> One way or another, it would be nice to think that human population
> could reach an equilibrium. With extended life expectancies, this
> means a good chunk of the population will need to not have children.
That's true, and more contrary to our nature and history than just
about anything else I can think of. Still, an equilibrium will be
reached, whether it's pretty or not—as we overload the planet's
ability to sustain us, people will die.
> The way I see it, there's a massive die-off coming. I can either
> be kind to my children and not give rise to them, or I can try to
> be one of the few to survive.
Hmmm, I buy the "I'm doing my part not to over-populate the planet"
argument more.
> I don't expect the die off to happen soon. As such, I expect if
> I had 2-3 children, those could result in 80+ adults before the
> die-off. That's 80+ additional lives that will be spared by my
> not having children. (I know of families with the elders having
> more than 80+ grandchildren and great-grandchildren.)
Those elders didn't have 2-3 children, I'd wager; they had 8-12.
> I wouldn't say I go so far as human extinction. However the only
> way I can see to avoid an inevitable human extinction is to get
> off of the planet. I support human colonization to other planets.
> However, I believe we should leave this planet in peace, one way
> or another.
You might like Orson Scott Card's Ender saga. The solution to
over-population in that is to hurl great big chunks of our population
out to the stars (of course, we happen to know where to send them,
which helps).
> Personally, I find it unlikely that voluntary human extinction
> will really catch on. However I see "my family" as the entire
> human race. I prefer my ideas to catch on rather than my genes.
> There's nothing I can do to improve my genes, but I have much
> more power when it comes to my ideas.
I can definitely see that, and you're dead on about the entire human
race being our family.
My fiancée and I are likely to adopt children; she herself was adopted.
"Voluntary human extinction" shouldn't catch on, but there's plenty of
people who are choosing to be childless. Zero or sub-zero population
growth is a much more reasonable goal (though not terribly likely
anytime soon).
The increase in population lately has largely been a matter of
increased lifespan; in fact, birth rates have been declining for a
while. I think it's possible, if we figure out good ways of better
distributing wealth and education (two factors that are strongly
inversely related to birth rates), that we can reach an equilibrium of
human population within the next century.
Of course, our entire economics is based on the idea of perpetual
expansion. I wonder what sorts of economic trials we'd be faced if we
actually got to a balance point with the world population, or even a
population recession.
> We have other issues, too. We have the fact that once human
> density reaches a certain level we become unlikely to *ever*
> get off of the planet due to accidents killing too many people.
> It is easier to explore new experimental technologies when there
> are still a few empty spaces.
When there are no more empty spaces, we'll have killed the planet's
ability to sustain us. It's as simple as that, as I see it. If we
manage to deforest and pave the world, we're done for.
However, I think we'd have to pretty much want "voluntary human
extinction" to hit that extreme, because it's not like we wouldn't
notice the massive consequences of such action happening as we moved
toward it.
This planet will survive, no matter what we do. The question is whether we will.
> Cheers,
> Steven Black
Cheers? This is a pretty morbid discussion. ;-)
Simón
P.S. I think the only Linux-related thing about all this is that I'm
typing it up on Ubuntu...
_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug
