxes to max level, citizens boo with each click
>Lower taxes by one percent, citizens cheer
I never felt bad about taxing the shot out of my sims

>>6899996
Fascinating and amusing.
It is like i am really on /pol/.
Please go on with your delusional babble and nonsense.

>>6899996
>If we insist that every descendant of every human is human, it's a genetic inevitability that we will erase the meaningful distinction between humans and the lower animals, as breeds emerge which lack the capacity for speech and reason. If we use charity and advanced medicine to support every human, in the end, the results will not even have the grace of animals.

Here is where I think you're talking a load of bollocks.

>>6899961
>Livestock is useful because it can eat what's inedible to human

Do you know that "what's inedible to human" has to grow on the same land of "what is edible to human" and needs the same water?

>and produce high value food.

Sure, but i thought that we were talking about overpopulation and resources. You need the same amount of resources to get 1 kg of beef or 13-15 kg of vegetables, with which you can feed way more people.

>>6899208
It's not a problem. Not even a little one. I guess I'm one of "those" people you mention.

Japan is doing OK, and its population density is enormous. People just like you were screaming when the world hit one billion, and we're seven times that and still going strong. The most populated, and the most densely populated countries are doing better as their population grows.
What exactly do you think is unsustainable? Bonus points for evidence.

>>6900039
Mutations are much more likely to destroy admirable traits than to create them.

In a normal situation, most mutations are weeded out by:
- inviability of gametes
- inviability after fertilization
- infant mortality
- infertility
- sexual selection
- natural selection

Mutations are not weeded out when they have no effect on "fitness", narrowly defined in evolutionary biology as likelihood to survive and produce offspring which will also survive and produce offspring, etc. In a given environment, the fittest are those whose population grows the fastest. (this is a slight simplification, since a nuanced appreciation of fitness can also take into account the very long term, but I can't exactly teach a course on ev. bio. in one post)

In the context of an environment with advanced medicine and social services for every human, and which particularly cares for every human child, the individual who breeds early and often is fitter than the individual who is distracted from maximizing reproduction by anything else.

Where society removes selective pressure, mutations can be expected to accumulate, destroying the traits we associate with humanity and selecting new ones to take advantage of easy living. How much intelligence does a welfare queen need, to be able to produce a dozen children? How much manual dexterity? What sensory acuity? If the brain shrinks, child birth will become easier. An inability to carry babies to term is no disadvantage if they are born directly into intensive medical care. With six-month easy pregnancies and an early start, one woman could bear a dozen children before she's old enough to legally drink. What about a tendency to have twins? What about litters?

In a population of billions with assortive mating, it won't take as long as you think for the Jakovasaurs to emerge.

>is it too late?
Yes
>how do we fix it
We dont, it will solve itself when we run out of food. Population will stabilize after a period of famine and wars.

one child policy for all non-European countries
/thread

>>6900104
Yeah how about them negros and their unshapely skulls.
Clearly you are a master of rationale.
You should get a nobel prize.
Can you fuck off to /pol/ already where you belong?

>>6900071
>has to grow on the same land
no, farmland is of different quality.
>needs the same water
are you implying water shortage is a huge problem in places with livestock?
>You need the same amount of resources to get 1 kg of beef or 13-15 kg of vegetables
Which isn't true, even poor people hold livestock and if it only was a demanding luxury they wouldn't. Stop sucking up everything the green genocide machine churns out.

>>6900109
>>>/pol/
>>>/habbenings/

>>6900071
>1 kg of beef or 13-15 kg of vegetables
I'd take the beef; enough for two weeks.
I'm no ruminant.

>>6899594
Women aren't always given a choice in these particular societies, and what does their choice matter at any rate? Reproductive selection is an illusion where females are concerned. In the end the choice comes down to the male, after all their the ones paying for it.

Not sure if your points are really hitting home here. I am saying that in the countries where women have not been given equality; e.g. Middle East countries, we still see a fall in birthrates as those societies get wealthier. Also I don't see how birth control is an equality issue, really, it is merely another product on the market; available to both sexes.

>>6899208
>How do we fix this?
stop all foreign food aid. don't feed the poor that then just reproduce and make the problem 2x worse.

>>6900125
>>>/reddit/
>>>/tumblr/

I recently downloaded a documentary called Growthbuster, which at first I FEARED it was a granny porn parody of ghostbuster, it wasnt, I have yet to watch it thought.

>>6900149
2 weeks just over a 1 kg of meat? remind yourself that you're american

>>6900191
I think the kind of idea that documentary's based on is fundamentally Quixotic.

There's no way we can have a "sustainable civilization", and just enjoy a pleasant life together forever as a species. We're going to grow until we come into conflict over it. Choosing not to grow just means that when the conflict comes, you're going to be small and weak.

>>6900208
>There's no way we can have a "sustainable civilization", and just enjoy a pleasant life together forever as a species. We're going to grow until we come into conflict over it. Choosing not to grow just means that when the conflict comes, you're going to be small and weak.

Reasoning is invalid. Begs questions.

>>6900248
You can't seriously be this bad at logic.

It was a statement of position, not the full argument for that position.

Now if I say that you're a fucking retard because you've said something stupid, are you going to call that an ad hominem argument?

>>6899208
Well, it's easy: ecopop - ja!

>>6899997
it's religious countries that are the problem

catholics, muslims, and jews are recommended to have a lot of children by faith

>>6900266
>It was a statement of position, not the full argument for that position.

Invalid argument. Please add something substantial to the thread. A statement of position is irrelevant, as this is not a survey thread.

>Now if I say that you're a fucking retard because you've said something stupid, are you going to call that an ad hominem argument?

Yes, because I am good at logic. Reasoning invalid. Argument invalid. Logic invalid. Ad hominems of any type: invalid.

>>6900323
what a fag lol

>>6900198
>remind yourself that you're american
erm.. didn't work, alien timezone.