Declan Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 Providing free contraception for every woman worldwide who wants it and can't afford it would have a dramatic impact. It wouldn't really, because you have to deal with the cultural/social aspects. A woman in sub-saharan Africa may want as many kids as she can produce because they will assure her old age, at about 40 or so, or she may feel that contraception actually makes her into a harlot for having non-productive sex. Then we have the other complication of the RC church preaching that unprotected sex is good and God given. We are a long way from dealing with population control in an effective and respectful way. It is not just about how women are treated, but about how humanity respects itself. Tricky one and not for flippant comment as population control is so very fundamental to our continued existence: the planet will carry on, whether we are on it is a different matter. Gladys - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/9226730/Tackling-growing-population-and-consumption-must-be-part-of-protecting-environment-says-Royal-Society.html I'm not denying what you're saying, but my point was specific for "those who want it". Seems a reasonable place to start. Especially, as more countries develop the number of women forced to rely on their kids for their old age will drop. And therefore those keen to control the number of kids will increase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Goblin Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 This is not true. Oh yes it is. Trends suggest that industrialisation leads to falling birthrates. The demographics for the next 50 years or so show another 2 billion people to provide for on the planet. Add in the looming shortages of resources and pollutions resulting from industrialisation do not give a happy prospect. In this context I am postulating that there is no meaningful or definite distinction between abstract and physical existence. I still don't understand what you mean by abstract existence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Goblin Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 Don't be ridiculous. A life-form evolves to become top predator by predating on those around it. That's how it works. That's how evolution has always worked. Not all life is predatory - there are many herbivores and if a carniverous species is too succesful and ravages the herbivore population on which it depends then the predators are in trouble. Objecting to how it works is like asking to review being clean-bowled by an under-arm delivery. Also your "If you don't think it is a disaster for them I suggest you take the trouble to investigate the matter" is wasted on me as I'm not a gradualist nor an eventist but rather I believe in both. Who's objecting to how it works? As far as we are concerned, knowing how it works, we have the possibility of avoiding the calamity. From the fossil record that produced Australopithecus of course. Where the hell else? But there are many species which Australopithecus would maybe have seen which are now extinct, for one reason or another, What we see today is not necessarily what Australopithecus would have seen. Of course we haven't changed much genetically. We still share a great deal of DNA with the chimps so it's hardly a surprise is it? Where you get this idea from that evolution is only driven by genetic mutation I really can't imagine. Sure genetic mutations are a driver but so is natural selection and no they are not the same thing. Simple example man started out in Africa. The sun makes Vit D in his skin and had he been white he would have made too much. So in Africa natural selection favoured dark skin. As man migrated north he needed to let in as much sunlight as possible to manufacture enough Vit D to survive. So natural selection for migrants favoured paler skins. Just how do you think evolution and natural selection works (genuine question)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 Don't be ridiculous. A life-form evolves to become top predator by predating on those around it. That's how it works. That's how evolution has always worked. Not all life is predatory - there are many herbivores and if a carniverous species is too succesful and ravages the herbivore population on which it depends then the predators are in trouble. Pretty much all life is predatory. If we treat things like deep sea vents, thermal springs and so forth as the anomalies they are. Plants thrive on the heat and warmth of the sun. Herbivores graze those plants. Carnivores prey on the herbivores. Obviously ALL are actually harvesting the energy generated by the sun. It's just that some are doing it more efficiently than others. Objecting to how it works is like asking to review being clean-bowled by an under-arm delivery. Also your "If you don't think it is a disaster for them I suggest you take the trouble to investigate the matter" is wasted on me as I'm not a gradualist nor an eventist but rather I believe in both. Who's objecting to how it works? As far as we are concerned, knowing how it works, we have the possibility of avoiding the calamity. What calamity? A hominid skull of a young child was discovered in Sterkfontein with incisor punctures that perfectly matched those of the Sabre-Toothed Tiger. Think those hominids were sorry at the Tiger's demise? Don't think so. From the fossil record that produced Australopithecus of course. Where the hell else? But there are many species which Australopithecus would maybe have seen which are now extinct, for one reason or another, What we see today is not necessarily what Australopithecus would have seen. True that some have fallen by the wayside, like the Sabre-Toothed Tiger, but the migrating herds that the hominids followed are pretty much the same whereas in a very short time we have changed dramatically. They have stayed the same because they adapted to their environment and now can't live anywhere else. Being perfectly adapted to a specific environment traps you in it so you just HAVE to stay the same to thrive in it. Of course we haven't changed much genetically. We still share a great deal of DNA with the chimps so it's hardly a surprise is it? Where you get this idea from that evolution is only driven by genetic mutation I really can't imagine. Sure genetic mutations are a driver but so is natural selection and no they are not the same thing. Simple example man started out in Africa. The sun makes Vit D in his skin and had he been white he would have made too much. So in Africa natural selection favoured dark skin. As man migrated north he needed to let in as much sunlight as possible to manufacture enough Vit D to survive. So natural selection for migrants favoured paler skins. Just how do you think evolution and natural selection works (genuine question)? You have eventists and you have gradualists. Eventists think that dramatic events, like the very sudden extinction of the dinosaurs, drive evolution. Gradualists think that Darwin is right and certain characteristics earned evolutionary favour over time. I don't know which is the main evolutionary driver. They both have their place. For example primitive mammals were around with the dinosaurs. No dinosaurs and they flourished. That's not to say they wouldn't have flourished anyway over time. The earth is not static, it's climate, geography and so forth are dynamic. Obviously the creature that can best adapt to change will prevail. However early designs are still out there. For example the Coelacanth defies all logic except the logic that it was designed well enough to begin with to survive the changes that have taken place around it. And this is the fish that is thought to have adapted into amphibians. Man has the unique ability of being able to adapt his surroundings to suit or adapt himself to suit the surroundings. Who's a lucky boy then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 [Human evolution has proceeded faster than any other species on the planet. Precisely - and that has been a disaster for countless other life forms which we have either driven to extinction or decimated as we have destroyed much of their habitat. If you don't think it is a disaster for them I suggest you take the trouble to investigate the matter. Don't be ridiculous. A life-form evolves to become top predator by predating on those around it. That's how it works. That's how evolution has always worked. Objecting to how it works is like asking to review being clean-bowled by an under-arm delivery. Also your "If you don't think it is a disaster for them I suggest you take the trouble to investigate the matter" is wasted on me as I'm not a gradualist nor an eventist but rather I believe in both. This topic all seems to be getting confused.One thing to note is the death of many species as a result of mans' actions is not some result of evolution and nor it is about us being top of the pecking order. Lots of species die simply because of the way we use resources, such as changes in the methods of farming, which isn't a matter of evolution. And nor is it about being top predator. (I also do not see how you think animals evolve to be predators. I don't see the evidence of that when considering the evolutionary history of the horse, mayfly, or the sloth). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 Anyway...Matt Bawden didn't even say much about what Packham said. Why was he bitter? (And was he bitter?) What did he say that makes it seem like he despises the human race? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
credente Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 Anyway...Matt Bawden didn't even say much about what Packham said. Why was he bitter? (And was he bitter?) What did he say that makes it seem like he despises the human race? . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loaf Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 It's surely a matter of perspective and the natural tendency for us, human observers, to place heightened importance on events that happen withiin our own lifetime. Development/extinction is a natural process too, and what is happening to other species will happen to us, eventually. What Declan is mentioning was often cited by Christopher Hitchens as the key to a better society - the empowerment of women. Not just access to contraceptives but the freedom for women to use them without oppression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 Richard Dawkins' 'The Selfish Gene'. If anyone's really interested in Evolutionary Theory, have a read of it.... Then read it again. This book explains simplistically the diversity of life and its various adaptations. Personally, it's the closest thing to an explanation that i've ever considered. The empowerment of women in this world would be a grand step forward. We could start with the ideology of islam where subjugation and the domination of women is scripturally-driven.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Goblin Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 I think LDV is right in saying we are coming at this from the wrong angle. I think the real point I want to make is that we are the first species which has an understanding of how evolution works and we should therefore be able to see how our own success and behaviours may eventually lead to natural processes doing for us. Because we have an understanding of it, we should be able to see how we can change some things to avoid natural processes working against us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 But I am not even sure why evolution is being discussed here. If the issue is about species dying out because of man's behaviour then where does evolution come in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Goblin Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 But I am not even sure why evolution is being discussed here. If the issue is about species dying out because of man's behaviour then where does evolution come in? The evolutionary point, I think, is that humans may be changing their own environment, as well as that of other species, in ways which will create a future situation to which we are not well adapted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 But I don't see the direction connection between changes to the environment and evolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Goblin Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 But I don't see the direction connection between changes to the environment and evolution. If we end up changing the environment to one to which we are not well adapted then the evolutionary process will work against us (maybe rapidly) and favour some other life form which happens to be better adapted to the new situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 The empowerment of women in this world would be a grand step forward. They have been empowered. Electric: irons; cookers and washing machines for starters. No more picking fluff of the carpet by hand or having to go down to the River Doo to bash our clothes against rocks - what more do they want? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.