Debate : 10637


Off-Topic / Debate / 10637	10636 \| 10638

Subject:	Re: what do you think of editorals regarding the environment?
Newsgroups:	lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date:	Thu, 31 May 2001 21:55:38 GMT
Viewed:	268 times

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes: > Tom, let me see if I understand your reasoning for suggesting the 90% > female infertility rate. As Tom pointed out, I was the one who tossed that out originally. You did the math right and understand the reason. If you are controlling a population (of mamals, at least), the way to do so is to control the female reproduction. Good and bad people alike have been applying such techniqes to humans and livestock for thousands of years. I suspect that the reason polygyny is wildly more common historically than polyandry is that a single male can fertilize a staggeringly large number of females, but of course, a female can only be pregnant one at a time. > At first glance I was a little put off by your suggestion Well, I think that world catastrophes ought to be off-putting. It's not like Tom was suggesting it would be a groovy event. > (and it still > doesn't thrill me to think of it in anything but theoretical terms), but > upon consideration I realized that your math-reasoning seems sound. I > mention this because others might read your 90% figure and react with the > same knee-jerk outrage that I felt Can you explain the outrage? We were really just bandying possible solutions. I suggested that sterilizing 90% of women would accomplish the same ends while doing less harm to the world economy. > Again, I'm squeamish about the 90% figure as a real-world solution, but in > a thought-experiment it's not completely far-fetched. It's just infertility. It would suck and all, don't get me wrong, but it's not like gouging their eyes out. Chris

Message has 2 Replies:

		Re: what do you think of editorals regarding the environment?
(...) A suprisingly effective way to curtail population growth (at least in iteroparous organisms) is to delay the age of first production. It's also a lot nicer than forced sterilization. -chris (23 years ago, 1-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: what do you think of editorals regarding the environment?
(...) Like I said, it was knee-jerk, rather than rationally considered, and stemmed most likely from the usual perception of the male deciding what's best by seizing control of the female's reproductive process. Upon reflection I realized what you (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:

		Re: what do you think of editorals regarding the environment?
(...) Tom, let me see if I understand your reasoning for suggesting the 90% female infertility rate. What you're suggesting seems to be: Given 100 fertile women and 100 fertile men, the effective maximum (barring twins and/or technological (...) (23 years ago, 31-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

29 Messages in This Thread:

Entire Thread on One Page:: Nested: All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear: All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:: Nested: All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear: All | Brief | Compact

Custom Search