Stop producing humans!

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Locked
Bill Wiltrack
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2015 8:58 am

Stop producing humans!

Post by Bill Wiltrack »

STOP PRODUCING HUMANS !


There's like, 8,000,000,000 - 8 Billion of them on earth right now.

Many of them are starving.



They are depleting and destroying the earth.



They have no reason to be here...other than reproducing.

Technology will continue to make humans less & less needed and less & less desired.



Philosophically, WHY in the world would humans be allowed to continue to re-produce?


Why would an educated human, in this year of 2015, WANT to re-produce?



...I, for one, welcome our new carbon-digital overlords.

.
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: ~ STOP PRODUCING HUMANS ~

Post by Cahoot »

What is the right number of humans?
Bill Wiltrack
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2015 8:58 am

Re: ~ STOP PRODUCING HUMANS ~

Post by Bill Wiltrack »

.

Of course there cannot be an exact number of people on earth obtained but I would estimate around 7,500,000,000.

The AMAZING part is that human beings can be traced back about 175,000 years ago to the Riff Valley in Africa. Since that time between now and then our entire species existed often by just a thread. At times less than 100,000 individuals walked the earth.

In the last two hundred years human beings have exploded from 1 Billion individuals to over 7 Billion. That is an EXPLOSION that is expeditiously growing at a more & more alarming rate every day.



GREAT question. I am happy I could help clarify this point for you.





...what is your philosophical opinion about the actual subject matter?

.
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: ~ STOP PRODUCING HUMANS ~

Post by Cahoot »

I think that when you hear the sky is falling, there is a profit to be made, and that's why you hear about it.
Overpopulation is an old meme.

Anecdotally: when I drive around North America I mostly see empty land. Lots of room for all those future consumers.

Here’s the reasoning, lifted from an old thread.
viewtopic.php?f=17&t=4834&p=98882&sid=6 ... e11#p98882
If I am interpreting correctly, you are using “sustainable” in the sense of a future population that does not exist, under conditions that do not exist, yet are predicted based on current knowledge of utilizing resources.

Considering my use of the word: as I’ve already written, the proof that the current population is being sustained is that the current population exists. There is also a supporting correlation.

During my lifetime the population of the planet has more than doubled. It has steadily increased, and is still increasing. This doubling has been sustained. The smaller population at the beginning of my lifetime was sustainable, and the greater population now is sustainable.

If, during my lifetime, the population had been halved, then the population at the beginning of my lifetime would still have been sustainable for the conditions and time of its existence, and the future decrease in population would be sustainable for the conditions and time of its existence. However, if during my lifetime the population had been halved, which it was not, then the higher population that was sustainable for the conditions of its time would not have been sustainable, in terms of quantity, for the changed conditions of the future. But this sort of speculation is merely a mental exercise in the sense that a population cannot exist outside of the conditions of the time in which it does exist.

Will there be a future time from now in which a population is unsustainable? Only if a future population does not exist. As long as there is a population, it is being sustained, or else it would not exist.

Will the current population, in terms of numbers of individuals, be sustained into an infinite future? Probably not, seeing as nothing within relative existence lasts forever. So in that sense I would agree with your position, that the population is not infinitely sustainable. Eventually, on the scale of eternity, it is likely that conditions will evolve that render a population unsustainable. Then again, is there anything that is infinitely sustainable?

Calling this a problem is simply a viewpoint, as it is a viewpoint regarding the way things are.

Though, perhaps you are not using a scale of infinity when referring to sustainablity.
Bill Wiltrack
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2015 8:58 am

Re: ~ STOP PRODUCING HUMANS ~

Post by Bill Wiltrack »

.

I'm sorry. I've read and re-read my original and follow-up posts and I can't find where I used the word sustainable. But I will keep looking.



I think we may be talking about two slightly different things.


I'm kind-of pointing to WHY keep re-producing humans? What's the point? Other than selfish ego & ignorance.


I think you are saying Yeah, we could sustain more humans, I'm leaning towards more like asking WHY keep producing humans?


.
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: ~ STOP PRODUCING HUMANS ~

Post by Cahoot »

Since the world is not overpopulated, since humans are not destroying the planet, since humans have a demonstrated capacity for mitigating change, and since people have the biological imperative to do the horizontal mambo, why not reproduce?

Some countries penalize people for having kids. Some reward.

Too much meddling.

You’re not condoning mass sterilizations, are you?
Bill Wiltrack
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2015 8:58 am

Re: ~ STOP PRODUCING HUMANS ~

Post by Bill Wiltrack »

.

Not really. Not condoning mass sterilization...I don't think, but perhaps considering that concept would be philosophically important.


We have waaaaay too many humans now. About 1.5 Billion are starving, some estimates state that half of the world goes to bed hungry each & every night.


We are now able to produce humans by in vitro fertilization.

I actually see the least able individuals, financially, reproduce the most. I think we can do better and will do better, thanks to technology, in the future.



Thank you for participating in this thread
and thank you for allowing me to better clarify this important philosophical concept.


.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: ~ STOP PRODUCING HUMANS ~

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Bill Wiltrack wrote:I'm kind-of pointing to WHY keep re-producing humans? What's the point? Other than selfish ego & ignorance.
Hi Bill! In general I agree with your call of "stop producing humans". Smaller groups, meaning living closer to complete extinction, probably would be more inspirational. Also many modern problems seem related to the simple presence of all that mass and insane issues of the inhuman scales.

But I could also try to answer your question about what the point of re-production might be. And that would be improvement and adaptation. Massively selecting and mixing genetics and culture in concert with changing environments might lead to greater specimen. Although personally I wonder if we might have had that peak already in an earlier century. In that case, the only point of re-production -- which is really over-reproduction -- would be similar to cancer: a wilder growing as to weaken and exhaust the larger body, to wear it out and force it to make amends before even that ability disappears.
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: ~ STOP PRODUCING HUMANS ~

Post by Cahoot »

If you’re asking why the biological imperative for reproduction exists: for the species it is propagation, for the individual the reasons are various rationalizations of the horizontal mambo imperative, the major one being that people are social creatures and family is the closest social bond to prevent aloneness. Nature knows that the charm of cranky old men with their infirmities needs that edge of familial bonding to prevent physical and psychological aloneness, just in case the codger’s destiny is to not be a sannyasin.
"We have waaaaay too many humans now. About 1.5 Billion are starving, some estimates state that half of the world goes to bed hungry each & every night."
That describes a compendium of situations caused by localized pockets of population density, and food distribution based on factors other than hunger. It doesn't describe a worldwide lack of food, or overpopulation.

*

These key facts from the health wing of the United Nations don't exactly add up to world wide hunger.

Key facts
- Worldwide obesity has more than doubled since 1980.
- In 2014, more than 1.9 billion adults, 18 years and older, were overweight. Of these over 600 million were obese.
- 39% of adults aged 18 years and over were overweight in 2014, and 13% were obese.
- Most of the world's population live in countries where overweight and obesity kills more people than underweight.
- 42 million children under the age of 5 were overweight or obese in 2013.
- Obesity is preventable.

Source: World Health Organization
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs311/en/


*

Other key facts on childhood obesity include:

The global prevalence of overweight and obesity in children aged under 5 years has increased from around 5% in 2000 to 6% in 2010 and 6.3% in 2013.
The prevalence of childhood overweight is increasing worldwide, but especially in Africa and Asia.
Between 2000 and 2013, the prevalence of overweight in children aged under 5 years increased from 11% to 19% in some countries in southern Africa and from 3% to 7% in South-East Asia (UN region).
In 2013, there were an estimated 18 million overweight children aged under 5 years in Asia, 11 million in Africa and 4 million in Latin America and the Caribbean.
It is estimated that the prevalence of overweight in children aged under 5 years will rise to 11% worldwide by 2025 if current trends continue.
In addition to these health risks, the rapid rise in obesity negatively impacts on the ability of children to participate in educational and recreational activities, and imposes a range of economic burdens at familial and societal levels.

- WHO
http://www.who.int/end-childhood-obesit ... eeting/en/
Bill Wiltrack
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2015 8:58 am

Re: ~ STOP PRODUCING HUMANS ~

Post by Bill Wiltrack »

.


Again, it seems as if you want to steer this thread towards the ability to sustain a population. I'm not really there with this particular thread, though that line of thought may be defined in a different thread.


Just to repeat where I am at here -


I'm sorry. I've read and re-read my original and follow-up posts and I can't find where I used the word sustainable. But I will keep looking.



I think we may be talking about two slightly different things.


I'm kind-of pointing to WHY keep re-producing humans? What's the point? Other than selfish ego & ignorance.


I think you are saying Yeah, we could sustain more humans, I'm leaning towards more like asking WHY keep producing humans?

.
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: ~ STOP PRODUCING HUMANS ~

Post by Cahoot »

Q: “I'm kind-of pointing to WHY keep re-producing humans?”

A: “If you’re asking why the biological imperative for reproduction exists: for the species it is propagation, for the individual the reasons are various rationalizations of the horizontal mambo imperative, the major one being that people are social creatures and family is the closest social bond to prevent aloneness. Nature knows that the charm of cranky old men with their infirmities needs that edge of familial bonding to prevent physical and psychological aloneness, just in case the codger’s destiny is to not be a sannyasin.”


*

There is no reason not to reproduce, unless it is selfishness and ignorance. "Have to get a job to support the kids, gotta wake up at night and feed 'em. Can't take off and do what I want when I want, gotta buy the uncool family vanigan instead of the sports car, when talking to adults have to keep checking my lapels for baby vomit. Pain in the ass."

The other rationale that you provided to not reproduce (overpopulation) has been proven incorrect.

So, it’s like, there are trillions of planets and suns and moons and stuff. Isn’t that enough, for God’s sake? And speaking of God, why should God keep producing these things?

There are all these fish in the ocean, they keep reproducing, and really, what could be the reason for that? Obviously, they all have ignorant and selfish egos. :D
Bill Wiltrack
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2015 8:58 am

Re: ~ STOP PRODUCING HUMANS ~

Post by Bill Wiltrack »

.

Love. LOVE. LOVE YOUR RESPONSE!



What we have here are two almost equally valid intellectual positions.

I respect you for insight and for you to take the time to articulate your perspective.



Rust Cohle: I think human consciousness is a tragic misstep in evolution. We became too self-aware. Nature created an aspect of nature separate from itself. We are creatures that should not exist by natural law. We are things that labor under the illusion of having a self, this accretion of sensory experience and feelings, programmed with total assurance that we are each somebody, when in fact everybody's nobody. I think the honorable thing for our species to do is to deny our programming. Stop reproducing. Walk hand in hand into extinction. One last midnight, brothers and sisters opting out of a raw deal.

Marty Hart: I got an idea, let's make the car a place of silent reflection from now on. Okay?

~ True Detective ~


We don't need 8 Billion humans. Period.

Technology is replacing humans in the workforce
in a revolutionary way.

Humans are selfish, mean, and ignorant.


If you were able to conceive the explosion of humans that I described earlier in this thread you would be stunned.


We differ in perspective. I respect yours.


.
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: ~ STOP PRODUCING HUMANS ~

Post by Cahoot »

We don't need 8 Billion humans. Period.

Technology is replacing humans in the workforce in a revolutionary way.

Humans are selfish, mean, and ignorant.


If you were able to conceive the explosion of humans that I described earlier in this thread you would be stunned.


We differ in perspective. I respect yours.
Why, thank you.
That’s probably because I’m simply presenting reasoning based on facts, always appropriate in this situation since it is the stated purpose of the forum.

Can you say the same?

*

On second thought, if you want to emphasize philosophy, then philosophy is reasoning based on speculation, while science is reasoning based on observable fact, so I suppose you are offering the philosophical position, while I am offering the factual position.

No reason why the two should conflict, but altering facts ... isn't that delusional?
Last edited by Cahoot on Wed Feb 18, 2015 12:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: ~ STOP PRODUCING HUMANS ~

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Hello again Bill,

Any reasons for the big fonts? If you find it easier to read just enlarge the whole page with Ctrl+ (on many browsers). But I'd like to request you kindly not to play with the font for any idle reason: it's harder to read for others and it functions like a loud voice of some kind.

Would you call your position antinatalist? Or are you involved in Voluntary Human Extinction Movement? Kevin Solway did a video on this topic once and I'll mention it since it's his forum : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkkJ4HztuQ0

Humans are selfish, mean, and ignorant.
Compared to what and whom? Our religious ideals? Would you promote reaching those ideals since you think they are actually reasonable or existant?
Bill Wiltrack
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2015 8:58 am

Re: ~ STOP PRODUCING HUMANS ~

Post by Bill Wiltrack »

.

Each of our positions are equally valid.

The intellect is a beautiful thing.

When we are able to understand, philosophically, we see that if there is a black - there must be a white...AND ALL SHADES OF GREY in-between.

We live in a multidimensional world.


I honor your position. You have stated it well and I really appreciate you adding to this thread.


With all due respect, I don't believe you are able to own the reasonable position within the framework of this thread.


We have both used reason. I understand this.

I would add...believe what you wish. I'm not here to change you.




.
Bobo
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:35 pm

Re: ~ STOP PRODUCING HUMANS ~

Post by Bobo »

There are two things that come into question on the matter. One is that there is suffering and by bringing a sentient being into existence invariably leads to forms of suffering. The other is that no sentient being opts to come into existence, the decision is necessarily taken by someone other and outside the being in question. While sometimes suffering can be rationalized as a form of self determination it is not true for the suffering in question, the existential suffering(?).

When faced with reason and suffering a being can rationalize suffering manufacturing reasons that falsify the state of things to justify behaviour that when analyzed can be show to be irrational, irrational behaviour and inconsistent beliefs are just put out of counsciouness. Or they can justify suffering as it were reason itself, that to suffer and more yet to impose suffering into others is a rational activity.

So we are in a position where 'reason' and rationality reaches to a point where it demands the justification of existence and suffering and the easiest way out of it is to make believe and export suffering and the need of rationalization to other people, by making other people to suffer so you can justify your behaviour (irrationaly).
Last edited by Bobo on Wed Feb 18, 2015 6:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
Bill Wiltrack
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2015 8:58 am

Re: ~ STOP PRODUCING HUMANS ~

Post by Bill Wiltrack »

.

Wow! GREAT response.


Thank you for adding your perspective into this discussion.


I am extremely appreciative that you took the time to formulate your perspective.
Bobo
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:35 pm

Re: ~ STOP PRODUCING HUMANS ~

Post by Bobo »

To complement what I was saying. Reproduction is already a form of make belive and it is a way of exporting suffering and the need of reasoning to other people. The state of things is one that people will reproduce because they are incapable of reasoning or are in a state of suffering (and choose to impose suffering to other persons), with enough imposition of suffering you can mould people behaviours to whatever you want and often diminish your burden.

Not all is suffering, pleasure and happiness (and whatever diminishes the existential suffering) in part is supposed to be acquired by reason (which dimimishes the suffering too) can be supplanted by irrationality when the work required for it is substituted by wealth. You can diminish the burden of rationality by being wealthy and by denying other people wealth so you can become more wealthy yet and make them take your burden in exchange of diminishing their burden a little. People are born in an order where the most irrational people, who impose suffering on others as it were rationality, will use the wealth acquired from irrationality as it were evidence of rational behaviour and bribe people into more irrational behaviour while saying that to impose suffering on others is to be rational. Non reproduction is against the established order as it denies that the imposition of suffering is a rational action or that the existing order is somewhat rational.

Technology as a product of rationality instead of being used to diminsh the burden is used by irrational people to gain wealth and increase peoples suffering. Selfishness and exporting suffering is said to create technology and wealth instead of rationality.
Locked