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.

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.

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?

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

..

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/

..