I don't know, max. Probably you need to travel to some highly populated but extremely poor areas in like China, India, or any other third world countries to see what gives more shock. BTW, I understand you are anti-abortion, but how about contraception?
no problem with contraception. when we have a fertilized egg, i START having a problem. i hear ya. i just can't believe that people here who argue about the state having no business in reproductive rights would support the notion that the state could mandate a maximum number of children a couple could have.
Maybe we should ban hospitals. Those damn doctors and nurses keep people alive. Hopefully all those Indian kids living in poverty will die so people in developed nations like us can feel good about world population.
i hear ya...this is where it gets problematic. it's easy to say "the human race is a plauge"...but when you consider individual human beings...every life has immeasurable worth. at least in my view. we don't see the impoverished of these nations lining up to be put down to death...instead we see them fighting for their very existence...for their very lives.
I saw this joke from the same site (didn't know its existence before) that produced the Bin Laden BBQ pic. A Chinese official from Beijing was sent to a remote area in China to see why there were so many people living in some poor villages. "Why do you have some many people here?" he asked the locals. "We are often short on electricity, sir," said one. "What does it have to do with you having so many people here?" the official quizzed. "Well, without electricity, what do you expect us to do in the dark at night?" anwered the locals.
Y'all are on a different topic than the article. The article is pro-genetic diversity and biological, hormonally driven behavior. He is arguing that given superior resources, females will mate, earlier, with genetically dominant partners. These dominant males fuel and respond to natural, hormonal attractions and behaviors. The projected arguement is that you end up with offspring that have more diversity and more dominant traits. Actually, particularly "slutty" women are best in this model. A female who takes the sperm of multiple males will have those sperm fight inside her, and the male with the superior fighting sperm army will fertilize. Richard Dawkins has a book called "sperm wars" that outlines some of these ideas. He notes a typical ejaculate contains only a small percentage of fertilization sperm, but a large number of sperm evolved to fight others.
OOOPS! Sperms Wars is by Robin Baker. Richard Dawkins wrote the Selfish Gene. links : http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0330390775/026-1031249-8134017 http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/index.shtml pardon the error.
His model is idiotic and fails to take into account many different factors. Slutty girls fail to take into account the long-term. Thus, may be really, really stupid. Plus, the 'sperm wars' you speak of will only occur if this girl is so slutty, she sleeps with several guys a night. And what do you mean be genetically dominant? Dominant traits aren't always the best traits.
Well, dominant traits aren't always the "best traits" as processed by selection. Peacocks have these huge spotted feathers that they use to display and mate with the best pea-hens, but those feathers make it hard to run away from predators. Pea-hens love those spotted feathers, but that may have more to do with a runaway effect of natural selection, than any practical evolution. I'd venture a guess the slutty young female human may go for tats and piercings and aggro Sean Penn behavior, but that's not necessarily going to lead to superior evolution in offspring. There's got to be some gene mixing and competiton, to really see which genes replicate over reproductive iterations. Of course, I'm just typin'. Not sure if I want my daughters dropping kids early. I do hope they understand their impulses, anyway.
Interesting analysis Pasox but the problem I see with it is the amount of energy and resources needed to be invested into human childrearing. While for organisms that produce many offspring that develop rapidly wth no or little care from parents it makes sense for a female to collect as much sperm from from many different males because the offspring from the stronger males will survive while the weaker ones will die off leaving a stronger next generation. That works for salmon or voles but not for humans because human infants have a very long developmental time and even a genetically strong human infant is still very susceptible. Competition for mating and passing on one's genes takes place in adult hood so like our close kin chimps, whoops I sneaking Evolution in, if you're weaker (less able to provide, or endowed with attractive traits ie poor and not good looking) the less chance you're going to have to pass on your genes. In regard to the article I think its really about advocating socialized day care through hot chicks.
Yeah exactly The big problem is that the human race IS a plague, So keeping people alive by science is not good for nature. However if one of my beloved ones almost dies i would defenitly do anything i can to keep them alive. And i think everybody else also want to keep their beloved ones alive. So there is really no solution, because if i want my beloved ones to live, i would be selfish to say that medics are not good for nature. And i want children, so again it would be selfish if i didn't want others to have children. I believe every life is precious,(including the lifes of animals). So i do not want people to die.So that is the problem. I do not want people in developed nations to die(ofcourse not). I'm actually a pretty socialistic guy. I do not see a solution for the overabundance of humans. So we will continue to be a plague for the world. however like i said nature always finds a way to deal with plagues. And i believe that one day there will be a very deadly and contagious disease who will kill a lot of people. The problem is that the world is so small with al the airplanes. If one big city gets such a disease it will spread around the world in a verry short time. So basically I think we are a plague, however I do not see a solution for this. But if we are getting less children(by a normal natural cause) then i'm happy with it. We can only wait to see what will happen
Genetically humans are nto doing so good, because in nature only the strong survive(and the feathers of a peacock is a way to show the female he is strong). However humans keep as much people alive as possible. so even the "weak". And therefor even the genetically weaker can reproduce, so the humans do not evolve by the law of survival of te fittest. therefor the human evolution will not go to a better species. (ok as a biologist i sound pretty harsh, i would like to add that i'm in favour of keeping those people alive)
This is played out at Slut High: http://www.newsnet5.com/news/4885861/detail.html CANTON, Ohio -- There are 490 female students at Timken High School, and 65 are pregnant. School officials are not sure what has contributed to so many pregnancies... ...perhaps f***ing?
There are 490 female students at Timken High School, and 65 are pregnant. ____________ Where do I enroll?
