Biggest story of our time: our self-extinction by Mark Steyn

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is not an issue.

Those who have lots of children will tend to propagate, those who have few children will not. This "problem" is self-correcting. Right now the population may be shrinking, but as those who decide not to have children are removed from the gene pool, those who want to reproduce will very quickly grow in proportion. Moreover, as the population shrinks the incentives for having children grow.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't aware that the desire to want kids or not want kids was a gene. I could be wrong but that sounds like crazy talk to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

It might not be totally crazy, but since any tendency to want/not want kids would certainly result from multiple alleles their rise to dominance would be extremely slow, and probably not sufficient to overcome societal influences. Look how quickly ZPG took over the tendency toward > than self-sustaining reproduction rates.

[lehighguy]

Would it matter if thier civilization died out because they didn't have kids?

Civilizations, races, nations, etc. aren't people. They don't have feelings. They don't have good days or bad days. Why do we care what happens to them?

We could have forced breeding pits if we wanted, it would increase birth rates. Would it make people happier?

Overall I think it's good for the planet that there are less of us. Normally, when a species overpopulates evolution finds a way to set things back to normal, perhaps this is jsut evolution.

[Dr. Strangelove]

That birth rates are declining in many developed nations is a very good thing. It means that the human population might actually level off (something that logically must occur) without very bad things happening.

[lehighguy]

I think of it like this:

The wealthier and more educated people are, the more of the earth resources they consume. But, conversly, the wealthier and more educated they are the more likely they won't have kids.

Seems like a good balancing effect.

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
Would it matter if thier civilization died out because they didn't have kids?

Civilizations, races, nations, etc. aren't people. They don't have feelings. They don't have good days or bad days. Why do we care what happens to them?

We could have forced breeding pits if we wanted, it would increase birth rates. Would it make people happier?

Overall I think it's good for the planet that there are less of us. Normally, when a species overpopulates evolution finds a way to set things back to normal, perhaps this is jsut evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your view makes perfect sense in the moral relativist, all cultures are equivalent type thinking. I don't agree. I'm interested in the brightest future for my offspring, my clan, my nation and then my species. It's an old fashioned hierarchy that goes back about 500,000,000 years. So I willfully make decisions that favor those above groups in that order.

You're free to prefer some stranger on a distant continent over your own children but odds are as (secular?) moral relativist, you don't have any.

[bdk3clash]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm interested in the brightest future for my offspring, my clan, my nation and then my species.

[/ QUOTE ]
Could you specify exactly what each of these groups are? And why haven't you responded to my posts above asking for clarification on a previous post of yours?

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
The European countries are aware of this and are trying to do something about it. The governments are spending a lot of money on child care and tax breaks to incentivize people to have kids.

[/ QUOTE ]

I remember reading others but a quick search resulted in this article on Russian tax breaks/incentives for having more children.

Also a more general article from the BBC

~ Rick

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is not an issue.

Those who have lots of children will tend to propagate, those who have few children will not. This "problem" is self-correcting. Right now the population may be shrinking, but as those who decide not to have children are removed from the gene pool, those who want to reproduce will very quickly grow in proportion. Moreover, as the population shrinks the incentives for having children grow.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't aware that the desire to want kids or not want kids was a gene. I could be wrong but that sounds like crazy talk to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't read the passage as "the desire to want kids was a gene". Rather, it seems that societies who don't have enough kids to sustain modest growth will find their gene pool reduced relative to fast growing societies/cultures/races.

~ Rick

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
I think of it like this:

The wealthier and more educated people are, the more of the earth resources they consume. But, conversly, the wealthier and more educated they are the more likely they won't have kids.

Seems like a good balancing effect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wealthier and more educated people may consume more but they also produce more and spend far more on reducing pollution. I'm not a fan of every American having some sort of moral right to drive a Hummer but our (and most developed nations) rivers and air are cleaner than those in most overpopulated and poor nations. And it's not even close.

~ Rick

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
That birth rates are declining in many developed nations is a very good thing. It means that the human population might actually level off (something that logically must occur) without very bad things happening.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldn't it be even more desirable to have stable populations in developed nations and a decline in the growth rate of undeveloped nations?

~ Rick