First artificial cell is made

madelaide

Premium Member

« Reply #50 on: May 24, 2010, 11:09 »

#link

Quote from: Zeus on May 24, 2010, 10:29

Quote from: Eireann on May 24, 2010, 08:15

Trying to impose birth control is in my opinion morally unacceptable. A lot more so than trying to artificially create life. We're looking ahead, into the future, not back to the Dark Ages.

What's unacceptable and immoral is trying to impose NO birth control. Like some famous church does.

I don't think either is to be imposed, but to be teached and people should be given the option. Our public medical system does not perfom any surgery for birth control unless there is a medical need (for instance, removing the uterus due to myomas). Falopian tube ligation is not performed even if the woman is already in a caesarean surgery. As far as I know, vasectomies are not performed either. Yes, the Catholic Church is culprit of intervening in it too, and as a catholic I find it very annoying. The church has the right to give the orientation they want to itsr congragation, but not to impose its orientation in the public affairs.

I once had a school colleague whose father worked in a public hospital in a very poor zone, and every time he was performing a caesarean in a woman that already had two or more children, he would also perform a sterilization without even asking for consent. This is highly immoral to me too, but she considered it completely ok.


	Ignore \| Logged

madelaide

Premium Member

« Reply #51 on: May 24, 2010, 11:12 »

#link

Quote from: Microbius on May 24, 2010, 10:26

Huxley didn't find the society portrayed quite as dystopian as you might think.

I think our present society is a lot like in Huxley's book. Instead of using genetics, our society uses hunger and ignorance to create its deltas and epsilons. I like to think I am a beta, but I am probably a gamma. Grin


	Ignore \| Logged

Eireann

« Reply #52 on: May 24, 2010, 12:51 »

#link

Sorry Microbius, Steve Cascoly has a lot more patience than I do

The problem comes down to this - is humanity in any danger of starvation? Is there any need for localised (or world wide) birth control?
The answer is no.
The Earth is well capable of feeding us all, and many, many more to come.
By the time numbers rise out of control and finding food becomes a problem, humanity will have already found a solution.
Globally imposing birth control is a very severe measure. No need for it.
There's always a better way to solve a problem and I'm sure, when necessary, we will find it.


« Last Edit: May 24, 2010, 16:04 by Eireann »	Ignore \| Logged

madelaide

Premium Member

« Reply #53 on: May 24, 2010, 14:48 »

#link

Quote from: Eireann on May 24, 2010, 12:51

The Earth is well capable of feeding us all, and many, many more to come.

In which standards? By which means? With what impact?

Water resources are getting scarcer. We are depleting watersheds, and polluting them at the same time. And now we want crops to fuel our cars. The pressure for more land is increasing, and here in Brazil we've been losing precious and unique habitats to an ever expanding agribusiness.


	Ignore \| Logged

Eireann

« Reply #54 on: May 24, 2010, 17:38 »

#link

Those problems are very real Madelaide, but they can and will be addressed.
Keeping the planet's natural balance at safe levels is of utmost importance.
But there are ways, smarter, eco-friendlier ways to produce food without disrupting vital natural habitats. They're working on it as we speak.
In the end humanity will do the right thing. We always have.
Short of an unexpected, devastating disaster (natural or man caused) there is no need for global birth control rate.
Unless absolutely necessary, that's a radical measure and people will fight it. Rightly so.
We can do better than chase pregnant women all over the world.
I have a crystal globe here, and I already know we will


	Ignore \| Logged

Dreamframer

« Reply #55 on: May 24, 2010, 18:02 »

#link

I didn't read the whole thread, but did someone mentioned those giant, Europe like sized surfaces covered with plastic bottles in Atlantic and Pacific ocean?


	Ignore \| Logged

cascoly

« Reply #56 on: May 24, 2010, 19:33 »

#link

Quote from: sunnymars on May 24, 2010, 07:28

Quote from: cascoly on May 24, 2010, 01:21

the much bigger problem is climate change, for which the developed world is most responsible - maybe we should restrict THEIR growth. after all, each american uses many times the resources of the developing populations.

steve

Of course we should "restrict THEIR growth". We should be restricting the growth or at least encouraging each country to slow it down.

The problem with climate change and pollution is directly correlated with the population growth. Just about every economical, agricultural and political problem is a result of the massive increase in population. And let's forcast to the next generation or so when the world has a population of 50 billion.

INVERSELY correlated actually - the us & europe have relatively slow pop growth, as does china at this point, yet they are responsible for MOST of the contributions to climate change; if pop growth went to 0 tomorrow, we'd still be facing major environmental problems

as societies become more developed, pop growth decreases [for a variety of reasons]

i'm just trying to put pop growth in perspective - we are not facing a malthsian die-off; the worst estimates for pop increase in next 100 yrs is to about 15 billion, and we can produce food for that number - as you said tho, the problems become political and economic

steve


« Last Edit: May 24, 2010, 19:36 by cascoly »	Ignore \| Logged

cascoly

« Reply #57 on: May 24, 2010, 19:46 »

#link

Quote from: nosaya on May 24, 2010, 08:47

Quote from: Eireann on May 24, 2010, 08:15

Trying to impose birth control is in my opinion morally unacceptable. A lot more so than trying to artificially create life. We're looking ahead, into the future, not back to the Dark Ages.

Really? Morally unacceptable? I think if you visit Mumbai you could well change your mind.
Seeing four million people living in squalor right in the middle of what is considered to be a 'modern' city certainly changed my world view.

India's 'standard of living' may be getting closer to the west for SOME Indians. but not the vast majority.
The cast system may be partly to blame, but at the huge population of that country there is no way they will ever have a decent standard of life for the masses.

It is of little use trying to convince anyone that has never been there though. I urge all people that live in the relative luxury of western civilization to visit the more squalid areas of India (not the resort areas where you are cut off from reality), and see if your notions of population growth and sustainability are not changed forever.

actually, i spent 6 weeks, mostly off tourist tracks in India last fall - orissa and southern india, then small villages in the rajasthan hills.

i've been to mumbai, and yes it's crowded [we took the 2nd class computer trains during rush hour],

http://cascoly.com/trav/india/Trains.asp?lt=1

but the problems of mega-cities are different from those of the vast majority of indians who still live in the villages. the std of living has increased for everyone, not at acceptable or equitable rates, certainly, but the lifespan in india ismuch higher than it was just 50 yrs ago.

and on a different tack, life in the villages may not be all that bad - most people have enough to eat, have jobs, but are not working 80 hr wks and stressed out; they live as extended families in real communities. most of us prob'ly couldnt adapt to it, but it is an alternative

that said, i'd still agree that FORCED pop control is unacceptable - esp'ly, as stated before , because we know there are BETTER ways. again, educating girls has proved to be the best way to reduce population growth.

steve


« Last Edit: May 24, 2010, 21:18 by cascoly »	Ignore \| Logged

cascoly

« Reply #58 on: May 24, 2010, 19:54 »

#link

Quote from: Microbius on May 24, 2010, 03:45

PS. cascoly: " you seem to think that a positive population growth is in itself bad - Malthus was disproved many years ago"

Please read;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_catastrophe under Neo-Malthusian theory. Malthus' basic principles have not been disproved.

i thought i might get away with that generalization, but i guess not - i was just trying to emphasize that the malthusian collapse of cilvilization is no longer a real threat - obviously nothing can increase forever without some severe consequences - but in the case of pop, we have seen in country after country, that growth rate declines as the people achieve a higher std of living - the real question right now is what std is going to be set for the world when economies like the US can no longer get away with using 4 times the resources we actually have.

s


	Ignore \| Logged

youralleffingnuts

« Reply #59 on: May 25, 2010, 03:08 »

#link


« Last Edit: May 25, 2010, 19:44 by sunnymars »	Ignore \| Logged

youralleffingnuts

« Reply #60 on: May 25, 2010, 03:25 »

#link


« Last Edit: May 25, 2010, 19:45 by sunnymars »	Ignore \| Logged

Microbius

Premium Member

« Reply #61 on: May 25, 2010, 05:22 »

#link

Quote from: sunnymars on May 25, 2010, 03:08

I don't think anyone said they want to impose or enforce global birth control but rather to discourage births instead of encouraging them. Here in Aus the governement was offering women an extra $3000 when having a baby. This resulted in a great rise in single teenage mothers who do nothing but leach off the taxpayer. Things like this should be stopped, migration should be stopped or reduced greatly so that overpopulated countries can deal with their own population problems rather than handballing it elsewhere.

Agreed that that is a start. But I would be all for enforced birth control. Each woman would be allowed to have 2 children. If she had a third it would be put up for adoption to a woman not fortunate enough to be fertile and she would be expected to undergo treatment to prevent future pregnancies.
Why such draconian seeming measures? two reasons. To allow the decision to be made voluntarily is a genetic tax on altruism. Why should the genes of people like you, who care enough about the future of the planet and humanity to voluntarily give up the right to have children not be passed on while other who couldn't care less continue to pop out sprogs by the dozen for government provided child benefits? It's both unfair and extremely detrimental to the future makeup of society.
It's all very well sitting back and saying don't worry someone else will sort it out, but that someone is at some point going to have to make some very hard decisions which might leave a bitter aftertaste while also being entirely necessary. If you can't take the sting to your conscience for the greater good that just means your not up to decision. Fine; someone else will take it while you can sit on the moral high ground feeling good about yourself.
PS. The Radiolabs episode on morality makes for great listening:
http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/