|
mynxkat -> RE: The myth of endless economic growth (3/22/2012 4:44:11 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
So,you are simply going to solve the problem of overpopulation through attrition. Would it work? Probably. Obviously, if we stop producing babies and our age continue to die, population will drop. Feasibility is definitely a question (and you already commented to ignoring the implementation), and we haven't even brought up the morals or ethics.
Thank you, mynxkat, for actually answering the question.
(... bits trimmed so the quote box isn't overbearingly huge)
I would even go as far as to say that we do have a lack of resources. There will always be inefficiencies, even within a free market. Plus, we have the logistics cost. We can grow enough grain, but how much is it going to cost to distribute? We need to grow enough grain in enough areas that the logistic costs are contained. Would it be better to work on making more lands arable? Would desalination plants strategically placed in Africa create enough usable water to sustain some form of agriculture? Could there be enough water created for the African population and to support plant life (non-agricultural)? That would add more green to the globe, which would help with CO2.
Can't you just see the uproar from the "minority rights" advocates because the reduction of birth rates is going to affect minorities more than it will whites? That's not a commentary on your idea. It's just an observation. Look at the frenzy in FLA. Black rights groups are getting lathered up and there is some racist accusations being levied at the local police down there over this. Never mind that the shooter wasn't a cop and was, himself, a "minority" race. It's crazy, really.
No, I didn't have in mind bringing the population under control by attrition alone. You did note that 'replacement value' for permissable childbirths? And there are all sorts of other twists and refinements that I didn't go into, which address issues such as infertility, accidental deaths, and other special cases, because I didn't feel like writing a novel.
Far as minority groups go, it's kind of gotten to the point where they scream 'discrimination' about everything that isn't done specifically to benefit them at the expense of others. So, let em scream, doesn't make any difference to me since as Emperor of Earth my rules would apply equally to everyone.
As far as the ethics concerned... If I WERE in a position of absolute authority, then the only ethics I'd give the least bit of flying fuck for would be my own, the ones I've developed and live by. And forcibly controlling population when it grows beyond what the infrastructure surrounding it is able to support not unethical in my outlook. Neither is not permitting people who are not able to care for children to have them, nor requiring people who want children to learn BEFORE having them how to care for them. And for the record, I do not have children, by my own choice, I know myself well enough to know that I would not make a good parent, thus, by my own rules of ethics it would be wrong of me to have children.
Inefficiencies and logistics costs do not directly affect the volume of resources available, they only affect how we're able to utilize those resources. I do agree that those logistics problems are daunting, but they are solvable given that enough people with the power to apply solutions are WILLING to apply solutions. That is what I see as the real bottleneck, at least until we DO wind up with an Emperor of Earth.
|
|
|
|
