Would natural selection fix it.......

[jtmaze]

This topic came up at work today and I would like to get some opinions besides mine. Would natural selection fix the world? The planet is over populated...ok take the safety labels off everything, deregulate safety features and take the government out of safety. Would this fix the worlds problem.....basically the stupid people would be killed by their own stupidity....Please thoughts here....(Needless to say I am having a really good day at work.

[Dane]

First problem is that stupid people would just injure themselves and require free assistance since they don't have obamacare yet.

And we would have to start by banning lawyers.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[UncleJak]

Please Press Reset......

[Garufa]

You might study up on the concept of "Carrying Capacity" that relates to the maximum population an environment can accomodate for a given biological species.  The Earth has one for humans that I heard years ago was estimated at 11 billion.

[TMF]

You might study up on the concept of "Carrying Capacity" that relates to the maximum population an environment can accomodate for a given biological species. The Earth has one for humans that I heard years ago was estimated at 11 billion.

Well we'll be screwed in a few years, huh?

[peejman]

I don't think letting the world descend into anarchy would have a happy ending.  Just look at central Africa, Yemen, Somalia, ...

 

Regarding all the safety stuff, how far would you go?  Abolish traffic and vehicle safety laws?  OSHA, FAA, (insert long list of all manner of certification agencies), legalize all drugs? 

 

Would you be willing to risk your life and the lives of your loved ones while Darwin did his work?  I think it's got a chance of working, but it'd likely take a couple generations for any real effect.  How long could you (we) tolerate it? 

Edited June 6, 2013 by peejman

[Guest Keal G Seo]

You might study up on the concept of "Carrying Capacity" that relates to the maximum population an environment can accommodate for a given biological species.  The Earth has one for humans that I heard years ago was estimated at 11 billion.

I have heard of similar theories and with a little searching the general consensus is actually a lot lower. It seems to have a population that would not cause the ill effects to our environment is only 500 million. Given the land area of earth and that population would give each person about 75 acres or about 375 acres per 5 member house hold or say "clan" type set ups would give us about 4k acres.

In relation to OP: Absolutely, I am down. Had a convo like this the other day about idiotic warning labels and signs. You know they aren't just put on there for "in case"...it is because someone has done it. The one that brought up the subject was a buddies new chainsaw had a warning not to touch the chain when in operation...no joke. We also covered one of the most common ones about not tipping vending machines over on yourself and a few others to include:

Can of peanuts, "May contain peanuts"
Gas generators. "Do not operate indoors"
Plastic bags, "Do not place over head" (or child's head)
etc etc etc

Some people are just so stupid they NEED to die for the betterment of mankind.

[East_TN_Patriot]

Thomas Malthus predicted that the human population would eventually surpass the ability of humans to support the population with agricultural output.  This has evolved into the idea that the Earth has a limited "carrying capacity" to support life, and at some point human population would rise to such a level that there would be a "Malthusian catastrophe" that would result in the deaths of millions of people through famine, environmental collapse, disease, social collapse, or some related calamity.  So far, human technology and innovation has been able to stay ahead of this tipping point, but I think it's inevitable before we have some sort of event that will wipe out a large part of the human population, likely through disease or lack of water.  I don't think that human "stupidity" in a casual sense is sufficient to kill off enough people to make a difference.  Even in nations that are not inundated with regulations and lawyers still see their populations grow.  

 

http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Malthusian_catastrophe.html

[Guest Lester Weevils]

The doctor says it will kill you but he don't say when. Malthus and such as his latter day disciple Paul Ehrlich would have been correct except for technological rabbits pulled out of hats. Many techological rabbits, especially more recent advances which made Ehrlich look like a fool-- The tech miracles were disturbingly close to "just in time delivery."

 

Assuming the population growth rate remains positive, even if the rate begins to tail off, the excrement definitely hits the fan whenever the next technological miracle does not arrive "just in time." That is assuming that recent innovations which saved our bacon are sustainable into the future, which is hardly a good wager to make.

 

Because all tech innovations come out of the woodwork as "surprises"-- Otherwise, we could predict innovation and reliably get rich on every "next big thing"-- Because PhD's in "futurology" type specialties ain't fabulously rich, kinda proves that if we could see the shape of the future, then the smart people who study future trends ought to be filthy rich by now. Academic forecasting is no better way to see the future than the divining of chicken entrails.

 

Therefore, it is sheer leap of faith to assume that technology will always on-demand just-in-time deliver the next miracle. Simply because it always happened in the past is no guarantee that it will happen every time. Eventually Malthusians will have reason to boast, "We may have made errors in the timeline and mechanism but we were right all along about over-population." Kinda like economic doom forecasters-- If you forecast a bad economy for many years then eventually you can boast of being correct. But you have to be more accurate than "sometime or t'other" to make money off predicted bad times.

 

Even if the world can sustain 11 billion or even 110 billion people, makes no convincing proof that such would be a good idea. Population density is inversely proportional to individual liberty.

 

Even if future tech enables an 11 billion population living like kings-- The poor yuppies will be heavily supervised kings burdened to collapse with laws, rules, regulations, unions, business requirements, enforcement agencies, public-welfare beancounters, plumbing laws, electrical laws, automobile laws, golf club laws, toaster oven laws, one license required to get out of bed in the morning, and another license required to go to bed in the evening-- A densely populated wealthy future would be so heavily controlled and regulated that our present insane level of bureaucracy would appear near-anarchy by comparison. You can see the progression of increased population versus decreased individual freedom over the recent decades and centuries.

Edited June 6, 2013 by Lester Weevils

[Oh Shoot]

"Carrying capacity" or resources to population has been upside down pyramid for some time now.

 

We tend to forget that a significant percentage of the planet is undernourished just as always has been, but energy is just as critical as food as for complex societal functioning.

 

Thing is, mother earth will at some point assert herself in the same manner as all things in the modern world -- economically. Long before the air and water will be lethal enough to kill off a significant part of population, various dwindling resources will likely become too expensive to get from source to average end user. It doesn't matter if there's 500 years of petroleum or natural gas in the ground, if the average earthling can't afford them.

 

It's an environmental problem at heart, but will be first manifest as economic.

 

And yes, clean water will become increasingly scarce and more expensive, world wide. Unlike other resources, that's  the one part that is mostly due to plain ole pollution, and the increasing costs to purify it in large scale.

 

- OS

Edited June 6, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[jtmaze]

Several good comments...I am not talking about no laws or rules that would be chaos. I am talking about don't touch chain in motion while operating type warnings. Do not eat on silica packets is a favorite of mine....why would you eat them. As far as over populated earth I was refering to stupid people. The human race can't stay at the top of the intelligence chain if we keep protecting the stupid and allowing them to breed!!!!Rant off!!!!

[Guest RedLights&Sirens]

Problem is stupid people usually hurt others and walk away almost unscathed (i.e drunk drivers).

Its a good concept sure and it makes me sick that everything needs a label and disclaimer now. I used to hate that song "Signs" but now its great.

Anyways, no offense but with eleven years of working in Emergency Medical Services I can say without a doubt it wouldnt fix much. Edited June 6, 2013 by RedLights&Sirens

[Guest Lester Weevils]

The pruning must happen before reproduction to have optimum effect. Otherwise idiot descendents would need pruning in each generation. Not advocating pruning. Merely pointing out that if Darwin takes out a stupid old person beyond breeding age, or even a stupid young person who already birthed a passel of kids, then it wouldn't have much chance of improving the average intelligence of humanity except a tiny short term effect of removing one below-average sample from the universe of samples.

 

Human generations are so long, we'd have to keep at it for at minimum hundreds of years to see noticeable increase in average intelligence. Selection would take much longer than for instance in dogs, and it isn't exactly quick work developing a dog line.

 

On the other hand, I've wondered about the effect of pruning the smart and brave which happened in certain war-torn parts of the world. After Europe and the Brits have been sending off their very brightest and strongest young men to get killed off, dang near every generation for hundreds of years, maybe that could have an effect after awhile?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icmRCixQrx8

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8rhIZJAdd0

Edited June 6, 2013 by Lester Weevils

[peejman]

Think what the current world population would be if the Black Plague hadn't happened. What if Hilter, Stalin, and Mao hadn't killed nearly 100 million people? What if HIV wasn't currently ravaging Africa. Things could be wildly different. Edited June 7, 2013 by peejman

[Garufa]

Think what the current world population would be if the Black Plague hadn't happened. What if Hilter, Stalin, and Mao hadn't killed nearly 100 million people? What if HIV wasn't currently ravaging Africa. Things could be wildly different.

 

 

The world population has tripled since the 1940's.  The despots you mentioned didn't make a dent in the population we have now.  And HIV is not raviging Africa.  That continent has the fastest growing population on the planet.

[Guest FIST]

The pruning must happen before reproduction to have optimum effect. Otherwise idiot descendents would need pruning in each generation. Not advocating pruning. Merely pointing out that if Darwin takes out a stupid old person beyond breeding age, or even a stupid young person who already birthed a passel of kids, then it wouldn't have much chance of improving the average intelligence of humanity except a tiny short term effect of removing one below-average sample from the universe of samples.
 
Human generations are so long, we'd have to keep at it for at minimum hundreds of years to see noticeable increase in average intelligence. Selection would take much longer than for instance in dogs, and it isn't exactly quick work developing a dog line.
 
On the other hand, I've wondered about the effect of pruning the smart and brave which happened in certain war-torn parts of the world. After Europe and the Brits have been sending off their very brightest and strongest young men to get killed off, dang near every generation for hundreds of years, maybe that could have an effect after awhile?
 

 

We don't have time for a latte.

Love that movie.