What overturning Roe v. Wade could mean for birth control access, maternal care - by Dia
Cipheron on 19/11/2022 at 23:27
Quote Posted by Nicker
Can you explain that in more detail please?
If that's true, why do corporations and governments act as if they are correlated?
What they mean is that economic development reduces population growth rates. It's a very strong inverse relationship.
This is why basic predator/prey models are not applicable here: applied naively, they give you the opposite results of what happens in the real world.
If you take just the USA for example, as the theoretical population carrying capacity is going UP, the actual birth rate has plummeted below replacement level, so the long-term trend is already downwards, yet we're still expanding the resource base. The mathematical population model as you suggested it would have said the opposite: that the birth rate must be going up as resources-per-person was going up. So the model is just wrong.
As for the stuff about government and corporations, what actual sources do you have to state that governments and corporations "act" like that?
Governments general put money into initiatives which reduce the birth rate, things that fight poverty. There are scant resources allocated to anything that would increase the birth rate. Also, immigration isn't generally aimed at increasing the population, but at maintaining the balance between workers and retirees, a balance that's out because of declining birth rates and increasing longevity.
Corporations also don't care about the population growth rate. They generally want to have the least amount of workers they can get away with. They also don't care about whether markets are contracting or expanding, just what the profit margin is. Look at the record profits oil companies have made *because* of the oil shortages.
Nicker on 20/11/2022 at 02:39
I am disappointed too, that merely identifying the overpopulation elephant in the room gets one labeled as a genocidal Nazi? I haven't identified a solution but even if I were gleefully advocating genocide (especially of those with a different skin tone from mine), that doesn't mean the problem of environmental collapse isn't real and hasn't repeatedly bitten our asses in the past, although on a local scale.
And since I am not advocating genocide, can we discuss the issue without finger pointing and labeling?
As I already said, equitable distribution is a different topic from the steady consumption of the entire globe by humans. Sure we can do better but as soon as we improve capacity, we will just fill the space we create with more humans. That's biology and that's history. Not ideology. But if we are going to fuck the planet, at least we can do so equitably and feel good about it together, as one (times 16 billion).
The globe is not a system of markets, facilitated by symbolic mediums of exchange and operated by criminals, it's a living system. Living systems have limits. That's all I am saying.
The global population is not stabilizing, is it? It's growing and it will continue to grow. Canada and the USA rely on immigration to make up for the baby deficit. They still require a steadily increasing population. You still need more working people to support those who have retired.
Quote:
They generally want to have the least amount of workers they can get away with.
And when Amazon replaces it's human's with robots, will they continue to pay their outmoded workers? Or will they concentrate profits in the Bezos Club and let the rest starve?
PS: We are hardly the first organism to have the capacity for mass destruction. We don't even hold a candle to cyanobacteria. Not sure what their ideology is? Any suggestions?
[video=youtube;qERdL8uHSgI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qERdL8uHSgI[/video]
PPS: Maybe this subtopic can be moved to it's own thread. I didn't mean to divert from issues of bodily autonomy.
june gloom on 20/11/2022 at 04:25
Nobody's labeling you a genocidal Nazi, but you're equating rejection of Malthusianism with climate crisis denial and I'm not having it.
Starker on 20/11/2022 at 07:07
Quote Posted by Nicker
The global population is not stabilizing, is it? It's growing and it will continue to grow.
You would probably benefit from watching the video I linked before.
Cipheron on 20/11/2022 at 09:41
Nobody is saying genocide. We're saying you haven't actually looked into any of that. Just look up fertility rates for nations. Half the countries on the planet are not having enough babies NOW to replace previous generations:
(
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependencies_by_total_fertility_rate)
Any nation with < 2 children per woman is already set for a population crash, because each couple simply isn't replicating another couple. 2.1 children is usually stated as replacement level, due to average survivability to adulthood.
Of the two most populated nations, China and India, India now has dropped for the first time to a fertility rate below replacement level (2.1). But the trend is further downwards, since it was about 6 children per woman only a few decades ago.
Meanwhile, China's fertility rate is 1.7 and has been lower longer than India's. China isn't just set for future population drops, the population of China fell in 2022:
Quote:
United Nations projections are also included through the year 2100. The current population of China in 2022 is 1,425,887,337, a 0% increase from 2021. The population of China in 2021 was 1,425,893,465
China was growing, but that's slowed, and it went slightly negative this year. It's like a ball thrown in an arc, and it just hit the peak of the trajectory. In the following years, the falls in China's population are going to accelerate. Current projections are for China to have only 750 million by the end of the century.
(
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/CHN/china/population-growth-rate)
By the next few years, China is expected to lose around a million a year. That will gradually increase to around 10 million a year by 2050.
Nicker on 6/5/2023 at 15:27
Quote:
They think a fertilized egg is a baby. It is dividing cells. That's it. That is an irrefutable fact.
I agree with your point about facts over feelings but you need to be clear about your facts too, and what they really say.
I am pro-choice but I think this is a poor argument for choice. An adult human is also dividing cells. In fact all of our cells are replaced multiple times throughout our lives. Does that mean that someone could "choose" to "abort" me. Not if I have a choice...
There's a slippery-slopeish'ness about the just cells argument, both factually and emotionally. (An acorn isn't an oak tree but it could be......) Tangential arguments avoid the actual issues and are, IMHO, red-herrings. They are also prone to being overturned by new data. Thought Experiment: What if we established, unequivocally, that dividing cells WERE humans? We are faced with the issue of choice all over again and now the best argument for it is in tatters.
Abortion is an emotional issue and pretending it's just facts is disingenuous. It is best to confront the actual issue head on, even if it is thorny, even if it amounts to making very difficult choices. That's why the argument for me is: not my body, not my choice and whoever has the power to make the choice gets the choice.
I don't have to like the choice another makes but that's better than others having to live with choices I make for them.
Head on.
Tocky on 6/5/2023 at 16:50
Ah. You moved it here. I'll leave it there as well because it contains the point of argument in it as well. If you want to continue other aspects besides argument and get into details I'll do so here.
No. You can't use "THE THING" argument. Science is specific. Science is logical. Unlike the horror movie The Thing, each separate part of us is not human. We have never called a blood sample a human though it has dividing cells. That is what the facts say. If you wanted to say one part of us was the human then you would have to say that part was the repository of what makes us human and sets us apart and that would be the brain. I see you haven't challenged them on this.
You can trust that I have carried this out to the very end or you can challenge and hear all the reasons. Draxil did that until he got to the point he could no longer hold his argument together with anything but emotion. That is the power of fact. I almost thought he was going to go to the end with me but alas he would not. Indeed it is emotional but if we are to define then fact is what we must use and you are wrong. There is no "slippery slope" when you adhere to fact. Fact is what defines and that holds true for all argument.
Why do you think my location is "in the flesh"? This flesh and bone thing is not where what I am resides. You can take away many pieces of it but it does not change who I am till you start cutting in one area.
Nicker on 6/5/2023 at 18:38
Quote:
No. You can't use "THE THING" argument.
Clones...
The problem with claiming that something is "science", therefore unassailable fact, therefore supports any particular argument, is at least THREE problems.
One - science is a process of examining facts so the "it's science" argument is the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.
Two - Facts precede explanation and interpretation. Scientific examination doesn't create facts. The horse goes before the cart, not after.
Three - Facts (data) can change. New data can emerge. Old data can be challenged, corrected or replaced. Data can be reinterpreted in light of new data or new understandings.
Simply put, whether a zygote is a person or not is an opinion, not a fact.
The "just cells" argument is a non sequitur because there is no direct, unequivocal path between the fact that dividing cells exist and the assertion that they are not a person (or that they are a person, if that's what you want the facts to say). This particular fact always has to pass through an opinion first to arrive at any preferred conclusion. At what point do they cross the line between cell-hood and person-hood? When does potentiality become actuality? And who decides?
Quote:
Why do you think my location is "in the flesh"? This flesh and bone thing is not where what I am resides. You can take away many pieces of it but it does not change who I am till you start cutting in one area.
You are at risk of refuting yourself here.
Are we an externaly existing being manifest in a temporary body? In which case, why are religious people concerned with the vessel if the real person exists outside of it?
Or are we an emergent property of a particular configuration of organic matter? In which case, when is it sufficiently organised to become a person and at what point is it so disconfigured that it is no longer human?
The choice question is not a scientific question. It is an ethical/moral one and yes, it is also an emotional one. Pretending it isn't is a distraction.
Tocky on 7/5/2023 at 00:36
Please confine this discussion to this thread alone as the other is for methods of argument.
Clones. Clones are a copy and not the original. Therefore they are like the structure of someone but with new experience. The structure is unimportant except as it affects the storage of data. They are not the original and therefore of no import in this to this discussion. A clone is a person no less than the original unless the brain is damaged too greatly.
Okay. You have misunderstood every single thing so I will follow in the order you misunderstood them.
One-science is a process of examining facts so it is in no way a logical fallacy and there is no "science authority". New facts change science and thus no authority by it but the search for truth which is itself the only authority of whether something is real or not.
Two- Facts precede explanation and interpretation. Science does not create them. Examination of those facts is what determines the explanation and interpretation. Nobody places the horse before the cart. Science starts with those facts and builds on them. It has from the beginning. When wrong according to discovered facts it changes the explanation and interpretation.
Three- facts and data can change. New data is accounted for and a new interpretation arrived at if necessary by science. Old data is welcomed to be challenged, corrected or replaced. Data can indeed be interpreted in light of new data because that is what science does to find understanding.
Simply put, whether a zygote is a person or not can be determined by a definition of what a person is. That is a fact and not opinion.
I am in no way at risk of confounding or refuting myself.
I am not saying that "I am" in an external existence. I am saying that I am apart from every part of my body except the brain. That is who I am. It is in no way religious and not an opinion. Destroy any part of the brain and I am no longer the same therefore what I am resides there. You do as well. That is not conjecture. You can nit pic what sections are most important but that is where who we are resides. It is the opposite of religion. "The status of the vessel" is of no concern except as a support for the brain. There is no inconsistency at all.
My position is formed entirely of facts and any of them may be challenged but you are going to have to do better than that.
Cells are not a person except as those which form the brain. In the early development of the potential person there is no brain. It develops later and even then does not work well enough to be called a person. Indeed until the body can support the continued development of the brain the fetus cannot live outside the body. I don't give damn one about religion. That was developed without any provable fact.
"Or are we an emergent property of a particular configuration of organic matter? In which case, when is it sufficiently organised to become a person and at what point is it so disconfigured that it is no longer human?"
NOW you are beginning to get it. The answer to the first part is yes. The answer to the second is when higher brain function dies. Why do we pull the plug when there is brain death? The person has died whether the body has or not.
The choice question is entirely a scientific one. The only distraction is when emotion or ethical/moral distinctions are injected into the argument. Ethics and morals need to be based on fact and fact is determined by science by testing. Facts exist before science but scientific method finds them.
Nicker on 8/5/2023 at 05:24
"NOW you are beginning to get it. "
Sarcasm. Really? Or is it the strain of carrying on two crisscrossing arguments in adjacent locations? I know I find it a challenge.
"The answer to the second is when higher brain function dies. Why do we pull the plug when there is brain death? The person has died whether the body has or not."
Doctors misdiagnose death all too frequently. Some people who survive a diagnosis of clinical death or brain death, report complex perceptions during their departure and recover full brain function after returning. This would suggest that the supposedly clear line is neither clear nor linear. The same can be said about the progression from zygote to person. IMHO
"The choice question is entirely a scientific one." - Unsupported assertion.
"The only distraction is when emotion or ethical/moral distinctions are injected into the argument." - Or when lines drawn do not actually exist.
"Ethics and morals need to be based on fact and fact is determined by science by testing." - Morals are evolutionarily adaptive feelings which encourage group cohesion in social animals. Ethics are codifications of morals.
"Facts exist before science but scientific method finds them." - Anyone can find a fact. Science gives us the best explanations for them.
