I can't tell you how many times I've heard the phrase "technology is killing nature." "Technology is the cause of crime, disease, starvation, and environmental degradation," they say. But I think these people are only scratching the surface of this issue, afraid to delve any deeper for fear of the truth. You know what I think is really killing nature? Lack of technology.

It's proven that birth rates are inversely proportional to education levels (which coincide with wealth), meaning that poor, uneducated people have more kids than wealthy, smart people. One possible reason for why this happens is that uneducated people lack knowledge of birth control. Now the problem here is that people in poverty are producing offspring at an ungodly rate, causing the Earth's population to grow exponentially (doubling every 40 years or so).

What I've learned in Human Geography class is that animal populations also grow at an exponential rate. However, there is a natural "cut-off" line that the Earth draws when it's reached its maximum capacity, and the animals start to die off naturally by hunger, disease, and other forces. The key point of this tid-bit is that the earth also draws this line for humans; however, at the present day this line is non-existent. Technology has advanced to the point where medicine can keep illness at bay and lower the human mortality rate. Sounds like a contradiction, doesn't it? "So technology is the reason Earth's dying!" you're probably thinking. But not quite.

Yes, humans have grossly overpopulated the Earth. Yes, advances in medicine have lowered death rates. But poor, uneducated people are still producing more children than the Earth can take. Do you know why so many trees are being cut down worldwide? Because the number of people currently on Earth need more room to exist. Do you know why there is hunger? Because there are not enough earthly resources. Do you know why there is murder, sickness, etc., etc.? Because there are just too many damn people overflowing the Earth and she can't take it anymore.

Therefore people who preach "end world hunger," "stop crime and murder," "stop hurting mother nature" are going about it all wrong. Producing more food will only support more overpopulation. Crime will always exist when there is a lack in earthly resources. Mother nature will continue to die so long as its maximum capacity is exceeded.

So, no. Technology isn't killing the earth. People are. Overpopulation is. The solution? Stop popping out those damn kids.

-----

Your thoughts? Arguments?

Given the fact that the advent of agriculture is really the only reason overpopulation is possible for us, technology is the base cause of our environmental problems. It also has allowed us to develop such relatively extravagant lifestyles. Overpopulation wouldn't be as big of a problem if it weren't for overconsumption. The amount of resources most of us use, it wouldn't matter if we had just enough humans to maintain genetic diversity, we'd still not have enough resources and the planet would be in much the same shape. Blaming it on overpopulation is, in my opinion, a convenient scapegoat since, no matter how people try to frame it, it essentially breaks down to "women need to stop having babies", so rather than it being on all of us, the responsibility for change rests solely on women, poor women specifically.

It's the frame and mind of Society's belief in everything lasts for ever. The seas are infinite when comes to dumping waste . Instead of reducing,reusing,and replanting we just consume. There are ways to make agriculture more green. I've seen areas of Brazillian/Peruvian Rainforest preserved where local villagers still harvest crops like Cocoa,Rubber,and medicine without harming the Forest.

Originally Posted by Philomel

Given the fact that the advent of agriculture is really the only reason overpopulation is possible for us, technology is the base cause of our environmental problems. It also has allowed us to develop such relatively extravagant lifestyles. Overpopulation wouldn't be as big of a problem if it weren't for overconsumption. The amount of resources most of us use, it wouldn't matter if we had just enough humans to maintain genetic diversity, we'd still not have enough resources and the planet would be in much the same shape. Blaming it on overpopulation is, in my opinion, a convenient scapegoat since, no matter how people try to frame it, it essentially breaks down to "women need to stop having babies", so rather than it being on all of us, the responsibility for change rests solely on women, poor women specifically.

It rests on both men and women. Women can't asexually reproduce; an egg needs a sperm and a sperm needs an egg. So it lies on the shoulders of both men and women to either abstain, put on a condom, or take the pill. So, essentially, it falls on all of us.

And it's because of the overflow of people that agriculture needs to continue producing more. If there were less people, agriculture would maintain a constant level to sustain the current population. Producing more and more, as I stated earlier, just will not work. But we can't stop producing more because there are billions and billions of mouths to feed. Therefore the only solution is to lower the human population to a manageable level.

Also, it wouldn't surprise me if the day comes where reproduction is restricted. It's nearly impossible to adopt an American child, but poor drug addicts or alcoholics can produce up to five or more children who have to exist in suffering. Perhaps there will come a day when potential parents are screened to see if they can adequately provide for their child(ren). Yes, it would be infringing on human rights, but what about the rights of the children? Do they deserve to exist in poverty, hunger, and crime just because their parents were too eager to hop in bed without protection?

I think overpopulation is because of advances in technology.
Why? For exactly the reasons you listed.

The poorer people who are "constantly having babies" are only having that many babies because chances are, most of them won't survive to adulthood.

There has actually been a surplus of food in the world for a long time. We for decades at least have produced more than enough food to feed everyone on the planet, however, feeding the poor people isn't profitable, so most of those people are starving while people in "developed" society are wasteful.

Originally Posted by Amethyst Lavenlight

It rests on both men and women. Women can't asexually reproduce; an egg needs a sperm and a sperm needs an egg. So it lies on the shoulders of both men and women to either abstain, put on a condom, or take the pill. So, essentially, it falls on all of us.

I am aware of how reproduction works. However, it is rarely men who are thought of when people talk about overpopulation. There is much talk of "welfare queens" and teens who drop out of high school to have children, but never are the men who got them pregnant mentioned. This is important, because I don't think half as many people, particularly men, would agree with you as do (and there are a lot) if you told men to stop having so much sex, rather than saying "everyone" and really only referring to women.

And it's because of the overflow of people that agriculture needs to continue producing more. If there were less people, agriculture would maintain a constant level to sustain the current population. Producing more and more, as I stated earlier, just will not work. But we can't stop producing more because there are billions and billions of mouths to feed. Therefore the only solution is to lower the human population to a manageable level.

That is not what you asked, however. You asked what the real problem was, and blamed it on overpopulation. Overpopulation doesn't just "happen", and not only is technology the only reason we have an overpopulation problem to begin with, but technology has caused us to become used to taking up so many resources that how many of us there are ceases to even be a concern in comparison. Thus, the problem is in fact technology.

Also, it wouldn't surprise me if the day comes where reproduction is restricted. It's nearly impossible to adopt an American child, but poor drug addicts or alcoholics can produce up to five or more children who have to exist in suffering.

It's not "nearly impossible" to adopt an American child. Yes, it takes awhile, and it's expensive, but the biggest issue is that people want children who look a certain way and are of a certain age. That's fine, that's their choice to make, but they should not be surprised by the fact that ordering a custom child means you might have to wait awhile longer than someone with less discriminating tastes.

Perhaps there will come a day when potential parents are screened to see if they can adequately provide for their child(ren). Yes, it would be infringing on human rights, but what about the rights of the children? Do they deserve to exist in poverty, hunger, and crime just because their parents were too eager to hop in bed without protection?

So for "the sake of the children", you would deny adults -- who used to be those children you claim to be so concerned about -- the very basic human right to do with their bodies as they choose? Making the future better for future generations is vitally important, but is a future in which their economic position determines whether or not they are considered fully human and worthy of the rights we all deserve by virtue of our personhood any better than one in which their world is polluted and depleted? They sound equally dystopian to me, but at least a dead world hasn't suffered social Darwinism on a genocidal scale. That's provided, of course, that those are the only two possibilities, which I have seen no evidence to suggest is the case.

Further, I find your oversimplifying of the reasons women have unwanted children ignorant to the point of offense. And yes, I said women. It is women, not men, who suffer the most from being shamed out of or just outright denied access to holistic sex education, contraception, and abortion services. I'm sure that, under ideal circumstances, having learned about conception and pregnancy and safe sex practices, having access to contraceptives and abortion services, and not being told from the day they're born that they exist only as sexual objects and men have a right to their bodies (condom or no) and their sexuality has no purpose aside from reproduction and they're not real women if they don't have a child, there would be far fewer unwanted children born than are. But rather than trying to make changes in society that could make life better for not only them but their wanted children, let's just take their uteri away from them! That's much better.

This blog post pretty much sums up my views on the matter.

Originally Posted by Philomel

I am aware of how reproduction works. However, it is rarely men who are thought of when people talk about overpopulation. There is much talk of "welfare queens" and teens who drop out of high school to have children, but never are the men who got them pregnant mentioned. This is important, because I don't think half as many people, particularly men, would agree with you as do (and there are a lot) if you told men to stop having so much sex, rather than saying "everyone" and really only referring to women.

Men's bodies are programmed to take as much "booty" as they can get. It's how nature spreads its genes. But it's still up to both the man and woman to decide whether to slip on a condom quick or not. Both have the same ability to be responsible, do they not? Or are you saying that only females can make responsible or unresponsible decisions?

Originally Posted by Philomel

It's not "nearly impossible" to adopt an American child. Yes, it takes awhile, and it's expensive, but the biggest issue is that people want children who look a certain way and are of a certain age. That's fine, that's their choice to make, but they should not be surprised by the fact that ordering a custom child means you might have to wait awhile longer than someone with less discriminating tastes.

Not true. There are many Americans trying to adopt within their own country, but they've become so frustrated at the system that they're adopting Russian or African babies instead. Does that sound like discriminatory tastes to you?

Originally Posted by Philomel

So for "the sake of the children", you would deny adults -- who used to be those children you claim to be so concerned about -- the very basic human right to do with their bodies as they choose? Making the future better for future generations is vitally important, but is a future in which their economic position determines whether or not they are considered fully human and worthy of the rights we all deserve by virtue of our personhood any better than one in which their world is polluted and depleted? They sound equally dystopian to me, but at least a dead world hasn't suffered social Darwinism on a genocidal scale. That's provided, of course, that those are the only two possibilities, which I have seen no evidence to suggest is the case.

Their economic position determines whether their child will grow up hungry, sick, and traumatized or happy, healthy, and full. But the main problem is that poor parents keep having more kids even when they can't even take care of one. It makes me wonder if child services has too much on its hands to handle all of them. Also, every human has rights, but from what I've seen, children's rights trump those of their elders. Everyone is always looking out for the child's best interests. And when those "feed the Africans" commercials come on, do they show adults? No, they always feature children. Why? Because people cringe at any injustice towards youngsters rather than their adult counterparts.

Originally Posted by Philomel

I'm sure that, under ideal circumstances, having learned about conception and pregnancy and safe sex practices, having access to contraceptives and abortion services, and not being told from the day they're born that they exist only as sexual objects and men have a right to their bodies (condom or no) and their sexuality has no purpose aside from reproduction and they're not real women if they don't have a child, there would be far fewer unwanted children born than are.

Which explains my point that it is a lack of technology (lack of knowledge of birth-control technology, more specifically) that's created this massive population of unwanted children.

It's actually a LOT more difficult to adopt a child internationally.
Most of the times you'll get ready to sign the very last sheet of paper, and you may have already met the child.
And then all of a sudden you'll get rejected because of something really minor.
The adoption system in America can be a challenge to get approved in (must not be a criminal, preferably married, certain level of income, ect.)
But that's because it's supposed to screen out the bad people. Most international adoption agencies used even stricter qualifications.
Or, they're a scam or illegal and you'll have to pay for adoption papers.
And pay thousands upon thousands of dollars for the child...who might end up being taken away if either government finds out.

Additionally, there are many reasons people chose not to adopt.
1) A long time ago it was seen as a bad or shameful thing to adopt.
2) With an adopted child there is that very strong chance you will never have that "parent bond" between you and them. Which can be painful for both parents and child.
3) People want a child of their own (I mean, at least with a child with you genetics, you know what they might have, adopted kids you might not know at all).

----------

Originally Posted by Amethyst Lavenlight

Which explains my point that it is a lack of technology (lack of knowledge of birth-control technology, more specifically) that's created this massive population of unwanted children.

It's not due to a lack of technology, most of the time they know of things like condoms, ect.
But, they're expensive and they can't afford them.
Also, in most places, especially in places like Africa, chances are the children will die before reaching adulthood (like previously stated).
So, if you want a child to survive to adulthood, have like 4 or 5.
More kids more chance.

Originally Posted by Amethyst Lavenlight

Men's bodies are programmed to take as much "booty" as they can get. It's how nature spreads its genes.

Prove this, as it sounds like typical unscientific "men will be men" nonsense (and trust me, if you can't prove it, I can prove it wrong). While you're at it, prove that the only reason for sex is procreation.

But it's still up to both the man and woman to decide whether to slip on a condom quick or not. Both have the same ability to be responsible, do they not? Or are you saying that only females can make responsible or unresponsible decisions?

Unless you're referring to "female" condoms, no, it's not up to the couple to "slip on the condom" (provided there's one available), it's up to the man. If he refuses, it's up to the woman to refuse sex, which means resisting the rather pervasive idea that "it's already gotten this far, I can't really tell him no" and hoping that that same idea doesn't lead to her being raped and him getting away with it. Absolutely everything else is left up to women; birth control, "morning after" pills, abortions, abstinence (thanks to the mentality you demonstrated earlier, women are seen as the "gatekeepers" to their vaginas), everything. And if you realize this, then even if you do not include gendered language and feign ignorance of issues like power dynamics and men's implied ownership of sex and sexuality and women being framed as simply the providers, you're still putting nearly all the responsibility on women and very little on men when you say that reproducing is irresponsible and bad and "people" shouldn't do it.

Not true. There are many Americans trying to adopt within their own country, but they've become so frustrated at the system that they're adopting Russian or African babies instead. Does that sound like discriminatory tastes to you?

Yes true. Do you know how many children are up for adoption in the US, versus how many people are looking to adopt?

Their economic position determines whether their child will grow up hungry, sick, and traumatized or happy, healthy, and full.

Which is why I'm dead right now, seeing as how I was raised in poverty by a single mother. Oh wait.

Economic position only determines their lives because the poor are seen as having brought it on themselves, and poverty is seen as a problem which, if left alone (read: no assistance from those more fortunate), will fix itself because they'll all die out and then there will only be rich people! Lowering our population wouldn't fix poverty, since it's not too many people and too little resources but rather a few people who hoard all the resources, far more than they need, that causes it to begin with, but the way you're suggesting we do it would make life all the more miserable for those unfortunate enough to be born into poverty.

But the main problem is that poor parents keep having more kids even when they can't even take care of one. It makes me wonder if child services has too much on its hands to handle all of them.

You're aware that poor people aren't the only ones who abuse/neglect children, yes?

Also, every human has rights, but from what I've seen, children's rights trump those of their elders. Everyone is always looking out for the child's best interests. And when those "feed the Africans" commercials come on, do they show adults? No, they always feature children. Why? Because people cringe at any injustice towards youngsters rather than their adult counterparts.

Other people's sympathies don't excuse your suggesting we commit atrocities against adults for the sake of children. If you do not have a justification for it, drop it, because it's illogical and inhumane and incredibly shortsighted by every measurement I can think of. Children aren't an archetype, they're individuals who grow up to become adults. If you're being cruel to adults, you're being cruel to children, just a few years later.

Which explains my point that it is a lack of technology (lack of knowledge of birth-control technology, more specifically) that's created this massive population of unwanted children.

So you just completely skipped over the part where I suggested that society's insistence on women being baby-producers and subject to the whims of men is to blame for it as well? The stigma around Planned Parenthood proves that access is not truly access if you're shamed into not taking advantage of it when you need to.

Originally Posted by monstahh`

It's not due to a lack of technology, most of the time they know of things like condoms, ect.
But, they're expensive and they can't afford them.

Or they're being deceived by Catholic clergy. :roll:

Originally Posted by Keyori

Or they're being deceived by Catholic clergy. :roll:

That too. I've heard of that happening. :/

Originally Posted by monstahh`

It's actually a LOT more difficult to adopt a child internationally.
Most of the times you'll get ready to sign the very last sheet of paper, and you may have already met the child.
And then all of a sudden you'll get rejected because of something really minor.
The adoption system in America can be a challenge to get approved in (must not be a criminal, preferably married, certain level of income, ect.)
But that's because it's supposed to screen out the bad people. Most international adoption agencies used even stricter qualifications.
Or, they're a scam or illegal and you'll have to pay for adoption papers.
And pay thousands upon thousands of dollars for the child...who might end up being taken away if either government finds out.

Really? I guess now I'm confused because I've met a lot of people saying it's way harder to adopt within America. :| Hmm...-runs off to research-

Originally Posted by Philomel

Prove this, as it sounds like typical unscientific "men will be men" nonsense (and trust me, if you can't prove it, I can prove it wrong). While you're at it, prove that the only reason for sex is procreation.

I thought this was covered in biology? It's male instinct to sow their seed wherever opportunity arises because it's a survival strategy. However, unlike animals, men have the choice to be a dad or be a cad. Humans are the only creatures on earth that can control their numbers, but that doesn't mean they don't have continuous urges to spread their seed. But I'm really curious to see your proof. Would you mind sharing it? Also, when did I say that sex is only for procreation?? Sex is mainly for recreation, but it has procreational consequences when no method of birth control is used.

Originally Posted by Philomel

Unless you're referring to "female" condoms, no, it's not up to the couple to "slip on the condom" (provided there's one available), it's up to the man. If he refuses, it's up to the woman to refuse sex, which means resisting the rather pervasive idea that "it's already gotten this far, I can't really tell him no" and hoping that that same idea doesn't lead to her being raped and him getting away with it. Absolutely everything else is left up to women; birth control, "morning after" pills, abortions, abstinence (thanks to the mentality you demonstrated earlier, women are seen as the "gatekeepers" to their vaginas), everything. And if you realize this, then even if you do not include gendered language and feign ignorance of issues like power dynamics and men's implied ownership of sex and sexuality and women being framed as simply the providers, you're still putting nearly all the responsibility on women and very little on men when you say that reproducing is irresponsible and bad and "people" shouldn't do it.

I'm confused. You make it sound like women are pathetic and helpless against men. Not all men are jerks who force a women into sex. :| Also, I don't think you're seeing this from the men's side. Do you think men don't give a crap when they get a woman pregnant? Do you think they don't realize that a part of him is existing within her belly? Do you think that all men abandon the women they impregnate? Men have a conscience, too. Even if they don't take responsibility up front, their decision will weigh on them for their entire lives.

Originally Posted by Philomel

Which is why I'm dead right now, seeing as how I was raised in poverty by a single mother. Oh wait.

I spent my childhood in that same situation. It's just not something I'd wish upon others.

Originally Posted by Philomel

You're aware that poor people aren't the only ones who abuse/neglect children, yes?

Who said anything about neglect and abuse? I'm sure the children are very loved by their parents, but when a parent can't afford food or shelter for their offspring, well...that's not a pleasant situation to be in and the child suffers because of it.

Originally Posted by Philomel

So you just completely skipped over the part where I suggested that society's insistence on women being baby-producers and subject to the whims of men is to blame for it as well? The stigma around Planned Parenthood proves that access is not truly access if you're shamed into not taking advantage of it when you need to.

Where is all this talk of shame coming from??

Anyway, I feel like we're really off topic now. :( May I just admit here and now that I totally did not know about overconsumption? Ahh, the joys of debate...you always learn something new.

Originally Posted by Amethyst Lavenlight

I thought this was covered in biology? It's male instinct to sow their seed wherever opportunity arises because it's a survival strategy. However, unlike animals, men have the choice to be a dad or be a cad. Humans are the only creatures on earth that can control their numbers, but that doesn't mean they don't have continuous urges to spread their seed.

Except that that makes no sense at all when you actually stop to think about it. Women having lower sex drives and only wanting one partner is entirely a cultural thing, it isn't across the board. It's not found in other species, either; anyone who thinks female animals don't have sex drives has obviously not been around a pet who hasn't been spayed for very long. Which makes sense. If indeed the point of sex drive is reproduction, females need it just as much as males, more even, especially in the case of humans. Unless you're suggesting that the preferred method of breeding is rape. Further, what is this miracle chemical influencing sex drive? There is no actual evidence that testosterone influences sex drive, and women have that too, so it's not that. Attempts at affecting sex drive using chemicals have fallen rather short; we can create orgasms and spontaneous boners, but actually changing sex drive is something we haven't done, and yes, "aphrodisiacs" are a myth. In short, it's based on the exact same "biology" that says males are smarter, more aggressive, born to cheat, etc. It's not actually based on science, but rather on a vain attempt to cling to sexist ideas that are quickly being proven incorrect. I don't think an actual scientist would ever say anything definite about something so complex and complicated as sex drive.

But I'm really curious to see your proof. Would you mind sharing it?

Sigh. I had, like, five different studies and articles bookmarked about this, but they've all disappeared >.< I think Firefox ate them like it did my recipes. Disregard that bit.

Also, when did I say that sex is only for procreation?? Sex is mainly for recreation, but it has procreational consequences when no method of birth control is used.

It obviously is, otherwise why would Evolution (since you seem to be making it an actual thinking entity that decides who's horny and who isn't, I figured I should capitalize it) base sex drive on reproduction?

I'm confused. You make it sound like women are pathetic and helpless against men. Not all men are jerks who force a women into sex. :|

And I did not say they were. But a lot are. It's not really their fault; our culture has a very screwed-up idea of consent. They likely wouldn't even recognize what they were doing as rape.

Also, I don't think you're seeing this from the men's side. Do you think men don't give a crap when they get a woman pregnant? Do you think they don't realize that a part of him is existing within her belly? Do you think that all men abandon the women they impregnate? Men have a conscience, too.

Given how many men abandon women once they find out that they're pregnant with a child they don't want to have to deal with, yes, yes I do. I'm sure they know they've passed on their genes, but it obviously doesn't affect them that much. You realize that a whole lot of the "unwanted children" you keep going on about came from such scenarios, right?

Even if they don't take responsibility up front, their decision will weigh on them for their entire lives.

Unless it doesn't. And it doesn't a great deal of the time. And even if it does, why does that matter? It doesn't make the situation any better.

I spent my childhood in that same situation. It's just not something I'd wish upon others.

And having their rights to their bodies violated so completely is not something I'd wish on anyone.

Who said anything about neglect and abuse? I'm sure the children are very loved by their parents, but when a parent can't afford food or shelter for their offspring, well...that's not a pleasant situation to be in and the child suffers because of it.

Child services doesn't simply deal with unwanted, forgotten children born in poverty. Yes, they're overloaded as you suggest, but it's not all poor people's fault, which is also what you were suggesting.

Where is all this talk of shame coming from??

I realize you really, really want biological answers to everything, but the fact is, culture has far more influence than anything else. There is a *lot* of shame around women's sexuality. The one most relevant to this discussion is shame where reproduction is concerned. You claimed that technology would fix the issues with access to contraceptives, but if you don't change the way society views contraceptives and abortion and so on, it doesn't matter if they're "available", few will use them because they're constantly being told they shouldn't.

And I think this is quite on-topic. You have said that technology isn't the problem. I'm explaining why it isn't. You said that technology is the solution. While technology is a solution (not necessarily in the way you're suggesting), I have been arguing that it is not the solution, and it won't work at all on its own.

I agree that it is not lack of technology but it is not necessarily the presence of technology that is the cause either. It is the underlying social structures born from city-states and later the industrial revolution. I do not view technology as a destroyer of nature, but it can be used to such ends when a culture does not have structures in place to protect or respect their environment. I think a switch from large scale to small scale societies would solve most of our current problems.

So I dont read everything thats been said... I thinks it humans... We only care about ourself and damn everything else...

Originally Posted by Philomel

I realize you really, really want biological answers to everything, but the fact is, culture has far more influence than anything else. There is a *lot* of shame around women's sexuality. The one most relevant to this discussion is shame where reproduction is concerned. You claimed that technology would fix the issues with access to contraceptives, but if you don't change the way society views contraceptives and abortion and so on, it doesn't matter if they're "available", few will use them because they're constantly being told they shouldn't.

And I think this is quite on-topic. You have said that technology isn't the problem. I'm explaining why it isn't. You said that technology is the solution. While technology is a solution (not necessarily in the way you're suggesting), I have been arguing that it is not the solution, and it won't work at all on its own.

I have to say this is probably my favorite argument I've ever read from you. It's not the lack of technology (in this case conception preventatives), but the lack of cultural acceptance to use them. Granted, for Western Culture at least, condoms and birth control are more accepted than previous generations, but there is still enough media and propaganda against the use of them to alter cultural and social expectations and acceptance. Also, whoever claimed that women have a lower sex drive than men, really need to show me the research on that, because ever single girl I know (including myself) possesses an equal if not higher sex drive than our boyfriends.