Overpopulation & stem cell research

i just had an interesting conversation w/ a friend of mine on health care progress , stem cell research and overpopulation.

my basic argument is that I think we should try to make as much progress in health care as possible b/c i believe that would result in a more productive society, greater technological advances and more advances in science/technology that would---be it 100, 200 or 300 years down the road--ultimately provide solutions to problems such as limited energy resources, overcrowing, disease and sickness.

i acknowledge that superior healthcare would further overpopulation, but that it would also further technological and social advancement of our civilization to the point where we could overcome the initial problems of overcrowding.
I think that exploiting stem cell research will ultimately provide solutions to many of the health-related problems we face today--such as cancer, aids and many other problems that stifle productivity and simply cost billions in dollars on treatments we currently throw at these diseases that, if anything, simply prolong the inevitable.

his basic argument was that he wanted to prolong overcrowding as much as possible and said that we shouldn't try to make advances in healthcare that would save millions of lives b/c it would further the overpopulation problems on this planet.

so i pushed his argument to its logical conclusion--that we should stop trying to cure disease and basically let disease work to reduce overpopulation.

i posed the question another way:
what if we could get to a technologically advanced point in society where we could develop renewable energy sources so we wouldn't pollute the planet anymore and ultimately destroy it, BUT, that we have a limited timeframe to reach this point of development before we destroy the planet.

sure, better health care would increase overpopulation, but it would also increase productivity and the advancement of civilization....much faster than simply letting diseases run their course and having thousands of dying people to deal with ("sorry, darwin didn't select you...").


what do you guys think?

if you found a path of research before you that could ultimately revolutionize healthcare and society, but which would come at the cost of overpopulation, would you pursue this path?

I don't think we can avoid overpopulation. so we need to adapt and find ways to deal with it.

 

There are plenty of ways to avoid it.

 

Remember the movie Logans Run?

 

Don't worry, think Soylent Green

 

Interesting point: what happens when a certain country or area achieves a certain level of wealth and education? Population growth slows and in some instances stops. Check out the Far East, when Japan's wealth got to a certain level, their population growth ceased. Same thing here for certain population groups. I guess the point is that if you can make sure that people get wealthy and educated, there isn't much risk of overpopulation.

Art

 

Totally what I was thinking...

 

The kind of health-care breakthroughs you are talking about will improve overall quality of life for many people but will have no significant effect on population.

Over-population is caused primarily by the tendency of peoples of under-developed and developing nations to have large numbers of children. This is a cultural remnant of a time (not so long ago) when less then half of children reached adulthood. Basic sanitation now means most of these children will live to reach child bearing age.

 

Either that or they can't get laid.

 

So Brad is out of the equation?

 

Doesn't China have some kind of you have X number of kids policy and then you pay more in taxes kinda thing?

 

hmmm...


i was thinking it would have some "effect" on population.
what about all the millions that die from cancer, aids and various other diseases? you would be keeping them alive and well for anywhere from 10-70 years depending on how old they are when they become ill.

but compared to the exploding population grow in places like africa or india, i don't this would have that much of an effect.

i can't believe he was basically advocating a cessation of medical advancement and the development of treatments of the people with life threatening illness. he made another point that he also believed it was a form of 'playing god' by allowing research that could one day lead to the ability to basically grow and harvest test-tube organs etc for patients.

isn't one of the basic tenants of christianity to help those in need, or something to that effect (i.e. mother teresa)?

and here's my supposedly "christian" friend advocating that we should basically let these people die as a form of population control.... (he's the type that thinks being gay is immoral and against god's ways etc).
i tried not to really call him on this and tell him he's full of shit b/c i didn't feel like pissing off a good friend, but FFS, it's rather ironic how seemingly 'moral' /'religious' individuals have some pretty fucked up immoral beliefs if you take their arguments and show them the logical conclusions of their seemingly religious beliefs....

it's something i learned from several of my college professors. most people hold premises to arguments, but never actually think them through to their ultimate logical conclusions. carry their arguments through to there logical conclusions and u have the roots of some pretty F-ed up beliefs....

this isn't really that surprising, but just fuked...especially considering how many people in this country voted for GW based off his good christian beliefs, and wait, it turns out that he has committed many immoral acts under the guise of morality and democracy.

that's been the trend since the birth of religion: innumerable acts of immorality committed under the veil of morality.

here's a tangent question:

how long till religion becomes a "remnant" or a vestige of a primitive society that used "faith" to justify and explain what it did not understand?
imho, I don't think religion is necessary for the existance of morality; morality and ethical conduct should be able to exist simply based on the rousseau-ian concept of mutual empathy for one another (i.e. feeling sorrow and pain upon seeing another individual in pain and desolation, "empathizing", being disturbed by death and destruction.) it disturbs me that followers of christianity and other religions need the fear of "hell", "sin", and "blasphemy" put into them to "inspire" a life of morality.

 

Well, you're generalizing that religious followers need those things, the threat of hell, to be moral and ethical.

Most don't.

And on that note, some people have no concept of empathy for others based on their seeing death and destruction. Some are hedonists that simply live to fulfill their desires, period, regardless of the morality or ethics that some equate to "common knowledge" or something.

It's still a decision that an individual makes.

As for GW...I don't think one could generalize that he was voted in because of his Christain beliefs, or, as some conclude, his wrapping himself in the structure of Christain beliefs that he himself neither believes or follows.

You know, as the story goes, Jesus got pissed one day and threw everyone's shit all over the place in the Temple...yeah, that was pretty "Christain"...unfortunately, I don't know anyone that is perfect.

 

The Demographic Transition Model explains this fairly well.


As death rates decrease (due to medical advances, territorial stability) the rate of growth increases and birth rates start to fall. Then you get a low rate of growth until it reachs pretty much zero. This may sound like it's good, but you end up with a high population of elderly people which puts a strain on tax money and social security. In many european countries that are older and more delevoped than the US they have a negative growth rate and depend on immigrant workers to sustain a positive National Increase Rate.

 

Well, why are you assuming that it would increase productivity and the advancement of civilization? That's a huge leap.

Might leave everyone pissed off, increased crime, violence, and even war.

 

i'm not alone in my remark about GW and exploiting religion to further his own means. i think there have been several articles written about the fact that no other president than GW has openly made religion a part of his policies.

as far as not needing the fear of the afterlife to live a moral life....
well, isn't the whole purpose of being a good christian to basically live a life of pursuing the good so that one will be granted eternal life in heaven?
correct me if im wrong, but if you ask your average religious person why he/she follows the teachings of the bible, they'll tell you it's a sin not to. if you ask them what does it matter that it's a sin to go against these teachings, they'll explain something to the effect of 'wanting to lead a good life' and 'listen to the world of god'....but ask them why they feel compelled to do these things:
why listen to the word of god, why abstain from things considered to be sinful etc, and you'll most likely get an answer to the effect of "i believe in the lord etc and his teachings" (not really an answer) or you'll hear something about not wanting to go to hell/wanting to be let into the kingdom of heaven etc.

the ultimate argument those of christian faith have against people that question their beliefs is they say there is a god that will reward their actions in the afterlife.

it's rare to find someone that will exlusively answer the question of "why do you follow these teachings" simply with the response of "because they help me lead a better life" with no reference (when questioned) to heaven or hell.

if you believe in religious morality, but don't believe in the teachings of an afterlife, then are you truly religious, or simply a person that picks and choses certain aspects of a creed to follow and ignores other, more fundamental tenents?








that's my point

 

You think there have been articles or there have been articles?

I'm not sure it matters, does it?

Does it exploit religion?

You use the tools you have. If you make decisions based on your experiences in life...and religion is part of your life...it's not much different than making decisions based on other experiences you have had...combat, crime, family, love, education (and never let a classroom get in the way of your education...), and so on.

Did Clinton exploit the legal profession in his presidency? (I think he's disbarred, right?)

 

Goes back to individual choice. All those things are only answered in one's heart...not necessarily out loud saying "I am religous" or whatever.

And being "religious"...well, there are more religions out there than just Christainity. Jews don't believe in an after life.

 

has this model been empirically proven?

why do the birth rates fall along with the death rate?
surviving newborns are part of the death rate. also, the more people that survive, the more children can be born, no? there are plenty of people w/ life-threatening illnesses that are capable of bearing children. if you cure their illnesses, why would these people be less likely to have children, and their children have offspring as well?

 

A comet could come and knock the Earth into a different orbit too plundering the climate into something unliveable, too.

What's your point?

There are an infinite number of variables. The model only explains what has happened. It's no guaruntee that it will always happen that way. But it does generalize on what has been seen.

 

articles have been written about it, specifically, his usage of religious terms in discussing his policies surpasses that of any of his predecessors who came from a time where religiousity was much greater than today.
bush openly acknowledges basing his policies on his religious beliefs.
while it's obvious that religious views have always influenced politics,
bush predecessors knew better than to openly make them such a vocal part of their policies. separation of church and state was more an issue back then. it just seems retrogressive in 2006 to have a president that so openly uses religious rhetoric (of the christian religion) in a government that's supposedly founded on the separation of church and state.

think of how this is making us look to the rest of the world.
we're bashing the middle east and criticizing the lack of separation of the church and state; we're the most diverse nation in the world w/ people of extremely diverse religions; yet our president openly acknowledges the influence of his personal religious beliefs on his political policies and decision-making.

not that his actions have threatened the separation of church and state, but that he's making this nation look bad in his attempts to gain support by appealing to the dominant religion of this country rather than gaining support through effective policies and legislation that largely benefits the rich and ignores the poor.
one could easily see how we look to other nations with the leader of this country spouting off religious bs that has no place in politics.
this is supposed to be a country based on the constitution and democracy, not on the teachings of the lord jesus christ, god bless america bla bla bla.