SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
In October, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) released its biennial Living Planet Report, detailing the state of the planet and its implications for humans and wildlife. The report warned that two-thirds of global wildlife populations could be gone by 2020 if we don't change our environmentally damaging practices.
At the Singularity University New Zealand (SUNZ) Summit we met up with Dr Amy Fletcher, Senior Lecturer in Political Science at the University of Canterbury, who spoke on the topic of public policy and exponential technology at the Summit. As part of our regular "One Big Question [OBQ]" series we asked her whether we should consider bioengineering animals that could live in the world we're creating, rather than die in the one we're destroying?
That sort of relates to the whole de-extinction debate, and again, I would pay money to see a woolly mammoth. But I do take the point that the world of the woolly mammoth is gone, whether we like it or not, same with the moa – I mean this comes up a lot in criticisms of the bring back the moa project. You've got to have huge swathes of undeveloped space - maybe we still have that, but we don't have as much as we did in the 16th century.
I guess it comes back to not making the perfect the enemy of the good. Working in conservation, extinction issues like I do, I meet a lot of people who are deeply opposed, actively opposed, say to zoos. I think in an imperfect world, I'd rather have animals in a well run and ethical zoo than not have them at all. But I do have colleagues in the animal rights movement who say, if we don't value them enough to let them live in their natural environment, then we should pay the price of having them go. It's sort of that same thing, I mean, if the alternative to living in a world of simply humans, rats, cockroaches and pigeons is bioengineering animals, I would have to say, alright yeah, we're going to have to do that.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bootsy on Wednesday December 28 2016, @01:32PM
The only proven way to limit the birth rate is to increase female literacy. We need to educate the world's young girls so they don't put up with being brood mares and only have children if they want them and can afford them.
When the UN looked into this it was the only link they could find between lower birth rates and any other program that was in place.
If you remove immigration then Europe's population has been shrinking for a long time.
It would probably also help if the Roman Catholic church had a more pragmatic view on contraception.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday December 28 2016, @02:47PM
Yeap, spot on. With higher education, the chances of manifestations of feminism are higher. Eventually, the society will ethically, morally and politically (correct) de-nut the male population (if you don't believe me, ask runaway)
My only question is: why go with this convoluted way and not denut the males straight on? Not only that is frowned upon by the free market fairy (higher costs and, oh the horror of horrors, socialize them) but you are also making a significant segment of the population unhappy - after all, ignorance is a bliss - one may say education is an action worth to be called unconstitutional.
A Happy 2017 (I really doubt it, you elected Trump, but it's sorta traditional wish this time of the year).
(grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 28 2016, @02:50PM
(oh, shit, I forgot to check that box. Time to go to sleep... if only this dam' weather would cool a bit).
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday December 28 2016, @03:03PM
And again, checking that box is mostly pointless since you are about the only poster who signs with "(grin)".
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday December 28 2016, @03:27PM
Oh, but there is a reason behind the madness of checking that box: this way, the soylents which choose to browse at over 0 will be spared from my exquisite sense of humour on a hot and humid night that followed an atrocious hot and humid day, near the end of a so fine a year 2016 has been.
But... point taken, I shall try to make my signature more... mmmm... pointful?
(…g̣ṛịṇ…)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday December 28 2016, @03:35PM
-- OriginalGrinner_ [tinyurl.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 28 2016, @03:06PM
But, but, but . . . what about cultures that state their ultimate goal is to overcome and eradicate the western-world and intolerable freedoms by out-breeding them? Those folks will never allow women to be literate or educated or anything more than chattel slaves, let alone have a say on whether or not to be the "brood mares" for generations of righteous warriors suitably indoctrinated to believe without question that the great Satan of the west and all its peoples must be murdered and the existence of free thought expunged from the face of the earth?
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday December 28 2016, @04:56PM
Actually, TV has been shown to decrease the birthrate even in the absence of female literacy, so it's not the only way, but it one of the more effective ones.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.