User Tag List

First 123 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 29

  1. #11
    Senior Member Sahara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    927

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rivercrow View Post
    I think you're right. Here's a graphic and countries by birth rate (from wikipedia, so we know it's absolutely 100 % reliable ).

    Oh wow, that graph is scary.

    The declining birthrate of Europe and North America is only the "natives", the ethnic minorities on the other hand are sustaining a steady birth rate.

    I have read other articles that are trying to push "native" European and North American women to up the rate of child birth to try and salvage the situation.

    (Native term used loosely)
    "No one can be free of the chains that surround them"

  2. #12
    Lallygag Moderator Geoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INXP
    Posts
    5,584

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sahara View Post
    Oh wow, that graph is scary.

    The declining birthrate of Europe and North America is only the "natives", the ethnic minorities on the other hand are sustaining a steady birth rate.

    I have read other articles that are trying to push "native" European and North American women to up the rate of child birth to try and salvage the situation.

    (Native term used loosely)
    It gives a clear picture about what will happen to the Gaza strip, Israel and Palestine despite what the politicians might want (either way). One group will clearly outpopulate the other.

    -Geoff

  3. #13

    Default

    Human population will probably regulate itself by starvation and resources wars if we don't regulate it from above. 2 kids sounds fair.

    Allowing people with certain "attributes" to breed sounds impossible to police fairly and like it could only lead to corruption and nepotism - all laws will suit the people who make them, but we can limit this with objectivity - when you bring in subjectivity like that, it's a disaster.
    dead man talking

  4. #14
    Senior Member darlets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    357

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Geoff View Post
    It gives a clear picture about what will happen to the Gaza strip, Israel and Palestine despite what the politicians might want (either way). One group will clearly outpopulate the other.

    -Geoff
    I hope you're not suggesting the religions engage in breeding wars with each other. Surely not

    And such foresight by the U.N to create the Jewish state there over the other options like Malta, part of Kenya or part of N.W Australia.
    "The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time."
    Bertrand Russell

    http://rayofsolar.blogspot.com/
    http://zeropointseven.blogspot.com/

  5. #15
    Senior Member niffer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ENfP
    Enneagram
    8w9 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,219

    Default

    I have an easier way! Gather lots of people and crush them!

    Now the question is:

    Who would YOU crush first? (You WOULDN'T crush me. You just wouldn't.)
    sparkly sparkly rainbow excretions

    Quote Originally Posted by ThatGirl View Post
    holy shit am I a feeler?
    if you like my avatar, it's because i took it myself! : D

  6. #16
    Glowy Goopy Goodness The_Liquid_Laser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,377

    Default

    The population problem is misleading because it is actually two seperate problems that people like to lump together. The first problem is that third world countries have large population growth rates. This is actually the lesser of the two problems. The second problem is that industrialized countries use far more resources per person than third world countries do, and this is actually a far worse problem.

    You have to ask yourself, why is a large population a problem? In reality it's only a problem for the country that has a large population. And even this is not so bad a problem, since industrialized countries can share farming technologies with the third world countries which helps their food shortage and also helps build up their economy. This leads to a long term effect of industrialization which naturally slows population growth rate. So the third world countries can easily have enough food to feed their people as their technology develops. However this leads to the other more difficult problem.

    Regardless of civilization all people need a source of food and a source of energy for survival (the simplest example being fire needed to cook the food). In industrialized countries energy becomes much more of a limiting factor than food (and in terms of population growth there might be more important limiting factors such as money). But the disturbing part is that industrialized countries use far more resources per person than third world countries do (especially the US).

    Right now the effects of global warming are making it even harder on agrarian economies. Climate is becoming less predictable, and in some areas food is becoming harder to grow as a result. In other words problem #2 is making problem #1 even worse.

    The real solution to both problems is to switch to renewable resources and green technologies. This will curb the climate change problems that we are having. The raw population number is not a problem though. The world's carrying capacity is not a fixed number. It increases as third world countries develop technology to increase farm yields, and it also decreases once a country reaches a point where food is not the limiting factor in population growth.
    My wife and I made a game to teach kids about nutrition. Please try our game and vote for us to win. (Voting period: July 14 - August 14)
    http://www.revoltingvegetables.com

  7. #17
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heart View Post
    I am curious about what those benchmarks are.
    I'd say known genetic advantages, such as intelligence and health, would be the likely benchmarks. Since I don't believe in it as a philosophy, just an objective statement, I haven't really thought about it. In the example I used, intelligence would be the main benchmark, for the reason that it has generally be shown that the higher the IQ, the less children the couple has... while the opposite has been shown to be true - the lower the IQ, the more children one tends to have.

    I don't believe there is direct causation between them (if there is, it's still not dominant), simply that higher IQ tends to lead to a more secure future, more options, higher education and higher wealth, all of which are factors in the amount of children one tends to have. (Due to time cost or social pressures.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Rivercrow
    There's also a big link to the status of women in the country and to overall education levels, which do seem to be reasonably well-documented
    Yup, for sure. The three factors are intertwined however, in that it is rare to have a robust higher education system and equal rights for all without some form of government intervention in each area... which also means that social nets are present. Another major factor is technology - birth control distribution is far more accepted and universal where education and rights are protected.

    It's a complicated question to answer... I'm not sure a single answer would be correct. Controlling for each factor would be extremely difficult.

    The reason why I believe that the social net is the most likely answer is because it has dependencies in it, such as government interventions, which normally would imply rights (ie: women have the right to pensions) and because it stratifies across societies as well as countries. In a country like the US, where the social net is crap, you see a significant difference in birth rates of the lower class compared to Scandinavia, Europe or even Canada - but not a significant difference in the middle or upper class. This is despite the US and Canada having the same rights and education, althought social stratification and classes are different, which does have an impact.

    I admit though, it's just a theory, and nothing robust about it. It's pure intuition based on what I've read.

  8. #18
    Senior Member cafe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Socionics
    INFj None
    Posts
    9,827

    Default

    I can see some validity to that theory, pt. Having spent the better part of my life at or bellow the poverty line, I see how family as a safety net could effect people's decisions about how many children they have. One of the positive things I observed about larger families growing up was the way they banded together to take care of and protect one another.

    You were never in a fight with one Sheese, for instance. If you took on one, you risked taking on six. I wanted that kind of clan for my own children and that contributed to my having a larger than average family. My kids will even defend one another against me if they think I'm unfairly penalizing their sibling and I don't see that as a bad thing. My mindset is that the future is uncertain, but if you've got family you've always got somebody to get your back or give you a leg up. Family is the only thing you can really count on so the more the better.
    “There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.”
    ~ John Rogers

  9. #19
    heart on fire
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,457

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cafe View Post
    My mindset is that the future is uncertain, but if you've got family you've always got somebody to get your back or give you a leg up. Family is the only thing you can really count on so the more the better.
    This is true only for people in functional families.

    I think it is so great that you are raising your kids with such a functional outlook on their relationship with each other.


    I think that IQ is not so important to humans as avoidance of pyschopathy, especially the "white collar" type of pyschopathy where the person learns early how to play between the lines of the law but still causes hurt and pain to others.

  10. #20
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heart View Post
    I think that IQ is not so important to humans as avoidance of pyschopathy, especially the "white collar" type of pyschopathy where the person learns early how to play between the lines of the law but still causes hurt and pain to others.
    (Note: FFM research translated to MBTI-speak. Does not correlate, not done with MBTI, blah blah).

    There are certain traits of psychopathy that could be bred out, though many forms are trauma induced regardless of genetics. Most psychopathy is extremes of other traits, however, so it would be more difficult to breed into "norm" since any breeding program would push the extremes farther out. To generalise, it could be beneficial for society as a whole to increase the influence of J/concientousness and decrease the amount of disagreeableness (T). It might be beneficial to decrease emotional reactiveness and increase openness. Again, however, this is not likely naturally - J's are more likely to be successful and not as likely to have as many children as the less responsible and more deviant Ps. Those traits, along with emotional stability/reactiveness, would significantly reduce what you are talking about.

    However, those are complex traits with extremely complex influences. It would cause significant issues - for example, it's possible that the lack of "P" would cause far more rigid societies (ie: fascist tendencies) while the lack of "T"s could decrease the objectivists. (If you ever want to see that a TJ world is like, look at law in New York. It's the worst of the worst.)

    IQ, on the other hand, is generally equal across personality traits, except openness. A breeding program to increase the number of children of high-IQ females would likely cause an increase in liberalism and openness, another major social change... but not much else.

    The whole thing is extremely complex, which is why I make no real attempt to extend theories to it...

    However, objectively, there is no significant difference from what exists now and what could be created. As above, an example of decreasing N's because Ss breed more could account for the difference between Ns and Ss. Religions attract certain types of people, and if religious people breed more, then certain traits (namely, ethnocentrism) would be bred. Demographics and breeding habits will happen either way - it's hard to say what is good or bad.

    The sad reality is that it is extremely likely that individualism is going to be put under pressure from collectivist societies that generate a social code to control breeding practises. It may take a long time... but *that* long. A collectivist society that already marries within their own social class, values education and follows structure would respond favorably to the suggestion that parents at a certain calss have more kids. Since money and genetics would be hereditary, the breeding program would intensify quickly... I would expect that within 10 generations, a true seperate class of people would of started.

Similar Threads

  1. White House Invites Gay Families to Easter Event
    By 01011010 in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 111
    Last Post: 04-21-2009, 01:45 PM
  2. On how to keep children from dying in their sleep
    By G-Virus in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 01-28-2009, 01:22 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO