<p>Anyone who truely believes that has been drinking the Kool-Aid. Look at how complicated our society has become: children must be schooled for 15-25 years just to function in it. And what are the positive effects of this? Uhh.. there are none. We're single-handedly destroying the planet. We have almost no free time in our lives--it's all spent on obligations that keep this (way too) complicated society running. More and more people become depressed and commit suicide every year. That didn't happen back in tribal times, when life was simple.</p>
<p>Here's my theory (be forewarned, you'll think I'm insane): </p>
<p>The only way to save Earth is to let our species die out. By that, I don't mean we should kill anyone. We simply need to stop breeding. Maybe not altogether, at first. We could halt the growth rate slowly, by limiting each couple to one child. That way, our population would shrink by approx. 50% every generation. Eventually, we would take up fewer resources and the rest of the billions of species on this planet could continue to live, free from human interuption.</p>
<p>I say this from an environmental standpoint, but not an "ohmigod, global warming is coming," standpoint. I believe in moderation, and I also believe that science can't be trusted. If you look back to science 200 years ago, you'll find many statements that were "facts" then, but are now considered incorrect. I believe that 200 years from now, scientists will look back on us and say, "look how little they knew". Moderation, on the other hand, is never disproved by current science. The human population is getting out of hand, and the amount of space and resources that we take up are directly correlated to it. In order to maintain moderation, I believe there needs to be less of us.</p>
<p>No, I think if we are truly the most intelligent beings, we should figure out a way to coexist with the environment.
Your extreme idea shows your pessimism at humanity's ability to turn the Earth around. I'm sort of pessimistic as well but human nature is selfish and doesn't want to kill itself off directly. We'd much rather indirectly commit suicide by destroying the environment.</p>
<p>"We'd much rather indirectly commit suicide by destroying the environment."</p>
<p>^True dat.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, that approach will bring millions of species down with us.</p>
<p>"No, I think if we are truly the most intelligent beings, we should figure out a way to coexist with the environment."</p>
<p>By 'intelligence', I'm assuming you mean lack of instinct. When it comes down to it, that's really what human 'intelligence' is. Instead of running on thousands of years of collective wisdom (instinct), we have 'personal choice'. That makes us way more prone to mistakes (and shortsightedness) than all other species. If you look at it from that perspective, we have the LEAST intelligence of all species on the planet.</p>
<p>"The only way to save Earth is to let our species die out. By that, I don't mean we should kill anyone. We simply need to stop breeding. Maybe not altogether, at first. We could halt the growth rate slowly, by limiting each couple to one child. That way, our population would shrink by approx. 50% every generation. Eventually, we would take up fewer resources and the rest of the billions of species on this planet could continue to live, free from human interuption."</p>
<p>lol I thought I was the only one who thought that.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Look at how complicated our society has become: children must be schooled for 15-25 years just to function in it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not only that, but we're expected to shower every day, to use shampoo in our showers, to sleep on beds, to assume "professional appearances", and to do a lot of societal BS. </p>
<p>But I think that the "societal BS" expectancy is a lot lower than earlier times. We're getting more lax on that front. Just look at the change in popular culture--very lax.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you look back to science 200 years ago, you'll find many statements that were "facts" then, but are now considered incorrect. I believe that 200 years from now, scientists will look back on us and say, "look how little they knew". Moderation, on the other hand, is never disproved by current science.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>True, but that's how technology and time work. We can't say, "We don't like the latest science we have now because in the future it will obviously be better." Well, yeah, the future's going to be more advanced but we must take what we have now, and there's nothing we can do about it. </p>
<p>I too, see the overpopulation dilemma. It's part of the reason why I'm not into politics, because politics and government are what manages the mass populations: everyone will never be satisfied and there will always be someone suffering. I don't believe the solution is to limit breeding, though. Sure, I agree back in "tribal" times they didn't have these problems but they also had many problems we don't deal with now, life was still far from "simple" then. It's part of the cycle. Problems are solved and new ones appear in their place. Every generation has to deal with something, but "moderation" is not truly the answer.</p>
<p>As humans get more advanced, technology becomes more advanced.</p>
<p>When technology becomes more advanced, weapons become more advanced.</p>
<p>We're NEVER had a nuclear war, yet look at all the nuclear weapons we have. If we ever DO get into a nuclear war, I guarantee you the loss of life will be great enough to counter balance the escalating population rate. Sad, but true.</p>
<p>We always...always....find a way to balance. It's the nature of life.</p>
<p>Waiting for nuclear weapons to wipe out a large chunk of the population isn't the answer either, and it wouldn't balance everything out. It'd make it worse. In fact, the suicide and depression rates mentioned in the first post would go up and make society more chaotic as a whole.</p>
<p>We always find a balance? I don't think so. Human society is contingent on *im*balances, one action effecting a reaction, on both small and large scales. Balance is stagnancy, but humans are dynamic -- so hope for some sort of equilibrium is pointless. Hell, society hasn't had balance since it began, and as we progress in our ever-destructive endeavors, we simply add weight to the scale. Eventually the scale is going to break.</p>
<p>/cynic</p>
<p>Brave New World is a good book that shows what happens to a society that maintains balance and stability.</p>
<p>"..everyone will never be satisfied and there will always be someone suffering."</p>
<p>I totally agree, but that problem is exacerbated by the fact that we live in such a large scale society. There are just too many different people with different needs under the same government. In a tribe, each person is relatively similar to her/his neighbor, and the 'government' is small or non-existent. For those reasons, less compromise is necessary, and (relatively more) balance and stability inevitably ensue.</p>
<p>Funny how people care for animals more than human beings these days. We worry about endangered whales when children are being abandoned and people in disadvantaged countries can't even get clean water. We wail about destroying the habitats of monkeys, but meanwhile Darfur is just a passing thought. We are human beings, let us propagate our own species before we worry about the other species of the planet. Don't worry, the Earth is very resilient, and it's "suffered" a lot worse than global warming. It's called evolution.</p>