Hi Amy:
Maybe smart people are too busy to have lots of children, so that leaves a situation where others might have lots and lots and lots of children. Maybe Darwin's theory is broke.
Although Darwin and those of his time spoke of progression in evolution leading to man, that is not the modern view. All existing species are "modern". It's about finding some toehold.
Control freaks that "keep their women at home" probably pump out a baby every year.
Intelligent people are outnumbered.
I like China's rule. One child per family. Whether you are smart or not, doesn't matter. It's fair and equal.
In America, it's not.
Over time this country will go down hill, I predict.
Darwin phrased it nicely, but I don't feel like hunting for the quote right now.. the rate of increase so great that there is a struggle for life.. or something to that effect.
Indeed, a high rate of reproduction insures that life will be a struggle, and conversely, because life is a struggle, the rate of reproduction must be high. The two are linked in a loop. You can make life more pleasant if you limit reproduction. If life is more pleasant, lower reproduction is ok.
I find it very ironic that most western cultures have governments and constitutions which are primarily concerned with trying to make life more pleasant (protection of life and property, i.e. removing the red tooth and claw from human existence) but ignore any attempts at societal pacts on individual reproduction. This is the fundamental problem with libertarian philosophy. The right to life and the right to property are necessary but not sufficient conditions. If you limit stealing and killing, you must also limit reproduction. Biology will rule in the end.
I think many people delude themselves that somehow our species is immune. We have had a good run (especially the white man) for the last few thousand years, but the earth is a good deal older than 10K years, and will be around a good deal longer than another 10K years, religious conservative views not withstanding. |
