Religions and Babies

[Ahab]

5 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I was speaking from the perspective of scientific reality.

With no proof to back up your assertion.

[Meadowchik]

4 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Where we differ is in my (relgious) perspective/belief/assurance/faith, the universe goes on forever and ever, with no boundaries out there in space somewhere.  So with that idea in my mind I can say that yes we will continue to go on forever and reproduce forever and ever.

Not all of us, individually, but collectively our species will continue to live and reproduce forever.

I thought maybe it would be enough to say the universe is so immense that we can't conceive of populating every planet we would need to inhabit to go on forever if we are only mortal and do not live forever, with me trying to accommodate your perspective, but it's probably better for me to just tell you what i see from my perspective without any concern for whether you agree with me or not.

Your perspective was already clear. My point is that the other poster's comment was reasonable and scientific. 

Eta: I think it is a good exercise to be aware of where one's scientific perspectives end and religious ones begin or extend. Having a scientific conclusion does not negate faith. In fact it tends to identify where faith is necessary.

Edited December 5, 2019 by Meadowchik

[Ahab]

16 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Your perspective was already clear. My point is that the other poster's comment was reasonable and scientific. 

You still think that comment was scientific, do you?  It is conjecture based on some evidence and there are other ways to interpret that evidence.

Right now for example we have enough food on this planet to feed everyone, and we can continue to grow more.  Maybe not enough meat from animals to go around but we can live very well and be very healthy on plant food alone.  And if we need more corn we can stop using it to produce ethanol and make more electric vehicles.  So we're covered as far as food is concerned.  You do realize that people die from hunger not because there is a lack of food on this planet but because it isn't distributed/shared very well by those who produce it, I hope.

And we also have enough plants and animals to produce our own clothing, enough to cloth everybody for every season.

Got that so far?  There is no evidence that we don't have enough food to feed everybody or enough materials to make clothing for everybody.  Right now we have all that we need and we can continue to make more.  That is a scientific fact with proof to back that up.

So the idea that someday maybe we won't be able to keep up with everyone's needs is nothing more than science fiction.  there is no proof for that assertion and what we can see, based on the evidence, is that we have enough and can continue to make more.

What we have going for us now is that all of us die so at some point some of us won't need what is being used now and we can use those resources to help others.

Edited December 5, 2019 by Ahab

[smac97]

34 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Sheesh could you please tame that quote length?

I didn't think the potential for two or three seconds of scrolling would not be problematic, particularly since the quoted material was germane and responsive to what is being discussed in this thread.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

30 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Yet that's still not enough for exponential growth forever.

But isn't the point of your OP that "exponential growth forever" isn't happening?  That fertility rates are dropping?  Not because of Malthusian/Ehrlichian thinking has been validated, and not because of governmental interventionism, but because of other factors (lower mortality rates, advancements in technology, etc.)?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 5, 2019 by smac97

[Analytics]

58 minutes ago, smac97 said:

This may well be more a matter of perception than reality, hence my statement that "{t}here is also a lot of messaging in society that human beings are bad."

Regardless of how many people ultimately agree with this sentiment, it's out there.  A lot.

Not nearly as much as you seem to think.

Quote

There are a lot of look-at-what-you-have-done-to-the-planet! accusations and rhetoric and media coverage.  So even if a person or couple doesn't necessarily adopt the sentiment wholesale, they may nevertheless feel guilty or shamed about having a large family.

I have six children.  I have had a number of encounters with people who, with varying degrees of civility, have questioned my choice to have a large family.  Such skepticism/irritation cannot be because my children are insufficiently clothed/fed/provided for/cared for (they are).  I don't think such reactions can be attributed to me being a burden on society (I am gainfully employed, I pay taxes, I do not receive any government assistance, etc.).

I wonder how high this "number" is. In any event, a common logical fallacy is the "if everybody did what I do then..." fallacy. For example, I'll sometimes read somebody who basically says in self-righteousness, "If everybody shared my values and lived life the way I do, there would be no more crime, no more drunk driving, no more welfare, etc. and the world would be a perfect place!" That way of thinking is extremely naive, whether it is used to justify the belief that your lifestyle would save the world or to justify the belief that your lifestyle would destroy the world.

In any event, if somebody has the resources and desire to have six (or more) kids, that is great, as long as there are enough people who have 0-1 kids so that in aggregate, we can live in harmony with nature.

Quote

I have previously outlined my sentiments on what I have described as "a deeply-entrenched stain of profound misanthropy in the minds of many self-styled 'environmentalists.'  Hatred of humans.  Hatred of unborn humans.  Self-loathing.  Encouraging others to self-loath."  

[In response to my claim that homo Sapiens is a species you said...]

Quote

Demonstrably untrue.  Flatly incorrect.  Wildly false.

We have the ability to reason.  From this comes education, government, technology, and countless other things that we have and do that animals do not.

That doesn't mean we aren't animals.  Lots of species have unique characteristics. Just as that doesn't mean they aren't animals, our unique abilities don't mean we aren't animals. 

Quote

Translation: Are we going to empower secular governments to coercively and punitively, and ultimately with violence, restrict our individual liberties regarding procreation?

What an incredibly narrow view you have. I didn't say that. At all. I said, "are we going to control population growth by our own thoughtful, informed decisions?" That is nothing like saying what you heard, which is, as far as I can tell, "Will a wise-enough dictator seize all control and force us to abide by his will?"

Quote

I hope you aren't a fan of regimes that have tried this.  Forced abortions.  Forces sterilizations.  Eugenics.  Things can get ugly pretty fast.

Are you kidding me? If I said we needed to come up with a way to ensure that supply equals demand would you accuse me of being a communist dictator? 

Quote

Moreover, wasn't the OP all about how "population growth" is already slowing down due to, inter alia, improved healthcare, advancements in technology, reduced mortality rates, etc.?  If so, when are you speaking prospectively ("are we going to control population growth...")?

The OP is incredibly good news. As I've said, I'm a huge fan of Hans Rosling. And did I mention that I agree with virtually everything he said and much of what you said? My point is simply that although we have figured out a way to divert the population bomb that was coming at us 50 years ago, the battle isn't over--we aren't anywhere near an equilibrium position with how we relate to earth. I do think we are moving in the right direction and I hope we will continue to do so.

Quote

Thomas Malthus and Paul R. Ehrlich called.  They want to be sure you are giving them proper credit.

Credit granted. They were totally right about the mathematics and biology. The amazing news is that for the reasons discussed above, we have chosen to have fewer kids and are on a trajectory that could lead to equilibrium.

Quote

Wow.  I sure feel better about humanity after reading this stuff.  Don't you?

As I said, very, very, few people think this way. Humanism is about a zillion times more popular than anti-humanism environmentalism.

If you'd like to read a book that will make you feel good, I highly recommend Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress by Harvard Professor Steven Pinker.

https://www.amazon.com/Enlightenment-Now-Science-Humanism-Progress/dp/0525427570

Edited December 5, 2019 by Analytics

[Analytics]

28 minutes ago, Ahab said:

With no proof to back up your assertion.

Literally all of the evidence backs me up on this. All of it. You can assume there are an infinite number of habitable planets in the multiverse that we will somehow be able access as needed, but there is zero reason to believe such far-fetched science fiction.

[Ahab]

4 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Literally all of the evidence backs me up on this. All of it. You can assume there are an infinite number of habitable planets in the multiverse that we will somehow be able access as needed, but there is zero reason to believe such far-fetched science fiction.

Going back to the point you raised, which I sad was not scientific, you said: "Stated differently, human beings are animals just like all others and absolutely, positively, without exception cannot and will not grow exponentially forever."

I'll now say again that you have absolutely zero scientific proof that your assertion is true.  It is not scientific and is nothing more than science fiction.  Look to the future to see what will actually happen.

[smac97]

45 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

So has anyone commenting, besides Analytics, watched the first video in the OP?

Yes.  After I wrote my first post.

He says that fertility rates, the rate and number of children being born, is plummeting.

He speaks of religions and economic factors influencing this.  Countries of every religious persuasion are, in the aggregate, having fewer children.

He notes that countries with "Eastern Religions" are having the fewest children, and that some countries with dominant Christian or Muslim populations have higher fertility rates, but there are plenty of Muslim/Christian nations that have lower rates as well.

He attributes higher fertility rates to economic factors.  Broadly speaking, lower income (poverty) yields higher fertility rates.

He also attributes higher fertility rates to high-conflict situations (and hence high mortality rates) (Congo, Afghanistan, etc.).

He suggests that the "most important factor" in all of this pertains to women (increased age at their first marriage, increased education, more women in the workplace).

In sum, he speaks of lower fertility arising from:

1. Lower mortality rates;
2. Children not being needed for work (attributable, I think, to technological advances);
3. Women becoming more educated and more present in the workforce; and
4. Access to family planning.

Religion, he says, has very little to do with fertility rates.  The fertility rate in Utah would seem to contravene that conclusion (or else it's just an outlier).

Did I miss anything signficant?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

2 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Going back to the point you raised, which I sad was not scientific, you said: "Stated differently, human beings are animals just like all others and absolutely, positively, without exception cannot and will not grow exponentially forever."

I'll now say again that you have absolutely zero scientific proof that your assertion is true.  It is not scientific and is nothing more than science fiction.  Look to the future to see what will actually happen.

Please watch the following video of a University of Colorado professor literally proving in detail that what I said is true.

 

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Please watch the following video of a University of Colorado professor literally proving in detail that what I said is true.

 

A pathetic attempt to try to get me to waste 1 hour and 14 minutes of my time.  Surely you can come up with something better than him.

[Analytics]

11 minutes ago, Ahab said:

A pathetic attempt to try to get me to waste 1 hour and 14 minutes of my time.  Surely you can come up with something better than him.

If an hour and 14 minutes is too much time to spend in a college classroom with a very intelligent, interesting, and articulate professor, then that's that. 

Here is another link:

https://socratic.org/questions/why-is-it-impossible-for-exponential-growth-to-continue-forever

 

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, Analytics said:

If an hour and 14 minutes is too much time to spend in a college classroom with a very intelligent, interesting, and articulate professor, then that's that. 

Here is another link:

https://socratic.org/questions/why-is-it-impossible-for-exponential-growth-to-continue-forever

 

More stupidity.  Of course it would take more than only a "large" supply of resources to sustain an infinite amount of growth.  It would take an "infinite" supply, not just a "large" supply.  And fortunately, believe it or not, the universe is infinite with infinite resources.

[Analytics]

7 minutes ago, Ahab said:

More stupidity.  Of course it would take more than only a "large" supply of resources to sustain an infinite amount of growth.  It would take an "infinite" supply, not just a "large" supply.  And fortunately, believe it or not, the universe is infinite with infinite resources.

Your faith in your science fiction fantasies is kind of cute.  

[smac97]

24 minutes ago, Analytics said:

In any event, if somebody has the resources and desire to have six (or more) kids, that is great, as long as there are enough people who have 0-1 kids so that in aggregate, we can live in harmony with nature.

I agree.

24 minutes ago, Analytics said:

[In response to my claim that homo Sapiens is a species you said...]

That doesn't mean we aren't animals.  

You said: "Stated differently, human beings are animals just like all others."

I'm not disputing that we are "animals."  That is axiomatic.  I am, instead, disputing the notion that we are "animals just like all others."

24 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Quote

The question then becomes are we going to control population growth by our own thoughtful, informed decisions,

Translation: Are we going to empower secular governments to coercively and punitively, and ultimately with violence, restrict our individual liberties regarding procreation?

What an incredibly narrow view you have. I didn't say that. At all.

Well, then I apologize.  I misunderstood you.

24 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I said, "are we going to control population growth by our own thoughtful, informed decisions?"

Again, I apologize.  This sort of thing is often a precursor.  "And if we don't control population gorwth by our own thoughtful, informed decisions..."

These sorts of discussions often end up entailing some discussion of governmental intervention, coercive/punitive measures, etc.

Ehrlich, whom below you characterize as "totally right about the mathematics and biology," is not known for his live-and-let-live sentiments, you see:

Quote

In The Population Bomb he wrote, "We must have population control at home, hopefully through a system of incentives and penalties, but by compulsion if voluntary methods fail. We must use our political power to push other countries into programs which combine agricultural development and population control."
...
In a 2008 discussion hosted by the website Salon, Paul Ehrlich has become more critical of the United States specifically, claiming that it should control its population and consumption as an example to the rest of the world. He still thinks that governments should discourage people from having more than two children, suggesting, for example, a higher tax rate for larger families.

And here:

Quote

Allowing women to have as many babies as they wanted, he said, is akin to letting everyone “throw as much of their garbage into their neighbor’s backyard as they want.”

And here:

Quote

Ehrlich assured his readers that “a general answer to the question, ‘What needs to be done?’ is simple. We must rapidly bring the world population under control, reducing the growth rate to zero or making it go negative.” The means for reaching this objective would require a great deal more work, he argued however. In the United States, the government would need to define an optimum population size, create a federal agency on population, enhance sexual education in schools, and redesign its tax system to reward smaller families and penalize large ones. Ehrlich dismissed the possibility of sterilization through the water supply, due to contemporary technological constraints. Yet he nevertheless discussed the technique hypothetically, recommending that governments would be able to issue antidotes to selected couples.

And here (same link):

Quote

With regard to the international community, Ehrlich advocated for “realism in international aid.” The U.S. and other developed counties should, he urged, identify countries that “are so far behind in the population-food game that there is no hope that our food aid will see them through to self-sufficiency.” 

Hmm.  How do you read this?  To me, it sounds like he's advocating for deliberately letting millions starve.  He can't say that, so he uses euphimisms like "realism in international aid."

Quote

In this category, Ehrlich included India and East Pakistan {now Bangladesh}. The problem of overpopulation had progressed far beyond conventional methods of coping; only through such “radical surgery,” he contended, “does the patient have a chance of survival.” 

Again, how do you read this?  For me, "radical surgery" apparently posits that the earth (or "humanity") is the patient, and that to save the patient the doctor (that is, the governments of the world) get to decide what parts of the body (India and East Pakistan) to cut off and throw away (withold aid and let these populations starve to death).

Golly, nothing misanthropic about that.  I'm sure the citizens of India and Bangladesh would totally agree.

More (fromt he same link).

Quote

Those countries still considered potentially viable, such as West Pakistan {modern-day Pakistan}, would receive aid  from industrialized countries based on the adoption of population control programs and agricultural improvements.

Hmm.  Governmental interventionism seems to be Ehrlich's go-to solution.d

24 minutes ago, Analytics said:

That is nothing like saying what you heard, which is, as far as I can tell, "Will a wise-enough dictator seize all control and force us to abide by his will?"

You took exception to my earlier (erroneous?) characterization of your position ("Are we going to empower secular governments to coercively and punitively, and ultimately with violence, restrict our individual liberties regarding procreation?"), but elsewhere you praise Ehrlich, who advocates for secular governments doing . . . pretty much exactly what I understood you as saying (or hinting at).

So rather than leaving me confused, could clarify where you stand on Ehrlich's recommendations?  Do you endorse them?

24 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

I hope you aren't a fan of regimes that have tried this.  Forced abortions.  Forces sterilizations.  Eugenics.  Things can get ugly pretty fast.

Are you kidding me? If I said we needed to come up with a way to ensure that supply equals demand would you accuse me of being a communist dictator? 

No.  You seemed to be hinting at governmental interventionism (coercive/punitive/violent countermeasures to fertility rates).  I stand corrected, and apologize for misunderstanding you and giving offense.

I would like a better understanding of your position re: Ehrlich's recommendations, though.

24 minutes ago, Analytics said:

The OP is incredibly good news. As I've said, I'm a huge fan of Hans Rosling. And did I mention that I agree with virtually everything he said and much of what you said? My point is simply that although we have figured out a way to divert the population bomb that was coming at us 50 years ago,

None of which involved the coercive/punitive/violent measures advocated by Ehrlich.

24 minutes ago, Analytics said:

the battle isn't over--we aren't anywhere near an equilibrium position with how we relate to earth.

And we have people advocating for prospective application of Erlich-style coercive/punitive/violent measures to reach that "equilibrium position."

24 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I do think we are moving in the right direction and I hope we will continue to do so.

So do I.  But not because of governmental interventionism.  Not because of people echoing Ehrlich's rhetoric.

24 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Credit granted. They were totally right about the mathematics and biology.

And yet totally wrong in their conclusions and reality.

Funny, that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

49 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Religion, he says, has very little to do with fertility rates.  The fertility rate in Utah would seem to contravene that conclusion (or else it's just an outlier).

Maybe less than you think? From today's Deseret News:

"Last week the National Center for Health Statistics released final birth data for 2018. The verdict is in. Utah’s total fertility rate dropped for the eleventh consecutive year and, for the first time, dropped below the replacement level of 2.1 births per woman. Utah’s fertility rate now stands at 2.03 births per woman and three states — South Dakota, North Dakota and Nebraska — have higher fertility rates than Utah."

https://www.deseret.com/opinion/2019/12/5/20995810/utahs-fertility-rate-falls-below-replacement-level-for-the-first-time-but-theres-more-to-the-story

 

[smac97]

21 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Maybe less than you think? From today's Deseret News:

"Last week the National Center for Health Statistics released final birth data for 2018. The verdict is in. Utah’s total fertility rate dropped for the eleventh consecutive year and, for the first time, dropped below the replacement level of 2.1 births per woman. Utah’s fertility rate now stands at 2.03 births per woman and three states — South Dakota, North Dakota and Nebraska — have higher fertility rates than Utah."

https://www.deseret.com/opinion/2019/12/5/20995810/utahs-fertility-rate-falls-below-replacement-level-for-the-first-time-but-theres-more-to-the-story

 

Huh.  Good data to collate.  Thanks. 

[Ahab]

42 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Your faith in your science fiction fantasies is kind of cute.  

In my case my beliefs are not science fiction because I have something more than science to go on.  Someone better to learn from.  If you were learning from someone as trustworthy and intelligent as our Father in heaven instead of just a science teacher at a local university I might give your words some more consideration, bu as it is all folks like that know is based on their limited knowledge of what they have seen around them, and they're not even interpreting that evidence correctly.

Who we get our information from can make a world of difference.

Edited December 5, 2019 by Ahab

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, Ahab said:

Space travel and the colonization of other planets in an immense universe.  Consider that as a possibly if you want to talk about  the many possibilities of what "will" happen.  Until it happens it's just speculation unless you actually have something more to go on.

Yeah, but my speculation is that God has engineered this universe in such a way as to make colonization outside of this solar system something that can't happen.  Keep in mind that I am a science fiction fan, and would-be novelist. My dream would be to be one of the first colonists on Mars.  But I'm too old and fat to do this now.  

[Ahab]

18 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Yeah, but my speculation is that God has engineered this universe in such a way as to make colonization outside of this solar system something that can't happen.  Keep in mind that I am a science fiction fan, and would-be novelist. My dream would be to be one of the first colonists on Mars.  But I'm too old and fat to do this now.  

You mean not until we are resurrected?  Or ever?  No colonization anywhere outside of our current solar system even after we are resurrected?  That's a very limited perspective.  I bet I could write a better science fiction story than you.  And a better true story too.

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

You said: "Stated differently, human beings are animals just like all others."

I'm not disputing that we are "animals."  That is axiomatic.  I am, instead, disputing the notion that we are "animals just like all others."

I don't think any animal is "just like all others." What we do know is that for hundreds of thousands of years, there were other species of Homos that were roaming the earth with our ancestors. They weren't literally just like us, but they were very similar. The fact that they are extinct now highlights the point that events do happen that cause intelligent, successful species to go extinct. 

Quote

Well, then I apologize.  I misunderstood you.

Accepted. Thanks.

Quote

Again, I apologize.  This sort of thing is often a precursor.  "And if we don't control population gorwth by our own thoughtful, informed decisions..."

These sorts of discussions often end up entailing some discussion of governmental intervention, coercive/punitive measures, etc.

I can see that. I wasn't thinking that way but I see how it could seem like I was.

Quote

Ehrlich, whom below you characterize as "totally right about the mathematics and biology," is not known for his live-and-let-live sentiments, you see:

And here:

And here:

And here (same link):

Hmm.  How do you read this?  To me, it sounds like he's advocating for deliberately letting millions starve.  He can't say that, so he uses euphimisms like "realism in international aid."

In context, that is exactly what he was clearly saying. It is important to keep the quote in context and recognize that his views have evolved over time. It was written in 1968 before the green revolution and its implications were really understood. Then, India was producing as much food as It could, could barely feed itself, was crowded, and was doubling in population every 20 years. Given what was known at the time, what is more merciful? To tell a country like India that they need to be self-sufficient with their food supply? Or to send foreign aid that would only exasperate the need for foreign aid over the long term? As it turned out, the green revolution increased food production dramatically while the factors discussed by Professor Rosling dramatically created the reduction in birth rates that were absolutely needed. That is great news, but wasn't something that very many people saw coming at the time.

Now the population is growing because of increased longevity, which overall is a good thing. Further, the immense stresses we are placing on the environment are caused by rising standards of living, which in general is a good thing. The trick is this: can we grow economically in a free way so that more people are more wealthy, but in a way that puts less strain on the world? And can we do so fast enough before something catastrophic happens? (As if the current strains on the environment aren't already in the range of catastrophic). Steven Pinker captures the realistic yet optimistic viewpoint that resonates with me. 

[katherine the great]

6 hours ago, Analytics said:

If an hour and 14 minutes is too much time to spend in a college classroom with a very intelligent, interesting, and articulate professor, then that's that. 

Here is another link:

https://socratic.org/questions/why-is-it-impossible-for-exponential-growth-to-continue-forever

 

Um. It is literally impossible to reason with Ahab. However, I do find it immensely entertaining if you choose to continue. 😃

[Meadowchik]

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

I didn't think the potential for two or three seconds of scrolling would not be problematic, particularly since the quoted material was germane and responsive to what is being discussed in this thread.

Thanks,

-Smac

On mobile there is atleast one imbedded quote in yours that only shows up two characters per line. It's a bit much.

[Meadowchik]

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  After I wrote my first post.

He says that fertility rates, the rate and number of children being born, is plummeting.

He speaks of religions and economic factors influencing this.  Countries of every religious persuasion are, in the aggregate, having fewer children.

He notes that countries with "Eastern Religions" are having the fewest children, and that some countries with dominant Christian or Muslim populations have higher fertility rates, but there are plenty of Muslim/Christian nations that have lower rates as well.

He attributes higher fertility rates to economic factors.  Broadly speaking, lower income (poverty) yields higher fertility rates.

He also attributes higher fertility rates to high-conflict situations (and hence high mortality rates) (Congo, Afghanistan, etc.).

He suggests that the "most important factor" in all of this pertains to women (increased age at their first marriage, increased education, more women in the workplace).

In sum, he speaks of lower fertility arising from:

1. Lower mortality rates;
2. Children not being needed for work (attributable, I think, to technological advances);
3. Women becoming more educated and more present in the workforce; and
4. Access to family planning.

Religion, he says, has very little to do with fertility rates.  The fertility rate in Utah would seem to contravene that conclusion (or else it's just an outlier).

Did I miss anything signficant?

Thanks,

-Smac

Much better, thanks. I thought the data was very well-presented. 

 

[Meadowchik]

10 hours ago, Ahab said:

More stupidity.  Of course it would take more than only a "large" supply of resources to sustain an infinite amount of growth.  It would take an "infinite" supply, not just a "large" supply.  And fortunately, believe it or not, the universe is infinite with infinite resources.

No, it is not. CFR that the universe is infinite with infinite resources.