> The only humane way to control population is extensive education of the masses ...
Absolutely true, but for one thing. If we educate the masses, we will reduce the average fertility along with doing a lot of general good. Who could argue against that?
But natural selection does perverse things with our best-laid plans. If we educate the masses, natural selection will efficiently select those who weren't educated, or who weren't educated very well, and within 100 years, those people will represent the entire human population.
Those who doubt this scenario need only study the spread of MRSA, in spite of many well-educated people fighting the good fight:
Quote 2: "2012: Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology-published study showed MRSA infections doubled at academic medical centers in the U.S. between 2003 and 2008. Hospitalizations increased from about 21 out of every 1,000 patients hospitalized in 2003 to about 42 out of every 1,000 in 2008, or almost 1 in 20 patients."
We fought and lost that battle, in the midst of the most advanced society that has ever existed, with a full armament of scientific methods and knowledge. And we didn't have to honor the tastes and individual rights of the organisms we were fighting -- we could be ruthless and warlike. We lost anyway.
Now, because of MRSA, to visit a doctor exposes you to a greater risk than ... well, than most reasons to visit a doctor.
so we are in a fix (in other words ooh! poops).any study or effort to beat nature from selecting stupidity?. I used to joke about natural selection as "survival of the dumbest"(I used to be a creationist nut, back in freshman days) I guess "dumb is the new fit!"
Absolutely true, but for one thing. If we educate the masses, we will reduce the average fertility along with doing a lot of general good. Who could argue against that?
But natural selection does perverse things with our best-laid plans. If we educate the masses, natural selection will efficiently select those who weren't educated, or who weren't educated very well, and within 100 years, those people will represent the entire human population.
Those who doubt this scenario need only study the spread of MRSA, in spite of many well-educated people fighting the good fight:
http://mrsa-research-center.bsd.uchicago.edu/timeline.html
Quote 1: "1960-1967: nfrequent hospital outbreaks of MRSA in Western Europe and Australia - See more at: http://mrsa-research-center.bsd.uchicago.edu/timeline.html#s...
Quote 2: "2012: Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology-published study showed MRSA infections doubled at academic medical centers in the U.S. between 2003 and 2008. Hospitalizations increased from about 21 out of every 1,000 patients hospitalized in 2003 to about 42 out of every 1,000 in 2008, or almost 1 in 20 patients."
We fought and lost that battle, in the midst of the most advanced society that has ever existed, with a full armament of scientific methods and knowledge. And we didn't have to honor the tastes and individual rights of the organisms we were fighting -- we could be ruthless and warlike. We lost anyway.
Now, because of MRSA, to visit a doctor exposes you to a greater risk than ... well, than most reasons to visit a doctor.