Some say we should bring a lot of those people to America. The reasoning is a majority of the world's population is located elsewhere, in poor countries which are rapidly industrializing in an attempt to improve their lives.
America, which currently houses so few of the world's masses could absorb the overload and release some of the pressure.
There are some obvious problems with this idea, the greatest being the strain this would place on our infrastructure (including security concerns, etc). But it's one of the more pragmatic solutions I've heard. What do you all think of this?
Regardless, it's still a temporary solution. Obiviously once that bucket fills, we're still faced with a rapidly increasing flow of new people, though some statistics say that population growth is leveling off.
Maybe all that's needed is a solution which balances the population that currently exists, and in the process eliminates global poverty. Which a lot of people say is more than just a noble idea.
High-ranking officials in Africa are still misleading their constituents, convincing them that HIV can sneak through condoms. The only real cure, according to the current South African Health Minister is eating beetroot, garlic, lemon juice or the African potato.
Cleary, with condoms having a 99% effectiveness against the disease, and with 12% of the South African population (5m people and rising) infected with HIV, these people are not using condoms. Infected or not, it's safe to say that scores of them are pregnant.
So, I think the simplest answer is, people need to wear condoms. Also, abortion must absolutely not be criminalized. We need to progress and undestand that the value of the unborn fetus in not more important than the value of our society and the people in it taken as a whole.
Looking from a macro perspective, Religion would seem to be root of all of these problems. Poor people are less likely to get an abortion (and if they're catholic, less likely to be on some sort of birth-control) out of fear-of-God. The faith-based initiatives are not working, and they need to be replaced by scientific solutions.
If we do all of this, I don't think we will have to resort to brave-new-world scenarios of goverment managed procreation. If we continue to allow Religion to make policy decisions for us, we might not have any choice.
No way. Because the only countries that will enforce it are going to be the very groups of people that should be having more babies.
I heard somewhere once that poor families have lots of children in hope that those children will go out and make money for the family. Poverty and overpopulation are statistically linked, and I think both need to be solved simultaniously. I think the one child rule is a terrible idea.
A semi-paraphrased quote from the book Cradle to Cradle:
All the ants on the planet, taken together, have a biomass greater than that of humans. They are an example of a population whose density and productiveness are not a problem. All their materials, even their most deadly chemical weapons, are biodegradable, and when they return the soil, they supply nutrients... Ants also collect decomposing matter from the Earth's surface and use it to feed the fungus gardens they grow underground for food. During their movements and activities, they transport minerals to upper layers of soil... they turn and aerate the soil and make passageways for water drainage.
So population may not be the issue. That said, many people think the problem will solve itself. After all, without petrochemical fertilizer, the earth will only be able to support 3-4 billion people - there just won't be enough nitrogen in the soil for plants to feed all of us.
But G-reg, even if rural Africans could afford 50¢ per ejaculation, I'm sure you see that preventing HIV would surely increase world population. AND condoms are NOT 99% reliable, it's closer to 85%, and I guess it's lower in rural areas with less sex education. If you want reliable birth control you need Fertility Awareness (a.k.a. rhythm method) or the pill (a.k.a. $$). And religion probably can't be the cause of population pressure when, first of all, many people don't even know how to stop having babies. (Of course this is mostly the semi-industrialized - many indigenous cultures have their own methods of birth control.) It's also well known that increasing & cheapening food supply, which "civilized" "secular" politicians push like there's no tomorrow as a solution to poverty (see Farm Bill), necessarily leads to population increase.
Also, could you elaborate on your statement about the one child rule? Did you mean to say that rich white people should be having children and poor brown people should not be?
Well, I think you missed my point about HIV, pregnancy and condoms which is: The number of new HIV cases show just how much condoms aren't being used. Fine, if they are only 85% effective, statistically it is still pretty obvious that people aren't using condoms. Period.
Secondly, I didn't specifiy any particular method of reducing poverty, and I certainly don't think we should be reducing the cost of food. That's actually the exact opposite of what I believe.
I believe that addressing root cause is essential, and simply lowering the price of food is not only unsustainable, but it's bad for the environment.
You and I agree with the ability for populations to regulate themselves over time -- and I especially like the ant-biomass statistic.
But once again, knowledge about condoms (if that's the right phrase) is what's lacking right now. And if you don't think that religion is behind the misinformation, then I think you're living in a bubble.
"Did you mean to say that rich white people should be having children and poor brown people should not be?"
No. Smart people of all color should. Otherwise we have this
" I'm sure you see that preventing HIV would surely increase world population. "
This is so far from what I was saying. Sure, it would increase the world population. But maybe it would just about even out, since this same group would be using condoms more. And there would be less AIDS.
I think a larger population, with significantly less disease and a greater distribution of wealth is superior to our current situation -- even if it turns out to be a little more crowded.
And next time, before you imply that someone is racist, think about what you are saying. Remember, most of the people that are dying due to AIDS are "poor brown people".
I re-read your post and I'm sorry if I defended myself a little agressively, I don't think you were trying to say I was racist -- I think you were just asking what I meant. But, it's easy to hit sensitive nerves with these types of conversations I suppose.
I think that Keith was right - it would be possible for us all to live on the planet if we found better ways of managing ourselves. This is why good governance is one of the most exciting things. I am a big supporter of the one (or two?) child policy (it should be enforced financially, but on a scale graded against income), against any kind of intelligence test for reproduction, for cloning and G.M. children, for wild cats, bears, wolves, etc. (but against snakes, spiders, and the plague), and def for working to greatly reduce poverty and so make having babies less financially attractive (the money for poverty-reduction should be taxed from the rich and stolen from the super-rich; this will also require studying how to re-order a society with a shrinking economy - see Japan etc.).
But all of these ideas are kind of lacking. I think the best thing would be to figure out how to convert people and our bodies into information and put us into a superawesome unlimited cyberworld (which will probably be solar-powered) and then burn up our bodies, or maybe just let them rot?
Limiting the number of children someone can have is the most fundamentally intrusive thing I can imagine. Socially irresponsible yes, but it's still an individual's choice.
Sustainability is precisely what needs to be done, which is why I brought up Bill Clinton's plan to loosen our immigration laws, and pour some of the overflow into our country, which has more than enough space.
I wasn't positing an intelligence test for reproduction. I'm saying smart people should have children.
Look at it this way: This is a smart group of people right here on this blog. This very group of people is aware of the world's population problem. I would argue that this awareness stems from this groups intelligence.
Now, most likely, this is the group of people that would follow the limited child rule. Whereas the rest of the world would most likely continue fevershly copulating, spawning a fast growing population of children, who like their parents would be completely unaware of the larger, global concerns.
It's analogous to what's happening in China right now with industrial development. Capping our own emissions without agreement from China that they would do the same would be econmomic suicide for the US. The world would continue to be polluted at a fast rate and the US, financially castrated, would be in no position to put forward clean technology initiatives.
No, what needs to be done is develop a new high-tech sector which will replace our current model. When it's completely functioning, we switch over. The rest of the world will follow when they see the sucess and desirability of the new system.
We should approach population the same way. I suggest everyone on this blog have as many kids as possible.
Read this: The Marching Morons. It's what "Idiocracy" was based on (which, if you like the wilson brothers [tim, I'm looking at you buddy] is worth seeing), and I personally believe it is more than plausible.
I'm sure Christianity is somehow involved in lack of funding for condoms. (Again funding would be crucial because most people cannot afford a condom.) But Fertility Awareness at most requires a thermometer, and is fully supported by the Catholic church. So the church cannot be blamed for overpopulation.
Anyway even if everyone in the world could afford condoms, where are they going to get them and how are they going to dispose of them? Re-acquainting people with local traditional birth control methods sounds like a much better idea.
You said religion is at the root of these problems. But surely you agree that the idea that (1) there are too many people in the world, and (2) the people that OUR culture decides are "smart" are the ones who should stay, is religious in nature. (We can discuss another time assumption (3), that whether or not someone should reproduce could be measured, and assumption (4), that controlling another human's reproduction [with either a knife or a law] is just.)
About the proposal to import "those people" from other countries into the US... As shown in Exhibit A, the big tomato in the upper left probably has enough people. Rather than opening up our borders wider, Derrick Jensen suggests closing them completely - to immigration and to trade. Population pressure would be among many problems solved by this approach, as the US would only be able to support as many people as the land allowed.
After thinking about this so much, I realize I don't fully understand the argument that there are too many people in the world. Too many for what? I might agree that there are too many people in the SF bay area, but there are plenty of other places to live... and I'm not planning to stay here long.
Hey Keith. I am glad someone challenged my basic argument. Are there too many people in the world? Too many for what? I think it has something to do with practical sustainability. At the current level of sustainablity there are too many people. The solution is to change either or both factors.
Talking about condoms - have you read Tina Fey's controversial advice book for teenage girls, " Your mouth can't get pregnant?"- what a solution! Also, I think we should encourage the Japanese to create new low-cost sex toys for distribution in places where they are currently unavailable. Also a culture that encourages masturbation should be fostered by Hollywood and the American pop industry - all the elements are there already. Also bike seats. Really hard ones. And being gay is patriotic. And dancing and kundalini meditation should be synthesized to create a new way to release psycho-sexual energy. And gladiator-fights would be awesome, though you probably would have to let the winners have twice as many babies, so it might not be effective.
Plus we need to fight asphalt and concrete. And nobody is taking my big predator idea seriously.
And I don't think that the people on this blog are any more worthy of having babies than anyone else. That's just another silly test. Intelligence tests are always 100% dumb, and, since we are challenging our basic assumptions here, what is so good about intelligence? Smart people invent some pretty nasty shit.
PS - Just realized that Tina Fey didn't actually write this book - it was just a joke. Apparently she is not as awesome as I thought.
Keith, I think we actually agree on a majority of these issues, but there are still a few things here that I have a problem with.
1) I don't know how to be any clearer than this: If you believe in yourself, you should pro-create. That's all I am saying. I don't think anyone else should decide, and I am definitely not proposing it should have anything to do with culture, or race, or be imposed in any way whatsoever.
2) I think teaching fertility awareness is a lot more complicated than: Here's a condom. Put it on your dick when you have sex.
3) You might be right. Bill Clinton's idea of bringing to America the world's overflow might not be the solution.
But this country could go sustainable (theoretically) in the near future, and then maybe it would be a great idea.
" Too many for what?" Too many for us to live sustainably at current consumption rates. See, I think we've agreed here on this all along, because my main point is that population control is not the answer. If America could somehow change it's ways, and become a sustainable economy, than we could take on those extra people, because what we have is plenty of s p a c e.
" 1) I don't know how to be any clearer than this: If you believe in yourself, you should pro-create. That's all I am saying. I don't think anyone else should decide, and I am definitely not proposing it should have anything to do with culture, or race, or be imposed in any way whatsoever. "
i couldn't disagree with this statement more. this standard reproductive-futurist stance needs to be called into question more than anything. the fundamental belief that it is ones' duty to procreate, and procreate as much as possible, is the source of a lot of strife in the world. do you genuinely believe that by reproducing, you are positively impacting the world? and by reproducing more, you are doing as such even more so? do you adopt such a stance on the assumption that ideological warfare is waged by numbers alone? isn't it perhaps a more worthwhile pursuit to engage oneself in some subversive measures, be it art or music or theory? or perhaps equally worthwhile in purely humanitarian concerns - cancer research, blah blah. humanity has obviously overcome a lot of its environmental limitations - i think any further progress hinges on adopting a critical stance towards the biological imperative itself.
i think the only thing i really have to say is...YES..there should be super-predators. i mean evolution got us this far...and now we are our only enemies...we need huge bears with wings or something...there are lots of more fun ways to reduce population than TEACHING PEOPLE....unless you want to bore them to death.
Seriously, if we had a giant monster to contend with then it would solve the whole issue and make our lives more entertaining.
TCD, yea, I mean obviously you have a point. But did you watch "Idiocracy"? Stupid movie, ok, but I'd like to here you more directly address that hypothesis.
There is a statistic somewhere that says the more intelligent someone is, the less likely the are to believe in God. For all of Eff's yammering about how Inteligence is what gets us into trouble in the first place, and the obvious racial sensitivity people have with this subject ( I never said smart 'white' people mind you), I think that the memetic spread of Religion is through an overwhelmining stupid (or maybe just gullible) population, and that by increasing the PHYSICAL numbers of intelligent people, we would have a lot less Religious bullshit fucking up our world.
Of course, I can't refute your argument TCD -- I'm willing to accept that procreation can be a distraction for someone who might otherwise go on to cure cancer if that person didn't have to go get a job as a janitor because they have five kids to feed. It's a really good point.
Further, I'll give it to EFF that the people who convinced the poor, dumb masses of Religion's validity in the first place were the more intelligent of the bunch -- and they themselves (like Hubbard), probably don't believe any of it.
Either way, this discussion, I feel, is spiraling, and maybe we should come back to it at a later date.
Just to give a bit of advantage to my awesome EPN friends - if a bear attacks, you are supposed to play dead. If a mountain lion attacks you are supposed to shout, make yourself look big, and fight back.
When you have information that makes it easier to survive, that's called memetic advantage. That's the only kind of advantage that I think maybe some of the people on this blog may have - genetically we are none of us superhumans. And memetic advantage propogates horizontally, as opposed to vert for DNA, and it moves much faster. That's why adopting makes sense - you can pass on your memetic advantage. But don't adopt from a country where people are encouraged to make babies through stupid religious ideas - it just encourages the "you should have your baby and someone will adopt it" bullcrap.
Also, I don't think that we should fill up all the available space with people. I think we should leave some space without people. This is a moral position, so sue me. But let's face it - even at very high levels of sustainability, humanity does not tend to establish equilibrium with the rest of the ecosystem. It's not really an option to kill off every other species and then use machines to keep us alive (though I'm pretty sure this is what we are going to attempt to do - though I bet the other species won't all die). We can't manage a stable artificial ecosystem to provide us with the air food and water we need (we can't even manage health care). That's just one reason there are too many people.
H - teaching people is awesome. It's just that the classes should be more fun. There should be awesome underground free-love happenings where lots of very hot, armed sex educators show people how to take advantage of their potential for sexual pleasure without making babies. These classes should be super x-rated and totally not legal. And they should be awesomely antireligious. And they should give away those little vibrating ring things - those are like hyper cheap. This should be supported by an underground anti-reproduction music, movie, and star system that is much more appealing than Hollywood's current lame-ass product. And there should be plenty of media showing what a royal pain in the ass - they shit, they scream, they sell your car for drugs, they hate you, your music, your ideas. Once you have babies you can't get high as much, you can't walk around naked, you can't stay in bed just cause you feel like it, you can't kill yourself just for fun, you can't collect knives, you can't have sex in the kitchen. People would consume this culture just to piss off their parents.
Finally, I think TCD is right - anyone who has more than 2 kids in the 21s c. should at least hear some crit from they friends. Face it - when people live in wide open spaces, far away from each other, there is less need for government intrusiveness. But as people fill up the space they tend to bump into each other more, compete more directly for resources. We are going to have to accept a bit more intervention like a two child policy - but after all, why is it less acceptable having the government tell you what to do than having the combined actions (inactions?) of billions negatively impact your life? But there are also alternatives to government policy - countries with low birthrates include Russia and Japan (despite an overwhelmingly pro-natalist policy). However, the reasons for the low rates are pretty depressing.
You're right, people should adopt and have one or two kids (if they want) -- I'm totally cool with that and I think it's the most obvious argument given so far, suprising only appearing just now in our debate.
i mentioned the 2 child limit in my first post in the thread, and farley mentioned a one child limit even earlier. as far as the idiocracy thing - i think i did address that directly. but to clarify: the movie, while i appreciate the cynicism, outlines a pretty darn unfeasible scenario (not to mention its reliance on a. i don't think ideological warfare is waged by numbers alone. even if you produce a whole bunch of smart children, there is no guarantee they are going to continue to espouse the philosophies you attempt to ingrain in them as they grow up. it's not just about *good genetics making smart people who do good things* - that uh...well, just doesn't make any fucking sense. it's some loopy borderline eugenics type shit. you do the world a much better favor by attempting educate than by simply reproducing. it baffles me why people think of bearing children as such a great inalienable right. i know it's something of a cliche, but isn't it bizarre that you need to like, take all these tests and shit to drive a car, but you can like, have a baby or a whole bunch of them when you are like, 12 or some shit. g-reg - you often rail against 'bullshit religion' at large. i seriously think the single most problematic consequence of western religions is the aggressive encouragement of childbirth - by discouraging abortion, contraception, and homosexuality. really, all these aberrant behaviors, those which are so damned by the bible-thumpers and which we so readily defend, are those that are non-generative, in a physical, human-number-making sense. why this is something which you have been actively encouraging, outside, perhaps, of some kind of devil's advocatism, is genuinely baffling. you don't 'win' by just breeding more, that is the most naive and simplistic model i can fathom.
as far as the "giant monster" issue - don't we already do a pretty good job manufacturing them?
eff's ideas regarding education are clearly cutting edge.
"i mentioned the 2 child limit in my first post in the thread, and farley mentioned a one child limit even earlier.:"
Yea, I know, I'm aware. But I still disagree that it should be enforced. I feel like this kind of government over-stepping is more akin to Eugenics Dysgenics, which is the exact opposite... By definition.
Memetics is a relatively new field of research. To just assume that the characteristics which make us compassionate towards one another are purely memetic and have nothing to do with our Genes is purely hypothetical.
There is plenty of stuff that Religions of various kinds do that I agree with, and most people would. Helping the sick, sheltering the homeless. But the problems cause by Religion are absolutely not worth the benefits. Benefits we would have regardless of Religion.
You commit the same Falacy of the Slippery Slope often here, most recently when you accused me of heading towards anti-academicism. And to say that by encouraging smart people to have babies, that that is somehow bordering on Eugenics is absurd. Once again, Eugenics is imposed from the outside in. Dysgenics from the inside out.
But above all else, to claim that increasing the population is Religion's prime directive is sneaky.
Religion IS in the business of increasing population (and really, we're talking mostly about christians here when it comes to reproduction). They're in the business of increasing THEIR OWN population. Because for thousands of years IT HAS WORKED. Religion is in control, and I think it's because of the power they have in numbers.
A lot has happened here but I'll respond where I can. G-reg it sounds like we agree that population is not the issue at all and it doesn't need to be solved.
About the anti religion stance... Humans have been around for 250,000 years. If you include humans' direct ancestors, it jumps to a million years. During this time, for the most part, religion kept humans living sustainably. For example, in some tribes, shamans would decide how many deer should be killed in a season to keep the population healthy. Northwestern American Indians told stories about gods starving people who caught more salmon than they needed. Now over the last few thousand years, our culture has taken over most of the world, a culture based on violence and control, and the major religions that spawned from it, which of course are only popular because they justify and encourage the culture's violence, are blamed, while "science," which has long been used as a tool to accelerate as well as justify destruction and violence, is left unquestioned.
"There is a statistic somewhere that says the more intelligent someone is, the less likely they are to believe in God." Pretty tautological considering that the popular meaning of "intelligence" is defined by scientists. I doubt scientists would define intelligence as a characteristic that would not further science itself. How do you define intelligence?
I want to try a different way of explaining my position. Hear me out.
Let's say that a child is born into a christian family, which instills a creationist view of the world. When that child goes to high-school and learns about Evolution from an utterly fantastic biology teacher, the odds are that the child will be swayed more heavily by the belief-set of it's parents.
Statistically, I think we can safely say that children who are indoctrinated early on are much less likely to accept outside arguments. The rates of people who leave the faith that they were born into, in otherwords, are probably much less than those who stay, and these children grow up to have their own children, etc,etc.
The Memetic spread of information from generation to generation seems to largely depend on the scale of the population. If it didn't, why would Catholics be so obsessed with reproducing?
The argument that Dawkins makes is that it is very hard indeed to influence someone that was born into a particular faith. Adoption is noble, but not every child is being put up for it -- I doubt it balances out with the number of large families of religious believers who will continue to spread their beliefs from generation to generation.
They say that sexual abuse from father to daughter is 90% more likely to be from a step parent than a biological father. Might this same bio-familiarity come into play when passing on information from parent to child?
Religious leaders speak in 'fatherly' tones, because biologically we are hyper-sensitive in that regard. Couldn't you accept that a biological mother or father would have a statistically higher advantage when it comes to passing on information and having it stick? What about twins who lead eerily similar lives even when separated at birth? If Memes were the only driving force of morality and knowledge, what accounts for this? Clearly genetics plays more than just a passive role.
Hey Keith, my post was written probably when you wrote yours, so mine's not a response to what you just wrote.. if that makes sense.. Just reading yours now
" Religion IS in the business of increasing population (and really, we're talking mostly about christians here when it comes to reproduction). They're in the business of increasing THEIR OWN population. Because for thousands of years IT HAS WORKED. Religion is in control, and I think it's because of the power they have in numbers. "
this is true.... but i think what is at the crux of our conversation here is, err, well, just that. the war of numbers worked in the past, but things have changed - we are dealing with a drastically different model of humanity than we were a century ago - or even just a couple decades ago. the functions of religion (forging community, sense of purpose, positive social vlaues) have largely collapsed, fulfilled by other means, but there are strange, irrational, ideological holdovers from those earlier days when smallpox and cholera might just wipe out your settlement. again, my only real point was that you can't change the way people and society work by breeding more. that's just not the way things work anymore (although it may have been wicked effective in 1095), and it seems like a silly rationale for irresponsible reproduction (which isn't good for people or the planet). i think it's a far more important agenda to undermine these holdover values in alternative ways than it is to just reproduce and hope things work themselves out later. we need to be looking forward, attempting to redefine and reconfigure our basic notions of humanity - not relying on archaic models.
and of course, on-forum debates are always meant in positive spirits :P no offense meant, and certainly none taken.
I definitely see where you are going with this. First, I agree to the obvious implication: IQ tests are racist. But, to clarify my statement above, it refers to predominately "white" religons. In other words, IQ scores and belief in religion is inverted among the white religious population.
Now, as far as non-white religious culture, a lot of what you describe as being attributed to medicine-men, or tribal shamans, is evolved social morality. And in those circumstances it's pretty cool. I mean, the native california indians used to burn malibu annually for religous purposes and it was really smart, because those fires were much smaller than the ones we have now which burn years worth of fuel in the form of pyrophytic plants.
But, where I think we disagree is that you seem to be implying that science is a religion. And that is a catch-phrase, but one that I disagree with. The difference between science and religion is that science corrects itself when new evidence is presented, and willingly changes with the times. Sure, certain nut-jobs like Hitler employed science for evil purposes, and America didn't need to drop atomic weapons on Japan either. But I think you would agree that it's not the science itself that is to blame, just what people do with it.
"The difference between science and religion is that science corrects itself when new evidence is presented, and willingly changes with the times."
Let's say you have a great new idea. Even if you study the ancient Science texts [aka "science books"], perform all the traditional Science rituals [aka "a well designed study"] while respecting the faithful beliefs of your brethren [aka "1% margin of error is fine" and "objectivity is attainable" etc.], and you write a story about the rituals in their ancient tongue [aka "a technical paper"], and your story somehow gets approved by a church [aka "conference"] and then gets printed in the church newsletter [aka "a peer-reviewed journal"] which by the way is printed thanks to the kind donations of the church members themselves [aka "journal subscribers"] along with a big donation from the guy who brews the blood-of-christ wine in his basement [aka... I think you get it]...
Even if all that happens, who's going to actually read your study? Trans fats were known to be poisonous in 1990, anthropogenic global climate change was recognized decades ago - and these are just the ones we know about. And if the church members do read it, how is it going to be publicized? No matter, the results will be completely misrepresented, mistaking correlation for causation, misinterpreting technical language, or maybe misquoting your conclusions completely.
I'm sure you see that there is just as much faith, power struggle, deception, & conformity in modern Western science as there is in any Western religion. Sure, science sounds nice in an idealistic way, but so do the words of Jesus. This doesn't mean the present-day manifestation of either one is a good source of information, and in fact both can probably be equally blamed for the current state of the culture (and the world), as they are tools rather than causes in their own right.
"But, to clarify my statement above, it refers to predominately 'white' religons. In other words, IQ scores and belief in religion is inverted among the white religious population."
I think it's a larger issue than racism. Scientists define what intelligence is, so it's obviously going to be biased towards science and away from its perceived opposite, "religion." It's like the dictionary definition of "civilization." Of course dictionary writers, themselves part of a civilized culture, would not define the word as "a backwards, unintelligent way of life."
"we need to be looking forward, attempting to redefine and reconfigure our basic notions of humanity - not relying on archaic models."
By "archaic basic notions" do you mean our cultural beliefs or our human beliefs? After all, each of us is nearly identical genetically to our ancestors from 10,000 years ago, so I doubt our human beliefs can be reconfigured. If, however, you're talking about changing our (fairly recent) cultural beliefs back to being more inline with our inherent "archaic" humanity..... Sounds great!
You're implying that there is a great rift between scientists about whether or not global climate change is fact or not -- and that's just a recent load of spin. Sure, there is lots of dissagreement among scientists on many issues, but dissent is part of the process.
A 1% margin of error is still way better than believing in something just for the hell of it with no evidence whatsoever.
There is no "Church" of science any more than the Zeitgeist is a "Real" thing. There is a scientific community, and peer review is completely democratic. Shitty, competitive backhand maneuvering is present in all human activities, but it's not enough on it's own to completely discredit science.
You're right, Jesus is just all right by me too. Though I have serious doubts as to whether he really ever even existed. Overall, science has endured religion zealotry for ages, and frankly your argument scares me a little. But I do agree here: Science suffers from the same problem I find with theory. Normal people have a really hard time understanding it, and it's "Normal" people who have made some of the worlds greatest discoveries.
As far as science defining anything, I would say more that there are ideas of what intelligence, or anything else is.
While science may not have it right, you can't argue that a mouse is smarter than an alligator, and that monkeys are smarter than worms. You just can't, because then all of the Disney movies I watched as a kid would be wrong, wrong, wrong. And there is NOTHING RACIST ABOUT DISNEY MOVIES ;)
You could also use that same substitution to describe a meal you ate, but putting [vegan] before every item. Like, this morning I had [vegan: wheat glutton] steak and [vegan soy subsitute] eggs with [not] bacon for breakfast. The overall breakfast quality is still there, but the substance of the meal is entirely different.
"You're implying that there is a great rift between scientists about whether or not global climate change is fact or not -- and that's just a recent load of spin."
While such a rift does exist, more importantly I'm saying that for 30 years nobody listened and now it's too late. What's popular among scientists at any given time is not necessarily what's true, but just what scientists like to believe.
"A 1% margin of error is still way better than believing in something just for the hell of it with no evidence whatsoever."
Of course Science only trusts itself. Didn't we agree earlier that religious beliefs are usually not based on "no evidence whatsoever" but on what the community actually needs? Scientists have faith that measurements & statistics are more trustworthy than anything else, especially that which cannot be measured.
"Peer review is completely democratic."
Sure, journals may treat everyone who got accepted to their club equally. As long as you submitted a high-quality paper (judged, of course, by scientists) using the latest research methods (created, of course, by scientists) and spent tens of thousands of dollars donated by large corporations... So basically, if you stay within their belief system (which of course you studied for 4-7 years), the journal reviewers will listen to you.
...Unless of course they don't think the readers will like it... after all, if people stop paying for the journal, because lately it's been spouting this nonsense about raw meat or global warming not existing, or any other unpopular opinion... then the advertisers drop out... that journal is no longer profitable and closes.
I DO think that there are some parallels between science and religion, just as there are major parallels between art and religion, or any other system of thought, mainly because the human mind is set up to run emotionally/intuitively, not logically. And I do think there are major problems with scientific journals or any other group that representst the academy in science (and art, religion, etc), but I think it is unrealistic to expect perfection from any practical system set up to judge thought. And I do think that the journal system works generally better than the rumor mill that is the internet - where sensationalism, brevity, and novelty are often more important than in-depth analysis and rigorous testing. So let's just say that there are problems to solve with both of these forums.
I do think there is a major misunderstanding among people about the difference between hard science (i.e. physics, chem.) and soft science (i.e. anthropology, pshychology). I think the statement that "What's popular among scientists at any given time is not necessarily what's true, but just what scientists like to believe..." is true, but mainly for the areas of research at the fringes of the known, such as subatomic physics, consciouness studies, etc. This is only natural. But science, unlike religion, can show practical evidence that it works - i.e. washing your hands before preforming surgeury tends to help the patient not die, and we know why - cooties.
I think the most valid point you made was about how journals are influenced by who buys them. Capitalism is particularly good at certain tasks, such as designing systems to get, say, produce to the people who need it - not flawless, but look at what bureaucratic interference does to mess that up (piles of rotting veggies, price supports for corn). It is particularly bad at promoting TRUTH; if capitalism had it's way, all facts would be adjustable to what is most profitable.
Finally, there is a reason that journals are set up to be conservative. It has to do with the way systems adjust themselves. The best analogy is a thermostat; they are usually set to turn on about 5 degrees below where they turn off. This means the furnace goes on and off at regular intervals. If the on and off temps are set closer to each other the furnace switches on and off rapidly, and when they are the same temp the furnace switches on and off at the same time, gets chaotic, and breaks. It is the same way with the judgement of any truth that is to be approved by the establishment.
Now, as an artist I think that there are other ways to find truth that communicate at a level that can be understood by our irrational, emotive, metaphorical, faith-based minds. This kind of thinking does not have to promote explotative memes such as the superstitions that established religions take advantage of, but they don't have to use the techniques of science either. Now, I have heard many scientists go on about how science and religious beliefs don't conflict with each other, and I think most of what they are saying comes from fear of being judged by society or an incomplete understanding of the basic truths of science, but I think there is something valid that they are trying to say, which is that there are truths that can be formulated about irrational things, truths about experience that can't be confirmed with science (ot even with EKG machines...).
Finally, those scientists have the beginning of the right idea when they say that these two systems don't mix. However, the way they see it, science should not judge extra-rational things, and scientific issues should not be interpretated emotionally. This is WRONG. These different ways of thinking can both be used to judge every possible question, but sometimes one or the other is more useful and appropriate.
When you create a new post the "link" blank makes the TITLE a link.
It's a little confusing. Here's how to
create an HTML link like a pro. Copy and paste this crap into your
post/comments:
<a href="http://www.address.com">TEXT </a>
Replace the complete URL (web address) between the quotes and TEXT with what you want to appear as text in the blue link.
Congratulations...you're a nerd.
41 comments:
Some say we should bring a lot of those people to America. The reasoning is a majority of the world's population is located elsewhere, in poor countries which are rapidly industrializing in an attempt to improve their lives.
America, which currently houses so few of the world's masses could absorb the overload and release some of the pressure.
There are some obvious problems with this idea, the greatest being the strain this would place on our infrastructure (including security concerns, etc). But it's one of the more pragmatic solutions I've heard. What do you all think of this?
Regardless, it's still a temporary solution. Obiviously once that bucket fills, we're still faced with a rapidly increasing flow of new people, though some statistics say that population growth is leveling off.
Maybe all that's needed is a solution which balances the population that currently exists, and in the process eliminates global poverty. Which a lot of people say is more than just a noble idea.
High-ranking officials in Africa are still misleading their constituents, convincing them that HIV can sneak through condoms. The only real cure, according to the current South African Health Minister is eating beetroot, garlic, lemon juice or the African potato.
Cleary, with condoms having a 99% effectiveness against the disease, and with 12% of the South African population (5m people and rising) infected with HIV, these people are not using condoms. Infected or not, it's safe to say that scores of them are pregnant.
So, I think the simplest answer is, people need to wear condoms. Also, abortion must absolutely not be criminalized. We need to progress and undestand that the value of the unborn fetus in not more important than the value of our society and the people in it taken as a whole.
Looking from a macro perspective, Religion would seem to be root of all of these problems. Poor people are less likely to get an abortion (and if they're catholic, less likely to be on some sort of birth-control) out of fear-of-God. The faith-based initiatives are not working, and they need to be replaced by scientific solutions.
If we do all of this, I don't think we will have to resort to brave-new-world scenarios of goverment managed procreation. If we continue to allow Religion to make policy decisions for us, we might not have any choice.
I think it's also an interesting fact that when J.F.K. was president, the world had about half as many people as it does today..
One child policy anyone? My little brothers have always been a royal pain in the ass.
No way. Because the only countries that will enforce it are going to be the very groups of people that should be having more babies.
I heard somewhere once that poor families have lots of children in hope that those children will go out and make money for the family. Poverty and overpopulation are statistically linked, and I think both need to be solved simultaniously. I think the one child rule is a terrible idea.
A semi-paraphrased quote from the book Cradle to Cradle:
All the ants on the planet, taken together, have a biomass greater than that of humans. They are an example of a population whose density and productiveness are not a problem. All their materials, even their most deadly chemical weapons, are biodegradable, and when they return the soil, they supply nutrients... Ants also collect decomposing matter from the Earth's surface and use it to feed the fungus gardens they grow underground for food. During their movements and activities, they transport minerals to upper layers of soil... they turn and aerate the soil and make passageways for water drainage.
So population may not be the issue. That said, many people think the problem will solve itself. After all, without petrochemical fertilizer, the earth will only be able to support 3-4 billion people - there just won't be enough nitrogen in the soil for plants to feed all of us.
But G-reg, even if rural Africans could afford 50¢ per ejaculation, I'm sure you see that preventing HIV would surely increase world population. AND condoms are NOT 99% reliable, it's closer to 85%, and I guess it's lower in rural areas with less sex education. If you want reliable birth control you need Fertility Awareness (a.k.a. rhythm method) or the pill (a.k.a. $$). And religion probably can't be the cause of population pressure when, first of all, many people don't even know how to stop having babies. (Of course this is mostly the semi-industrialized - many indigenous cultures have their own methods of birth control.) It's also well known that increasing & cheapening food supply, which "civilized" "secular" politicians push like there's no tomorrow as a solution to poverty (see Farm Bill), necessarily leads to population increase.
Also, could you elaborate on your statement about the one child rule? Did you mean to say that rich white people should be having children and poor brown people should not be?
Well, I think you missed my point about HIV, pregnancy and condoms which is: The number of new HIV cases show just how much condoms aren't being used. Fine, if they are only 85% effective, statistically it is still pretty obvious that people aren't using condoms. Period.
Secondly, I didn't specifiy any particular method of reducing poverty, and I certainly don't think we should be reducing the cost of food. That's actually the exact opposite of what I believe.
I believe that addressing root cause is essential, and simply lowering the price of food is not only unsustainable, but it's bad for the environment.
You and I agree with the ability for populations to regulate themselves over time -- and I especially like the ant-biomass statistic.
But once again, knowledge about condoms (if that's the right phrase) is what's lacking right now. And if you don't think that religion is behind the misinformation, then I think you're living in a bubble.
"Did you mean to say that rich white people should be having children and poor brown people should not be?"
No. Smart people of all color should. Otherwise we have this
" I'm sure you see that preventing HIV would surely increase world population. "
This is so far from what I was saying. Sure, it would increase the world population. But maybe it would just about even out, since this same group would be using condoms more. And there would be less AIDS.
I think a larger population, with significantly less disease and a greater distribution of wealth is superior to our current situation -- even if it turns out to be a little more crowded.
And next time, before you imply that someone is racist, think about what you are saying. Remember, most of the people that are dying due to AIDS are "poor brown people".
I re-read your post and I'm sorry if I defended myself a little agressively, I don't think you were trying to say I was racist -- I think you were just asking what I meant. But, it's easy to hit sensitive nerves with these types of conversations I suppose.
2 child limit
more than that is socially irresponsible
things will be better once the baby boomers start dying
Obviously I was TRYING to start a fight...
I think that Keith was right - it would be possible for us all to live on the planet if we found better ways of managing ourselves. This is why good governance is one of the most exciting things. I am a big supporter of the one (or two?) child policy (it should be enforced financially, but on a scale graded against income), against any kind of intelligence test for reproduction, for cloning and G.M. children, for wild cats, bears, wolves, etc. (but against snakes, spiders, and the plague), and def for working to greatly reduce poverty and so make having babies less financially attractive (the money for poverty-reduction should be taxed from the rich and stolen from the super-rich; this will also require studying how to re-order a society with a shrinking economy - see Japan etc.).
But all of these ideas are kind of lacking. I think the best thing would be to figure out how to convert people and our bodies into information and put us into a superawesome unlimited cyberworld (which will probably be solar-powered) and then burn up our bodies, or maybe just let them rot?
Limiting the number of children someone can have is the most fundamentally intrusive thing I can imagine. Socially irresponsible yes, but it's still an individual's choice.
Sustainability is precisely what needs to be done, which is why I brought up Bill Clinton's plan to loosen our immigration laws, and pour some of the overflow into our country, which has more than enough space.
I wasn't positing an intelligence test for reproduction. I'm saying smart people should have children.
Look at it this way: This is a smart group of people right here on this blog. This very group of people is aware of the world's population problem. I would argue that this awareness stems from this groups intelligence.
Now, most likely, this is the group of people that would follow the limited child rule. Whereas the rest of the world would most likely continue fevershly copulating, spawning a fast growing population of children, who like their parents would be completely unaware of the larger, global concerns.
It's analogous to what's happening in China right now with industrial development. Capping our own emissions without agreement from China that they would do the same would be econmomic suicide for the US. The world would continue to be polluted at a fast rate and the US, financially castrated, would be in no position to put forward clean technology initiatives.
No, what needs to be done is develop a new high-tech sector which will replace our current model. When it's completely functioning, we switch over. The rest of the world will follow when they see the sucess and desirability of the new system.
We should approach population the same way. I suggest everyone on this blog have as many kids as possible.
Read this: The Marching Morons. It's what "Idiocracy" was based on (which, if you like the wilson brothers [tim, I'm looking at you buddy] is worth seeing), and I personally believe it is more than plausible.
See also: Dysgenics
I'm sure Christianity is somehow involved in lack of funding for condoms. (Again funding would be crucial because most people cannot afford a condom.) But Fertility Awareness at most requires a thermometer, and is fully supported by the Catholic church. So the church cannot be blamed for overpopulation.
Anyway even if everyone in the world could afford condoms, where are they going to get them and how are they going to dispose of them? Re-acquainting people with local traditional birth control methods sounds like a much better idea.
You said religion is at the root of these problems. But surely you agree that the idea that (1) there are too many people in the world, and (2) the people that OUR culture decides are "smart" are the ones who should stay, is religious in nature. (We can discuss another time assumption (3), that whether or not someone should reproduce could be measured, and assumption (4), that controlling another human's reproduction [with either a knife or a law] is just.)
About the proposal to import "those people" from other countries into the US... As shown in Exhibit A, the big tomato in the upper left probably has enough people. Rather than opening up our borders wider, Derrick Jensen suggests closing them completely - to immigration and to trade. Population pressure would be among many problems solved by this approach, as the US would only be able to support as many people as the land allowed.
After thinking about this so much, I realize I don't fully understand the argument that there are too many people in the world. Too many for what? I might agree that there are too many people in the SF bay area, but there are plenty of other places to live... and I'm not planning to stay here long.
Hey Keith. I am glad someone challenged my basic argument. Are there too many people in the world? Too many for what? I think it has something to do with practical sustainability. At the current level of sustainablity there are too many people. The solution is to change either or both factors.
Talking about condoms - have you read Tina Fey's controversial advice book for teenage girls, " Your mouth can't get pregnant?"- what a solution! Also, I think we should encourage the Japanese to create new low-cost sex toys for distribution in places where they are currently unavailable. Also a culture that encourages masturbation should be fostered by Hollywood and the American pop industry - all the elements are there already. Also bike seats. Really hard ones. And being gay is patriotic. And dancing and kundalini meditation should be synthesized to create a new way to release psycho-sexual energy. And gladiator-fights would be awesome, though you probably would have to let the winners have twice as many babies, so it might not be effective.
Plus we need to fight asphalt and concrete. And nobody is taking my big predator idea seriously.
And I don't think that the people on this blog are any more worthy of having babies than anyone else. That's just another silly test. Intelligence tests are always 100% dumb, and, since we are challenging our basic assumptions here, what is so good about intelligence? Smart people invent some pretty nasty shit.
PS - Just realized that Tina Fey didn't actually write this book - it was just a joke. Apparently she is not as awesome as I thought.
-f
Keith, I think we actually agree on a majority of these issues, but there are still a few things here that I have a problem with.
1) I don't know how to be any clearer than this: If you believe in yourself, you should pro-create. That's all I am saying. I don't think anyone else should decide, and I am definitely not proposing it should have anything to do with culture, or race, or be imposed in any way whatsoever.
2) I think teaching fertility awareness is a lot more complicated than: Here's a condom. Put it on your dick when you have sex.
3) You might be right. Bill Clinton's idea of bringing to America the world's overflow might not be the solution.
But this country could go sustainable (theoretically) in the near future, and then maybe it would be a great idea.
" Too many for what?"
Too many for us to live sustainably at current consumption rates. See, I think we've agreed here on this all along, because my main point is that population control is not the answer. If America could somehow change it's ways, and become a sustainable economy, than we could take on those extra people, because what we have is plenty of s p a c e.
Hmm, I don't think you can edit a comment, but that should have read 'procreate' not 'pro-create'.
"
1) I don't know how to be any clearer than this: If you believe in yourself, you should pro-create. That's all I am saying. I don't think anyone else should decide, and I am definitely not proposing it should have anything to do with culture, or race, or be imposed in any way whatsoever.
"
i couldn't disagree with this statement more. this standard reproductive-futurist stance needs to be called into question more than anything.
the fundamental belief that it is ones' duty to procreate, and procreate as much as possible, is the source of a lot of strife in the world.
do you genuinely believe that by reproducing, you are positively impacting the world? and by reproducing more, you are doing as such even more so?
do you adopt such a stance on the assumption that ideological warfare is waged by numbers alone?
isn't it perhaps a more worthwhile pursuit to engage oneself in some subversive measures, be it art or music or theory? or perhaps equally worthwhile in purely humanitarian concerns - cancer research, blah blah.
humanity has obviously overcome a lot of its environmental limitations - i think any further progress hinges on adopting a critical stance towards the biological imperative itself.
i think the only thing i really have to say is...YES..there should be super-predators. i mean evolution got us this far...and now we are our only enemies...we need huge bears with wings or something...there are lots of more fun ways to reduce population than TEACHING PEOPLE....unless you want to bore them to death.
Seriously, if we had a giant monster to contend with then it would solve the whole issue and make our lives more entertaining.
TCD, yea, I mean obviously you have a point. But did you watch "Idiocracy"? Stupid movie, ok, but I'd like to here you more directly address that hypothesis.
There is a statistic somewhere that says the more intelligent someone is, the less likely the are to believe in God. For all of Eff's yammering about how Inteligence is what gets us into trouble in the first place, and the obvious racial sensitivity people have with this subject ( I never said smart 'white' people mind you), I think that the memetic spread of Religion is through an overwhelmining stupid (or maybe just gullible) population, and that by increasing the PHYSICAL numbers of intelligent people, we would have a lot less Religious bullshit fucking up our world.
Of course, I can't refute your argument TCD -- I'm willing to accept that procreation can be a distraction for someone who might otherwise go on to cure cancer if that person didn't have to go get a job as a janitor because they have five kids to feed. It's a really good point.
Further, I'll give it to EFF that the people who convinced the poor, dumb masses of Religion's validity in the first place were the more intelligent of the bunch -- and they themselves (like Hubbard), probably don't believe any of it.
Either way, this discussion, I feel, is spiraling, and maybe we should come back to it at a later date.
Just to give a bit of advantage to my awesome EPN friends - if a bear attacks, you are supposed to play dead. If a mountain lion attacks you are supposed to shout, make yourself look big, and fight back.
When you have information that makes it easier to survive, that's called memetic advantage. That's the only kind of advantage that I think maybe some of the people on this blog may have - genetically we are none of us superhumans. And memetic advantage propogates horizontally, as opposed to vert for DNA, and it moves much faster. That's why adopting makes sense - you can pass on your memetic advantage. But don't adopt from a country where people are encouraged to make babies through stupid religious ideas - it just encourages the "you should have your baby and someone will adopt it" bullcrap.
Also, I don't think that we should fill up all the available space with people. I think we should leave some space without people. This is a moral position, so sue me. But let's face it - even at very high levels of sustainability, humanity does not tend to establish equilibrium with the rest of the ecosystem. It's not really an option to kill off every other species and then use machines to keep us alive (though I'm pretty sure this is what we are going to attempt to do - though I bet the other species won't all die). We can't manage a stable artificial ecosystem to provide us with the air food and water we need (we can't even manage health care). That's just one reason there are too many people.
H - teaching people is awesome. It's just that the classes should be more fun. There should be awesome underground free-love happenings where lots of very hot, armed sex educators show people how to take advantage of their potential for sexual pleasure without making babies. These classes should be super x-rated and totally not legal. And they should be awesomely antireligious. And they should give away those little vibrating ring things - those are like hyper cheap. This should be supported by an underground anti-reproduction music, movie, and star system that is much more appealing than Hollywood's current lame-ass product. And there should be plenty of media showing what a royal pain in the ass - they shit, they scream, they sell your car for drugs, they hate you, your music, your ideas. Once you have babies you can't get high as much, you can't walk around naked, you can't stay in bed just cause you feel like it, you can't kill yourself just for fun, you can't collect knives, you can't have sex in the kitchen. People would consume this culture just to piss off their parents.
Finally, I think TCD is right - anyone who has more than 2 kids in the 21s c. should at least hear some crit from they friends. Face it - when people live in wide open spaces, far away from each other, there is less need for government intrusiveness. But as people fill up the space they tend to bump into each other more, compete more directly for resources. We are going to have to accept a bit more intervention like a two child policy - but after all, why is it less acceptable having the government tell you what to do than having the combined actions (inactions?) of billions negatively impact your life? But there are also alternatives to government policy - countries with low birthrates include Russia and Japan (despite an overwhelmingly pro-natalist policy). However, the reasons for the low rates are pretty depressing.
-f
You're right, people should adopt and have one or two kids (if they want) -- I'm totally cool with that and I think it's the most obvious argument given so far, suprising only appearing just now in our debate.
i mentioned the 2 child limit in my first post in the thread, and farley mentioned a one child limit even earlier.
as far as the idiocracy thing - i think i did address that directly. but to clarify: the movie, while i appreciate the cynicism, outlines a pretty darn unfeasible scenario (not to mention its reliance on a.
i don't think ideological warfare is waged by numbers alone. even if you produce a whole bunch of smart children, there is no guarantee they are going to continue to espouse the philosophies you attempt to ingrain in them as they grow up. it's not just about *good genetics making smart people who do good things* - that uh...well, just doesn't make any fucking sense. it's some loopy borderline eugenics type shit.
you do the world a much better favor by attempting educate than by simply reproducing.
it baffles me why people think of bearing children as such a great inalienable right. i know it's something of a cliche, but isn't it bizarre that you need to like, take all these tests and shit to drive a car, but you can like, have a baby or a whole bunch of them when you are like, 12 or some shit.
g-reg - you often rail against 'bullshit religion' at large. i seriously think the single most problematic consequence of western religions is the aggressive encouragement of childbirth - by discouraging abortion, contraception, and homosexuality. really, all these aberrant behaviors, those which are so damned by the bible-thumpers and which we so readily defend, are those that are non-generative, in a physical, human-number-making sense. why this is something which you have been actively encouraging, outside, perhaps, of some kind of devil's advocatism, is genuinely baffling.
you don't 'win' by just breeding more, that is the most naive and simplistic model i can fathom.
as far as the "giant monster" issue - don't we already do a pretty good job manufacturing them?
eff's ideas regarding education are clearly cutting edge.
"i mentioned the 2 child limit in my first post in the thread, and farley mentioned a one child limit even earlier.:"
Yea, I know, I'm aware. But I still disagree that it should be enforced. I feel like this kind of government over-stepping is more akin to Eugenics Dysgenics, which is the exact opposite... By definition.
Memetics is a relatively new field of research. To just assume that the characteristics which make us compassionate towards one another are purely memetic and have nothing to do with our Genes is purely hypothetical.
There is plenty of stuff that Religions of various kinds do that I agree with, and most people would. Helping the sick, sheltering the homeless. But the problems cause by Religion are absolutely not worth the benefits. Benefits we would have regardless of Religion.
You commit the same Falacy of the Slippery Slope often here, most recently when you accused me of heading towards anti-academicism. And to say that by encouraging smart people to have babies, that that is somehow bordering on Eugenics is absurd. Once again, Eugenics is imposed from the outside in. Dysgenics from the inside out.
But above all else, to claim that increasing the population is Religion's prime directive is sneaky.
Religion IS in the business of increasing population (and really, we're talking mostly about christians here when it comes to reproduction). They're in the business of increasing THEIR OWN population. Because for thousands of years IT HAS WORKED. Religion is in control, and I think it's because of the power they have in numbers.
It is simplistic, you're right.
should read "Eugenics THAN Dysgenics, which is the exact opposite... By definition."
and TCD, this might be a heated argument, but I'm not taking it personally, and I hope you aren't either ;)
A lot has happened here but I'll respond where I can. G-reg it sounds like we agree that population is not the issue at all and it doesn't need to be solved.
About the anti religion stance... Humans have been around for 250,000 years. If you include humans' direct ancestors, it jumps to a million years. During this time, for the most part, religion kept humans living sustainably. For example, in some tribes, shamans would decide how many deer should be killed in a season to keep the population healthy. Northwestern American Indians told stories about gods starving people who caught more salmon than they needed. Now over the last few thousand years, our culture has taken over most of the world, a culture based on violence and control, and the major religions that spawned from it, which of course are only popular because they justify and encourage the culture's violence, are blamed, while "science," which has long been used as a tool to accelerate as well as justify destruction and violence, is left unquestioned.
"There is a statistic somewhere that says the more intelligent someone is, the less likely they are to believe in God." Pretty tautological considering that the popular meaning of "intelligence" is defined by scientists. I doubt scientists would define intelligence as a characteristic that would not further science itself. How do you define intelligence?
I want to try a different way of explaining my position. Hear me out.
Let's say that a child is born into a christian family, which instills a creationist view of the world. When that child goes to high-school and learns about Evolution from an utterly fantastic biology teacher, the odds are that the child will be swayed more heavily by the belief-set of it's parents.
Statistically, I think we can safely say that children who are indoctrinated early on are much less likely to accept outside arguments. The rates of people who leave the faith that they were born into, in otherwords, are probably much less than those who stay, and these children grow up to have their own children, etc,etc.
The Memetic spread of information from generation to generation seems to largely depend on the scale of the population. If it didn't, why would Catholics be so obsessed with reproducing?
The argument that Dawkins makes is that it is very hard indeed to influence someone that was born into a particular faith. Adoption is noble, but not every child is being put up for it -- I doubt it balances out with the number of large families of religious believers who will continue to spread their beliefs from generation to generation.
They say that sexual abuse from father to daughter is 90% more likely to be from a step parent than a biological father. Might this same bio-familiarity come into play when passing on information from parent to child?
Religious leaders speak in 'fatherly' tones, because biologically we are hyper-sensitive in that regard. Couldn't you accept that a biological mother or father would have a statistically higher advantage when it comes to passing on information and having it stick? What about twins who lead eerily similar lives even when separated at birth? If Memes were the only driving force of morality and knowledge, what accounts for this? Clearly genetics plays more than just a passive role.
Hey Keith, my post was written probably when you wrote yours, so mine's not a response to what you just wrote.. if that makes sense.. Just reading yours now
"
Religion IS in the business of increasing population (and really, we're talking mostly about christians here when it comes to reproduction). They're in the business of increasing THEIR OWN population. Because for thousands of years IT HAS WORKED. Religion is in control, and I think it's because of the power they have in numbers. "
this is true.... but i think what is at the crux of our conversation here is, err, well, just that. the war of numbers worked in the past, but things have changed - we are dealing with a drastically different model of humanity than we were a century ago - or even just a couple decades ago. the functions of religion (forging community, sense of purpose, positive social vlaues) have largely collapsed, fulfilled by other means, but there are strange, irrational, ideological holdovers from those earlier days when smallpox and cholera might just wipe out your settlement.
again, my only real point was that you can't change the way people and society work by breeding more. that's just not the way things work anymore (although it may have been wicked effective in 1095), and it seems like a silly rationale for irresponsible reproduction (which isn't good for people or the planet). i think it's a far more important agenda to undermine these holdover values in alternative ways than it is to just reproduce and hope things work themselves out later.
we need to be looking forward, attempting to redefine and reconfigure our basic notions of humanity - not relying on archaic models.
and of course, on-forum debates are always meant in positive spirits :P
no offense meant, and certainly none taken.
Ok, after reading your post:
I definitely see where you are going with this. First, I agree to the obvious implication: IQ tests are racist. But, to clarify my statement above, it refers to predominately "white" religons. In other words, IQ scores and belief in religion is inverted among the white religious population.
Now, as far as non-white religious culture, a lot of what you describe as being attributed to medicine-men, or tribal shamans, is evolved social morality. And in those circumstances it's pretty cool. I mean, the native california indians used to burn malibu annually for religous purposes and it was really smart, because those fires were much smaller than the ones we have now which burn years worth of fuel in the form of pyrophytic plants.
But, where I think we disagree is that you seem to be implying that science is a religion. And that is a catch-phrase, but one that I disagree with. The difference between science and religion is that science corrects itself when new evidence is presented, and willingly changes with the times. Sure, certain nut-jobs like Hitler employed science for evil purposes, and America didn't need to drop atomic weapons on Japan either. But I think you would agree that it's not the science itself that is to blame, just what people do with it.
"..we need to be looking forward, attempting to redefine and reconfigure our basic notions of humanity - not relying on archaic models."
Amen.
"The difference between science and religion is that science corrects itself when new evidence is presented, and willingly changes with the times."
Let's say you have a great new idea. Even if you study the ancient Science texts [aka "science books"], perform all the traditional Science rituals [aka "a well designed study"] while respecting the faithful beliefs of your brethren [aka "1% margin of error is fine" and "objectivity is attainable" etc.], and you write a story about the rituals in their ancient tongue [aka "a technical paper"], and your story somehow gets approved by a church [aka "conference"] and then gets printed in the church newsletter [aka "a peer-reviewed journal"] which by the way is printed thanks to the kind donations of the church members themselves [aka "journal subscribers"] along with a big donation from the guy who brews the blood-of-christ wine in his basement [aka... I think you get it]...
Even if all that happens, who's going to actually read your study? Trans fats were known to be poisonous in 1990, anthropogenic global climate change was recognized decades ago - and these are just the ones we know about. And if the church members do read it, how is it going to be publicized? No matter, the results will be completely misrepresented, mistaking correlation for causation, misinterpreting technical language, or maybe misquoting your conclusions completely.
I'm sure you see that there is just as much faith, power struggle, deception, & conformity in modern Western science as there is in any Western religion. Sure, science sounds nice in an idealistic way, but so do the words of Jesus. This doesn't mean the present-day manifestation of either one is a good source of information, and in fact both can probably be equally blamed for the current state of the culture (and the world), as they are tools rather than causes in their own right.
"But, to clarify my statement above, it refers to predominately 'white' religons. In other words, IQ scores and belief in religion is inverted among the white religious population."
I think it's a larger issue than racism. Scientists define what intelligence is, so it's obviously going to be biased towards science and away from its perceived opposite, "religion." It's like the dictionary definition of "civilization." Of course dictionary writers, themselves part of a civilized culture, would not define the word as "a backwards, unintelligent way of life."
"we need to be looking forward, attempting to redefine and reconfigure our basic notions of humanity - not relying on archaic models."
By "archaic basic notions" do you mean our cultural beliefs or our human beliefs? After all, each of us is nearly identical genetically to our ancestors from 10,000 years ago, so I doubt our human beliefs can be reconfigured. If, however, you're talking about changing our (fairly recent) cultural beliefs back to being more inline with our inherent "archaic" humanity..... Sounds great!
You're implying that there is a great rift between scientists about whether or not global climate change is fact or not -- and that's just a recent load of spin. Sure, there is lots of dissagreement among scientists on many issues, but dissent is part of the process.
A 1% margin of error is still way better than believing in something just for the hell of it with no evidence whatsoever.
There is no "Church" of science any more than the Zeitgeist is a "Real" thing. There is a scientific community, and peer review is completely democratic. Shitty, competitive backhand maneuvering is present in all human activities, but it's not enough on it's own to completely discredit science.
You're right, Jesus is just all right by me too. Though I have serious doubts as to whether he really ever even existed. Overall, science has endured religion zealotry for ages, and frankly your argument scares me a little. But I do agree here: Science suffers from the same problem I find with theory. Normal people have a really hard time understanding it, and it's "Normal" people who have made some of the worlds greatest discoveries.
As far as science defining anything, I would say more that there are ideas of what intelligence, or anything else is.
While science may not have it right, you can't argue that a mouse is smarter than an alligator, and that monkeys are smarter than worms. You just can't, because then all of the Disney movies I watched as a kid would be wrong, wrong, wrong. And there is NOTHING RACIST ABOUT DISNEY MOVIES ;)
(That was a joke, I hope that's obvious, but I feel the need to put disclaimers on these things because there's no tone-of-voice on a blog)
You could also use that same substitution to describe a meal you ate, but putting [vegan] before every item. Like, this morning I had [vegan: wheat glutton] steak and [vegan soy subsitute] eggs with [not] bacon for breakfast. The overall breakfast quality is still there, but the substance of the meal is entirely different.
i was feeling what you were saying, greg....but you lost me when you started talking about mice, alligators, and vegans...
I think G-reg was sustaining a little too much green when he wrote those comments.
weed should definitely be made illegal
I agree - the current legal status of weed should be reversed.
Beating this undead horse...
"You're implying that there is a great rift between scientists about whether or not global climate change is fact or not -- and that's just a recent load of spin."
While such a rift does exist, more importantly I'm saying that for 30 years nobody listened and now it's too late. What's popular among scientists at any given time is not necessarily what's true, but just what scientists like to believe.
"A 1% margin of error is still way better than believing in something just for the hell of it with no evidence whatsoever."
Of course Science only trusts itself. Didn't we agree earlier that religious beliefs are usually not based on "no evidence whatsoever" but on what the community actually needs? Scientists have faith that measurements & statistics are more trustworthy than anything else, especially that which cannot be measured.
"Peer review is completely democratic."
Sure, journals may treat everyone who got accepted to their club equally. As long as you submitted a high-quality paper (judged, of course, by scientists) using the latest research methods (created, of course, by scientists) and spent tens of thousands of dollars donated by large corporations... So basically, if you stay within their belief system (which of course you studied for 4-7 years), the journal reviewers will listen to you.
...Unless of course they don't think the readers will like it... after all, if people stop paying for the journal, because lately it's been spouting this nonsense about raw meat or global warming not existing, or any other unpopular opinion... then the advertisers drop out... that journal is no longer profitable and closes.
Hmmm...
I DO think that there are some parallels between science and religion, just as there are major parallels between art and religion, or any other system of thought, mainly because the human mind is set up to run emotionally/intuitively, not logically. And I do think there are major problems with scientific journals or any other group that representst the academy in science (and art, religion, etc), but I think it is unrealistic to expect perfection from any practical system set up to judge thought. And I do think that the journal system works generally better than the rumor mill that is the internet - where sensationalism, brevity, and novelty are often more important than in-depth analysis and rigorous testing. So let's just say that there are problems to solve with both of these forums.
I do think there is a major misunderstanding among people about the difference between hard science (i.e. physics, chem.) and soft science (i.e. anthropology, pshychology). I think the statement that "What's popular among scientists at any given time is not necessarily what's true, but just what scientists like to believe..." is true, but mainly for the areas of research at the fringes of the known, such as subatomic physics, consciouness studies, etc. This is only natural. But science, unlike religion, can show practical evidence that it works - i.e. washing your hands before preforming surgeury tends to help the patient not die, and we know why - cooties.
I think the most valid point you made was about how journals are influenced by who buys them. Capitalism is particularly good at certain tasks, such as designing systems to get, say, produce to the people who need it - not flawless, but look at what bureaucratic interference does to mess that up (piles of rotting veggies, price supports for corn). It is particularly bad at promoting TRUTH; if capitalism had it's way, all facts would be adjustable to what is most profitable.
Finally, there is a reason that journals are set up to be conservative. It has to do with the way systems adjust themselves. The best analogy is a thermostat; they are usually set to turn on about 5 degrees below where they turn off. This means the furnace goes on and off at regular intervals. If the on and off temps are set closer to each other the furnace switches on and off rapidly, and when they are the same temp the furnace switches on and off at the same time, gets chaotic, and breaks. It is the same way with the judgement of any truth that is to be approved by the establishment.
Now, as an artist I think that there are other ways to find truth that communicate at a level that can be understood by our irrational, emotive, metaphorical, faith-based minds. This kind of thinking does not have to promote explotative memes such as the superstitions that established religions take advantage of, but they don't have to use the techniques of science either. Now, I have heard many scientists go on about how science and religious beliefs don't conflict with each other, and I think most of what they are saying comes from fear of being judged by society or an incomplete understanding of the basic truths of science, but I think there is something valid that they are trying to say, which is that there are truths that can be formulated about irrational things, truths about experience that can't be confirmed with science (ot even with EKG machines...).
Finally, those scientists have the beginning of the right idea when they say that these two systems don't mix. However, the way they see it, science should not judge extra-rational things, and scientific issues should not be interpretated emotionally. This is WRONG. These different ways of thinking can both be used to judge every possible question, but sometimes one or the other is more useful and appropriate.
Post a Comment