My Issue With Science Saving Lives [Not anti-science, just a bit of thought.]

[DrgoFx]

Now I have nothing wrong with science in general, I love science. Science represents humanity questioning the universe and all of its mysteries, and with push to find answers. I was recently given the weekend task to write a short 500 word Essay on Genetic Engineering. For a good portion of this Essay, I wrote how that although genetic engineering is finding great ways to solve many issues with humans dying, it's not solving one factors: over population.

I don't think we should worthy on how many lives we save if we can't control how many lives are made. The solution to fixing the world's population is actually a lot broader than one would think. To name two very broad umbrellas, expand the land we can survive on [IE: Space exploration or put the movie Waterworld to good use.] or put better efforts towards Birth Control. [IE: Better medication, education on why it's important, or if required laws towards it like China.]

I'm not saying lives are not worth saying. I'm questioning the thought process of saving a life just to have it live in a crowded world.

What is your opinion on this Escapist?

 

[Jonluw]

Genetic engineering can contribute to make plants more hardy and easier to grow in third world countries, thus at least combating one factor of the overpopulation issue.

 

[Kolby Jack]

Now I have nothing wrong with science in general, I love science. Science represents humanity questioning the universe and all of its mysteries, and with push to find answers. I was recently given the weekend task to write a short 500 word Essay on Genetic Engineering. For a good portion of this Essay, I wrote how that although genetic engineering is finding great ways to solve many issues with humans dying, it's not solving one factors: over population.

I don't think we should worthy on how many lives we save if we can't control how many lives are made. The solution to fixing the world's population is actually a lot broader than one would think. To name two very broad umbrellas, expand the land we can survive on [IE: Space exploration or put the movie Waterworld to good use.] or put better efforts towards Birth Control. [IE: Better medication, education on why it's important, or if required laws towards it like China.]

I'm not saying lives are not worth saying. I'm questioning the thought process of saving a life just to have it live in a crowded world.

What is your opinion on this Escapist?

We're a long ways away from overpopulation. Some countries (China, India) are obviously moving faster toward it than others, but so far, the countries that actually matter (kidding! >.>) are doing fine. Technology and science seem to be moving at enough of a pace to compensate for each "crisis" that comes along, and even if we don't solve the overpopulation issue, the end result of world overpopulation would be a massive war, and that would solve the problem pretty handily.

If you want something else to worry about though, worry about the fact that antibiotics will cease to be effective in about a decade or so.

 

[DrgoFx]

We're a long ways away from overpopulation. Some countries (China, India) are obviously moving faster toward it than others, but so far, the countries that actually matter (kidding! >.>) are doing fine. Technology and science seem to be moving at enough of a pace to compensate for each "crisis" that comes along, and even if we don't solve the overpopulation issue, the end result of world overpopulation would be a massive war, and that would solve the problem pretty handily.

If you want something else to worry about though, worry about the fact that antibiotics will cease to be effective in about a decade or so.

Japan's a first world country. Japan is the most technologically advanced country. Japan is over populated. I'd say Japan matters.

 

[Xeorm]

Overpopulated given what measure? We're not really that close to the maximum population that the Earth can hold, even without space and underwater cities.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

I think, for any downside you could think of regarding Genetic Engineering in all of its guises, there is one thing you've got to keep in mind. The odds of you being alive without it are all but non-existent. Even at the simplest example, farming (which, for the record, has been a human practice for roughly as long as people have been farming), you find that in spite of the various problems this causes (human centric of course), food product has managed to increase massively in spite of ever shrinking amounts of farmland and labor available to actually work the fields.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

Here's a list of countries by birth rate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_birth_rate

As you can see, countries with high birth rates are developing whereas those with low birth rates are developed. In order to deal with overpopulation we need to raise the standards of living in developing countries. Genetic engineering raises the standards of living in developing countries, ergo genetic engineering is helping solve the overpopulation problem.

Also, the only countries that would be susceptible to the one child policy would be the developed ones and as you can see, the birth rate is low enough that such a policy would be useless in combating overpopulation. This is a very complex issue and limiting the amount of children a person can have won't solve anything.

 

[Kolby Jack]

We're a long ways away from overpopulation. Some countries (China, India) are obviously moving faster toward it than others, but so far, the countries that actually matter (kidding! >.>) are doing fine. Technology and science seem to be moving at enough of a pace to compensate for each "crisis" that comes along, and even if we don't solve the overpopulation issue, the end result of world overpopulation would be a massive war, and that would solve the problem pretty handily.

If you want something else to worry about though, worry about the fact that antibiotics will cease to be effective in about a decade or so.

Japan's a first world country. Japan is the most technologically advanced country. Japan is over populated. I'd say Japan matters.

Yea but Japan is mostly mountains. They don't have nearly as much room as China or India.

 

[Hazy992]

With development comes a reduction in birth rates. If crops are much easier to yield (ie through genetic engineering) then people won't need as many children to help them with subsistence farming, for example. Also, with development comes increased education, which not only leads to an increase in the use of contraception, but also means people are more eager to pursue careers rather than just have loads of children.

In short if you increase development you'll slow down population growth. That's why most developed countries have low birth rates.

 

[Valagetti]

You make no sense, you say you have no problem with science, apart from the over population thing, cause by medicine, you can't exclude that.
Its like I have no Problem with Hitler, apart from the slaughtering and imprisoning of lives.
And over population isn't really a problem yet, theres still resources out there, like food etc.
And genetic eng doesn't make much of an impact over the popuation slide.

 

[Joccaren]

The problem is not that we are overpopulated so much as we don't have enough people getting food. Even in first world countries people are starving on the streets. In many third world countries, everyone is starving. This isn't a matter of 'no room to grow crops', but also 'no money to buy crops' and 'crops die too quickly'. Genetic engineering helps with the latter, but the UN ain't helping with the former, and its really up to us and fundraisers and stuff to get that done.
And we need to stop overfishing and such. And come up with better ways to keep topsoil. And solve an ocean of problems related to food. Either way, that's where the resources need to go.

You make no sense, you say you have no problem with science, apart from the over population thing, cause by medicine, you can't exclude that.
Its like I have no Problem with Hitler, apart from the slaughtering and imprisoning of lives.
And over population isn't really a problem yet, theres still resources out there, like food etc.
And genetic eng doesn't make much of an impact over the popuation slide.

If Hitler hadn't of slaughtered millions of innocent people, there would have been little wrong with him. He got Germany out of a ditch, and restored it to a powerful nation. He did good for Germany, and if he hadn't of gone Genocidal maniac, not many people would have minded.
Likewise, medicine saves many lives, but those extra lives are an extra burden that will one day, if population stays alive for too long, result in a collapse of society.

Also, genetic engineering does somewhat contribute to overpopulation. The longer you make someone live, the longer they are population. We have 4 generations of people, if not more, alive at one time on the planet. Keep making people live longer, we get more and more. Doesn't matter if birthrates slow down when nobody dies. That helps with overpopulation. Whilst genetic engineering probably isn't contributing that much ATM, once we hit the stage of being able to cure genetic defects with it, and using it to help us live longer, not as many people will die, and we might eventually hit a problem with overpopulation.

 

[viranimus]

Well I am going to lean more toward agreeable here. I do apprecate what our advances have brought us. We have done astounding things and saved many lives... and we really need to stop it. Our population is getting beyond out of control, and honestly I have yet to ever hear a truly good case be made for why we need MORE people.

And to the inevitable.. "Were not at capacity, we can hold many more people" I have one question. Why would you want to?
1

Spoiler

Would you rather live Here?.

Or here?

2

Spoiler

Would you rather park Here?.

Or here?

3

Spoiler

your honeymoon suite look like this?.

or this?

I mean if theres some VERY good reason to justify increasing the number of people on this planet, Ive yet to hear it, and I know I cannot conceptualize one myself.

 

[dyre]

Saving lives really isn't causing overpopulation. If you want to stop the world from overpopulating, a good rule of thumb is that when countries get wealthier and more technologically advanced, birth rates tend to drop.

Also, the world in general isn't overpopulated, or even that close to overpopulation. Of course, first world nations are consuming much more than is healthy for the earth, but that's really a different matter.

 

[dyre]

If Hitler hadn't of slaughtered millions of innocent people, there would have been little wrong with him. He got Germany out of a ditch, and restored it to a powerful nation. He did good for Germany, and if he hadn't of gone Genocidal maniac, not many people would have minded.

But Hitler only got Germany out of a ditch because he started massive spending projects, from military spending to public works, which was ultimately unsustainable and arguably led to the war (in which Germany took a lot of resources and wealth from occupied nations) that killed millions of innocent people :/

 

[Commissar Sae]

I read somewhere that if you used the same living accomodations and people per/kilometer as New York City that the current human population could fit into the state of Texas. Furthermore, as others have posted, if we can ensure a decent quality of life and standard of living to the entire world, overpopulation will pretty much cease to be a major factor as trends in the 1st world show that higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality result in a much lower birth rate.

We also need to balance out resource allocation to ensure this though, since right now thats a major issue in developed nations.

Overpopulation to the extreme you are fearing will not occur anytime soon. I estimate at least another millenia or two. Longer if we start another good war or a plague hits.

 

[Risingblade]

Have all the overpopulated countries go to war with each other, millions will die and the problem will be fixed...and we will do this with SCIENCE!

 

[Khada]

Over population can be solved with education and access to contraceptives.

 

[NeutralDrow]

As countries increase in standard of living and death rates drop, birth rates tend to drop as well. It's naturally slow, since it's a product of cultural evolution, but the developed world is an example of it happening.

Hell, even India is getting its birthrate surprisingly under control...the problem is that they had so many people by the time they made it an issue to work on, it's not obvious. 1.5% growth in a population over a billion is still significant.

Japan's a first world country. Japan is the most technologically advanced country. Japan is over populated. I'd say Japan matters.

Not really. Japan's problem is exactly the opposite; not only aren't they overpopulated, their population is falling, and projected to fall drastically.