Man 'too fat' to live in New Zealand

[Seth]

One of the problems with that fantasy that we are going to remove the unemployed through contraception is that reduction in birth rates where contraception is available has always worked more effectively on those who are educated and productive, rather than those without education, who are unproductive.

This is absolutely true. This is why I'm beginning to believe that intelligence is only of survival benefit up to a certain point. After that point the urge to "do the right thing" produced by too much knowledge and too much thinking becomes anti-survival. This is easily demonstrated by observing the fecundity rates of the "lower classes" versus the "highly intelligent," who are in fact not-breeding themselves into extinction.

There is something to be said, evolutionarily, for mindless fecundity.

That's why humans are likely to be either Catholics or Muslims in the relatively near future.

[Blind groper]

Nice bit of humor there, Seth.

Not that I agree. I think that contraception is a good thing. After all, the global average fertility has dropped from 5.5 to 2.4 since the invention of the contraceptive pill.

I think that the genetic future of humanity will depend more on deliberate genetic manipulation than on evolution. Once the science has developed enough, parents will deliberately arrange for their zygotes to be adjusted to grow into smarter, better looking, more athletic, more healthy, longer lived people, and a number of other qualities I probably cannot predict at this point.

[Seth]

Nice bit of humor there, Seth.

It's anything but humorous. It's absolutely true.

Not that I agree. I think that contraception is a good thing. After all, the global average fertility has dropped from 5.5 to 2.4 since the invention of the contraceptive pill.

Er, the salient question is "From 5.5 to 2.4 percent of whom, exactly?"

I think that the genetic future of humanity will depend more on deliberate genetic manipulation than on evolution. Once the science has developed enough, parents will deliberately arrange for their zygotes to be adjusted to grow into smarter, better looking, more athletic, more healthy, longer lived people, and a number of other qualities I probably cannot predict at this point.

Except that the people who are smart enough to develop this technology are vanishing because they buy into the silly notion that by not reproducing they are doing the earth a favor. Perhaps they are, but they are dooming the human race to backwards movement in intellectual development. Viz: The entire Muslim world.

[Hermit]

The ancient Romans kept their masses happy with bread and circuses. I am sure, with modern technology, we could do it far better.

Contraception would probably be a much simpler option.

One of the problems with that fantasy that we are going to remove the unemployed through contraception is that reduction in birth rates where contraception is available has always worked more effectively on those who are educated and productive, rather than those without education, who are unproductive.

I did not expect you to turn Malthusian on us.

[Warren Dew]

One of the problems with that fantasy that we are going to remove the unemployed through contraception is that reduction in birth rates where contraception is available has always worked more effectively on those who are educated and productive, rather than those without education, who are unproductive.

I don't believe this is actually true. It's true of the U.S., because of idiotic laws that require women to keep having babies to stay on welfare, and it may be true of western democracies in general. In China, though, it's the more productive that can afford to buy their way out of the one child policy, and I wouldn't be surprised if something similar were true in Russia and eastern Europe.

Seth, what has declined from 5.5 to 2.4 is total completed fertility - lifetime children per woman. Obviously that needs to go down a bit more if we're to have a sustainable result.

[Blind groper]

Re fertility.

The United Nations plots this in detail. They have determined the trend, and predict average global fertility (number of children per woman) will be 2.0 by 2050, and will be low enough by 2100 that global population will be falling.

This should tell others that I am not Malthusian. In fact, I am very optimistic. As I said, genetic science should result in the ability to improve the species.

[Seth]

One of the problems with that fantasy that we are going to remove the unemployed through contraception is that reduction in birth rates where contraception is available has always worked more effectively on those who are educated and productive, rather than those without education, who are unproductive.

I don't believe this is actually true. It's true of the U.S., because of idiotic laws that require women to keep having babies to stay on welfare, and it may be true of western democracies in general. In China, though, it's the more productive that can afford to buy their way out of the one child policy, and I wouldn't be surprised if something similar were true in Russia and eastern Europe.

Seth, what has declined from 5.5 to 2.4 is total completed fertility - lifetime children per woman. Obviously that needs to go down a bit more if we're to have a sustainable result.

I understand that. Again, I point out that the real question is WHO is, and is not having babies.