> You just don't agree with the article's claim that the problem can be solved ...
That's correct. The article relies on a common logical error, to wit: catastrophe hasn't overtaken us yet, and that stands as evidence that it cannot ever happen, i.e. the past predicts the future.
It's one thing to accept that we can't solve population problems by pointing fingers at other people. But it's quite another to try to claim the problem doesn't exist at all.
> basically you don't think humans will be able to come to grips with the social changes that would be required to manage ourselves as a species responsibly.
It's a bit more complicated than that. In a mixed population of people who can grasp the nature of biological limits, and others who cannot, those who cannot eventually become the entire future population -- people congenitally indisposed to act intelligently. It's the inevitable outcome of natural selection.
That's an easy problem to state, but impossible to do anything about without abandoning all civilized standards of behavior. If we do nothing, mass death becomes the problem. If we try to "solve" the problem, fascist and eugenic political measures become the problem. That's not any kind of choice.
My point? This isn't a movie in which everything gets resolved in the third act. All our choices are bad ones, but the worst is to imagine the problem doesn't exist, as the author of the linked article tries to do.
In a mixed population of people who can grasp the nature of biological limits, and others who cannot, those who cannot eventually become the entire future population -- people congenitally indisposed to act intelligently. It's the inevitable outcome of natural selection.
Yes, I see you make this argument on your page on evolution that you linked to. The only possible flaw that I can see is that you say it is
impossible to do anything about without abandoning all civilized standards of behavior
I'm not saying I have a solution that doesn't require that; but I'm not sure that our only option is giving up on trying to find one. I.e., instead of "impossible" in the quote above I would put "extremely difficult". But I admit that's purely a matter of opinion on my part.
> I'm not sure that our only option is giving up on trying to find one.
No one is suggesting "giving up". In any case, it's not in the nature of science to give up on searching for solutions. But as things stand, there's no obvious solution.
> instead of "impossible" in the quote above I would put "extremely difficult".
My use of "impossible" was only with respect to measures that modify the behavior of individuals by force. That's impossible without abandoning civilized standards. I don't normally use the word "impossible" without good reason.
My use of "impossible" was only with respect to measures that modify the behavior of individuals by force. That's impossible without abandoning civilized standards.
That's correct. The article relies on a common logical error, to wit: catastrophe hasn't overtaken us yet, and that stands as evidence that it cannot ever happen, i.e. the past predicts the future.
It's one thing to accept that we can't solve population problems by pointing fingers at other people. But it's quite another to try to claim the problem doesn't exist at all.
> basically you don't think humans will be able to come to grips with the social changes that would be required to manage ourselves as a species responsibly.
It's a bit more complicated than that. In a mixed population of people who can grasp the nature of biological limits, and others who cannot, those who cannot eventually become the entire future population -- people congenitally indisposed to act intelligently. It's the inevitable outcome of natural selection.
That's an easy problem to state, but impossible to do anything about without abandoning all civilized standards of behavior. If we do nothing, mass death becomes the problem. If we try to "solve" the problem, fascist and eugenic political measures become the problem. That's not any kind of choice.
My point? This isn't a movie in which everything gets resolved in the third act. All our choices are bad ones, but the worst is to imagine the problem doesn't exist, as the author of the linked article tries to do.