Implications of Conservative Thought

I think what is happening in Colorado Springs is really interesting. Apparently inspired by the Tea Party Movement, they are conceding to do without many public services as an experiment in lower taxation. It's funny to me that Greece is in the opposite situation. The Greeks are unable to convince and prepare the public for the austerity measures necessary to balance the budget. People in Greece are rallying at the severe reduction in government services while Colorado Springs is rallying to severely reduce government services. It will be fascinating to see how it turns out. Germany is surely not excited about bailing out Greece and had, in fact, set "no bailouts" as a condition of economic (specifically currency) union with Europe. Interesting times!

I think the Tea Party movement imagines that private business can provide services better than governments can. This sounds good and reasonable to me actually, until you realize that the outcome will probably be that wealthy people have excellent services and poor people suffer dearly under conservative politics. And the implication is the wealthy will have to defend their wealth with weapons against the rest of the world.

Conservatives philosophy has an inherent flaw. It's all about US, our town, our people making a good life for ourselves. The trouble is, as I have said before, for everyone in the world to live like a wealthy American we need a planet 70 times larger in land and resources. This implies, uncomfortably, that we and our ways are better and more valuable to preserve than the millions of other people out there. It means that one society has to imagine its self as more worthwhile and with higher individual value than every other society and support this claim with big guns trained on the hungry masses.

The conservative mentality is "if it's us or them...then I think WE should win!" When the draft comes, I'll surely be fighting right beside them. However, is this the only and best way to run a planet? I'd think that normalizing wealth would be the only humane way to have a peaceful world without war.

Studies show that wealthier societies do not have such high birth rates. What do we think we are going to do about all the new mouths to feed under the current patterns? Trust in starvation, floods, wars and other acts of "god"? A sustainable world is one where everyone is well enough off that they don't use reproduction as a weapon, but the world manages growth at or below the planet's reasonable capacity and everyone is well off. EVERYONE IS WELL OFF! That means you can't have tycoons that scorch the environment and amass wealth at the expense of other people. Earth is a finite system.

Capitalism is a fine motivator and has been priceless to establish our society.
"Gather all the wood you can and we will be sure of having fire"...until there is no more forest as "tribes" compete to out-grow each other.

In a finite world where the system is competition for resources, it makes sense to have as many children as possible, amass as much wealth as possible and dominate. The implication is...you give hunger, thirst, disease, exposure and sometimes bombs to all the other over-growing factions. Thus the Earth is won for US not them. That's the end game of conservatism. It makes perfect logical sense, but is utterly inhumane and couldn't be called christian at all (if christian still means loving one's neighbor).

Pseudo-communistic dictatorships have been tried as well as violent fascist totalitarian systems. Somewhere there is another way that provides enough motivation while not refusing dignity and individual worth to any person.

=sw

Population Arguments

I have been reading some population debates online and it has caused me to reflect on it yet again.

So many people like to shout about "getting yourself fixed" or "not having children in this climate" or "stopping breeding" or how responsible it is not to reproduce.

There have also been comparisons to bacteria in a petri dish exponentially expanding their numbers blissfully uninterested in the finite nature their "sugary-gell" resources.

In that model, where we are a bacteria and the Earth is the dish of finite resources, our population is ultimately limited. It will not grow exponentially forever, as the Earth's resources are not infinite, even though one can see that human population can grow at an exponential rate (while the resources are not yet exhausted).

So, at some point the growth curve will round off. I just finished reading Carl Sagan (and Ann Druyan)'s book "Billions and Billions" from which some of my thoughts on this are derived.

The point is this: an individual deciding not to breed will never limit or reduce the potential population of the Earth. The population will march forward so long as even 2 people and their offspring breed exponentially. Their descendants will eventually fill the whole earth. So the only thing to stop it is a die off due to failing resources. We can become more efficient and try to become more just in the sharing of resources, but ultimately that upper limit is where the population cannot grow any more because of hunger, thirst and exposure.

The only decision those who choose not to reproduce are deciding is, how many of the future Earthlings will be their descendants.

To control population we must get everyone on board...EVERYONE. If we can disable reproductive powers and hand them out at a controlled rate we can then control the future balance. It's like polio, you must vaccinate everyone or you have not solved the problem.

Right now, it is a contest between you and me as to how many of the future humans will resemble me or you. The end of expansion will come in all cases, all you can do is lay hold on more resources. This is how many people are thinking who try to out-breed others.

Groups are conscientiously using Natalism to compete for the Earth's limited resources and space. The Palestinians are breeding with wreckless abandon to try to "outnumber" the already small (in a planet wide sense) group of Jews.

Mormons have a culture of pushing breeding to try to out strip the world population growth rate. Although they are noticeably failing to increase the Mormon percentage of the Earth's population. They are being strongly out done by the other groups. Making Mormons a smaller and smaller percentage of Earth's population even with their growth rates and missionary efforts.

You can't stop Central Americans from breeding at ages far closer to the onset of fertility than is culturally acceptable in the United States, so in that sense, the future will be more of them and less of us. Their time-span for a "Generation" could be half that of ours. That's a "survival of the fittest" strategy where they are winning. Not to mention the highly successful Asians.

Even if many humans die off at an alarming rate when the "sugary-gel" (Earth's life sustaining resources) vanishes, those left will resemble the current proportions of groups that had both wealth and large numbers of offspring.

So, is it irresponsible to reproduce? The upper limit is already set to stop our exponential growth. That limit is set by the finite availability of food, shelter, water, warmth and wealth. Choosing not to reproduce, even if MOST of us chose the same thing, is only a way to subtract your genetic heritage from history and quit the contest. It will not reduce the march upward, it will happen as fast as it can with or without your genes. All you are deciding is how many of the left over humans will be like you.

All it takes is one non-compliant group and over a few generations they will exponentially fill the space you leave by not having children. Self-selecting your own unfitness to propagate seems remarkably self-defeating.

If we disable reproduction and manage it, allowing a balanced mix of people to procreate, then we can control the future by our actions. Until such a freedom limiting method is instituted by an awful sounding regime, individual choice will not reduce the world population. Others will just grow more.

=sw