DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**rhybrisee** · 09-06-2006, 02:47 PM

well SVF biologically speaking the only way that a person and living creature is "fit" according to darwin's principles is if it is able to procreate and pass the genes down into the next generation. That is our sole "biological" mission in life...and it's why we were born. Having a big variety of genes passed through is important to the process of evolution...as we saw new epidemics can strike anywhere at anytime so having a large pool of genes available out there means more chances of a gene combination strong enough to resist a certain epidemic or able to adapt better to a changing environment or what have you.

That is all fine, Duo. I won`t debate that a large gene pool allows for better survival of a species. But, I will say that carrying a population of any size in any species that overtaxes the recourses of an environment is not healthy for the environment and in the end could threaten the species that has done the damage. I am one, and I am sure there are many, who would not like to have to live during a population "crash." In addition, seeing the violent nature of our species and her civilizations, a "crash" or a "fight for precious recourses" could be brought about by the pressures of population.

As a species, we also have evolved to form concepts compassion and altruism. To suggest that the human species should just have continuous positive growth is to condemn many to a viscious cycle of abject poverty -- for within their region the recourse slice per person is just too small to fullfil everyone.

It's true that in some countries...ie china and india overpopulation is a problem but there are those nations where an aging population is a problem. An aging population in some countries is only a problem to the economies in the short run. In the long run as the older generation dies out, the young base would not be overburdened with an inverted tax pyramid of support.

As for the environment, a smaller population is best for it will have a smaller impact.

09-06-2006, 02:47 PM	#29
rhybrisee Join Date Nov 2005 Posts 398 Senior Member	well SVF biologically speaking the only way that a person and living creature is "fit" according to darwin's principles is if it is able to procreate and pass the genes down into the next generation. That is our sole "biological" mission in life...and it's why we were born. Having a big variety of genes passed through is important to the process of evolution...as we saw new epidemics can strike anywhere at anytime so having a large pool of genes available out there means more chances of a gene combination strong enough to resist a certain epidemic or able to adapt better to a changing environment or what have you. That is all fine, Duo. I won`t debate that a large gene pool allows for better survival of a species. But, I will say that carrying a population of any size in any species that overtaxes the recourses of an environment is not healthy for the environment and in the end could threaten the species that has done the damage. I am one, and I am sure there are many, who would not like to have to live during a population "crash." In addition, seeing the violent nature of our species and her civilizations, a "crash" or a "fight for precious recourses" could be brought about by the pressures of population. As a species, we also have evolved to form concepts compassion and altruism. To suggest that the human species should just have continuous positive growth is to condemn many to a viscious cycle of abject poverty -- for within their region the recourse slice per person is just too small to fullfil everyone. It's true that in some countries...ie china and india overpopulation is a problem but there are those nations where an aging population is a problem. An aging population in some countries is only a problem to the economies in the short run. In the long run as the older generation dies out, the young base would not be overburdened with an inverted tax pyramid of support. As for the environment, a smaller population is best for it will have a smaller impact.
	Quote