Poll: Humanist dillema

[FC Groningen]

Like most humanists, I obviously support the Human Rights as they are described by the UN. These rights should be enforced by all countries, etc etc. I support Amnesty International and agree to the idea that people shouldn't suffer needlessly (Euthanasia and Abortion for example). To the people that aren't familiar with humanism; "Each human should be able to fill in his own life, which includes his life and death, regardless of race, gender, religion, beliefs, sexual preference, culture", unless of course, it will be harmful to society.

Instead of wishing to discuss where to draw the line of when behaviour becomes harmful to society, I would like to hear your thoughts on this: Will all human rights eventually harm or benefit our global society?

During the past centuries, the world population managed to multiply multiple times, with the exception during wars or recessions which are related many times. For example, the second world war could arguably be explained by recession and Germany's resentment of the bad peace.

During history, the global population managed to grow in times of peace, imperial expansion/conquest and technological advancement. In contrast, the global population declined in times of war, famine, plague and recession.

This cycle kept the global population balanced. Simply put, after a "good war", less resources were required to satisfy the needs of the population. With an increase of population, measures had to be taken to ensure the population of their basic needs. For example, Rome thrived on the spoils of war for a very long time. Soldiers were given money, taken from conquered states and were given land, taken from foreign people. Slaves kept pouring into the empire that would do most of the grunt work for a relative low price. Besides the power struggles and mismanagement, the (Western) Roman Empire grew decadent. Rome relied on foreigners to do their fighting for them, leaders spent more money on monuments to honor themselves or the dead instead of taking care of the living and failed to invest money on what kept them strong for many centuries; their army.

As a note, it is interesting to see how many civilisations that spent (too) much resources on monuments failed to pass the test of time. If we link this to the present day, we can still see many costly projects being started that are arguably hard to justify, especially if the majority of the world still lives in poverty and famine. Do we really need skyscrapers built with a challenging form? Do we really need iceskating arenas in the desert? Or is this plain decadency that so far, always had been the first sign of the decline of a society? To a smaller scale, the same goes for products like Iphones, haute cuisine and cosmetics.

Back to the topic at hand; Despite the fact that some resources are becoming scarse and the production of other resources isn't increasing like it should (linked with the world population), the number of people still increases rapidly. More and more people are living in famine and poverty, for several reasons. Some of them are:
- Our economic system prevents us from increasing medicine and food production. It would destroy the economy if we would attempt to, especially if we would give it away to the people that need it.
- Many people do not care about others.
- Culture and religion. Some religions still forbid the use of contraceptives and some (religious) cultures consider it an honor to have as many children as possible.
- The people that do care sent resources that will keep many alive, but this demands quite an upkeep, just to keep these people alive.

So, what would be the best answer to overpopulation? War and famine did the work for us so far, to put it very bluntly. Should we enforce some sort of birth control like the Chinese do? Should we resume the process of natural selection, one way or the other? Should we reconsider our priorities on spending resources? Should we look for ways to exploit new resources? Or should we do something else?

Many "solutions" would either feel inhumane to many people, including me. Others would be very expensive and might lead to further population growth, or would simply not be enough to make a permanent impact.

Sorry for the long text, but I'm really interested to hear your opinions.

 

[JoJo]

Population troubles will sort themselves via Demographic transition [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition], where as societies become more educated and developed birth rates fall to around the replacement rate. In most of Europe we've reached the point where we don't actually have enough births to replace those who die. Contrary to common sense, in the long run war and famine can actually increase birth rates as in those situations it makes sense to have many children if you know there is a good chance that several will die before adulthood and due to lack of stable pensions you need someone to support you in old age.

Knowing this, the global population will probably level out around 9 or 10 billion by 2050, as even in most developing countries the birth rates are no-where near as high as they once were, there's no need for doom and gloom yet

 

[FC Groningen]

Population troubles will sort themselves via Demographic transition [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition], where as societies become more educated and developed birth rates fall to around the replacement rate. In most of Europe we've reached the point where we don't actually have enough births to replace those who die. Contrary to common sense, in the long run war and famine can actually increase birth rates as in those situations it makes sense to have many children if you know there is a good chance that several will die before adulthood and due to lack of stable pensions you need someone to support you in old age.

Knowing this, the global population will probably level out around 9 or 10 billion by 2050, as even in most developing countries the birth rates are no-where near as high as they once were, there's no need for doom and gloom yet

As a European, I certainly understand your post. However, I do question some parts of your post. First of all, it seems impossible to me that the entire world will reach the level of welfare of what we have here. (In Western Europe. Things already get worse if you pass into Spain or Italy). Long story short, I don't see a human society with welfare distributed evenly over all regions which is a requirement in the situation you gave.

Secondly, I am aware of an increase of childbirth after a war. Here in the Netherlands, we have something called a "baby boom" generation after the end of the second world war. However, in a lot of cases, the population of a country can be decimated. I believe Poland for example lost about half of its citizens in the second world war. (not sure) Also, if birth rates increase because of the good chance several will die before adulthood, the problem already solves itself. As we can see in Western Europe (introduction of soap and vaccine), the birth rates dropped automatically after it no longer was required to give birth to many children.

Also, the effects of Europe are nothing compared to Asia and Africa at the moment.

 

[GeneralChaos]

The most commonly cited number for the maximum sustainable human population of Earth is around 10 billion. There are around 400 billion stars in the milky way galaxy. If each solar system can hold even one million people on average, that's a galactic population of 400,000,000,000,000,000, or four million times the maximum population of earth. In reality, we can expect that number to be much much bigger.

Basically, the idea is that our entire concept of limited space and resources ceases to apply once we reach the stars. We could have an entire planet full of a hundred billion catholics pumping out babies every second and still not dent the collective resources of the universe.

 

[FC Groningen]

Interesting. In what year would that be? And putting emphasis on the word "maximum", I wonder in what state most people would live in. In what year will we be able to exploid other solar systems? I believe they would estimate that number to be reached before 2050 if we continue at this rate, which would probably come way too early.

 

[Thaluikhain]

The most commonly cited number for the maximum sustainable human population of Earth is around 10 billion. There are around 400 billion stars in the milky way galaxy. If each solar system can hold even one million people on average, that's a galactic population of 400,000,000,000,000,000, or four million times the maximum population of earth. In reality, we can expect that number to be much much bigger.

Basically, the idea is that our entire concept of limited space and resources ceases to apply once we reach the stars. We could have an entire planet full of a hundred billion catholics pumping out babies every second and still not dent the collective resources of the universe.

You could have an entire planet's equivalent doing that, but having those numbers in any one space is going to be a problem, albeit only locally.

Sending people offworld to alleviate overpopulation requires continually sending the excess out, year after year. That's a major logistical challenge, even if off-world colonies are established (which will breed on their own).

...

Personally, I don't see over-population as being that much of a problem, so long as technological advances to help humanity deal with population continual to increase at the same rate, at least until otehr factors develop. There's plenty of room left so far.

In general, though, the question seems to boil down to personal good vs collective good. IMHO, that's not really such a thorny problem.

When people are campaigning for rights, it's not usually the personal vs collective arguments that are the big nasty ones, it's the "People X are less than Y, because fuck you" stuff. It's often stated that, say, letting gay marriage be legal will somehow destroy society, but I find it hard to take that claim seriously. Laws restricting freedoms for which actual arguments can be made will pass much easier, I'd like to think.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

Snip

I put I don't care because I am tired of this discussion.

Use the forum search function. In the past three months I've been in at least four separate threads that talked about this exact same thing.

My answer will always be the same: Nobody has the right to tell people how many kids they can or can't have. If a family wants to have 10 or more kids, I don't care, it is what they want, I have no right to tell them they can't, unless they are criminals that will mistreat the kids. I only consider mistreatment as physical and "physical like" mental abuse.

Besides there is so much room left on this planet, that it isn't reasonable to talk about overpopulation.

 

[Esotera]

The most commonly cited number for the maximum sustainable human population of Earth is around 10 billion. There are around 400 billion stars in the milky way galaxy. If each solar system can hold even one million people on average, that's a galactic population of 400,000,000,000,000,000, or four million times the maximum population of earth. In reality, we can expect that number to be much much bigger.

Basically, the idea is that our entire concept of limited space and resources ceases to apply once we reach the stars. We could have an entire planet full of a hundred billion catholics pumping out babies every second and still not dent the collective resources of the universe.

Nope...Isaac Asimov did the maths on this a long time ago, and calculated that if human population continued to expand as it currently is, all matter in the universe would be used to create humans within a thousand years. Thankfully it's not actually working out like that - population increases are set to peak at around 9 billion in 2050.

OT: The biggest obstacle is changing lifestyles. GM crops will almost certainly sort out any major food crises, the big issues that need to be addressed are (1) Global Warming - each person produces too much CO2 a year, and (2) Overfishing/Extinction - we're collapsing whole ecosystems, and that's not good.

Personally I think it'll turn out ok in the end. Earth is a lot more resilient to change than you'd think.

 

[FC Groningen]

Snip

I put I don't care because I am tired of this discussion.

Use the forum search function. In the past three months I've been in at least four separate threads that talked about this exact same thing.

My answer will always be the same: Nobody has the right to tell people how many kids they can or can't have. If a family wants to have 10 or more kids, I don't care, it is what they want, I have no right to tell them they can't, unless they are criminals that will mistreat the kids. I only consider mistreatment as physical and "physical like" mental abuse.

Besides there is so much room left on this planet, that it isn't reasonable to talk about overpopulation.

I'm not pushing you either way, but I do want to point out that any "rights" you think to have can be taken away eventually. Any right you have is granted to you by the state. If the state/majority of the population changes its mind, you will lose it no matter what you think you are entitled of. Therefore, your definition of "criminals" and "mistreatment" is moot.

It is also not on what we want, but on whether the environment can maintain all of us without constant shortages. It is not the lack of space that is the problem, it is more of a food and health problem.

 

[infinity^infinity]

I have always been, and always will be a fan of galactic colonization. I don't care how expensive it would be, I wanna live on Mars!

 

[Logiclul]

Firstly I believe the epigenomics will end all modern diseases, and that new illnesses will rise up which gene therapy cannot cure. That, or the world will overpopulate, forcing either strict birthcontrol/murder, or populating other planets.

Secondly, as a humanist, have you read every single line of all the things which the UN considers 'human rights' and how they interpret them?

 

[FC Groningen]

Firstly I believe the epigenomics will end all modern diseases, and that new illnesses will rise up which gene therapy cannot cure. That, or the world will overpopulate, forcing either strict birthcontrol/murder, or populating other planets.

Secondly, as a humanist, have you read every single line of all the things which the UN considers 'human rights' and how they interpret them?

A long while ago. It got rusty. About your first statement, I believe many hold this true. For example, over here they are considering to forget about vaccinating cattle in fear of virusses and bacteria evolving into hazards for humans.

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

let the problem solve itself.

Birth rates in the West are declining. The only reason the population appears to be growing is because people are living longer and as such there are in fact more old people skewing the graph, rather than more young people. China has its one child rule, and most of the rest of the world hasn't expanded or decreased very much (child death rates ain't gettin' much better in Sub Saharan Africa, and even if they were the high occurence of AIDS is keeping things under control, unfortunate but true.)

So assuming that the Baby Boomers of WWII (who would now be about 60) themselves had two or more children (now aged 30-40) When the second generation Baby Boomers die (in about 40 years give or take) the situation will have corrected itself (assuming no further wars or mass diseases.)

Also, the situation will be eased in the next 10/20 years anyway, once the actual Baby Boomers die, since they are the ones screwing up the stats so much now.

 

[Johnny Impact]

Beta Colony.

For those who haven't read the Vorkosigan saga, the Betans sterilize all citizens at the age of twelve. To become a parent you must take classes and acquire licenses on a child-by-child basis. Once you have the license, a doctor unsterilizes you long enough for you to conceive.

It seems to me if that were practicable (it isn't), it would solve problems of overpopulation, unfit parenting, unwanted pregnancy, and breeding by people who are just plain too stupid to be allowed the privilege. One stone, many birds.

 

[Odd Owl]

Beta Colony.

For those who haven't read the Vorkosigan saga, the Betans sterilize all citizens at the age of twelve. To become a parent you must take classes and acquire licenses on a child-by-child basis. Once you have the license, a doctor unsterilizes you long enough for you to conceive.

It seems to me if that were practicable (it isn't), it would solve problems of overpopulation, unfit parenting, unwanted pregnancy, and breeding by people who are just plain too stupid to be allowed the privilege. One stone, many birds.

Aaaaaaand . . . would bring with it a whole host of new (and old-but-previously-smaller) problems, including but not limited to racism, sexism, self-determination, invasion of privacy, beaucratic and administrative issues, government oppression, elitism, and corruption.

I'll see your Beta Colony and raise you a Gattaca.

In response to the OP, I voted to focus on exploiting new resources. I think that the best way to handle increasing population is either steller/intersteller expansion or new technologies that increase resource production here at home, such as genetically-engineered high-yield crops.