RE: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] speaking of apocalyptic horsemen...

["Matthew Ross" <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

> What does it mean to "overproduce" offspring?  How many is too many?

Some people think 6bil is too many people. We're "destroying the environment" or some such because of our large numbers. Others fear we won't be able to feed 10bil (did we feed everybody when there was 10mil?) Its a matter of opinion at this point. Later on it might not be. eg. China

> > It is rational to use contraceptives if the species is too 
> numerous to
> > be sustained.
> 
> No, it isn't.  The rational will contribute to the greater good and go
> extinct?  Is that rational?

I didn't say contracept everybody, you know SOMEBODY will have kids, its just that you volunteer not to be that somebody.

> > It is also rational to use contraceptives when you personally are
> > incapeable of financially supporting a dependant.
> 
> That depends.  Can't you get someone else to pay for it?

Not without mixing specific terms with generalistic terms. In the US, in many cases, yes, you can. Which is contributing to the problem, imo. If you pay people to have kids and not work, then what are you breeding for? As you said, many are putting off breeding in favor of life-goals. Another way of looking at that trend, when the Maslov "higherarchy of needs" gets to the last few stages, you aren't in serious danger of losing half your children, so the drive to reproduce like rabbits probably falls away. The problem is that this leaves you open to crowding out by those who live on a lower scale of the hierarchy, but whose children artifically are preserved by interaction with your culture. Its somewhat confusing, but suffice it to say, if you believe in nothing but science or the "natural way of things," we're seriously screwing up the evolution of our own race. On the other hand, your religious sect may believe the end is near, in which case it doesn't matter :-)

> > The rational thing from a biologists perspective is for the more
> > productive members of society to reproduce, and the less 
> productive to
> > no reproduce. Unfortunately the opposite happens more often 
> because the
> > productive are out working, and the unproductive have 
> plenty of time for
> > reproduction.
> 
> OK, if by "the rational thing from a biologists perspective" you mean
> "what most intelligent people would want to see."  We agree 
> on that.  I'd
> like to see social systems that promote reproduction of the most
> intelligent and healthy people.  I think we can do a lot 
> better than we
> are doing now.  I'm not saying we should be coercive like the 
> Nazi's were
> (e.g., sterilizing the putatively mediocre against their 
> wishes), but we
> can change the tax code and welfare regulations in accordance with the
> principle that 'better' people make 'better' children.

Eventually it will happen, I'd rather it happen while we have civil liberties unions and such to complain. As long as someone is opposed to it, and has the political pull to stand against it, it will have to stay clean in its formative years. Its the ultimate in nepotism, so we want to make sure the decision makers are under scruitiny until it becomes taboo to ask for favoritism from the system.

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion