Should it be legal for race to be a criteria in sperm donor request?

[politicus]

We consume more resources than we generate.

SOME resources we are using up, but we're not going to run out of "resources", ever.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There are areas humans shouldn't live in as many numbers as they live, but that's really only a problem for the people living in those areas.  They can move to places more suitable to human beings, as they should.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm going to need a cite for that too.  And where?  Certainly not where I live, you know, 'murica, with all our waste and guns, you'd think there wouldn't be anything left alive if you listen to a certain group of people.  Sure, some species are under more pressure than they were 40 years ago, other species are doing a lot better.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

and it will have to be tackled.

We are certainly over populated in certain areas, but the planet can hold, feed, shelter, clothe and entertain a LOT of people.

Regarding wildlife it is an estimate based on this report:

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29418983

You are not addressing the "still" part, which is what puzzles me.

We are rather close to the limit of the Earths carrying capacity according to experts. For a quick intro see:

http://www.livescience.com/16493-people-planet-earth-support.html

The current estimate is that world population will stabilize around 11 billion, which is above that, but hopefully manageable, but the trouble is that this number keeps getting upgraded. African and Middle Eastern population growth does not decline as fast as expected just a few years back.

(the article is from back when the prognosis was more optimistic than today)

If world population had stopped at 3-4 billion, we would have virtually no serious environmental problems, so I think it is obvious that we are over populated compared to an ideal state - and increasingly also compared to the maximum carrying capacity.

Generally it is undesirable to get too close to the carrying capacity since most of us want room for "the good live" and developing countries needs room to improve their living standard.

Whether we will be "running out" of resources is irrelevant, it is scarcity and the conflicts and loss of life (and quality of life) that leads to, which are - and increasingly will be - the problems.

[dead0man]

I suppose we're just at different levels of harm we're willing to inflict on this rock/Mother Earth.  Lets say it is a problem, what do you suggest we do about it?  Educated people in the west choosing to not have kids isn't going to help unless by doing so they convince 100 women in sub-Sahara Africa to do the same.

[politicus]

I suppose we're just at different levels of harm we're willing to inflict on this rock/Mother Earth.  Lets say it is a problem, what do you suggest we do about it?  Educated people in the west choosing to not have kids isn't going to help unless by doing so they convince 100 women in sub-Sahara Africa to do the same.

Massive increase of funding for family planning and education of girls in developing countries (the last one is generally the single most important factor). Combined with micro loans to poor females to start their own small businesses etc. Independent women gets fewer children.

Easier access for poor countries to our markets (higher average income = reduced families).

I agree Western middle class people stopping to have kids is not all that important (high resource consumption than in poor countries, but a relatively small group).

You started out ridiculing the entire idea of over population, which is what I think is wrong. Especially the notion that the problem is any less relevant today than it used to be.

[dead0man]

It just reeks of the 70s whacky environmentalists that were telling us we were ALL going to be starving in the 90s, how DDT was horrible for everybody and eveyrthing and of course, the coming ice age.

Massive increase of funding for family planning and education of girls in developing countries (the last one is generally the single most important factor). Combined with micro loans to poor females to start their own small businesses etc. Independent women gets fewer children.

I wouldn't be as against that as you would assume.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hey, I'm for free trade too!  Protectionist policies hurt everybody.

[Хahar 🤔]

There are areas humans shouldn't live in as many numbers as they live, but that's really only a problem for the people living in those areas.  They can move to places more suitable to human beings, as they should.

I certainly support this idea, but how can they do this?

[dead0man]

Well, first world people can just freaking move and stop bitching about it.  Outside the first world, I don't know....it's going to take a lot of money from the first world to fix it I would imagine.  Not only in moving expenses, but in (as politicus and I want) more education, especially for the women folk.  It's not going to be easy, people will bitch, hell, we don't have to worry about it because it's not going to happen.  Too hard, people don't care enough, even if we could, the people on the ground likely won't enjoy being told where they can go ('cause it won't be where they want to go).

[ingemann]

[There are areas humans shouldn't live in as many numbers as they live, but that's really only a problem for the people living in those areas.  They can move to places more suitable to human beings, as they should.

Netherlands are swamps and sea floors from nature side, I personal think the Dutch have done better by not moving to a places more suitable to human beings.

[DavidB.]

[There are areas humans shouldn't live in as many numbers as they live, but that's really only a problem for the people living in those areas.  They can move to places more suitable to human beings, as they should.

Netherlands are swamps and sea floors from nature side, I personal think the Dutch have done better by not moving to a places more suitable to human beings.

I'm not really sure what you mean? You're happy that Dutch people don't live in areas that are suitable to human beings? Regardless of what you meant, the Dutch invented ways to tackle similar problems centuries and centuries ago, and I have no doubt we will be perfectly fine even if there will be a major sea level rise. (On this topic, a PVV MP once made what was probably the rudest joke/personal attack that has ever taken place in our parliament: he said we should simply lay this "large" female GreenLeft MP in front of the dyke, which will then stop the water. )

Of course, sea level rise will affect densely populated areas in the "third world" the most. (I don't think dead0man was really talking about the Netherlands.) That is worrisome, and I'm pretty sceptical about turning the tide. In the meantime, I am all for sharing the technologies we have, for instance with Bangladesh.

[WVdemocrat]

Yes, but I'd argue it's morally questionable to consider it on a personal level.

Dammit man, your sig scared the sh*t out of me. It probably took me less than a half a second to hastily open a new tab and pull up Walter Mondale's Wikipedia page, to see if he died while I was at school or something.

Anyway, to answer the OP, it should be legal.

[PJ]

I'm against having children in today's day and age. Earth is already overpopulated, and people who want children can adopt (this is a preferable alternative regardless).

Not sure if I buy this, but even if it's true, we have a way out:



The final frontier.

Do you really have Ayn Rand in your sig and you reference a series in which everything is free and hunger has been wiped out? lol

Star Trek is the show depicting an all-progressive utopia, yet a black woman still answers the phone.

[Zioneer]

I'm against having children in today's day and age. Earth is already overpopulated, and people who want children can adopt (this is a preferable alternative regardless).

Not sure if I buy this, but even if it's true, we have a way out:



The final frontier.

Do you really have Ayn Rand in your sig and you reference a series in which everything is free and hunger has been wiped out? lol

Star Trek is the show depicting an all-progressive utopia, yet a black woman still answers the phone.

To be fair, I think the creator of Star Trek wanted a more progressive show, but the executives wouldn't let him be as all-out progressive as he wanted. And it still broke barriers for its time.

[PJ]

I'm against having children in today's day and age. Earth is already overpopulated, and people who want children can adopt (this is a preferable alternative regardless).

Not sure if I buy this, but even if it's true, we have a way out:



The final frontier.

Do you really have Ayn Rand in your sig and you reference a series in which everything is free and hunger has been wiped out? lol

Star Trek is the show depicting an all-progressive utopia, yet a black woman still answers the phone.

To be fair, I think the creator of Star Trek wanted a more progressive show, but the executives wouldn't let him be as all-out progressive as he wanted. And it still broke barriers for its time.

I was mostly joking. Yeah, it's interesting that something considered very forward thinking for its time would be criticized today (Imagine a feminist take on Kirk's constant pursuit of women, for instance).

[Sol]

There are areas humans shouldn't live in as many numbers as they live, but that's really only a problem for the people living in those areas.  They can move to places more suitable to human beings, as they should.

I absolutely agree. Thankfully, many from the far-too-arid climates of Syria and Iraq are doing the same, and moving to regions with a greater carrying capacity.