Answers in red, cause you took black, the colour of my soul. </depressed> (no, I'm not that bad) Fun fact about inbreeding: in just 8 generations, your descendants will have less than 1/32 of the same DNA as you, which means you could legitimately procreate with them with no risk of adverse side effects at all. So, really, there's no point in caring about the people of the future since they're only your descendants at that point by name and origin, but not by blood or memory (it's unlikely they'll remember you that well, you know). Hopefully that clarifies things for you a bit.
sad, but true!... if women refused to be put in such a stupid position to give birth, then prone-delivery tables would become obsolete... thankfully, some hospitals have finally recognized this and have switched to having the mom in a more 'sitting' position... the 'water birth' method that is less traumatic for both mother and infant is also catching on...
Actually, I would make a counter-argument, though I admit that I have no evidence at hand. If the weak are neglected, then no one is truly safe - anyone, at any time, can become weak. That means that every individual, if they want to be safe, has a strong motivation to focus on piling up the resources needed for their own survival and that of their immediate loved ones. For example, if they have a choice between a modestly-paid job that serves society well, and a well-paid one that serves it less well or even harms it, they're motivated against helping society. If, on the other hand, people know that they'll be taken care of, then they can be motivated by things other than pure personal survival. A larger number of people with the security and leisure to concern themselves with the general good are likely to more than make up for the relatively small number of people that have become "weak" and have to be taken care of. Now, that doesn't change the fact that the world can't easily support an unlimited population. But I'd argue that the problem is not about supporting the weak, but about population control in general. Evidence? Not a scrap. I have certainly read that art and science progress most when society has the luxury to focus on something other than pure survival, but that doesn't actually address my argument that _individuals_ will be differently motivated when they're safe, than when they're not. Well, I could also argue that there's a reason why colleges have the concept of tenure, but that again isn't actually evidence. It's purely speculation on my part. ChickenFreak
I'm with Lemex. They are going to say population control, or anything else too hard to solve immediately, isn't an issue, but it definitely will be and then they will be forced to do something about it. When that happens, I'd hate to be around. But I'm guessing, at the least, your rights get a garnishing. Also, I think that this whole urbanization thing is just unnatural, like it wasn't supposed to be like that. A whole bunch of people force into a tiny area consuming massive resources from the area around it. I think the main reason American's don't really feel the impact on the environment is because a lot of the resources we strip the earth for we do in other countries- usually third world.
For thousands of years people lived in small groups of only hundreds. A lot of animals go insane(orcas for example) when they're placed in a unnatural environment. For some reason people never seem to think the same thing could be going on with humans. That would be one benefit of population control, to stop overcrowding. However, from a purely ecological view, living in large cities is better than living in the countryside, mostly because people in the scarcely-populated countryside have to rely on their own cars for transportation. Public transport only works well in densely populated areas.
Evidence isn't entirely necessary. In fact, I do see your point, but it depends on how strictly regimented society is in this case. Take the first bolded, for example: if we outlaw currency, effectively creating a worldwide commune, then people aren't motivated by the goal of what they can get in an immediate sense. They're motivated by the potential social standing they'll get from helping more. Now, the second bolded, which is very true. My point about weak and lazy members of any social construct is that they only provide a liability. They provide a liability right now. If we were a more efficient species, we'd have had the foresight to either find a way to make weak people efficient, or cut them off from society. Social welfare payments don't help society. If you want to motivate people to work, you don't give them money. You cut their money off. Of course, in a lot of cases, people will just turn to crime, which is where the justice system needs to come along and be strong. Now to the third bolded: did you also know that evolution progresses most in small, closed off areas? Look at humanity now. We have the internet. There is not a single place on this planet we can't access with the internet. We can go anywhere we want to with planes and ships and so on. We don't evolve any more because of that. Think about it. If you put three brilliant people together to solve a problem, they'll bring their own smarts to the table to figure it out. Then put thirty brilliant people together, and absolutely piss-all happens. They'll argue and try to dominate everything. So, yes, of course art and science are going to progress most when we've got the time for it, but really it's just a matter of needing to find the right balance for everything. Communes and four day work weeks. There. I just fixed Earth. (Consider that in these communes, there will be people whose positions are purely academic, but none whose positions will be purely artistic (unless you count architecture, which will be designed for maximum efficiency)).
^ hmmm...seems more that society and civilization were invented to profit from the weak. If you look at it, every social structure is a pyramid structure. Civilization is the largest example of that. Everything you see around you- jobs, commerce, etc. is an example of a system of labor and profit where the ones on the top profit from the people on the bottom. All the goods and the bads that come of that system (or the concentration of so many people) serve that overall purpose directly or indirectly by streamlining that system or making it easier for the people to cope with the system that is in place. I don't think people move to the city for any other reason than that they can make better money. Otherwise, many of us would not like to live in so concentrated an area if we could experience the open. I think we are piled together because just like a pyramid scheme, the greater the population base, the greater the profit, the greater the civilization.
