AGDInteractive - Sierra Adventure Game Remakes Forum

In order for human population to exhibit neutral growth, 2.1 children on average have to be born per family. In your example every parent replaces himself in the population and (you missed that part) dies. Net result - no change. The number is higher than 2, in order to account for infant mortality.
If you really want to help, Renodox, then adopt a child, or two. Of course, it would be much better if you had a partner to help you take care of them and educate them. You can decide to live together without a marriage, you can even have sex with your partner (using precautions in the case of a female partner or you could just have a vasectomy if you are really serious about not having children of your own), and you can still win that bet of yours.

Let's not get too vulgar here. First off, I don't HATE humans, I just dislike some of their tendancies. And I definately don't WORSHIP these things. I just really like them, and Superman was created from Kryptonians not Earthlings .

Anyway, as to my reasoning there's something you're not taking one thing into account: humans don't die when their offspring is born. There are creatures that do that of course, but humans are not amongst them. Say by some cosmic coincidence that every parent has children (they are born) at age 20 and these children live out their full life spans. Considering a common lifespan of eighty years that means that each one will live to see two generations born and die upon the third. That's still an increasing amount. Besides, it's just an example.

Finally, there is no way I coudl ever adopt a child and be a good parent. Not no way, not no how. I can't STAND a lot of the child and adult tendancies. Especially pride. It always seems ridiculous. Even my own.

You can decide to live together without a marriage, you can even have sex with your partner (using precautions in the case of a female partner or you could just have a vasectomy if you are really serious about not having children of your own), and you can still win that bet of yours.

But then I'd lose my ability to see unicorns . Besides... while I scientificly think it's just for reproduction, I personally find it offensive. That's the other thing I've wondered... What if humans were asexual creatures? Considering the numerous "gender wars" it may be for the best. I know it's natural but a Female Beta (Japanese Fighting Fish) will eat her eggs once their layed, and the male cares for the eggs but eats the fish after they hatch! That doesn't sound right.

Oh... what do you think of this joke? I made it up to repel anyone who gets too bold: Last time someone called YOU "Little Lady" you were still a fetus!

<looks at Renodox>
<looks at Renodox some more>
<rings the local mental institute to take Renodox away>

(my thoughts on the whole thing, anyway)

Ok, y'know... At this point, my personal feelings are that this is a great big act to put on a show to stir up a little controversy. However, like all humans, I'm not always right. AND, assuming I'm not right, and assuming that you're being for real here... where, may I ask, is your head at? There is no planet Xylophone, Superman is a fictional character that WAS created by humans, because guess what, Kryptonians are fictional as well, and there is no alien warrior class that can't love, and there is no "Renedox" in the weird, third-personish way you used him before. I love science-fiction as much as the next guy, but turn off the Sci-Fi channel for a little while and step outside into the real world. It's not real, man. No, seriously... it's not.

Having said that, let's hit this from a little bit different angle... What makes you happy? (Assuming again here that you're serious and for real.) Ok, so it's not affection from other people. That narrows it down a little. It's not kids and a family. Alrighty, then. What is it then, man? Do hamburgers make you happy? That was mentioned earlier... Start a freaking gourmet hamburger shack then!! All I'm saying is that there is no point in sitting around crying about the state of humanity. It is what it is, and there's not a damn thing you can do about the problems you've brought up. We're people, we're imperfect... every single one of us, so deal with it. All you can do is make the best of it and apply your time and your life to something that brings you enjoyment, even if that means truly believing in your planet Xylophone and your alien warrior stuff. 'Nuff said.

Oh, and one more thing... We're not fish. I don't really care what Japanese fish do with their young. "People" does not equal "Fish." Sure, we could argue up and down the walls all day long about whether humans are merely animals or whether there is something more there. That's some deep religious and philosophical... caca. However, the fact remains that we as humans are without a doubt self-aware, and from all that we can tell, we are the only creatures on the planet with that quality. Scientific study has yet to prove otherwise.

My point is that your statement about the fish is totally irrelevant to the situation. Animals are rational creatures, in that their rationale lies in their instincts. Humans are irrational by nature. Love is an irrational thing... it defeats all logic and rationality. If humans were logical creatures, our mating and reproduction would be identical to that of animals. The strongest and most intelligent would mate with each other, leaving the weaker and less intelligent to die, fulfilling the evolutionary laws of natural selection. BUT!! Strangely and illogically, humans have the capability to make decisions, have preferences about what they find attractive in another person, and the ability to connect on intellectual and emotional levels. Fish don't do that. They swim, they eat, they poop, they make some more fish... that's about it.

They swim, they eat

Swim, Swim, Hungry, Swim, Swim, Hungry...

Ahem , my personal feeling is that there are too many humans on earth as it is. No, I'm not going to try and reduce the population by destroying those who are here already. The damage has been done. What I will do, however, is not have children of my own. That alone can really help reduce the population. Assume that I had two children. The population is increased by two. Sometime later these two find someone else and have two children each. That means that four more are around and I'm somewhat responsible for six, since my grandchildren could never be without my children who could never be without me. Then say those four have two making it eight. Now from me it's fourteen. Etc., Etc. This is assuming that I and the rest of the generations only have two children. What if I and they have three? First I'm responible for three, then twelve, then fifty-one. Eventually, the number of children that I am at least partially responsible for would get into the thousands and.

Well, at least we finally agree on something!

In order for human population to exhibit neutral growth, 2.1 children on average have to be born per family. In your example every parent replaces himself in the population and (you missed that part) dies. Net result - no change. The number is higher than 2, in order to account for infant mortality.

"Neutral growth" isn't what we need here. Recessive growth would be better. Better for the people who aren't yet born, and better for the people that are already here. Again, like Renodox, I wouldn't suggest going on a killing spree and reducing the population that way (although at times while stuck in traffic who hasn't had the though ). Still, look at it mathematically:

Year 1 - 2 kids are born - Population: 2 (just to give a starting point)
Year 21 - 4 kids are born (from the original 2) - Population: 6
Year 41 - 8 kids are born (from the 4) - Population: 14
Year 61 - 16 kids are born (from the 8) - Population: 30
Year 81 - 32 kids are born (from the 16), 2 people die (from year 1) - Population: 60
Year 101 - 64 kids are born (from the 32), 4 people die (from year 21) - Population: 120
Year 121 - 128 kids are born (from the 64), 8 people die (from year 41) - Population: 240
Year 141 - 256 kids are born (from the 128), 16 people die (from year 81) - Population: 480

As you can see, every 20 years, this population would double. Yes, you can take into account things like some families may only have one, and some kids may die, or some may not have kids at age 20, but this is offset by those families who have more than two kids, or have them younger than 20 (one lady I work with, it's almost become a tradition in her family to have kids at 18 and eventually 3-5 kids per family). That's also not including things like divorcing and remarrying and having more kids with a future mate. So as you can see, normal mortality doesn't control the population, especially not with people living between 60-80 on a consistant basis. Were the human lifespan shorter, like around 40 as it was a long time ago, that would be the case, but it's not now. On the whole, it's less than double growth per 20 years, but it's still a rapid increase.

Depending on your beliefs, the earth was created anywhere from 4000 - 5.7 billion years ago. In either case, in that time, it took until AD 1950 to get 2.5 billion people. Now we're at about 6.5 billion. That's more than double in just a short 50 years, whereas it took the entire lifespan of the planet to reach the first 2.5 billion. The growth is, most certainly, exponential. I may not understand Renodox's ramblings about mucous membranes and the like, but he certainly does have a point there.

Finally, I've once said this: I'll have a child when they can ask to be born. Do you have any idea how many times I was told I should be grateful to my parents for giving me life?! I never asked for it! So, I'm not going to be like my parents and force someone to come to life!

Yeah, there's probably not a teenager around that hasn't said that to his/her parents or at least thought about it at some point. That's a natural feeling. Although, it still does have merit in some ways. It's like saying, "Okay, I gave you life, and now that I did, here. I'll throw you out into the world and let you deal with all of life's problems. You're welcome!". Still, that's life, I guess. Nothing you can really do about it except, like you suggest, stop the cycle. *shrugs*

~Wolfgang

If getting nothing else from this thread, I've noticed that humans are amongst the most intolerant of all things. Understanding that other forms of life will repel things that are different, humas seem to fight inconsistancies in the world. Personally, I think the notion that humans are the only species that is self-aware is mostly arrogance. Considering that people say, "There is no evidence" that is from a human standpoint. Perhaps other forms of life express thier self-awareness in ways that humans cannot understand.\

Having said that, let's hit this from a little bit different angle... What makes you happy? (Assuming again here that you're serious and for real.) Ok, so it's not affection from other people. That narrows it down a little. It's not kids and a family. Alrighty, then. What is it then, man? Do hamburgers make you happy? That was mentioned earlier... Start a freaking gourmet hamburger shack then!! All I'm saying is that there is no point in sitting around crying about the state of humanity. It is what it is, and there's not a damn thing you can do about the problems you've brought up. We're people, we're imperfect... every single one of us, so deal with it. All you can do is make the best of it and apply your time and your life to something that brings you enjoyment, even if that means truly believing in your planet Xylophone and your alien warrior stuff. 'Nuff said.

... Well, I have to say the only thing that has instilled happiness in me is disproving cats when they think they're superior to me. Check out this story:
There was this cat that I saw at work. She was sitting near a bush but as soon as she saw me, she bolted. Now this was normal enough but she had run only a few feet when she stopped and stared at me. I looked at her and made a slight motion towards her and she bolted again only to stop a few feet away. Staring at me again of course. At this point I realized, "This cat's leading me away." Just for fun, I went back to the bush, held out my hand and said, "Everyone out of the pool!" As I suspeced would happen, a litter of kittens flooded out of the bush and ran away. The mother cat just stared at me. I looked over at her and said, "You need to be less obvious." Then I left.

Ok, y'know... At this point, my personal feelings are that this is a great big act to put on a show to stir up a little controversy. However, like all humans, I'm not always right. AND, assuming I'm not right, and assuming that you're being for real here... where, may I ask, is your head at? There is no planet Xylophone, Superman is a fictional character that WAS created by humans, because guess what, Kryptonians are fictional as well, and there is no alien warrior class that can't love, and there is no "Renedox" in the weird, third-personish way you used him before. I love science-fiction as much as the next guy, but turn off the Sci-Fi channel for a little while and step outside into the real world. It's not real, man. No, seriously... it's not.

It's planet XONERIS! Not XEROX, not XYLOPHONE, not XENOBIOLOGIST, but X-O-N-E-R-I-S!
Anyway, this "wierd thierd personish way I used him before" is not refering to me but my character. I told you, I created a character known as Renodox and I'm using his name. As for saying that there is no alien warrior class that can't love... how do YOU know? I don't care what you believe in, but no religion or even science has said there is no life anywhere else. Furthermore, the system of planet Xoneris has been compared to that of swarming insects. If it can happen on Earth why could it not happen anywhere else?

Yeah, there's probably not a teenager around that hasn't said that to his/her parents or at least thought about it at some point. That's a natural feeling. Although, it still does have merit in some ways. It's like saying, "Okay, I gave you life, and now that I did, here. I'll throw you out into the world and let you deal with all of life's problems. You're welcome!". Still, that's life, I guess. Nothing you can really do about it except, like you suggest, stop the cycle.

Exacititaly! In response to the "gift of life" speech that I've had to endure before, I've said, "When a gift comes with strings, it's not a gift at all!"

Wolfgang Abenteuer wrote:"Neutral growth" isn't what we need here. Recessive growth would be better

I disagree. Nations that do not grow their populations become overwhelmed by neighboring countries that do, and eventually the non-growth countries are either destroyed or become insignificant. Consider, for example, the way that the United States is becoming overwhelmed by Mexicans, or the way the various Eurpoean countries are being overwhelmed by outsiders.

The solution is not recessive (regressive?) growth; no, the solution is INTERPLANETARY COLONIZATION! We must grow our population and spread out th the neighboring planets, the known universe, and beyond!

Understanding that other forms of life will repel things that are different, humas seem to fight inconsistancies in the world.

A reasonable man adapts to his surroundings. An unreasonable man adapts his surroundings to him. Therefore, all progress is dependant on the unreasonable man.

In response to the "gift of life" speech that I've had to endure before, I've said, "When a gift comes with strings, it's not a gift at all!"

That's a good comeback. I'll have to remember that one.

Nations that do not grow their populations become overwhelmed by neighboring countries that do, and eventually the non-growth countries are either destroyed or become insignificant. Consider, for example, the way that the United States is becoming overwhelmed by Mexicans, or the way the various Eurpoean countries are being overwhelmed by outsiders.

I'm not talking country-to-country here. I'm talking about the entire human race. Yes, I see your point about countries needing to be large in numbers, but for the benefit of the entire race, regressive (sorry for putting "recessive" earlier...I wasn't fully awake yet ) growth is merely a good idea now, but will become a necessity later.

The solution is not recessive (regressive?) growth; no, the solution is INTERPLANETARY COLONIZATION! We must grow our population and spread out th the neighboring planets, the known universe, and beyond!

I'm going to assume you're kidding here, so I won't bother to respond in depth to that one.

~Wolfgang

Wolfgang Abenteuer wrote:I'm going to assume you're kidding here

No, I'm not. Of course, this cannot be a complete solution, since only a small number of people will actually be able to immigrate to other planets; but, in order to survive, a nation must grow. Since the land on earth is largely used up, that means migrating to other planets.

Wolfgang Abenteuer wrote:In either case, in that time, it took until AD 1950 to get 2.5 billion people. Now we're at about 6.5 billion. That's more than double in just a short 50 years, whereas it took the entire lifespan of the planet to reach the first 2.5 billion.

The cause of such explosive growth has a reason.

It is customary for societies with a high mortality rate to also have many children. This is so a family aren't all of a sudden without any children, thus having no one to help out on the farm and carry on their heritage. And if nobody did that, it should be obvious that the society would then die out.
But as more and more families in third-world countries become access to medical attention, as well as means to ensure less of their crop go to waste, fewer children die.
The families haven't realized this yet, so they continue to have many children. At a point not too far in the future (likely less than 100 years), all signs indicate that they will realize this, causing fewer children to be born.

Eventually, the growth rate will more or less stabilize, like the case is with those countries that HAVE been through that fase.

Lol why doesnt someone just TELL them!

Take a lot less than 100 years to explain.

Plus I doubt the problem is that simple to solve.

Since the land on earth is largely used up, that means migrating to other planets.

Or making better use of the land we have. Now sure, for the race to survive, eventually (as in millions of years from now), emigration to other planets will be necessary. But that should happen because the Earth is about to be swallowed up by the sun (or, y'know, a bit before then, maybe ), not because we can't control our own population. We're simply breeding to the point where our own planet cannot contain the populace. "Natural selection" no longer exists with us, as it does for every other animal in the world. What do you think is the main problem here? Lack of land, or too many people? If everyone was wealthy and prosperous, I'd say, sure, go ahead and emigrate, because we've done so well for ourselves and we can bring these benefits to other planets. But when you have people on the earth now that cannot even manage to coexist, be it due to religion, culture, financial disparity, etc., it would seem that moving to another planet would simply mean taking the problem with them. Overpopulation is, IMO, one of the reasons for many of the troubles today, but I fail to see how shipping people off to another planet would cure that problem. It would simply manifest itself in the outpost colonies, just as it has here.

BTW, why does growth have to equal survival? Were we prey for a larger animal, I would agree. But humans have eliminated all natural predators, except maybe for themselves, so growth now is simply a hindrance on the planet and ourselves.

~Wolfgang

I lost my way at page 3 of this topic!

Whoa...completely missed Pidgeot's post there!

But as more and more families in third-world countries become access to medical attention, as well as means to ensure less of their crop go to waste, fewer children die.
The families haven't realized this yet, so they continue to have many children. At a point not too far in the future (likely less than 100 years), all signs indicate that they will realize this, causing fewer children to be born.

Good point. Although, the problem is that many people live for themselves, and not for the race or the existance of the planet on which they live, and will still breed uncontrollably. But that's more of a social/economic dilemma than anything else, so I won't bother there.

Plus I doubt the problem is that simple to solve.

The solution itself is quite simple, but getting people to conform to it is not. It's like trying to tell everyone to stop using cars because they pollute. Sure, that's a great solution, but good luck getting people to actually DO it. Telling people to stop having kids (or even stop having sex, for those who don't have, or figure they don't need, birth control) would be even more difficult, I would think.

~Wolfgang

Wolfgang Abenteuer wrote:Now sure, for the race to survive, eventually (as in millions of years from now), emigration to other planets will be necessary.

But we can't wait millions of years to get started, because the technology will take time to develop.

Wolfgang Abenteuer wrote:BTW, why does growth have to equal survival?

Nations that do not grow tend to stagnate because their creative people lack a sufficiant outlet for their creativity. Besides, a frontier culture has a distinct flavor to it, including a greater regard for freedom, tolerance, and creativity, that old-world cultures lack (or have lost), and could serve as an example and inspiration to those left behind in the old world.

But we can't wait millions of years to get started, because the technology will take time to develop.

Yes, I know that, but I was trying to illustrate the differences in the reasons for emigration.

Besides, a frontier culture has a distinct flavor to it, including a greater regard for freedom, tolerance, and creativity, that old-world cultures lack (or have lost), and could serve as an example and inspiration to those left behind in the old world.

That's a good point. But it still doesn't solve the problems we have here (on Earth). Would moving to a new planet solve them? Would it make the poor richer, the downtrodden higher, and the weak stronger? Would it mean better education for the children here? Better survival for lower-income families (speaking in US terms)? More equality between people? Or would it simply make the rich even richer and the underclassed even moreso? These problems have always existed in some form, but with more people these problems have magnified themselves to a great degree. Would it make people from the middle east stop fighting people from the west? If we cannot solve these problems amongst ourselves, how would moving to another planet change anything? More people just equate to a bigger problem.

~Wolfgang

As I said, colonizing other planets cannot be a complete solution, so, yes, we must do something about the population problem on earth. But if we control our populations, while our enemies grow theirs, then it could be fatal for our civilization.

**shakes head and walks away**

Yes, people shake their heads and walk away, and, the next thing you know, our civilization is in ruins.

Lack of population growth is a sure sign of a civilization that has reached its zenith and is on the way to decline. Perhaps this is inevitable, but I think that we should prevent if we can.

Never confuse quantity of people with quality of life. A society or civilization declines only when the quality of life for its people is gone, not when the number of people stop growing. It takes a successful society to make its people prosper, but it only takes a sperm and egg to actually make people. People will still procreate regardless of what kind of society they're in, that goes back to the instinct we were talking about earlier, and almost anybody can do that (and judging by some of the people I see on the local news, it appears that anybody does ), but not everybody can make a population successful. Look at overpopulated third-world countries, like was mentioned before. Their populations were growing, but can you honestly say that their civilization hadn't been on the decline? Poverty and starvation are rampant in overpopulated nations, yet they are somehow successful civilizations simply because they produce bodies?

~Wolfgang

They are not successful at the moment. Some of them may have been successful in the past, some of them may be sucessful in the future, some of them may never be successful.

You must not commit the fallacy of illicit conversion:

All successful societies have growing populations.
Therefore, all societies with growing populations are successful.

The above argument commits the fallacy of illicit conversion. The premise is correct, at least up to the present. To refute, can you name one civilization that has been successful that didn't have a growing population at the time of it's zenith, or, at least, immediately before that time?

The interesting question is: Is it possible for a civilization to remain at it's zenith indefinitely, or must all civilizations decline after they've reached their zenith? In the case of individual humans, once a human has reached the prime of his life, he starts to decline and eventually dies. Nobody has discovered the fountain of youth or the key to immortality for the individual, although many have tried and continue to try. Are civilizations the same? Must a civilization go into decline once it's reached its zenith, or is no-growth prosperity possible over the long term? I don't claim to know the answer, but it's certainly an important question.

You must not commit the fallacy of illicit conversion:

Good point. I didn't correctly read what you said, so I do apologise.

The interesting question is: Is it possible for a civilization to remain at it's zenith indefinitely, or must all civilizations decline after they've reached their zenith?

It would depend on your definition of a successful civilization, and the definition of this "zenith". If a civilization eventually does decline, is it therefore ultimately successful, or merely momentarily prosperous?

To refute, can you name one civilization that has been successful that didn't have a growing population at the time of it's zenith, or, at least, immediately before that time?

Not really, since I'm no historian.

So the success of a society would be measured how? How much land it occupies, or how many people it has? By how many resources it reaps? A civilization cannot be termed successful if it is able to be self-sustaining, without needing to seek out and require more than it has, nor expand beyond its own boundries? To be self-contained and self-reliant is to have failed? It must always be growing and overtaking new things?

In fact, one could argue that the reason for the society's decline was ultimately because its population kept growing. Perhaps, had such a society ultimately stayed in balance with its resources, it never would have fallen. Perhaps the stoppage of population growth and eventual decrease in population was the result of the society's downfall, not the cause.

~Wolfgang

No no... I wasn't shaking my head at the problem of over-population or whatever, I was shaking my head at the hopelessness of arguing with Renodox about all this.

**shakes head and walks away again**