Are we causing the extinction of humanity?

[Jor-el]

I've decided to add this topic since I have been thinking about this lately, due to a number of conversations I've had with some friends, and while I'm a Christian and believe that we should love our neighbor and thus help our neighbors when times are bad, I have seen this concept stretched to limits that would otherwise break a rubber band. just how far are we believers willing to go to "love our neighbor" (and I do not mean in the carnal sense )

An example of this ideology is that we should help everyone in need, from the starving millions in Africa and Asia, to the homeless in our own cities, thus not only increasing the worlds population beyond acceptable limits, but also creating a vicious circle whereby children who receive aid, grow up to create even larger families and thereby perpetuate and worsen the vicious circle.

Or another example, Of consistently trying to aid and extend lifespans, thereby creating huge population bubbles of elderly citizens, whereby the new generations cannot afford to pay for the previous generations retirement, thereby increasing an already hellish national debt to levels that make the new generation slaves in everything but name.

And last of all, what about medicine, which is a natural offshoot of this ideology whereby we try to cure disease and all that ails us, thereby allowing entire populations with genes that would not have survived, back into he gene pool, weakening humanity as a species.

So.... Are our good intentions actually helping mankind or sending him the way of the dinosaurs?

Edited January 27, 2015 by Jor-el

[Careful_perspective]

I'll just leave this here:

“Human beings are so destructive. I sometimes think we're a kind of plague, that will scrub the earth clean. We destroy things so well that I sometimes think, maybe that's our function. Maybe every few eons, some animal comes along that kills off the rest of the world, clears the decks, and lets evolution proceed to its next phase.”-Michael Crichton

[Grandpa Greenman]

I think what is going to take us our is the damage we are doing to the biosphere more than anything else. Things start heating up and crops start failing, trees die, the ocean die, it is going to get mighty bad. I think we are on are way to an environmental collapse and it might just be the end of mankind.

Though, I once read that birth control would reduce intelligents because intelligent people would tend to limit family size and the less intelligent would produce large families. That appears it may be the case.

[bubblykiss]

I'll just leave this here:

“Human beings are so destructive. I sometimes think we're a kind of plague, that will scrub the earth clean. We destroy things so well that I sometimes think, maybe that's our function. Maybe every few eons, some animal comes along that kills off the rest of the world, clears the decks, and lets evolution proceed to its next phase.”-Michael Crichton

It may sound contrite but that is pretty much the plot of This Ugly Yet Beautiful World. Instead of humanity being the destroyer it is a psychic unit that splits into 2 distinct personalities before passing judgement on the world.

Be warned though, the show is filled with fan service (cartoon panties and boobies) intermixed with interesting ideas about extinction, evolution and the place of humanity in the greater scheme of things.

[Careful_perspective]

My biggest concern is that we are all part of one planet that is intimately interconnected. As various nations begin to advance technologically they will make choices and mistakes we have made in the past as a Nation, and pollute terribly.

[+Liquid Gardens]

I've decided to add this topic since I have been thinking about this lately, due to a number of conversations I've had with some friends, and while I'm a Christian and believe that we should love our neighbor and thus help our neighbors when times are bad, I have seen this concept stretched to limits that would otherwise break a rubber band. just how far are we believers willing to go to "love our neighbor" (and I do not mean in the carnal sense )

An example of this is ideology that we should help everyone in need, from the starving millions in Africa and Asia, to the homeless in our own cities, thus not only increasing the worlds population beyond acceptable limits, but also creating a vicious circle whereby children who receive aid, grow up to create even larger families and thereby perpetuate and worsen the vicious circle.

I'm not quite clear to what extent you are trying to couch your questions within Christianity/being a Christian, as opposed to asking more from the standpoint, 'is it 'better' if we don't feed the starving' according to some other standard. If it's within Christianity, I guess it depends on how you interpret the other relevant instruction, 'do unto others'; I guess if the situations were reversed and you were instead a starving Christian and you think you would say, "it's best that no one gives me any assistance because of our excessive population", then at least you'd be consistent. I'm not sure of all of Jesus' direct instructions, but I thought that there are pretty much direct instructions to Christians to help the poor and sick (not positive about the hungry). I'm pretty sure, regardless of the specifics, that Jesus didn't attach any 'unless' to those instructions, and cities in the OT were destroyed by God's wrath for their failure to aid the poor and hungry. Overpopulation isn't necessarily something that's just being contributed to by the starving people of the world either, so I'm not sure why we should single them out for correction on this question.

And last of all, what about medicine, which is a natural offshoot of this ideology whereby we try to cure disease and all that ails us, thereby allowing entire populations with genes that would not have survived, back into he gene pool, weakening humanity as a species.

I'm not sure how valid it is to link disease to genes here, lots of non-genetic diseases, but how far would you like to go with this thinking? My eyesight, like zillions of others, is crap; aren't we weakening humanity also? Several of the diseases I've been vaccinated against can be deadly, should that be eliminated? For the strength of humanity evolution-wise, wouldn't it be better to let people get measles and such, let those who are weak or suspectible to it die and be removed from the gene pool, and let evolution do it's thing, hopefully resulting (after many generations) in people who are naturally more immune to it? I'm not saying that to be confrontational or imply that's what you said, just trying to evaluate the alternatives to not trying to cure diseases and setting the strengthening of humanity as an objective.

So.... Are our good intentions actually helping mankind or sending him the way of the dinosaurs?

Good question, probably to an extent. But I don't know that there is a better alternative, and suspect that without these types of good intentions historically we would already be rubbing elbows with Triceratops and his buds.

[Careful_perspective]

I've decided to add this topic since I have been thinking about this lately, due to a number of conversations I've had with some friends, and while I'm a Christian and believe that we should love our neighbor and thus help our neighbors when times are bad, I have seen this concept stretched to limits that would otherwise break a rubber band. just how far are we believers willing to go to "love our neighbor" (and I do not mean in the carnal sense )

An example of this ideology is that we should help everyone in need, from the starving millions in Africa and Asia, to the homeless in our own cities, thus not only increasing the worlds population beyond acceptable limits, but also creating a vicious circle whereby children who receive aid, grow up to create even larger families and thereby perpetuate and worsen the vicious circle.

Not helping is what the Catholics did during the Irish Potato famine. And look how that turned out for the Irish

[keithisco]

I have always wondered what happens to the mother and child, that we see in countless charity adverts on TV, that are being nourished and cared for. What happens when they are deemed fit and able to leave - do they simply return in 2 - 3 weeks to be treated again? Can charitable actions simply support a cycle of need without changing it?

[keithisco]

Not helping is what the Catholics did during the Irish Potato famine. And look how that turned out for the Irish

... and yet Eire is still a Catholic nation? Curious.

[White Crane Feather]

I've decided to add this topic since I have been thinking about this lately, due to a number of conversations I've had with some friends, and while I'm a Christian and believe that we should love our neighbor and thus help our neighbors when times are bad, I have seen this concept stretched to limits that would otherwise break a rubber band. just how far are we believers willing to go to "love our neighbor" (and I do not mean in the carnal sense )

An example of this ideology is that we should help everyone in need, from the starving millions in Africa and Asia, to the homeless in our own cities, thus not only increasing the worlds population beyond acceptable limits, but also creating a vicious circle whereby children who receive aid, grow up to create even larger families and thereby perpetuate and worsen the vicious circle.

Or another example, Of consistently trying to aid and extend lifespans, thereby creating huge population bubbles of elderly citizens, whereby the new generations cannot afford to pay for the previous generations retirement, thereby increasing an already hellish national debt to levels that make the new generation slaves in everything but name.

And last of all, what about medicine, which is a natural offshoot of this ideology whereby we try to cure disease and all that ails us, thereby allowing entire populations with genes that would not have survived, back into he gene pool, weakening humanity as a species.

So.... Are our good intentions actually helping mankind or sending him the way of the dinosaurs?

One of the people you help may grow to be a genius and teach everyone how to use their human capital for the benefit of everyone. Technology will be the only thing that saves a runaway population. Other than that we will exsperience a massive population correction at some point. Gwad I hope I'm dead by then. I prefer to put optimism in technology working with nature and round the population growth off gradually. We will never exsperince true extinction unless we cannot get off the planet, but it sure might feel like it for our descendants.

From what I know about Jesus, he would say to not worry about it, he is going to come back and fix it himself. I don't necessarily beleive that but its a nice thought. Maybe one of those kids you help will turn out to be Christ himself. That would be cool.

I look at it like a race. There is technology that can save us. If we can develop in time all is good, if we can't many billions of people are screwed. Unfortunatly they don't have to be. Individually we don't need infrastructure, we simply need the right skills.

Seeing how technology develops much faster than humans do, im optimistic, but there are a few things in nature we are not paying proper attention to. It's a race against those things aswell.

Edited January 27, 2015 by White Crane Feather

[Careful_perspective]

... and yet Eire is still a Catholic nation? Curious.

The Catholics have screwed everyone over at one point or another. But many are still faithful, such as myself. I mean, the Priest at the Church I attended growing up was arrested when I was a teen for child pornography. I still consider myself a proud Catholic though.

[White Crane Feather]

The Catholics have screwed everyone over at one point or another. But many are still faithful, such as myself. I mean, the Priest at the Church I attended growing up was arrested when I was a teen for child pornography. I still consider myself a proud Catholic though.

I like you more and more Everytime I read one of your posts.

[Careful_perspective]

I like you more and more Everytime I read one of your posts.

Aw thanks, I feel the same way about you! I especially love your Harry Potter quote in your user info!

[Jor-el]

I'm not quite clear to what extent you are trying to couch your questions within Christianity/being a Christian, as opposed to asking more from the standpoint, 'is it 'better' if we don't feed the starving' according to some other standard. If it's within Christianity, I guess it depends on how you interpret the other relevant instruction, 'do unto others'; I guess if the situations were reversed and you were instead a starving Christian and you think you would say, "it's best that no one gives me any assistance because of our excessive population", then at least you'd be consistent. I'm not sure of all of Jesus' direct instructions, but I thought that there are pretty much direct instructions to Christians to help the poor and sick (not positive about the hungry). I'm pretty sure, regardless of the specifics, that Jesus didn't attach any 'unless' to those instructions, and cities in the OT were destroyed by God's wrath for their failure to aid the poor and hungry. Overpopulation isn't necessarily something that's just being contributed to by the starving people of the world either, so I'm not sure why we should single them out for correction on this question.

You see that's the conundrum I find myself in, I am a Christian and I know what Christ has taught us as his followers to do, and that is help those in need, by any way possible, in effect I am interpreting the rule of "Love thy neighbor" generously in this regard. Yet the question that bugs me is, am I really helping to solve the problem, am I not rather broadening it and increasing it, and thereby causing greater harm to humanity as a whole?

I'm not sure how valid it is to link disease to genes here, lots of non-genetic diseases, but how far would you like to go with this thinking? My eyesight, like zillions of others, is crap; aren't we weakening humanity also? Several of the diseases I've been vaccinated against can be deadly, should that be eliminated? For the strength of humanity evolution-wise, wouldn't it be better to let people get measles and such, let those who are weak or suspectible to it die and be removed from the gene pool, and let evolution do it's thing, hopefully resulting (after many generations) in people who are naturally more immune to it? I'm not saying that to be confrontational or imply that's what you said, just trying to evaluate the alternatives to not trying to cure diseases and setting the strengthening of humanity as an objective.

The link basically derives from Darwins selection of the fittest, in a sense. By helping and solving the problems of my fellow man as directed by God, am I not actually weakening the species and thus limiting its potential for survival?

Good question, probably to an extent. But I don't know that there is a better alternative, and suspect that without these types of good intentions historically we would already be rubbing elbows with Triceratops and his buds.

That's why I found this to be an interesting topic to bring to the board... it is a question I have no answer for either.

Edited January 27, 2015 by Jor-el

[White Crane Feather]

Aw thanks, I feel the same way about you! I especially love your Harry Potter quote in your user info!

We'll hold that thought. I usually p*** everyone off at some point. Can't help it it seems.

[Careful_perspective]

We'll hold that thought. I usually p*** everyone off at some point. Can't help it it seems.

I have seen that you can cause a stir with your opinions but for the most part I find myself agreeing with you. Keep up the good work!

[Stubbly_Dooright]

I've decided to add this topic since I have been thinking about this lately, due to a number of conversations I've had with some friends, and while I'm a Christian and believe that we should love our neighbor and thus help our neighbors when times are bad, I have seen this concept stretched to limits that would otherwise break a rubber band. just how far are we believers willing to go to "love our neighbor" (and I do not mean in the carnal sense )

An example of this ideology is that we should help everyone in need, from the starving millions in Africa and Asia, to the homeless in our own cities, thus not only increasing the worlds population beyond acceptable limits, but also creating a vicious circle whereby children who receive aid, grow up to create even larger families and thereby perpetuate and worsen the vicious circle.

Or another example, Of consistently trying to aid and extend lifespans, thereby creating huge population bubbles of elderly citizens, whereby the new generations cannot afford to pay for the previous generations retirement, thereby increasing an already hellish national debt to levels that make the new generation slaves in everything but name.

And last of all, what about medicine, which is a natural offshoot of this ideology whereby we try to cure disease and all that ails us, thereby allowing entire populations with genes that would not have survived, back into he gene pool, weakening humanity as a species.

So.... Are our good intentions actually helping mankind or sending him the way of the dinosaurs?

Humnnnnnnnnnnnnn, interesting.

I would think that on your thought, Jor-el, maybe, to a point. Kind of like if we cured all ills, we become immortal or sort of, and then over population causes starvation because of limited resources.

Is than the question, shall we not help our neighbor? I always think there is a point where you can help so much. One person can only help so much, if they can do it. I think we all can help a little bit, and that can go a long ways, without it getting out of control. I think it's the getting out of control is the worry. But if we don't help our neighbor, then I think that would cause a slow extinction, well that's exaggerating but I think we make it worse if we don't help. Does this make sense?

Now, (because I wrote the above paragraph before reading the rest of the thread), I also feel if we all help as a team and get the varying ideas and warnings, I think we might just actually help, including stemming off extinction.

[BarnabasCollins]

If food is withheld from the hungry, aid denied to the needy, and medicine not given to the sick, someone or some group must decide who the fortunate beneficiaries of these things will be and who the losers will be. In my opinion, giving such terrible authority to some group of elites will lead to human ruination far faster than would feeding the hungry, aiding those in need, and caring for the sick.

[Jor-el]

If food is withheld from the hungry, aid denied to the needy, and medicine not given to the sick, someone or some group must decide who the fortunate beneficiaries of these things will be and who the losers will be. In my opinion, giving such terrible authority to some group of elites will lead to human ruination far faster than would feeding the hungry, aiding those in need, and caring for the sick.

Actually all one needs to do, is "not do it". Inaction would get the desired result without any elites getting into the process, as a matter of fact, it would probably be the elites that would think this would be a bad idea.

[shadowhive]

Actually all one needs to do, is "not do it". Inaction would get the desired result without any elites getting into the process, as a matter of fact, it would probably be the elites that would think this would be a bad idea.

Would you lead by example jor-el? If your children were sick would you deny them treatment and let them die?

[Jor-el]

Would you lead by example jor-el? If your children were sick would you deny them treatment and let them die?

Of course not, that's not what the discussion is about, I would endeavor to take the best care of my child using all means at my disposal, as would all parents in the same situation, the question is rather whether humanity as a whole benefits from acts of Charity as such acts would not actually solve the problem itself but only alleviate it temporarily, thus causing greater problems later on.

My personal acts of self preservation of my family would fall under the need for survival, they would thus be a natural and rational reaction on my part.

Maybe the problem is not the act itself but how one goes about solving it. I can send medicine to a place that is suffering from a specific illness, but if I don't actually solve the cause of the illness then the problem will persist even after that medicine is used.

Edited January 27, 2015 by Jor-el

[LV-426]

We'll hold that thought. I usually p*** everyone off at some point. Can't help it it seems.

Nothing wrong with p***ing people off from time to time, as long as you can ultimately shake hands... and not throats

[White Crane Feather]

Nothing wrong with p***ing people off from time to time, as long as you can ultimately shake hands... and not throats

Hahahaha I teach martial arts for a living. I know how to bow out and leave it on the mat. I even teach kids how to do the same. We even bow into the school with a small meditation to remember this. So yes but no. You can't always shake hands but that's not my fault. My hand is always extended no matter what.

Edited January 27, 2015 by White Crane Feather

[shadowhive]

Of course not, that's not what the discussion is about, I would endeavor to take the best care of my child using all means at my disposal, the question is rather whether humanity as a whole benefits from acts of Charity as such acts would not actually solve the problem itself but only alleviate it temporarily, thus causing greater problems later on.

My personal acts of self preservation of my family would fall under the need for survival, they would thus be a natural and rational reaction on my part.

Maybe the problem is not the act itself but how one goes about solving it. I can send medicine to a place that is suffering from a specific illness, but if I don't actually solve the cause of the illness then the problem will persist even after that medicine is used.

And if someone denied medicine from you that would help? After all that's what you're suggesting should happen, that help should be denied to people...which you'd quicklybe against if that policy affected you.

All the advancements you speak of come out of preservation. For themselves, their families, their communities or all of humanity. What's done is a natural and rational reaction from people, which you are suggesting people shouldn't follow. Yet you essentially admit you couldn't follow it yourself, so how do you expect others to?

Don't get me wrong, your question is an interesting one, it's just that expecting people to not act is just, well, unfeasable.

Every problem has a solution, but inaction isn't a solution.

[Jor-el]

And if someone denied medicine from you that would help? After all that's what you're suggesting should happen, that help should be denied to people...which you'd quicklybe against if that policy affected you.

All the advancements you speak of come out of preservation. For themselves, their families, their communities or all of humanity. What's done is a natural and rational reaction from people, which you are suggesting people shouldn't follow. Yet you essentially admit you couldn't follow it yourself, so how do you expect others to?

Don't get me wrong, your question is an interesting one, it's just that expecting people to not act is just, well, unfeasable.

Every problem has a solution, but inaction isn't a solution.

While the reaction is indeed natural it still doesn't answer the initial question I asked. I am the 1st to admit I don't have answers here, maybe you do?