SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the just-harness-the-children's-energy dept.
Travis Rieder has defended his assertion that families should consider having less children to lessen the impacts and suffering caused by climate change:
Earlier this summer, I found myself in the middle of a lively debate because of my work on climate change and the ethics of having children. NPR correspondent Jennifer Ludden profiled some of my work in procreative ethics with an article entitled, "Should we be having kids in the age of climate change?," which summarized my published views that we ought to consider adopting a "small family ethic" and even pursuing fertility reduction efforts in response to the threat from climate change. Although environmentalists for decades have worried about overpopulation for many good reasons, I suggest the fast-upcoming thresholds in climate change provide uniquely powerful reasons to consider taking real action to slow population growth.
Clearly, this idea struck a nerve: I was overwhelmed by the response in my personal email inbox as well as op-eds in other media outlets and over 70,000 shares on Facebook. I am gratified that so many people took the time to read and reflect on the piece. Having read and digested that discussion, I want to continue it by responding to some of the most vocal criticisms of my own work, which includes research on "population engineering" – the intentional manipulation of human population size and structure – I've done with my colleagues, Jake Earl and Colin Hickey. In short, the varied arguments against my views – that I'm overreacting, that the economy will tank and others – haven't changed my conviction that we need to discuss the ethics of having children in this era of climate change.
Consider reading the article before commenting, or turning off your computer to conserve energy.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @09:19AM
Higher-order selection won't save your type. You need to be really careful about ideas like "detrimental", because living in squalor is still an evolutionary win. For higher-order selection to help, your group needs to invade some other group (let that group not breed, or just genocide them away) and then make use of the resulting room for growth. It's been attempted, sometimes with success. The first-world nations rarely play offence; the most recent is probably when Hitler decided that Slavs had nice land worth taking. Normally first-world nations play defence, taking in numerous people from third-world areas.
This idea that "offspring can be better brought up, helping the group to better compete with other groups" is flat-out wrong unless you are conquering and killing. Evolution cares not how wealthy you are, as long as you survive and reproduce. The kids in Eritrea fighting over a rotting goat hide are alive, and that is all that counts.
I wrote nothing about anything being mono-genetic. This is no requirement. It doesn't apply to height, yet the men in Denmark are getting taller. It doesn't apply to skin color, yet obviously the natives of Ireland are pale and those of Zimbabwe are not. The fact that some offspring might not exhibit a trait is of little importance. That too just doesn't matter; it's an insignificant detail. Think of the big picture. People with the right traits do exist, and they are massively selected for. Evolution is unavoidable.
Choice is not a matter of choice. It's in your DNA. Let's put humans aside for a moment, because the emotions make people deny reality even when it should be obvious. Consider dogs. Would you deny that the Chow acts differently than the Golden Retriever? Consider non-human apes. The common chimpanzee looks an awful lot like the bonobo chimpanzee, yet... they sure act differently! Personality is greatly in DNA. Now back to humans: Remember that we can tie political affiliation to specific genes. The fact that you may be liberal or conservative is significantly in your DNA. We can also tie one's degree of religious intensity to specific genes. It's simply illogical to suggest that one part of the body, the brain or the mind, would somehow be immune to evolution; the burden of proof is on those who think this part is exempt from evolution.
Even "upbringing" isn't immune to evolution, and no I don't mean memes. You are raised by a human with a personality that is largely under the influence of a genome that is subject to evolution. Parents who raise kids in ways that lead to grandkids will have their DNA propagate into future generations.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @02:01PM
Even "upbringing" isn't immune to evolution, and no I don't mean memes. You are raised by a human with a personality that is largely under the influence of a genome that is subject to evolution. Parents who raise kids in ways that lead to grandkids will have their DNA propagate into future generations.
Aaaaaand this is where you go off the deep end, my friend. Be consciousness and free will an illusion in the end as they may, you seem to be making quite the fatalistic argument. Counterexample: my ex-parents are batshit white supremacists, while I find their views disgusting and have pretty much become a Democrat.
I also know where you're going with this, so let's just nip it in the bud right here. Next you're going to put forward the classical racist theory straight out of the 18th century that mooooooooslims and negroes Just Are™ inferior, because DNA. Probably also some variation on “with Jews you lose,” right? Go ahead and deny that's where you were headed. Both of us know better. And if you don't see why that's problematic, you're too far gone to the alt-right.
The reason I know better is because both of us know there's no point in establishing what's already known. People of African ancestry suffer different problems in different numbers, for example sickle cell anemia and cancer. This is common knowledge. Why would you go to the length to conjure up chows and golden retrievers to demonstrate this? No, that is not all you intend to say.
In your previous comment up there, you belie a superficial understanding of genetics. I had thought this stuff was quite basic information given to every high school student, even in the back assward US of A. But that is the power of the pseudoscience of the alt-right. You know just enough science to come across as empirical and reasonable. You're not being rational; you're rationalizing. Once you cherry pick the evidence you need to support your position, you reject all conflicting information.
That's not science, my friend. That sort of thinking makes you merely as good as a witch doctor in the Congo. Perhaps your ancestors weren't as evolved as you'd like them to be?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @09:32PM
You're complaining that my argument has unpleasant social implications, so therefore it must be wrong. This is not how facts work.
Essentially, this is the liberal version of the creationist argument: evolution would deny God, so therefore it must be wrong. Your argument is every bit as broken.