Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! Please login or register to post messages and view our members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, encrypted messages, file attachments, board customizations, and much more!
I don't think there anything wrong with an increasing population. There is plenty of water, natural foods, and land for many more billions.
The problem is consumption and absurd education systems. And western societies consume, what, 80% of the worlds resources? Actualy, that is an old statistic, definately less now that India and China are gonna be ontop in the future...
-------------------- "The universe is honest, humanity is not." - A star
Yes, industrial societies are agricultural, but a minority of the population is engaged in agricultural labour and instead most are redirected into industrial production which makes different demands on social organization. Contemporary France, for example, is not analagous to 14th century France although both subsist primarily on agriculture.
I never said that hunter gatherers don't ever expand, but they either reach a population equilibrium or shift to more intensive subsistence strategies. Their lifestyle itself tends to keep check on birth rates, as women who are very physically active will have a low body fat ratio and this combined with breast feeding suppresses menstruation until breast feeding is ceased. H/G's tend to breast feed for an average of 3-5 years, thus spacing births apart in that way. They also engage in infanticide when necessary.
You react as though what I'm saying is unthinkable hearsay, but it's basic anthropology 101. It confuses me that this is so unnacceptable to you.
Here's evidence. I regret that my examples are always about the !Kung, they're just popular people I suppose.
Quote: In a study on infant growth and development among the ]Kung San, hunter-gatherers of northwestern Botswana in 1969-71, a pattern of nursing was observed that was striking. Age at weaning was typically later than 3 years; all infants under a year of age in the population were nursing, as were 90% of those in the second year, and 75% of those in the third year. Child under 3 awoke to nurse 1 or more times in the night. Nursing in the day was frequent and brief. At all ages under 2 years, fewer than 25% of 15 minute observations of the mother-infant pair elapsed without a nursing session. The ]Kung population has unusually long birth spacing, as high as 44 months in traditional bands, resulting in an overall low natural fertility of 4.7 live births per woman. Extensive experimental and clinical literature shows that prolactin is promptly secreted in response to nipple stimulation in human females, increasing 2 to 20 fold in plasma during 5 to 15 minutes of mechanical stimulation, with a half-life in plasma of 10 to 30 minutes. Prolactin suppresses gonadal function, either directly at the ovary or indirectly through gonadotropin antagonism at the anterior pituitary. When the child is between 2 and 3 years old, the level of prolactin, which presumably had been tonically high previously, is allowed to fall low enough for a long enough time so that its antigonadal or antigonadotrophic effects are impaired, and ovarian cycling is reinstated.
Quote: Funny, the most so-called "primitive" societies are capable of consciously managing thier own populations so as to avoid over-exploiting thier territories yet we can't.
You still have not supported this claim.
Quote: You react as though what I'm saying is unthinkable hearsay
All I said was: "I can think of a number of examples that refute this. For instance, the current birthrate of agriculturalist Western Europe and birthrate of hunter-gatherers in New Guinea."
How have I not supported my claim? I posted a link and quoted the abstract of a study on the subject. In fact, I've gone further to support my claim than anyone else in this thread. Is it the "conscious" part you object to? I'd be willing to concede that it may not be entirely conscious all the time, but there is evidence that birth spacing in H/G cultures often is at least semi-conscious. Like I said, infanticide is resorted to when necessary (i.e. when a mother realizes there just isn't enough to feed the baby she didn't plan for.) The important part of the argument is not how explicitly conscious H/G birth spacing is, but that it happens-- that a population can remain at a more or less steady level.
"o rly?" is a rather sarcastic way to belittle an opponent and is usually reserved for those who are making ludicrous, unbelievable claims. This is what I was refering to.
The !Kung are probably the best studied hunter-gatherer society on this planet, but I think it is a mistake to generalize their way of life to other hunter-gatherer societies. The Ache of Paraguay wean their children about twenty to thirty months after birth, have an average of eight children, and a lower infant mortality rate than the !Kung. It is true that hunter-gatherer societies tend to nurse their children longer than industrialized societies, but that doesn't mean their population will remain stable. The population of the Ache, for obvious reasons, is growing at a decent clip.
Quote: NiamhNyx said: "o rly?" is a rather sarcastic way to belittle an opponent and is usually reserved for those who are making ludicrous, unbelievable claims.
There will always be examples that contradict the general rule. "Hunter Gatherer" or "Agriculturalist" are just terms that describe subsistence patterns and there are usually certain characteristics associated with these categories, although not all of the general characteristics are always present in every group that fits the category. Using generalized terms is really just for the sake of convenience and because there is usually enough shared by groups placed in a category that it's more or less reasonable. There are also always groups in transition between stages.
There are all kinds of confounding variables that effect something like population growth and birth rates beyond the types of subsistence or duration of breast feeding, although these are often indicative of certain tendencies.
More evidence for my side of the argument is found in the archaeological record. For example, in the transition from the Paleolithic to the Archaic stages that occurred at the end of the ice age, megafauna died off causing the "big game hunters" to revert thier subsistence strategy to "r-type" species. R-type species are animals that reproduce quickly, like rabbits or shellfish. They also began to exploit a wider range of resources, meaning there was a lot more food, or at least a lot more that they considered to be food in the system. There is a corresponding population explosion. This is undeniable when you consider how sparse the sites are for the Paleolithic and how prolific they are for the Archaic.
Quote: ChiefGreenLeaf said: I do know that war, disease and famine (I guess along with natural disaster but the others are more likely) are the only things that have the POTENTIAL to keep the population in check.
No.
What about conscious reproductive planning? Women have been doing this for millennia where not hindered by religious dogmatists. There are many herbs that have been/are used as contraceptives or abortifacients all across the globe that women utilize to control thier personal birth rate.
examples: queen anne's lace rue angelica black cohosh blue cohosh ginger mugwort parsley pennyroyal cotton root bark papaya tansy
Now we also have fancy things like condoms, diaphragms, spermicidal lube, IUD's, vasectomies, menstrual extraction and medical abortions. Sex education plays an incredibly valuable role in lowering birth rates. If it weren't for sex ed, I bet you anything that most women in north america would be preggers before they hit thier 20's, rather than choosing to wait or simply to never have kids at all.
I was speaking in terms of eliminating what was already there, but yes these are just as effective if applied to the population as a whole.
-------------------- ABSENCE OF EVIDNCE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE
A man said to the universe:
"Sir, I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"the fact has not created in me
a sense of obligation."
Quote: NiamhNyx said: I'd appreciate it if you actually critiqued any of the premises in my argument, rather than saying "nah" to my conclusion and throwing in a red herring for distraction.
But for the sake of argument, I'll take the bait:
Wanting babies? Or having babies due to lack of birth control, etc.? Families that are aware of having limited resources (and who don't have a culturally imposed value system that takes women's control of thier own reproduction away from them) often plan appropriately. This is demonstrated by the fact that hunter gatherer cultures intentionally space births approx. 5 years apart, unlike agriculturalists (with thier larger and ever expanding resource base) who breed like bunnies. The expansion of agriculturalists leads to war between neighbouring expansionists for resources for the growing population-- its a nasty little cycle. Expansion leads to war, and war culture requires an ever increasing surplus population that can spare plenty of young men, who are no longer contributing to production, as war specialists. So, expansion = war = expansion.
Funny, the most so-called "primitive" societies are capable of consciously managing thier own populations so as to avoid over-exploiting thier territories yet we can't. Ideology seems to be at least one of the most decisive differences.
By the way, wanting babies isn't gonna do a damn thing to raise the population level so long as each couple limits themselves to a reasonable two children. Having any more than that when one has full and affordable access to contraception is greedy and immoral.
Oh I agree with all of what you said. The fact of the matter is that hunter gatherer societies are pretty much gone and not a factor in the assumption of my thread. And of course my point also is that many people cannot stop themselves from having lots and lots of babies for various reasons. So conditions being what they are we need these wars. As Martha sez: "it's a gooooood thing.
-------------------- What the thinker thinks, the prover proves. R.A.W.
I don't believe anything, but I have many suspicions. R.A.W.
I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
Gee Nyx, I'm under the impression that you believe humanity will grow up some day. I find little evidence for this belief myself. However I used to hold it dear.
-------------------- What the thinker thinks, the prover proves. R.A.W.
I don't believe anything, but I have many suspicions. R.A.W.
I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
"Don't look at me like I am a monster Frown out your one face But with the other Stare like a junkie Into the TV Stare like a zombie While the mother Holds her child Watches him die Hands to the sky crying Why, oh why? 'cause I need to watch things die From a distance
Vicariously I, live while the whole world dies You all need it too, don't lie
Why can't we just admit it? Why can't we just admit it?
We won't give pause until the blood is flowing Neither the brave nor bold The writers of stories sold We won't give pause until the blood is flowing
I need to watch things die From a good safe distance
Vicariously I, live while the whole world dies You all feel the same so Why can't we just admit it?" -MJK
Many don't want to see it and many like it close up. Songs like this reflect the writers interior condition and need for self justification.
-------------------- What the thinker thinks, the prover proves. R.A.W.
I don't believe anything, but I have many suspicions. R.A.W.
I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
'Songs like this reflect the writers interior condition and need for self justification.'
Something like that...
"Blood like rain come down Drawn on grave and ground
Part vampire Part warrior Carnivore and voyeur Stare at the transmittal Sing to the death rattle
La, la, la, la, la, la, la-lie
Credulous at best, your desire to believe in angels in the hearts of men. Pull your head on out your hippy haze and give a listen. Shouldn't have to say it all again. The universe is hostile. so Impersonal. devour to survive. So it is. So it's always been.
We all feed on tragedy It's like blood to a vampire
Vicariously I, live while the whole world dies Much better you than I'
Credulous at best, your desire to believe in angels in the hearts of men. Pull your head on out your hippy haze and give a listen. Shouldn't have to say it all again. The universe is hostile. so Impersonal. devour to survive. So it is. So it's always been.
Incomplete.
The Tao brings all things into existence, it suckles and nurtures them yet has no concern for the outcome. All our hopes and fears, joys and sorrows, are equal in Tao.
-------------------- What the thinker thinks, the prover proves. R.A.W.
I don't believe anything, but I have many suspicions. R.A.W.
I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
"Tao in its manifested state was the prime cause of the ying and yang...
The school and knowledge based on the concept of Tao and De is called Taoism, which is a way of life specifically a way of transcending life by way of attuning the energy within the human anatomy by Xiuzhen, in tandem with a code to conduct to lead ones life as part of Xiushen. Lao Tsu taught that, He who follows the Tao is one with the Tao, and Being at one with the Tao is eternal, though the body dies, the Tao will never pass away." -wiki
Does being at one with the Tao involve embracing both yin and yang??
-------------------- What the thinker thinks, the prover proves. R.A.W.
I don't believe anything, but I have many suspicions. R.A.W.
I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
login or 
register to post messages and view our members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, encrypted messages, file attachments, board customizations, and much more!
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit 
Reply 
Quote 
