Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

RPG Superstar 2015

Voluntary Extinction?


Off-Topic Discussions

1 to 50 of 69 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
The Exchange

So these folks want you to stop having kids and accept your extinction


Damn! They stole my idea!

Shadow Lodge Marathon Voter 2013, Marathon Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hardly news. These guys and organizations like them have been around for years.

As long as they don't take the next logical step and start forcibly stopping people from having children that want them, I can tolerate them as eccentric weirdos. I don't want any children myself anyway so they've nothing to worry about from me, though that has less to do with desiring human extinction and more with my own disinterest in the process and the responsibilities that follow.

Marathon Voter 2013, Marathon Voter 2014, Dedicated Voter 2015

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Hey, I dunno about voluntary extinction, but years of retail does lend a lot of support to the idea of telling some people to participate...

Shadow Lodge Dedicated Voter 2014

I for one welcome our raccoon overlords.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The problem is, ignorant/stupid people tend to breed way faster than higly intelligent/well educated people.

All your going to manage is breeding intelligence out of the human race.

(Among the more highly educated demongraphics the average is already <2 children.)

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Artanthos wrote:

The problem is, ignorant/stupid people tend to breed way faster than higly intelligent/well educated people.

All your going to manage is breeding intelligence out of the human race.

(Among the more highly educated demongraphics the average is already <2 children.)

See Idiocracy and The Marching Morons.


Artanthos wrote:

The problem is, ignorant/stupid people tend to breed way faster than higly intelligent/well educated people.

All your going to manage is breeding intelligence out of the human race.

(Among the more highly educated demongraphics the average is already <2 children.)

You're making the assumption that "highly educated" has any more than minimal correlation with intelligence.

Education is far more highly correlated with wealth/poverty than with intelligent/stupid, especially on an international level.

Raising education levels, especially of women, is well known to cut birthrates in underdeveloped countries.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Artanthos wrote:

The problem is, ignorant/stupid people tend to breed way faster than higly intelligent/well educated people.

All your going to manage is breeding intelligence out of the human race.

(Among the more highly educated demongraphics the average is already <2 children.)

Last I checked, the research indicates that if you selectively breed for intelligence you wind up with a human average intelligence spectrum within a generation. Translation: intelligence is not a reliably inheritable characteristic. All you have to do is look at the number of royal families that have produced a wide variation in intelligence and effectiveness in a short span of generations to see this in action.

So, in short, feel free to marry the dumb blonde with the 18 charisma! :)

Scarab Sages

...

That is all.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yep, he called it Ceti Alpha VI.


Too bad they are targeting this advertisent to nations or ethnic/racial groups with less than 2% population growth.

The Exchange Marathon Voter 2013, Marathon Voter 2014, Marathon Voter 2015

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's a no-win situation. So-called "first world" nations look at countries like India and say "You're overpopulating and that's bad, stop it!" They look back at countries like the U.S. and say "You consume and waste vast amounts of resources, stop it!" Problem is that they're both right. Doesn't stop it from continuing, however.


The movement is an extreme one, but I do believe that we could solve some serious problems by treating child birth as a privilege rather than a right. Aside from the problems it could solve today, Earth is eventually going to run out of room.*

Personally I'd love to find a way to cap the world population before Earth looks like that city-planet from Star Wars.

*Either we'll run out of room, or we'll suffer an endless cycle of mass global warfare just to eliminate excess population. Our leaders will give us other reasons for going to war of course, but that doesn't change the facts...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm less worried about third world countries overpopulating, frankly, because they don't consume the same level of resources as countries like US or Japan.

Even if countries like China and India curbed their population growth, which they aren't, they're still in the process of modernizing, which means the same population will continue to consume more and more resources.

I don't want the human race to go extinct, but it's clear that we need to promote negative population growth NOW.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I just think you should need a license to have children. You need to be reviewed and tested every year.

Shadow Lodge Marathon Voter 2013, Marathon Voter 2014

2 people marked this as a favorite.

On the one hand, I agree with the concepts of "you need a license to have children" in theory. The problem is no matter who you get to adjudicate it, someone is going to be unhappy with the judgement. I for example would not want to put that kind of authority in the hands of some public servant. I'm certain most religious groups would be unhappy with a board of biologists making the call, and vice versa. Etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum.


People obtain licenses, to Drive! And we all know everyone drives well.

Shadow Lodge Marathon Voter 2013, Marathon Voter 2014

I'd say the two situations aren't even near comparable.


Oh yeah, it is far more difficult to drive. Have you been to Salt Lake City?

Shadow Lodge Marathon Voter 2013, Marathon Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Heh. No, I haven't. I live in TN, lived in TX and AZ in the past but didn't have a license back then.

It's easy to have children. It's significantly harder to raise them.


How about we selectively neuter the unwanted population. I don't know how we would determine which population is unwanted, but I know a good place to start is the cast of "Jersey Shore" and their viewers.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

How about we do the things that actually work and aren't coercive?

Educate women. Give them opportunities other than motherhood. Give them access to birth control and family planning services.


Orthos wrote:

Heh. No, I haven't. I live in TN, lived in TX and AZ in the past but didn't have a license back then.

It's easy to have children. It's significantly harder to raise them.

Disagree.

It's easy to have children. It's easy to raise children.
It's difficult to raise children so that they are well-rounded, fully-functioning, educated critical thinkers and contributing members of society.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

How about we do the things that actually work and aren't coercive?

Educate women. Give them opportunities other than motherhood. Give them access to birth control and family planning services.

Socialist.


Judge: "Sir, you did what? Bailiff, whack his pee-pee."

Shadow Lodge Marathon Voter 2013, Marathon Voter 2014

meatrace wrote:
Orthos wrote:

Heh. No, I haven't. I live in TN, lived in TX and AZ in the past but didn't have a license back then.

It's easy to have children. It's significantly harder to raise them.

Disagree.

It's easy to have children. It's easy to raise children.
It's difficult to raise children so that they are well-rounded, fully-functioning, educated critical thinkers and contributing members of society.

I'll be blunt and probably a little mean. If you aren't raising them to be so, you're essentially not raising them at all.

Thus it was implied.

Of course, depending on who you ask, those requisites often mean very different things. Another hurdle to any sort of solution.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Orthos wrote:
As long as they don't take the next logical step and start forcibly stopping people from having children that want them, I can tolerate them as eccentric weirdos.

There's nothing 'logical' about that step unless you delete the word 'Voluntary' from the name of the movement.

Shadow Lodge Marathon Voter 2013, Marathon Voter 2014

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Orthos wrote:
As long as they don't take the next logical step and start forcibly stopping people from having children that want them, I can tolerate them as eccentric weirdos.
There's nothing 'logical' about that step unless you delete the word 'Voluntary' from the name of the movement.

Quite aware. But that's really the only further way to go. They're never going to be able to convince the majority of the species to accept its own demise, so either they're going to have to settle for leaving their progress where it's at, or advance to a non-voluntary method. At which point they'll be a danger and need to be addressed as such.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I have no problem settling for preaching it to others and letting them decide for themselves. I wish more ideologies left it at that.

Spoiler:
You being in TN is a point in its favor for my wife and I's choice of state to put down roots. I'm just worried it's too conservative for my tastes.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
thejeff wrote:

How about we do the things that actually work and aren't coercive?

Educate women. Give them opportunities other than motherhood. Give them access to birth control and family planning services.

Powerful institutions oppose all of those. It's the right thing to do regardless, but you'd probably have less push back for far more coercive solutions.


Samnell wrote:
thejeff wrote:

How about we do the things that actually work and aren't coercive?

Educate women. Give them opportunities other than motherhood. Give them access to birth control and family planning services.

Powerful institutions oppose all of those. It's the right thing to do regardless, but you'd probably have less push back for far more coercive solutions.

Really? I'd think that coercion would cause the greater backlash. A politician trying to introduce any kind of bureaucracy into child bearing would have just about everyone jumping down his throat, I'd imagine: religious groups rebelling against this "attack on our 'go forth and multiply' commandment," liberals fighting against any restriction on "basic human choice," and of course the conservatives who are always screaming for smaller government. And of course nobody with money or power wants to cut down on their pool of cheap labor and desperate enlistees.

I can imagine a tax cut for 1-2 child families, or a cut-off in government child support after the second child...probably in the distant future. That seems somewhat more realistic.

But who knows, maybe you're right.


How about free birth control for all and a tax penalty for having children?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

.

Remember that story line on [b]Stargate SG1[/b\ where the alien race took over
the Earth by making us all infertile. But we humans didn't know about
it until it was too late.

That was scary.

.


meatrace wrote:


I don't want the human race to go extinct, but it's clear that we need to promote negative population growth NOW.

Actually, the planetary rate of population growth is already reaching the non-renewal level (where each generation gives birth to less members than it had, thus eventually causing the total to go down). Here's a graph showing the trend since the 60's and the expected behaviour: Source

As for myself, I want three kids, so I'm not signing up. I'm open to adoption, though.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Tequila Sunrise wrote:


Really? I'd think that coercion would cause the greater backlash. A politician trying to introduce any kind of bureaucracy into child bearing would have just about everyone jumping down his throat

Experience says the opposite. Introducing bureaucracy into child bearing is, in fact, precisely what the powerful institutions I'm referring to absolutely insist upon. By contrast, we know they don't much mind outcomes that result in dead women.

A decent person would invariably, of course, prefer a condom to a corpse. Decency is not distributed evenly across the population.

Silver Crusade Star Voter 2013

Klaus van der Kroft wrote:
meatrace wrote:


I don't want the human race to go extinct, but it's clear that we need to promote negative population growth NOW.

Actually, the planetary rate of population growth is already reaching the non-renewal level (where each generation gives birth to less members than it had, thus eventually causing the total to go down). Here's a graph showing the trend since the 60's and the expected behaviour: Source

As for myself, I want three kids, so I'm not signing up. I'm open to adoption, though.

That source shows a reduction in growth, not a reduction in population. If the projection went to a negative growth value, then it would suggest a contraction. That graph just shows it is not growing as quickly as it was before.

The Exchange Marathon Voter 2013, Marathon Voter 2014, Marathon Voter 2015

2 people marked this as a favorite.
meatrace wrote:
How about free birth control for all and a tax penalty for having children?

Godless liberal.


Shadowborn wrote:
meatrace wrote:
How about free birth control for all and a tax penalty for having children?
Godless liberal.

Damn skippy!


Klaus van der Kroft wrote:
meatrace wrote:


I don't want the human race to go extinct, but it's clear that we need to promote negative population growth NOW.
Actually, the planetary rate of population growth is already reaching the non-renewal level (where each generation gives birth to less members than it had, thus eventually causing the total to go down). Here's a graph showing the trend since the 60's and the expected behaviour: Source

That's the best news about population growth I've ever seen. Not exactly negative growth, but still hopeful.

Klaus van der Kroft wrote:
As for myself, I want three kids, so I'm not signing up. I'm open to adoption, though.

A little more adoption would make the world a better place. As I understand it though, the problem is that the demand for healthy infants far outweighs the supply and the supply of older or unhealthy children far outweighs the demand.

If you don't mind me asking, what made you pick the number three? It's a pretty common number.

Samnell wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:


Really? I'd think that coercion would cause the greater backlash. A politician trying to introduce any kind of bureaucracy into child bearing would have just about everyone jumping down his throat

Experience says the opposite. Introducing bureaucracy into child bearing is, in fact, precisely what the powerful institutions I'm referring to absolutely insist upon. By contrast, we know they don't much mind outcomes that result in dead women.

A decent person would invariably, of course, prefer a condom to a corpse. Decency is not distributed evenly across the population.

Indeed. I wonder which institutions you're referring to?

Silver Crusade

Move over humans, it is time to accept the Rise of the Planet of the Teddies!

Shadow Lodge Dedicated Voter 2014

Shadowborn wrote:
meatrace wrote:
How about free birth control for all and a tax penalty for having children?
Godless liberal.

redundant department of redundancy department.

The Exchange Marathon Voter 2013, Marathon Voter 2014, Marathon Voter 2015

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Shadowborn wrote:
meatrace wrote:
How about free birth control for all and a tax penalty for having children?
Godless liberal.
redundant department of redundancy department.

Not at all. I know many religious folk who are politically liberal-minded. Not everything is divided along party lines. Also, some of us find philosophy to be useful. Case in point... ;-)


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Tequila Sunrise wrote:


A decent person would invariably, of course, prefer a condom to a corpse. Decency is not distributed evenly across the population.
Indeed. I wonder which institutions you're referring to?

The powerful kind.

Shadow Lodge Marathon Voter 2013, Marathon Voter 2014

Shadowborn wrote:
Not everything is divided along party lines.

This. Sadly that's not the way most people I know think....

Marathon Voter 2013, Marathon Voter 2014, Dedicated Voter 2015

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Dividing everything along party lines makes it so much easier for people to lump everything into an us vs them mentality and dismiss everything they disagree with as enemy ideology regardless of facts.

It also makes the MLP jokes so much easier.


Celestial Healer wrote:
Klaus van der Kroft wrote:
meatrace wrote:


I don't want the human race to go extinct, but it's clear that we need to promote negative population growth NOW.

Actually, the planetary rate of population growth is already reaching the non-renewal level (where each generation gives birth to less members than it had, thus eventually causing the total to go down). Here's a graph showing the trend since the 60's and the expected behaviour: Source

As for myself, I want three kids, so I'm not signing up. I'm open to adoption, though.

That source shows a reduction in growth, not a reduction in population. If the projection went to a negative growth value, then it would suggest a contraction. That graph just shows it is not growing as quickly as it was before.

I didn't say the population is shrinking; I said we're reaching the point where the renewal rate is less than 1:1, which is expected to happen somewhere between 2040-2060 according to the UN (assuming current trends in child bearing, of course, which in all likelyhood will change, as they have in the past 50 years). What that means is that you have less than 2 kids per couple, which in turn means that every member of a given generation produces less than its equivalent in new members. Thus, once said generation starts to die off, population would start to shrink (before that, it grows).

The current generation is the least fertile in recent history, but since the mortality rates at birth are so low and life expectancy so high, the total growth is still in the possitive numbers, but also dropping at a predictable speed.

We experienced an almost continous rise in the rate of population growth world-wide between the 1300's and the 1960's, and a steady decline since then. It is the first time since the Black Plague that world population growth slows so hard (from the 2.2% in the 60's to the 1.1% we have today).

Tequila Sunrise wrote:

If you don't mind me asking, what made you pick the number three? It's a pretty common number.

Well, I am the oldest of three siblings, and I had a truly happy childhood, so I'm mostly guessing from personal experience that the number is good. 3 kids worked perfectly for our family (though my own parents, who also had pretty happy childhoods, come from families with 6 siblings).

Shadow Lodge Dedicated Voter 2014

Shadowborn wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Shadowborn wrote:
meatrace wrote:
How about free birth control for all and a tax penalty for having children?
Godless liberal.
redundant department of redundancy department.
Not at all. I know many religious folk who are politically liberal-minded. Not everything is divided along party lines. Also, some of us find philosophy to be useful. Case in point... ;-)

Hehe. Sorry, ran into Poe's law there. Should have added a smiley after the redundant department of redundancy department.

And bah, thats not philosophy, that's sweet sweet natural selection in action!


Samnell wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:


A decent person would invariably, of course, prefer a condom to a corpse. Decency is not distributed evenly across the population.
Indeed. I wonder which institutions you're referring to?
The powerful kind.

There are quite a few of those. Can you narrow it down? Drop a couple of names?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Samnell wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:


A decent person would invariably, of course, prefer a condom to a corpse. Decency is not distributed evenly across the population.
Indeed. I wonder which institutions you're referring to?
The powerful kind.
There are quite a few of those. Can you narrow it down? Drop a couple of names?

I thought we both knew, but the biggest kid on the block is the Catholic Church. They're far from the only one, but they are the billion pound gorilla.

1 to 50 of 69 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Off-Topic Discussions / Voluntary Extinction? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.