In 50 years they may cured AIDS and cancer but what will they do about people dying from hunger and thirst and killing each other for a handful of rice?  We cannot sustain ourselves at the rate we're growing.

actually bioengineering of the plant kingdom is probably the major emphasis right now --

the Green revolution was made possible 40 years ago by bio-engineered crops and while the GR has problems, it has had tremndous effects in reducing hunger

similar results are being achieved today with corn that fixes its own nitrogen, and the pest resistant strains  - reducing need for chemical fertilizer and pesticides.

steve

Quote from: cascoly on May 22, 2010, 12:30

the Green revolution was made possible 40 years ago by bio-engineered crops and while the GR has problems, it has had tremndous effects in reducing hunger

At the same time it increased the use of pesticides and other chemical stuff that damages watersheds and ultimately ourselves.

"Every action has an equal and opposite reaction." - ISSAC NEWTON
We learned that in grade school. Elementary physics.
Yet our scientists and technocrats seem to conveniently forget this when it is in their own best interest.

Quote from: madelaide on May 22, 2010, 16:11

Quote from: cascoly on May 22, 2010, 12:30

the Green revolution was made possible 40 years ago by bio-engineered crops and while the GR has problems, it has had tremndous effects in reducing hunger

At the same time it increased the use of pesticides and other chemical stuff that damages watersheds and ultimately ourselves.

'chemical stuff' is also called organic farming - the same nutrients are required whether their source is a chem lab or bird guano -- large scale farming requires large scale nutrition, there is nt enough 'natural' fertilizer to feed the world - it's the scale of the farming.  miliions of people are saved from hunger by these methods while a western elite focuses on local production of boutique crops and locavore suburban markets

world hunger is an econimic and political problem, not scientitifc

s

Nope, no one is saved from hunger. All this obsession with increasing crop yields does is fuel population growth. The population will increase to the level sustainable by the amount of food we produce. You are getting the cart before the horse.

..

"Every action has an equal and opposite reaction." - ISSAC NEWTON
We learned that in grade school. Elementary physics.
Yet our scientists and technocrats seem to conveniently forget this when it is in their own best interest.

Very important point. Take corn for example, it has fueled a huge boon in agriculture and the feeding of livestock. Yet it is likely to be single handedly responsible for the obesity problem and rest of the issues with metabolic syndrome much of the world is experiencing.

Not only education for women, but also put the necessary means at their disposal.  There must be an education for men also, because many women are not allowed by their spouses to take any prevention.  There is a very big cultural thing to change in poor families, especially farmers, that they need many children to help them at work.  This is also because many die in childhood, so they need to have say ten children to have four adults someday. In cities, there is more conciousness towards having less children so be able to provide them a better life. Our maid has two children and our cleaning lady also two.

However you look at it population growth is in positive figures in almost every country including those in the developed world. The only current notable exception is Germany, and that's probably just a blip as historically several other countries have had similar momentary falls below zero.
So the truth is that even if every country in the world had a population as well educated as in Western democracies (and this will never, never happen) population would still be growing at an unacceptable rate, that will only be ultimately limited by the level of available resources or enforced legislation.
However hard we try to think up nice feel good ways of dealing with this there's no getting away from the facts.

However you look at it population growth is in positive figures in almost every country including those in the developed world. The only current notable exception is Germany, and that's probably just a blip as historically several other countries have had similar momentary falls below zero.
So the truth is that even if every country in the world had a population as well educated as in Western democracies (and this will never, never happen) population would still be growing at an unacceptable rate, that will only be ultimately limited by the level of available resources or enforced legislation.
However hard we try to think up nice feel good ways of dealing with this there's no getting away from the facts.

why is it unacceptble? by what reasoning?  you seem to think that a positive population growth is in itself bad - Malthus was disproved many years ago - the carrying capacity of the earth is well beyond what we see now, and there is more than enough potential food for the anticipated increases in pop.  on what are you basing your claim?

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

 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 agree with Steve Cascoly.
Microbius you're facing the problem the wrong way.
The Earth is more than capable to feed us all, and the many, many more to come. As long as we take good care of our unique, beautiful Blue Marble, hunger should not be a problem.

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.

And in fact, I'm totally excited by the new developments in genetic engineering. This is a fascinating domain and it absolutely is the way to go. No doubts about it.
Scientists won't be stopped and they shouldn't be.
In hundreds of years from now on (provided we don't kill ourselves) humans will reach a state of Semi-Gods.
It's meant to be.   
Give it a few more thousands years and we will be able to save the Sun from dying, the galaxies from colliding and even the Universe from expanding into dark nothingness.
It sounds incredible but we will get there.
It will be an amazing world, braver and a lot more beautiful than Huxley's, it will come to life helped by genetics and I'm only sorry I will not be around to watch it in action.

Nosaya,
and you want to help change their life standards by imposing birth control?
- 'You live in a shack? Have no colour TV? That's it! You're not allowed to have more than one child! Tomorrow morning get yourself at the hospital, up the table and out with your ovaries!' (or something similar).
Talk about 'Brave new world'...
Is that your solution? Nothing else springs to your mind?
I can think of better ways to improve their standard of life. It takes time, but they'll get there, and I can assure you, meanwhile you're not in any danger of starvation. 

And anyways, imposed birth control is a measure of past, dictatorial societies. Very Hitlerian.
Forget about it, it's not gonna happen.
Think of something else.

Nosaya,
and you want to help change their life standards by imposing birth control?
- 'You live in a shack? Have no colour TV? That's it! You're not allowed to have more than one child! Tomorrow morning get yourself at the hospital, up the table and out with your ovaries!' (or something similar).
Talk about 'Brave new world'...
Is that your solution? Nothing else springs to your mind?
I can think of better ways to improve their standard of life. It takes time, but they'll get there, and I can assure you, meanwhile you're not in any danger of starvation.  

And anyways, imposed birth control is a measure of past, dictatorial societies. Very Hitlerian.
Forget about it, it's not gonna happen.
Think of something else.

No one is suggesting that controls be placed on some sections of society and not on others, or on some nations and not on others. Everyone would have to live under the same rules. I don't feel that this is likely to happen in our lifetime. Far more likely is  that population will continue to grow unabated followed by lots of wars over limited resources. Countries like China are already putting a halt to exports of rare metals etc. because their growing population needs them. If a small, say middle Eastern, country discovers vast reserves of them, how long do you reckon before the US or someone else finds a reason to invade?
Simply labelling a point of view as "Hitlerian" or anything else is not the same as rebuffing it. Steve has conducted this argument like a gentleman and a scholar, stating the facts as he sees them and arguing against specific points that I and others have made. Throwing names about doesn't help the discussion.... and all the talk of "moving forward" and "the dark ages" has the same ring about it as the theorising that went on at the turn of the twentieth century that there was an end of violence, that somehow mankind had outgrown it, how did that turn out?

ETA. if you get the chance please listen to the program I linked to earlier discussing Brave New World. Huxley didn't find the society portrayed quite as dystopian as you might think.

ETA lol, thought I'd come back to add this in light of the above http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html?emc=na