Torsten Posted October 22, 2005 conversely to those who think we should not have children i might ask why stop there? why dont we start mass suicides? starting with all those people who never plan to have kids, who have no dependents and belive the world is going to end due to our overpopulation seeing as how you are deadends anyway why use up those extra resources in the next 40 to 50 years of your life when there is no point in doing so? Think of all the carbon emissions you could save! As an environmental scientist you would know that the most effective way to reduce populations is a combination of culling breeders while leaving non-breeders (eg infertile). In fact, most successful population control programs focus on sterility rather than culling as research shows that culling simply increases the birthrate (applies to humans as well, just look at the baby boom after the war). Personally I don't really care how many kids you will have. I don't have a responsibility to my offspring to 'save the planet', because I don't have any offspring. People with kids however do. So you are putting kids into a world and society at a rate that is unsustainable. You are contributing to the problem and you are forcing your kids to inherit the problem. How sick is that?!? Investing in the future of humanity?? A future of overpopulation, overconsumption, species extinction, habitat destruction etc etc, for which you are directly responsible by contributing to positive population growth. Population control is something that needs foresight and forward planning. Any other methods are simply immoral. I am personally certainly not going to make room just so you can do your share to harm the planet. How ignorant is it to think that your 3 kids will be any different to the 15 kids some or african family has? While your family might have a small environmental footprint (which btw I think you are deluding yourself about), your kids will have their own families in 25 years or so and will apply their own standards. One can only hope that they are a bit less selfish. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
occidentalis Posted October 23, 2005 if the world survives and there no humans around to live in it - was there any point? or is the earth just another rock amongst millions in the universe teeming with biochemical anomalies we call life. If that is true then there is nothing special about earth at all and theres no need to give a shit about what happens to it or us. Even if life is relatively common in the universe, what we have here is the best we've found so far... and it's pretty damn amazing. I don't think that value is only found in the eye of the observer - the earth would be an amazing place whether or not there was anyone conscious enough to enjoy it present. Life is valuable for it's own sake. conversely to those who think we should not have children i might ask why stop there?why dont we start mass suicides? Absolutely http://www.vhemt.org/ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
oxydiser Posted October 23, 2005 When we have children, doing so consciously, and invest in their future we are investing in the future of humanity It is this 'populate and conquer' mentality that has contributed to the over-population woes of the planet earth. Through goverment welfare systems and increasing improvements in health care technology (although mostly in developed countries), the human race has effectively lost the 'natural selection' mechanisms built into every other species of animal across the world. Our failure to save the world as individuals no longer seems a failure as much as just being a link in the intergenerational effort But the earth is so special because it is our home and we want to keep living here and i think anyone who gives a shit has an obligation to ensure that they pass on that culture to another generation Rev, you are contradicting yourself. I agree with Tort that having large families (i.e. over replacement level) is selfish. I myself come from a family of 5 children, and think how much easier life would have been for the family as a whole if Mum had stopped at two (I'm number four in line). Even if it is your decision to not have kids, you can be sure that there are at least 10 other welfare-for-life-dependent females would will happily have 5 kids to four different men to make up for your choice. It's sorta like recycling, I do it full well knowing that there are others around me that don't, but knowing I am contributing for the greater good is the most important thing. The hardest thing is convincing other people of the environmental benefits, something that only happens to a small extent. I wonder how a state-enforced one child policy would go down in Australia? Ignoring all the "moral and ethical" gripes from some sectors of the community, and without a gender bias like we see in China, could we get over the fact that a generation without any siblings would mean a greater environmental and economic benefit for this country? seeing as how you are deadends anyway why use up those extra resources in the next 40 to 50 years of your life when there is no point in doing so? So because I am choosing not to have kids, I have no point in life?? Yes, I understand I have no point from a biological point of view, nonetheless this is somewhat of a close-minded statement to make. This is always going to be a null argument. BTW, good website creach. Funny as hell and true in some parts, I especially like the 'Why Breed?' explanation table Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rev Posted October 23, 2005 (edited) T and oxydiser I absolutely do not realy endorse the idea of suicide for population control Its a bad joke simply to make apoint that Our reason for existence is more complicated than logical reasoning about population dynamics very few people are hardcore enough to REALLY commit to their beliefs that there are too many people on the earth and take a bow and exit voluntarily Likewise some people decide to implment the same effcet by killing other people, but even there the majority doe not why is that? i personally think it is because they do not really believe deep down in what they are saying i dont think im contradicting myself. I think i can have 2 or 3 kids at least and raise them well with the right ideologies and skills to make it through their lifetime and until we emerge through the bottleneck. People are not just liabilities , we make contributions to the biosphere too - as i said this is our home, we evolved here and our origin and destiny is inseparable from this planets. I also say that those who choose not to have children are making the easy choice. They have a longer youth much more disposable income and freedom of movemnet and no interruptions to career movemnet. Not having kids is definitely the easier choice, having kids is hard on all levels. you really have to believe in its value to want to do it - especially more than once i think we can make it as a species. Not as we are and gladly so cos the way we are is rotten to the core. But in another lifetyle that will emerge. and to make it there needs to be people and those people have to made by quality parenting. I am not going to extrapolate on the choices my children will make excpet to say that i will do my best to make sure they are well setup for the future in a sustainable way and that i dont think their consumerist habits will be much of an isse by 2030 anyway as i really dont think that culture will last that long anway. The golden age of capitalism is behind us already. I agree creach that life is beautiful but i really think that only conscious entities think this Nature itself is just running the course. Mass extinction follwed by proliferation from the point the oceans form till the day they boil away In the cosmic scheme of things this world is ephemeral and theres no doubt it will die its just a matter of time That is of course the irony that anything that lives dies some day so the notion of saving anything is a temporary measure at best So seeing as life dies anyway then i think that saving it in our absence loses much of its importance I think the worst thing we can do with regard to our overpopulation is to go cold turkey If we do so we end up like china with a skewed demographic of sex ratios and so many old to very few young which undermines the whole socail and economic wellbeing of a society. read op on th 'little emperors' effect in china http://www.library.utoronto.ca/east/studen...%20emperors.htm Or like here where the age skew is apparent and we have a negative birtrate which must be topped up with increased migration I like migration as it adds vitality to our society but should it be the primary source of our recruitment? I dont thinks so. its far better for populatiosn to be regenerated from within their own ranks so tha the cultural continuum remains. Thsi is particualrly important outside of the metropolitan area where local traditional knowledge about environmental managemnet is one of the keys to sustainability. If i have less than 3 children then im just contributing to this erosive situation. The upcoming baby is a boy it turns out so we have a balanced sex ratio. to have just 2 ignores the natural mortality and morbidity, ignores economic pressures that prevent families from replacemnt levels, and ignore other complicating ideological and gender sissues that affect fertility rates. a fine balance exists Bewteen 2 and 3 children that maintains population levels at even I woudl argue that even in countries with overpopulation that to have less than 2 children would be detrimental to the long term balance of the country because it too rapidly shifts the age balance alas in Australia i can only see it getting worse as the intergenerational equity gap grows and grows. Its just getting too hard to 'build a nest' as australian couples over the preceeding decades have been accustomed to. The real estate boom has nailed the lid on the coffin of home affordability, unless like us you are willing to move inland to country towns. the issue of ecological footprints has been used but i wouldnt want to get into the nitty gritties of whether a one car 2 child family has more or less than a no child 2 car 4 dog family just how do we calculate what our imprint is? Edited October 23, 2005 by Rev Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
darkstar Posted October 23, 2005 Oh boy, I love this shit! Get stuck into it mateys…arrrggh!! Torsten & Oxydiser I wish I had your silver tongues, am I right in assuming this debate had been well rehearsed? Or are you two just gifted? It’s amusing to realise how common a human flaw it is to see that whole universe revolving around oneself! Or at least be selfish and un-empathetic towards all other life (and the earth as the centre of the universe…) “if the world survives and there no humans around to live in it - was there any point?” It’s similar to “if a tree fell in the forest…..” IMHO ultimately our current actions are leading to mass “suicide”, only the choice will be taken away, maybe not tomorrow but not that far off. I’m bet that many of the Romans and the Aztecs believed that their civilizations would last for ever as well… The earth is not going to “end”, but our currant civilization will fracture, humans as a species will probably be around for a long time to come, there is just going to be a major changes and a lot of suffering as for the lower and middle class, we won’t stand a hope in hell if humanity hits troubled waters, that includes me! Now don’t get me wrong I don’t want it to happen, but there is a domino effect waiting to occur, based on the petrochemical industry and our dependence on it for pharmaceuticals and sterile surgical technology for a start. (That why learning the “old ways”, using plants, is a smart move ) How can ppl really believe that humans are the most resistant living organisms on the planet? As in everything else dies before we do, we are soft without our technology. What about rats and cockroaches, as the most common stated examples surviving were humans can not? They will out last us all, think of a sapien species evolving from them, less wasteful I’ll bet (probably just eat it). The earth has a legacy of mass extinction starting with the blue-green algae (now called cyanobacteria) poisoning the planet with oxygen. Now that was a mass extinction! Almost everything before was swept away, except the remnants hiding in anoxic mud’s and deep sea vents. But it made way for multicellular live and ultimately us. Pick up a book James Lovelock, then one by Jared Diamond, they will teach anyone something about what we are doing on this “rock”, not involving sin, just consequences of actions or lack thereof! Oh and anybody still reading, I know someone who works in GSK making Relenza, what would U pay for a round of dose’s and a inhaler that fell off the back of a truck? (NO, I don’t have any so don’t get excited & PM me, I’m just curious) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gomaos Posted October 24, 2005 Through goverment welfare systems and increasing improvements in health care technology (although mostly in developed countries), the human race has effectively lost the 'natural selection' mechanisms built into every other species of animal across the world That sort of sounds as if you were resenting this in a way. Would you rather have the sick and dying lying on the street? Along with single mothers and their children? Along with the old and disabled and crippled etc etc. well you wouldn't have to look far. Just about any asian country sounds about right for you... In these proud nations life is still like in the jungle: the strongest survive, the meanest thrive... oh what the hell it's the same here with natural selection etc. In reality humanity has hardly evolved at all... we're nothing but insane apes with large brains to play with... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
apothecary Posted January 5, 2008 Bumping an old thread: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7171118.stm Universal flu jab works in people A single jab that could give lifelong protection against all types of flu has produced promising results in human trials. The vaccine, made by Acambis, should protect against all strains of influenza A - the cause of pandemics. Currently, winter flu jabs have to be regularly redesigned because the flu virus keeps changing. The new vaccine would overcome this and could be stockpiled in advance of a bird flu outbreak, say experts. Promising results Each year winter flu kills around 4,000 people in the UK. Globally, between 500,000 and one million people die each year from influenza. But a pandemic of the human form of bird flu, which experts believe is inevitable, could kill as many as 50m people worldwide. The US trials show that the jab is safe and it works fast to make the body immune against flu. Nine out of 10 of those who had two doses of the jab ACAM-FLU-A developed antibodies against flu virus. Scientists at Acambis are now working to perfect the formulation before doing larger human trials. Dr Michael Watson of Acambis said: "As a universal vaccine, ACAM-FLU-A can potentially overcome many of the drawbacks of existing influenza vaccines. "It can be manufactured at any time of the year, and could be stockpiled in advance of a pandemic or potentially used routinely to ensure population protection against future pandemics." Unique action Current flu vaccines work by giving immunity to two proteins called haemagglutinin and neuraminidase, which are found on the surface of flu viruses. However, these proteins keep mutating which means doctors have to keep making new vaccines to keep up. The Acambis vaccine homes in on a different protein, called M2, which is found on the surface of all A-strains of flu and does not appear to mutate so readily. Professor Ian Jones, a University of Reading virologist, said the jab could end the scramble to produce a new winter jab each year. But he said it would still be some years before it was widely available for patients. "Larger trials and tests on a wider range of viruses will be needed before the full potential for pandemic protection can be assured," he said. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
