Question for you Peaceniks.

[Goth Brooks]

War has finally been abolished, governments no longer settle disputes with weapons. Genocide is looked upon by disgust by every state leader. 2nd Amendment? Abolished.. guns are now illegal for anything but hunting. The death penalty is gone as well, and murder is on a downfall as only the absolute crazies go that route. So those crazies spend their life locked up being cared for.

All is right with the world, peace is here.

Now the question:

How do you plan on dealing with the explosion in population that accompanies this?

How do you deal with the famine caused by a population that rises above the food production needed to support it?

caveat: Since the only logical answer (IMO) to this issue is the expansion of the general population into space, this solution is not allowed.

There's a place for war and genocide in this world, it culls the population. There's 6.6 billion people and rising, even with all the dying the birth rate far out paces the death rate. Could you imagine what that population would be if the Civil War hadn't happened? Or WWI or WWII?

Until people finally pressure the governments to push beyond the atmosphere of this planet for more than scientific purposes, I welcome every death I hear about. As long as it's not someone I know and care about, I don't shed a single tear for anything or anyone that dies in this world. Stop breathing my air.

Use your vehicle of salvation, my brothers, go buy a gun.

And go give that gun to Jesus

And say "Jesus...you go kill the diciples of Satan,

And you kill the nazis, Jesus." Gimme an amen.

[phee]

Intresting Topic!!!!

[jynxxxedangel]

<< takes no prisoners and sheds no tears.

Death to all flat-landers who invade my space.

[Msterbeau]

In a society that enlightened, population "control" is administered by the population... they do it themselves because they understand the implications of not doing it. Extraordinary efforts are no longer employed to save the old and infirm, they are made comfortable and allowed to die with dignity. By then they will have figured out how to grow food in quantities far in excess of what we can now.

Now if they could just fix my sticky Jetsons suitcase car latch....

Also, the gene for arrogant, violent, self destructive assholes has been identified and all possessing it eradicated.

[phee]

In a society that enlightened, population "control" is administered by the population... they do it themselves because they understand the implications of not doing it. Extraordinary efforts are no longer employed to save the old and infirm, they are made comfortable and allowed to die with dignity. By then they will have figured out how to grow food in quantities far in excess of what we can now.

Now if they could just fix my sticky Jetsons suitcase car latch....

Also, the gene for arrogant, violent, self destructive assholes has been identified and all possessing it eradicated.

LOL.... ^^^

in other words "EDUCATION"

[Goth Brooks]

In a society that enlightened, population "control" is administered by the population... they do it themselves because they understand the implications of not doing it. Extraordinary efforts are no longer employed to save the old and infirm, they are made comfortable and allowed to die with dignity. By then they will have figured out how to grow food in quantities far in excess of what we can now.

Now if they could just fix my sticky Jetsons suitcase car latch....

Also, the gene for arrogant, violent, self destructive assholes has been identified and all possessing it eradicated.

Fail

A society that in love with life would not allow the old to die gracefully, they would do all they could to prolong it. As for population control, I have my doubts that it would be administered by the population itself voluntarily. Just because people have decided that waging war is bad, doesn't mean they're going to turn away from their religious duties (catholics) to pop a kid out every 9 months.

[phee]

Fail

A society that in love with life would not allow the old to die gracefully, they would do all they could to prolong it. As for population control, I have my doubts that it would be administered by the population itself voluntarily. Just because people have decided that waging war is bad, doesn't mean they're going to turn away from their religious duties (catholics) to pop a kid out every 9 months.

Violence and population reduction rarelly go together... more often disease "controls" population in a more vast fashion

[Goth Brooks]

Violence and population reduction rarelly go together... more often disease "controls" population in a more vast fashion

That's why I welcome AIDS with open arms.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

I have the same issue with your repsonse Marc... and one more...

Food. The USA, if we put all farms back into full production... can grow more food than the world can eat. We don;t do it because it would drive the profits down.

The USA used to be called the "Bread Basket of the World" for a reason.

[phee]

That's why I welcome AIDS with open arms.

(You and the Christian Right... untill you or someone you love gets it...)

But in your argument disease is not a factor.... The Earth or Universe if you will (IMO) has a way of thinning the population on it's own with disease, natural disasters, asteroids.... etc.... whether human beings are peaceful to one another or not. But the dynamics of the Earth in a natural setting will never allow human beings to be peaceful to one another en mass for very long anyway.

Part of the Earth/Universes way of thinning the population is human nature itself, as long as there is one human being that has more/different/easier things and conditions than another, there will be tension, fighting, and killing.... I am not a pessamist but this is the way I see things... I think the only way that humans in general will ever get along with one another on a planet is an external threat of some kind (aliens or what you will), much like after 9/11 in New York for a period of time because all of a sudden they all had a common enemy. But if the enemy goes away we will be back to killing one another the very next day.

[Shade Everdark]

Fail

A society that in love with life would not allow the old to die gracefully, they would do all they could to prolong it. As for population control, I have my doubts that it would be administered by the population itself voluntarily. Just because people have decided that waging war is bad, doesn't mean they're going to turn away from their religious duties (catholics) to pop a kid out every 9 months.

I fail to see how any of this negates his points. Catholics aren't the biggest population growers anymore, despite the slowness of Holy Mother Church to come 'round on issues like contraceptives and abortion. Marc is quite right, actually: in virtually every society, in every culture, that has been educated regarding safe sex practices, including abstinence, the pill, condoms, IUDs, Depo Provera, and voluntary sterilization, and those means have been made available (keep in mind, even abstinence is not always available for many women in third world countries) population growth has slowed tremendously.

[Goth Brooks]

(You and the Christian Right... untill you or someone you love gets it...)

But in your argument disease is not a factor.... The Earth or Universe if you will (IMO) has a way of thinning the population on it's own with disease, natural disasters, asteroids.... etc.... whether human beings are peaceful to one another or not. But the dynamics of the Earth in a natural setting will never allow human beings to be peaceful to one another en mass for very long anyway.

Part of the Earth/Universes way of thinning the population is human nature itself, as long as there is one human being that has more/different/easier things and conditions than another, there will be tension, fighting, and killing.... I am not a pessamist but this is the way I see things... I think the only way that humans in general will ever get along with one another on a planet is an external threat of some kind (aliens or what you will), much like after 9/11 in New York for a period of time because all of a sudden they all had a common enemy. But if the enemy goes away we will be back to killing one another the very next day.

You seem to make the argument that the "Universe" does this through a conscience act. It's more a victim of cause and effect. The black plague and aids didn't just appear out of no where, no matter what the world wishes to believe.

As for getting AIDS, were I to get it due to my own actions, then that's my own damn fault. If I were to get it due to the actions of someone else, you can bet they'll die a very painful death.

Disease, famine, and war have a place in the world.

[phee]

You seem to make the argument that the "Universe" does this through a conscience act. It's more a victim of cause and effect. The black plague and aids didn't just appear out of no where, no matter what the world wishes to believe.

As for getting AIDS, were I to get it due to my own actions, then that's my own damn fault. If I were to get it due to the actions of someone else, you can bet they'll die a very painful death.

Disease, famine, and war have a place in the world.

I did not mean to imply a conscience.... just that balance is maintained through natural occurence...

And what if you were to get AIDS as Iasac Asmov did?

But I do agree, disease, plague and war... they simply are....

[Goth Brooks]

I fail to see how any of this negates his points.

...population growth has slowed tremendously.

And yet the world population is still rising at a tremendous rate. Look at the birth:death rate last year, for Africa and Asia the two Genocidal hot spots.

The two combined had an estimated 55 births per 1,000, but only 21 deaths per 1,000. The world birth:date rate was almost 4:1.

As for the "Breadbasket of the World", apparently there's a theory that by 2050, climate change will make most of the US not viable for wheat production.. that title will belong to Canada, if that land could make enough for the estimated 12 billion people in the world by then, that is.

[torn asunder]

didn't read everything, but - ever done a "mayfly" or "fruitfly" experiment? (i can't remember which we used) food shortages would eventually cull the population, along with disease, and quite possibly, suicide... we just haven't reached that point yet, but at this rate, we will...

[Ice Queen (1)]

In a society that enlightened, population "control" is administered by the population... they do it themselves because they understand the implications of not doing it. Extraordinary efforts are no longer employed to save the old and infirm, they are made comfortable and allowed to die with dignity.

From someone on the front lines of life and death in a hospital setting, I have to argue this point. It is one of my frustrations I face on a regular basis. Having every measure taken to keep someone old, infirm, and who will never be off a ventilator or get out of bed is done regularly, because families refuse to let go. We, as nurses and patient advocates try to educate them, the doctors try to tell them, social work gets involved. Sometimes, after months of CCU care, where the room alone is $100,000/day, not to mention the expensive treatments and drugs, they slowly come around to saying "ok, well no CPR then". It is not often enough (IMO), that they make their loved one a "comfort measures only" patient, and even then, it is after a very prolonged time. I heard a doctor who had come here from another country say something like "we come here because of all the resources, why not use them if they are available". So yes, if you are over 80 years old and you have dementia and your kidneys are bad and you already have pneumonia, we'll do open heart surgery on you, because we can. Sorry, I'm getting on a bit of a rant, but, sometimes it seems everybody wants to live forever and wants their loved one to live forever, no matter what. It rarely happens that we get a realistic family that says "you know what, my loved one is 89 years old, their quality of life will never be very good again, medically treat them and keep them comfortable, but no extreme measures. I commend them when I see them.

[jynxxxedangel]

I, for one, will always be here to take care of my elders in my pack. I will be there to breathe their last breath, and howl when the ghost lets loose of the body.

I owe them all that I have, and all that I am.

Some of us are still respectful and chivalrous, and will take interest in and retain the life's knowledge of our elders. All is not lost.

[Msterbeau]

Fail

A society that in love with life would not allow the old to die gracefully, they would do all they could to prolong it. As for population control, I have my doubts that it would be administered by the population itself voluntarily. Just because people have decided that waging war is bad, doesn't mean they're going to turn away from their religious duties (catholics) to pop a kid out every 9 months.

That's your opinion. I have mine. You opened the can of worms... All you seem to be doing now is rejecting anything that doesn't go along with YOUR theory. That, my friend, is FAIL.

And to both you and Mark - In my opinion, any society enlightened enough to embrace peace as you describe would surely have the intelligence and foresight to largely figure out issues of food and population control. You guys want to mix todays thinking with some far off future society. I don't think it works that way. But it's you game.. so whatever...

[Goth Brooks]

The reason I said fail is because you gave no plausible solution. And yes, I understand the exercise in itself is as implausible as they come.

You are right though, any society that enlightened would figure out those issues, that is expansion beyond earth. I was simply looking to see if anyone could come up with something that didn't entail that. Especially those (if they exist on this board) hippy dippy peaceniks that hug trees and would die of horror rather than see us use up more natural resources to send ships into space.

[Msterbeau]

I think my solution IS plausible. For us to get to a point where we live in peace, as you describe, would take some significant leaps in various areas of how we think and process. I don't think it's implausible that significant advances in knowledge would go along with that. That being the case, I see no reason why we couldn't solve the problems you foresee.

Call me a dreamer... I'm not the only one. :-)

[sass_in_the_pants]

I find it sad that so many people are so worried about overpopulation that they are all about kicking out the young, the old, the sick, the ppor, the homeless, but no one offers up themselves. If overpopulation truly worries you, why don't you off yourself? Or is your life somehow more important than someone else's?

Catholics aren't the biggest population growers anymore, despite the slowness of Holy Mother Church to come 'round on issues like contraceptives and abortion.

The Church will NEVER 'come round' on issues like contraceptives and abortion. They won't and they shouldn't.

From someone on the front lines of life and death in a hospital setting, I have to argue this point. It is one of my frustrations I face on a regular basis. Having every measure taken to keep someone old, infirm, and who will never be off a ventilator or get out of bed is done regularly, because families refuse to let go. We, as nurses and patient advocates try to educate them, the doctors try to tell them, social work gets involved. Sometimes, after months of CCU care, where the room alone is $100,000/day, not to mention the expensive treatments and drugs, they slowly come around to saying "ok, well no CPR then". It is not often enough (IMO), that they make their loved one a "comfort measures only" patient, and even then, it is after a very prolonged time. I heard a doctor who had come here from another country say something like "we come here because of all the resources, why not use them if they are available". So yes, if you are over 80 years old and you have dementia and your kidneys are bad and you already have pneumonia, we'll do open heart surgery on you, because we can. Sorry, I'm getting on a bit of a rant, but, sometimes it seems everybody wants to live forever and wants their loved one to live forever, no matter what. It rarely happens that we get a realistic family that says "you know what, my loved one is 89 years old, their quality of life will never be very good again, medically treat them and keep them comfortable, but no extreme measures. I commend them when I see them.

If you and every doctor, nurse and social worker told me to off my loved one, I wouldn't listen to them either. Why should I?

Treatment IS expensive. You're right. I'm still paying the medical bills from Grammy.

And for Pop. They didn't want to do his heart surgery because he was too old. We told them to do it anyway. He lived for another fifteen happy, and healthy years.

Maybe doctors aren't so smart after all, eh?

Human life IS actually more important than money. And what YOU determine to be a 'quality of life' is not necessarily what I determine to be a 'quality of life'. Please don't force your morals on other people, particularly at a time when those people are most vulnerable.

[phee]

The Church will NEVER 'come round' on issues like contraceptives and abortion. They won't and they shouldn't.

Just curious.... what is your feelings about the spread of disease and famine due to the churches stance on birth control and contraception?

[sass_in_the_pants]

Just curious.... what is your feelings about the spread of disease and famine due to the churches stance on birth control and contraception?

How is the church spreading famine, exactly? How is the church spreading disease, exactly?

Did famine and disease not exist until the Catholic church started?

Are you suggesting that with widespread use of birth control that STDs would go away?

[phee]

How is the church spreading famine, exactly? How is the church spreading disease, exactly?

Did famine and disease not exist until the Catholic church started?

Are you suggesting that with widespread use of birth control that STDs would go away?

Well over population due to the churches stance has a lot to do with not being able to feed people.... and not so much "the pill" but things like condums have been effective in reducing the spread of HIV, and the Catholic church definitly says no to that for instance.... the Church does NOT spread disease, but they seem to disallow things that would help prevent the problems...

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

I think my solution IS plausible. For us to get to a point where we live in peace, as you describe, would take some significant leaps in various areas of how we think and process. I don't think it's implausible that significant advances in knowledge would go along with that. That being the case, I see no reason why we couldn't solve the problems you foresee.

Call me a dreamer... I'm not the only one. :-)

I see a problem.

Say some measure of time passes us by... and "Man" has learned things we only dream about today, discovered answers to questions we have not even dreamed of and understands how the universe works on level we don't even know exists...

In that great age of knowledge and enlightenment....

What makes you think that the people of that time are going to embrace the Peace and Love morals of the Hippies?

Isn't it a bit vain to assume that any enlightened society is going to come up with the same answers as we do on what is and is not a "perfect" society?

I see this line of thinking so often. In literature and movies... it's just assumed that if a people evolves "higher" up than us.. they are going to come to decide that a perfect society is the same thing that we think a perfect society is. I don't think thats the case.