Environmentalism Vs. Abortion and Population Control

[Racoon]

I'm sorry I have to bring this up..

People will and are going to squabble about Abortion until the end..

 

But while you're whiling away about a fetus, who's species is in absolutely no danger of going extinct., ( 6+ billion) we neglect to preserve the other species on this Earth.. Like Tigers, and Bears, and Monkeys and Apes..

 

Are Humans so vehement on anti-abortion as to neglect the real outcome of Human over-population?

 

Do we really need to spend the time and energy trying to preserve an unwanted baby-making mom from pushing out another homo sapien? as compared to the 3,000 or so Tigers left on this Earth that are dwindling as we speak ?! Let alone all the other endangered species..

 

Where's the global perspective??.

[Queso]

oh god there's only 3,000 of them left???

 

ugh. I don't know Racoon. This world is insane.

 

All I know is I'm not having children.

[sanctus]

Andà it is even worse by not aborting there will be one human more and that means we are one step closer in desroying the habit of the animals. I don't say, that we (actually the women) have to abort, as I want children too one day, but that some people should stop to be so vehemently against it if a woman wants to. And as a motiviation (as many of those anti-abortion people seem to be religious) one could say: let her abort, in exchange it helps preserving god's creation....

[ronthepon]

All I know is I'm not having children.

The intention may be noble, but you're not going to actually help matters that way. Population rise is due to having more kids than you should, not because you have kids. What you're doing is wasting your precious and potentially unique genes.

 

You'd be more noble by pledging to have two kids and convincing every one else to do so as well.:confused:

 

But abortion? That's gonna have to be a nessecary tool to achieve this goal. Right? I mean accidents happen all the time.

 

We are endangered though. In danger of overusing our environmental resources, and having an insect style 'J shaped' popultion graph. I'm talking about some species of locusts that suddenly explode in number during the rainy seasons, then chomp all the food in their surroundings in no time. Their population increases exponentially at first, then suddenly plummets due to the exhaustation of supplies.

Nah, humans ain't all that crude... perhaps the plummet part won't be so obvious as with the bugs. (Right?... Right?)

[pgrmdave]

Well, I do feel that humans should look to their own before looking to others. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't preserve other species, but that we shouldn't preserve them at the expense of us (within reason). As for abortion - you could have population control without abortion. Just make children a market. Allow everybody the right to have one child, and the right to purchase or sell that right to anybody else at any price. If a child is born without the parents having the rights to give birth, then the couple would have some predetermined time to either purchase the rights from someone willing to sell them, or the child would be put up for adoption. Adopting a child would count as a birth. This allows single people and homosexual couples the same rights and restrictions as married, heterosexual couples. A crude, simplistic system that doesn't fully take into account all variables (what about rape, incest, birth defects, childhood death?) but I think the basics are okay.

[Queso]

Ron, I don't care if I'm helping.

No kids for orb. :hihi:

 

Life is just way too insane for another one.

[HydrogenBond]

Lets turn this around, what would happen if the females of the endangered species decided to have abortions? They become liberated and prefer to bungle in the jungle in preference to the mating and offspring scene.

[Buffy]

Lets turn this around, what would happen if the females of the endangered species decided to have abortions? They become liberated and prefer to bungle in the jungle in preference to the mating and offspring scene.

Okay. Would you hold guns to their heads and make them have babies? Would you forcibly impregnate them for the "good" of the species?

 

If a species is "endangered" it is likely to be on its way to extinction unless the general conditions that caused that endangerment are easily reversed in time. So even if you have a "rape 'em and tie 'em up 'til they pop, then rape 'em again" policy, it may not help....

 

Always asking the wrong questions,

Buffy

[HydrogenBond]

Lets look at the humans species. What would happen if the best females of the human race, i.e., intelligent, beautiful, strong, motivated, talented, etc., opted for abortion instead of children. This could conceiveably affect the rate of evolution of the human gene pool. Or it could slant evolution in the direction of primarily the progressive male genes. What would be the future of out species in both cases?

[Buffy]

Lets look at the humans species. What would happen if the best females of the human race, i.e., intelligent, beautiful, strong, motivated, talented, etc., opted for abortion instead of children. This could conceiveably affect the rate of evolution of the human gene pool. Or it could slant evolution in the direction of primarily the progressive male genes. What would be the future of out species in both cases?

Actually, the result is inbreeding, which we saw a lot of in 17th-19th century Europe. Evolution benefits from *broad* intermixing of the gene pool. Selective breeding--check out the horrible health problems of "pure bred" dogs--is a really *bad* thing if you're looking to improve the species.

 

You might want to do some research on how this stuff works....

 

Evolving randomly,

Buffy

[HydrogenBond]

I did not mean inner breeding. There are great women all across the spectrum of demographics. I was talking about skimming the cream off the top, so only milk is left for breeding, The milk of the crop would also cross the range of demographics, such that inner breeding would not be a problem, I suppose the cream females could lure the cream males so they also to don't breed. But guys being guys ,some will still drink milk on the side, to pass on their seed.

[pgrmdave]

Prove that success is indicitive of good genes. I doubt it. I suspect that genetics doesn't really provide that much of a leg up compared to social situations.

[Buffy]

I did not mean inner breeding. There are great women all across the spectrum of demographics. I was talking about skimming the cream off the top, so only milk is left for breeding, The milk of the crop would also cross the range of demographics, such that inner breeding would not be a problem, I suppose the cream females could lure the cream males so they also to don't breed.

You're either completely missing the point or not wanting to get it: This has happened in the past and it does result in *weaker* offspring! "Cream is as cream does" to paraphrase Forrest Gump's mom, and this selection results in in-breeding because of non-genetically beneficial choices.

 

To make it clearer to you: rich guys pick dumb blonds with big breasts, no inhibitions and lousy parenting skills. I'd argue that's not gonna get you where you want to go with your Eugenics.

But guys being guys ,some will still drink milk on the side, to pass on their seed.

Note that the old saw about men being polygamous and women being monogamous is not borne out by the statistics. Just ask yourself the question: if guys are more likely to cheat on their spouses, who are they cheating *with*?

 

Or are you trying to say that all guys are Bi-curious?

 

Birds do it, bees do it, :)

Buffy

[CraigD]

All this talk of gene pools, males and females, monogamy, and its lack, provoked a thought: in the adoption by human society of predominantly monogamous moral codes, did our species significantly increase its tendency toward genetic diversity?

 

In many primates, the children of high-status individuals – especially of males – have a dramatically greater chance of surviving to reproductive age. Dominant males will effectively prevent lower-status males from successfully mating, and those lower-status males that do mate tend to do so with low-status or immature females. Low status females have less support during pregnancy and with childcare, so their offspring are less likely to survive. In short, primate reproduction seems to favor a few high-status individuals, discarding the genes of low-status individuals.

 

Among “monogamous species”, low-status individuals seem to have a much higher chance of having offspring survive to reproductive age. There is a strong social and legal tradition that even members of the lowest social classes have an inalienable right to reproduce. A common name for the lower class – the proletariat – means literally “for offspring”. In fact, in human society, the most reproductively successful individuals are often the lowest status – “welfare moms” and “deadbeat dads” frequently out-reproduce the wealthy, well-respected, “best and brightest”, some of whom choose not to restrict the number of children they have in order to further careers, or in order to assure they have adequate money to support those they do have.

 

Is it possible that the great reproductive success of human beings over other primates, and nearly all large fauna, is due less to our physical and mental advantages, than to an apparently abstract bit of moral philosophy, the prehistoric precursor to the ancient religious admonition to be (to some extent) monogamous?

[Buffy]

In fact, in human society, the most reproductively successful individuals are often the lowest status – “welfare moms” and “deadbeat dads” frequently out-reproduce the wealthy, well-respected, “best and brightest”, some of whom choose not to restrict the number of children they have in order to further careers, or in order to assure they have adequate money to support those they do have.

Its important to note that this has been the case for most of the recorded history of man and quite possibly long before! This has led to the arguments I alluded to earlier that show up in a Stephen Jay Gould book that I cannot fix to a chapter or quote yet (either in "Dinosaur in a Haystack" or "Bully for the Brontosaurus"), that argues that upper class folks actually end up being a breeding ground for deformity and weak constitutions because of the fact that they have many fewer offspring, and tend to breed "within the stratospheric class" (small gene pool).

Is it possible that the great reproductive success of human beings over other primates, and nearly all large fauna, is due less to our physical and mental advantages, than to an apparently abstract bit of moral philosophy, the prehistoric precursor to the ancient religious admonition to be (to some extent) monogamous?

Note of course that we've found at least a few other species that are monogamous. "Reinvention" of traits in different families usually indicates a successful adaptation. In addition it shows that you don't really need a very sophisticated society to develop an "instinct" for monogamy.

 

Conversely, Man appears to have a strong desire not to be monogamous too, so its likely that that tendency has a usefulness as well. I'd argue that the push and pull *between* the two orientations has been even better than either alone!

 

Keep your seeds to yourself,

Buffy

[Cedars]

 

Are Humans so vehement on anti-abortion as to neglect the real outcome of Human over-population?

 

Do we really need to spend the time and energy trying to preserve an unwanted baby-making mom from pushing out another homo sapien?

 

Where's the global perspective??.

 

 

Its more than just abortion.

 

Imagine what would happen to the politician who proposed ending any tax deductions for more than 2 children.

[CraigD]

Note of course that we've found at least a few other species that are monogamous. "Reinvention" of traits in different families usually indicates a successful adaptation. In addition it shows that you don't really need a very sophisticated society to develop an "instinct" for monogamy.

True. Several species of “mate-for-life” waterfowl come to mind, and while a flock is a society of a sort, I don’t think one’s specieist to conclude that it’s much less sophisticated than human and other primate societies, or that such monogamy is an ingrained instinct among such fowls – and, possibly, among primates and humans.

Conversely, Man appears to have a strong desire not to be monogamous too, so its likely that that tendency has a usefulness as well. I'd argue that the push and pull *between* the two orientations has been even better than either alone!

The waterfowl example is instructive here, too.

 

I remember being puzzled that mate-for-life fowl don’t seem to have genetic dynamics much different from their “mate-on-the-fly” cousin species, until reading of the discoveries of naturalists (not much before the 1980s, I recall) that, while mated-for-life, geese and the like cheat like crazy, leading some to estimate that the majority of chicks reared by these mated couples don’t belong, genetically, to the male. It seems that earlier naturalists were so taken by the romantic (and morally instructive) idea that these monogamous birds were also sexually faithful, that they failed to notice that the majority of them were copulating fairly randomly – though, in the naturalists’ defense, without tools like long-duration video cameras and visually and radio coded tags, it’s tricky to tell one goose or gander from the next, other than by the location of its nest, which is not usually where they copulate.

 

Though child legitimacy rates are, I’m pretty sure, higher in humans than geese, as someone who lived a fair fraction of my life in neighborhoods where kids of different households bore a strong “family resemblance”, I feel safe concluding that out-of-mating gene swapping in humans is not genetically negligible. Not to mention that, unlike geese, humans tend not to mate for life, but be “serially monogamous”.

 

The reproductive significance of monogamy seems to me to be more about 2 things

• Assuring lower status individuals the ability to successfully pass on their genes
  
• Increasing childhood survival
  

than about channeling genes according to arrangement of the recognized matings. While this can offend our moral sensibilities, it seems very much a part of nature’s way. Nature excels at offending human moral sensibilities.