Are Americans less-evolved?

[hatsoff]

Physical anthropologists and forensic scientists use racial identification all the time, sometimes in courts of law for expert testimony.

pbs.org/wgbh/nova/first/gill.html

You don’t fight racism by denying the existence of races.

I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear, but I wasn’t denying the existence of races. I’m only pointing out that the group “Americans” (which includes representatives from many if not all races) may not be separated from other humans in a way about which biologists care. But then, maybe they are. As I said, this is a question for a biologist.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Absolutely. I find it somewhat ironic that such staunch Catholic countries like Italy and Spain are tied with Hong Kong for the lowest fertility rate in the world at 1.2, where 2.1 babies per woman is the magic number to provide population growth.

But why do you think this represents a step backward, or a devolution?

For places like Japan and Hong Kong, unlimited, exponential human population growth would lead to many disasters.

I could argue, and provide sufficient warrants, to support the claim that human overpopulation is the chief cause of many of the planets ecological problems.

The underlying assumption of most politicians and developers is that there are no limits to human population growth. Our consumeristic economic policies rely on such an absurdity.

… sorry, going off on a tangent.

Anyways, if you’re anxious that Caucasians are being overwhelmed by exponential population growth by non-Caucasians, have no fear. As long as Iceland retains its** Zero immigration **policy, there will always be Caucasians around.

This doesn’t even make any sense, and flings down a challenging race card where none was in the OP.

Which was about AMERICANS. Last time I looked around we come in all colors, shapes and sizes.

And it doesn’t matter what ‘politicians’ and the odious utilitarianists say. God said ‘Be fruitful and multiply.’

 

[MarcoPolo]

Absolutely. I find it somewhat ironic that such staunch Catholic countries like Italy and Spain are tied with Hong Kong for the lowest fertility rate in the world at 1.2, where 2.1 babies per woman is the magic number to provide population growth.

But why do you think this represents a step backward, or a devolution?

You are thus proud of the last couple Popes telling those countries to get reproducing, no?

Are you suggesting that abortion or lack of reproduction is beneficial to the species because otherwise we’d have overpopulation and that would actually result in less people than a no-abortion culture would? I would disagree because right now there are plenty of resources to sustain the whole world, but oppressive governments inhibit proper distribution. And I would also disagree because no-abortion countries even with small resources still grow at a faster pace than aborting, contracepting countries, no? The U.S. has a growth rate ranked #131, in the lower half of all countries. So the numbers do not seem to check out that supposed “overpopulated” countries are falling behind in growth rate, no?

 

[AntiTheist]

And it doesn’t matter what ‘politicians’ and the odious utilitarianists say. God said ‘Be fruitful and multiply.’

So, just to be clear, you don’t consider the potential overpopulation of the earth to be a problem that human beings should concern themselves about at all?

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

So, just to be clear, you don’t consider the potential overpopulation of the earth to be a problem that human beings should concern themselves about at all?

Nope.

 

[Thing]

So, just to be clear, you don’t consider the potential overpopulation of the earth to be a problem that human beings should concern themselves about at all?

Over-population is not a problem. Earth is huge. Human populations are declining and countries are beginning to suffer because of that impending decline.

 

[Leela]

Over-population is not a problem. Earth is huge. Human populations are declining and countries are beginning to suffer because of that impending decline.

Where are populations declining? How are countries sufferring for low population growth?

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Just to make things even clearer, I stand in firm opposition to the evil of utilitarian bioethics, and Gaia-ism, and all that it entails.

 

[Leela]

Just to make things even clearer, I stand in firm opposition to the evil of utilitarian bioethics, and Gaia-ism, and all that it entails.

What if it sometimes entails regulating teh output of companies that are poluting our air and water? Surely our disagreement is not so extreme that you need to oppose “all that it entails.”

 

[Thing]

Where are populations declining? How are countries sufferring for low population growth?

Italy has more old than young folk. It will soon have difficulty funding the pensions of all its retired as fewer young workers replace them to pay for them.
European retirement ages have increased, in some places by ten years or more, again, a lack of new workers forces the old to work longer than before.
In r. of Ireland there were 8 million people 150 years ago, its population now is 3.8 million. 20 years ago it began to encourage women to enter the workforce due to a lack of workers. 10 years ago or so it was the first country in Europe to open its borders to all states due to a lack of working population for its growing industry.
Every European country is borrowing far beyond its means, like Greece 300 billion in debt and needing to borrow 130 billion or so to stay afloat, and it borrows this money from European states which themselves cannot pay it, as they in turn borrow money to pay those who need to borrow from them.
To me this suggests an ailing economy. A Europe with a too large percentage of old retiring workers, too much demand on health budgets and not enough work or new workers to spend and fund their countries growth.

"Two years ago, as the world’s population surpassed the high mark of 6 billion, scientists were sounding alarm bells over unchecked population growth, especially in the developing world.

But now there is a growing consensus among demographers over a new forecast: that women in nations with 80 percent of the world’s population will begin to limit their families to two children or fewer.

Before the century ends, the number of humans likely will start to shrink, reckons James Chamie, director of the United Nation’s population division. That will be a “momentous” reversal in direction.
"

 

[Leela]

Italy has more old than young folk. It will soon have difficulty funding the pensions of all its retired as fewer young workers replace them to pay for them.
European retirement ages have increased, in some places by ten years or more, again, a lack of new workers forces the old to work longer than before.
In r. of Ireland there were 8 million people 150 years ago, its population now is 3.8 million. 20 years ago it began to encourage women to enter the workforce due to a lack of workers. 10 years ago or so it was the first country in Europe to open its borders to all states due to a lack of working population for its growing industry.
Every European country is borrowing far beyond its means, like Greece 300 billion in debt and needing to borrow 130 billion or so to stay afloat, and it borrows this money from European states which themselves cannot pay it, as they in turn borrow money to pay those who need to borrow from them.
To me this suggests an ailing economy. A Europe with a too large percentage of old retiring workers, too much demand on health budgets and not enough work or new workers to spend and fund their countries growth.

So when the pope told Europeans that they ought to procreate more, he was speaking as an economics expert?

 

[Thing]

So when the pope told Europeans that they ought to procreate more, he was speaking as an economics expert?

He was speaking as a normal ordinary person, I suspect, I did not hear him. Whats your point?

 

[Leela]

He was speaking as a normal ordinary person, I suspect, I did not hear him. Whats your point?

I’m trying to figure out what the concern is in this thread about population growth.

Your economic concerns don’t ring true to me. The world population is growing so quickly that that if certain regions are not growing fast enough to support their economic systems then they can solve the problem by allowing more immigration. It is also no given that the economic systems as they are are what they ought to be if they can’t sustain their population.

Most importantly, regardless of the economic situation, I think the argument that people ought to have more babies so that they will have people to take care of them when they are old is about the worst reason I could think of to have babies.

 

[Thing]

I’m trying to figure out what the concern is in this thread about population growth.

Nothing, it just came up. Americans are not evolving differently. People have always thought in the same way from the beginning. That does not change.

Your economic concerns don’t ring true to me. The world population is growing so quickly that that if certain regions are not growing fast enough to support their economic systems then they can solve the problem by allowing more immigration. It is also no given that the economic systems as they are are what they ought to be if they can’t sustain their population.

Its not that simple. There are always large populations of migrant workers in Europe. But in the first world countries unskilled manufacturing is not cost-effective, and migrant workers ofen are not qualified to work in other free positions. Yes the economic system is geared one way in Europe and simpler living, less technological and ‘qualification’ oriented systems would support any amount of new workers.

Most importantly, regardless of the economic situation, I think the argument that people ought to have more babies so that they will have people to take care of them when they are old is about the worst reason I could think of to have babies.

Don’t be an economist then, they get paid to think like that. Ordinary people have babies because they like to, as they have always done.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

What if it sometimes entails regulating teh output of companies that are poluting our air and water? Surely our disagreement is not so extreme that you need to oppose “all that it entails.”

I think perhaps they are.

I stand against putting the lives of lab rats above those of human babies. I utterly reject the false doctrine of utilitarian bioethics and the gaia-worship new-age marxism that rides on its coat-tails.

 

[Leela]

Don’t be an economist then, they get paid to think like that. Ordinary people have babies because they like to, as they have always done.

I’m not an economist. But you are the one saying that the pope thinks that people in Europe ought to have more babies so that they have people to take care of them when they are old and they’ll have more workers to work in skilled European jobs. Even if those don’t sound like bad reasons for making more babies to an economist, I still think that they ought to sound lilke bad reasons for having children to a pope. Wouldn’t the pope want us to see human life as more precious than an economic commodity that needs increased production to balance out other aspects of the economy? Thing, this just sounds awful. What a strange argument you are making.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Over-population is not a problem. Earth is huge. Human populations are declining and countries are beginning to suffer because of that impending decline.

Just to make things even clearer, I stand in firm opposition to the evil of utilitarian bioethics, and Gaia-ism, and all that it entails.

I agree that at the moment, over-population is not a problem that we need to concern ourselves with.

What would you propose we do if the Earth began getting dangerously close to over-population?

 

[Thing]

I’m not an economist. But you are the one saying that the pope thinks that people in Europe ought to have more babies so that they have people to take care of them when they are old and they’ll have more workers to work in skilled European jobs. Even if those don’t sound like bad reasons for making more babies to an economist, I still think that they ought to sound lilke bad reasons for having children to a pope. Wouldn’t the pope want us to see human life as more precious than an economic commodity that needs increased production to balance out other aspects of the economy? Thing, this just sounds awful. What a strange argument you are making.

sigh you have made up this argument Leela.

You have become confused. When did I say the Pope said to have babies for economic reasons? :nope:

…Let the smoke of satans confusion begone…

 

[Thing]

What would you propose we do if the Earth began getting dangerously close to over-population?

• Kill Them All * - of course.

Oh!, no, wait, thats the pro-abortionist, pro-euthanasia, pro-pill war cry.

I say - let the people live. The gnu’s do and the zebra do live unfettered. No, not even the lemmings kill themselves, nature looks after them all.

 

[Leela]

sigh you have made up this argument Leela.

You have become confused. When did I say the Pope said to have babies for economic reasons? :nope:

I thought that was what we were talking about. I said previously “So when the pope told Europeans that they ought to procreate more, he was speaking as an economics expert?”

The only reasons you’ve given are economic. I’m wondering what reasons the pope (or you) would give for telling the Europeans that they need to procreate more.