Is sterilisation the only option?

[PersianPaladin]

I think spending all that money on "alternative energy" is like a drug addict desperately spending money trying to get any high he can. It'll never be as good a high as the original, but it may keep him sane for a little longer.

Rather I think that money should be better spent on rehab, to get ourselves out of this "more more more" habit that we're in.

I agree that our "more more more" attitude needs to be curtailed.

But one has to be realistic Magpie.

[The PIT]

I think we're giving nature a right kicking atm, and I'm not puzzled but amazed people don't see that but think nature can some how turn on us when the opposite is the case.

Ah right you think we are above nature. I think you're mistaken but what the heck.

As Maggie points out we're already running up to the buffers and what will happen when the lights start going out etc. People will start dying from cold etc. Anyway the last time I heard the birth rate was dropping in Western world and the same will probably happen to China.

A subtle way of birth control is putting chemicals into the water supply.

[Michael Winston]

Here are some of my happy-go-lucky thoughts on, and reactions to, this contentious topic and reflections posted herein: I'm posting them because I feel that such a provocative premise deserves some sort of a response:

• Malthus was essentially misanthropic. Engels described Malthus's hypothesis as "...the crudest, most barbarous theory that ever existed, a system of despair which struck down all those beautiful phrases about love thy neighbour and world citizenship." The anthropologist Eric Ross depicts Malthus's work as a rationalization of the social inequities produced by the Industrial Revolution, anti-immigration movements, the eugenics movement and the various international development movements (blood for oil, anyone?): eugenics, as Village Plank has so rightly pointed out, is skulking around again, looking for any vague excuse to strike, any claim on credibility. Ask any Fascist.
  

• In pursuit of oil and control of the supplies of this deadly AGW agent, Madeleine Albright, in her role as the U.S. Secretary of State, when asked on US television if she thought that the death of half a million Iraqi children as a direct result of Western sanctions was a price worth paying, replied: "This is a very hard choice, but we think the price is worth it."
  

• As a Roman Catholic, I deplore the leadership of my church, a cabal which condemns contraception. As a result, I can no longer practise my faith because the dogma of that church is fatally flawed and, in my opinion, contributes to a profound level of human misery unknown outside any theatre of war.
  

I could make many more pessimistic observations but these three random paragraphs dragged from the darker corners of my somewhat damaged mind will have to do for now. I'm humane and I'd hate to bore you all. The human race has plenty of methods of self-destruction, all of which preclude sterilisation. Most countries (or factions within) pursue pathologically sadistic domestic and foreign policies: such administrations will always flourish because it is obscenely profitable for them to do so. Famine and plague are not the great levellers - humans are. We are perfectly capable of destroying ourselves with a little help from warmongering governments, multinational cartels and ideologically fanatical administrations. I'm not, I believe, misanthropic. Unlike Malthus, I don't blame the victims - I blame the perpetrators.

Trust me on this one - a society capable of producing ''Lily Allen and Friends'' and calling it entertainment is capable of anything.

Kind regards,

Mike.

P.S. Here's to a snowy March!

Edit: I've just noticed that this post is number 555 - shouldn't it be 666?

Edited February 21, 2008 by Winston

[Calrissian]

If there is consensus among people...why not?

If it affects us all; we should be thinking about it eventually. We cant just continue growing forever.

The problem with 'concensus' of the dumb masses is that they are often usually wrong.

I cite the German people...circa 1939-1945.

-

Do you really want to let the masses dictate to you even you ability to have a family, due to the flimsy argument that we 'might' be able to affect the climate in a better way ?

Calrissian: the first and the last.

[Devonian]

That is wrong I'm afraid.

We are a product of nature, and therefore like any other product are going to have some form of impact or affect on the various micro and macro-scale aspects of the biome in which we reside in. However, we must realise that we are small in nature's eyes and dependent on it, rather than it on us. We may produce large anamolous amounts of heat and this may well imbalance the climate system....but bare in mind this isnt 'making' nature do anything; it is merely responding to the larger heat-budget and making life on earth very dangerous for a lot more people. Eventually a lot of people will loose out as climate becomes more extreme and droughts occur.

I think humanity is in for a severe kicking tbh; and nature simply reacts to whatever affect we have. Its like feeding the wrath of an angry rottweiller by continuing to provoke it....we are simply feeding mother nature more fuel. In the long-term however, nature always recovers.....even if it be long after we are gone.

I think we're actually saying rather the same thing in different ways.

I don't see it as nature reacting to us, rather I see it as the damage we do, the amount we ask of the planet, being unsustainable. You can flog a horse more and more, but it doesn't 'react' it drops dead, and then you've had it.

Which, I suppose, is another way of saying what Magpies says.

[Pennine Ten Foot Drifts]

I think there are two angles to this- the 'human' and the 'earth-view'.

The 'earth-view' first. For those of you who are most concerned by the horrendous damaging impact human existence is having on the planet - STOP WORRYING !!! Humans as a damaging parasite have only really been present for at most the last 500 years. And if they manage to continue to be the revolting destructive cancer on Planet Earth that they are at present for another 1000 years that will be something of a miracle given the way they are headed. And setting that time-span against earth history shows up just what a total irrelevance it is. To use an analogy, it is like us worrying about the ripples a mayfly causes on the surface of a pond as it dies off following it's brief 24 hours of existence ! Bearing in mind the earth probably has another 4 Billion (!!!) years to go, the effects of humans on the earth is most likely to be utterly minimal. It is in fact quite likely that the period of earth history seriously affected by human activity is going to fit between two ice ages - a length of time which in geological terms is the equivalent of a tea-break !!!

Now the 'human' view. Give that in human terms 50 years is a long time, I cannot see any other outcome to this, (and the many other 'global threats' heading our way), than some kind of global catastrophe. History has shown over and over again that humans are NOT capable of modifying their behaviour in response to a looming but undefined threat, (Easter Island is a beautiful illustration of this), and that they can only react properly when the threat has been realised, and then it is rarely 'women and children' first. So I'm afraid all I can see is a descent into a terrible survival of the fittest type scenario, which once, (or even if !), humankind emerges from, it will most probably just start all over again. Timescales - 500 years at most.

So, introducing sterilisation, education, contraception, etc etc - no point at all....................

[Devonian]

I think there are two angles to this- the 'human' and the 'earth-view'.

The 'earth-view' first. For those of you who are most concerned by the horrendous damaging impact human existence is having on the planet - STOP WORRYING !!! Humans as a damaging parasite have only really been present for at most the last 500 years. And if they manage to continue to be the revolting destructive cancer on Planet Earth that they are at present for another 1000 years that will be something of a miracle given the way they are headed. And setting that time-span against earth history shows up just what a total irrelevance it is. To use an analogy, it is like us worrying about the ripples a mayfly causes on the surface of a pond as it dies off following it's brief 24 hours of existence ! Bearing in mind the earth probably has another 4 Billion (!!!) years to go, the effects of humans on the earth is most likely to be utterly minimal. It is in fact quite likely that the period of earth history seriously affected by human activity is going to fit between two ice ages - a length of time which in geological terms is the equivalent of a tea-break !!!

So, if planet Earth blew up tomorrow it would be irrelevant in terms of geology? Well, of course not.

What matters wrt humanities impact is not the time span but how big the event. We might only be around for a few thousand years but that does not mean we can't have an impact of geological time scale proportions. Indeed, it's becoming clear we are have an impact of geological proportions - hence some scientist's suggestion of a new geological time period, the 'Anthropocine' (amazingly humanity now moves more material around than geology does). And it's certainly not impossible we might cause a mega extinction event (and they only happen every few hundred million years on average.

Don't underestimate our potential impact on this planet.

Edited February 26, 2008 by Devonian

[PersianPaladin]

I think we're actually saying rather the same thing in different ways.

I don't see it as nature reacting to us, rather I see it as the damage we do, the amount we ask of the planet, being unsustainable. You can flog a horse more and more, but it doesn't 'react' it drops dead, and then you've had it.

Which, I suppose, is another way of saying what Magpies says.

I wouldnt apply that analogy to AGW...because as I said; its like feeding a monster; it just gets more violent and extreme and damaging for all, i.e. the larger amount of energy in the system.

We cannot 'destroy' nature; because we ARE part of nature...not separate from it. Until human beings realise this, they will continue on their ignorant exploitative ways...thinking they are above it all.

[Pennine Ten Foot Drifts]

So, if planet Earth blew up tomorrow it would be irrelevant in terms of geology? Well, of course not.

What matters wrt humanities impact is not the time span but how big the event. We might only be around for a few thousand years but that does not mean we can't have an impact of geological time scale proportions. Indeed, it's becoming clear we are have an impact of geological proportions - hence some scientist's suggestion of a new geological time period, the 'Anthropocine' (amazingly humanity now moves more material around than geology does). And it's certainly not impossible we might cause a mega extinction event (and they only happen every few hundred million years on average.

Don't underestimate our potential impact on this planet.

I'm not sure we yet do have the capacity for a meaningfully lasting impact - even the most damaging radioactive isotopes have half-lives measured in tens of thousands of years, which is still fairly small potatoes in terms of 4 billion years. Thirty thousand years is not very long geologically speaking, so whatever impacts we are having on our environment or the atmosphere are still very much in the 'transient' category. Perhaps thinking we will do is an illustration of another major human failing - dramatic hubris ?

Also, there is almost certainly going to be a cataclysmic natural event in the next 100,000 years which will quite likely dwarf anything we manage, (super-volcano, basaltic flow, comet strike and so on) - these things have happened fairly regularly in the past history of the earth, and I believe we are already statistically overdue at least a number of these (!).

So, if anything, we should feel sorry for those poor creatures who have the misfortune to have shared the earth with humans for what will most likely be the brief and barely noticed 'homosapien self-destructus' period !

[Thundery wintry showers]

Agree that in view of history, there is a real chance of us not doing anything constructive until doom hits, because of all the social inertias in operation etc.

What I don't agree with is the argument that since we probably won't be able to avoid the doom scenario, therefore we shouldn't bother trying to do anything about it. If we actually try to make inroads, we might succeed, we might not. If we don't try, we definitely won't.

That said, I don't see any point in carrying out drastic measures that will cause a lot of human suffering. Even if such measures do succeed in averting climate catastrophe, they will simply replace one, probable, negative outcome with one, certain, negative outcome.

[Gray-Wolf]

I would agree with the 'salve your conscience' view on doing what we know to be right (for the sake and karma of it) but we should also be mindful of the 'big picture' and take what steps we can to protect those near and dear to us.......you never know, it may make the difference.

For the rest ignorance and denial surely are bliss.......until the disaster is occuring and they realise that they once had the time to help themselves but chose to squander it........I guess you're last minutes can seem endless.

Each to their own I guess.........

Edited March 20, 2008 by Gray-Wolf

[SNOW-MAN2006]

With the unsustainable degrees of consumption and waste going on in the world; exarcebated by large population growth in places like China, India, etc.....this is only going to worsen AGW.

Should a certain percentage of men and women be compulsory sterilised? When will we get to a point where drastic measures have to be taken?

(Btw...I may have been bitten by Gray-Wolf's doomster bug here).

Heck no,

This would be the worst thing ever.

India has already tried this in the 1970's i believe and it has managed to reduce its population growth, not through this though, but through moving through the Demographic Transition model.

With improved healthcare family's have less of a desire to have lots of children to work on the farm (as less are dying now). With the promotion of Contraception also births per 1000 has fallen dramatically.

The earth has plent of resources to feed us all. There is plenty of un-used or un-cultivated land enough to support that of maybe 3 or 4 times todays current population.

The key is though, by the time our population reaches such heights, is to move out into the galaxy and universe onto other planets similar to that of our own.

Anyway this post could go on forever explaining everything so ive left it as brief as possible...

Many Thanks

SNOW-MAN2006

[NorthernRab]

With the unsustainable degrees of consumption and waste going on in the world; exarcebated by large population growth in places like China, India, etc.....this is only going to worsen AGW.

Should a certain percentage of men and women be compulsory sterilised? When will we get to a point where drastic measures have to be taken?

(Btw...I may have been bitten by Gray-Wolf's doomster bug here).

China and India's population growth has slowed considerably, and will only plummit as of now due to an increasingly affluent society, so no. No one has the right to control life.

Besides, the One Child Policy in China only created The Little Emperor Syndrome, causing many potentially very well educated children to become decadent, spoilt and selfish. Not the kind of world we need.