Colonization in the UFP
- Thread starter Penta
- Start date
- Status
That's part of it, no doubt. But the colonization policies we're talking about here go far beyond ensuring that humanity could survive the loss of Earth, covering the whole of a multi-species federal state. Your suggested reason, while valid, is too narrow.
I dont' think that filling the universe with quadrillions of humans, simply for the sake of it, will be valid. Animals only try do it because they don't have the control of the world we have. We will have even more control by the 24th and we will be happy and contented and in control. We will have outgrown that primeval instinct, same as we can sit down at a table now, with our kin, and not snatch of each other's plates.
I thought we were giving them condoms to stop the spread of a deadly infectious disease.
Even accepting for the moment that the real goal is to slow Africa's population growth, .... wouldn't that be better expressed as allowing them to control their population growth? It's not like we're sterilizing people, we are just giving them the option of one of the few nearly free entertainment options available to them not resulting in children.
Despite the fact that you keep saying that we aren't taking into account how human nature will improve, it really seems like it is you who thinks humanity will not advance, as your statements all seem to rely on the idea that more people is a bad thing.
Given an ample supply of energy, raw resources like food, and space, how is more people a bad thing? How is having 5 kids with the idea that 3 of them will move and settle a new place (while the other 2 replace their parents and the homeworld population remains stable) a bad thing?
Modern industrial nations tend towards negative population growth, but is this a response to reduced need or to limited resources and space?
If we are able to do so without wiping out indigenous species, what is wrong with going to live on an earthlike world we might discover?
Speaking of INCREDIBLY creepy--your theory here is VERY creepy. As far as I'm aware, the condoms are there for HIV protection, NOT for some sort of attempt to manipulate demographics in Africa.
It's also counter-intuitive. If we wanted fewer Africans we'd deny them condoms and let local sexual customs and HIV/AIDS do the rest. Handing out condoms will (theoretically) result in MORE Africans.
I think your attitude is creepy. Animals only reproduce willy nilly, because the environment is so unforgiving. When you live in a paradise, there is no need to do this. It just doesn't feel like evolved behaviour, to me.
And, as far as i'm aware, America started giving out condom BEFORE AIDS came about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condom
Last edited:
But what you are suggesting is that people should not have the right to do as they wish with their own bodies. Some desire no children at all, and that is their right--but some desire a large family, and that should be their right too. Some people's idea of a paradise may be the ability to have the large family they want and know that they have the resources to take care of them all. While I would encourage people to consider what their resources will allow them to do--how many children they can truly have to where all of them will be happy, healthy, and provided for (and this WILL differ according to individual situation--some people actually CAN take care of a family with more than two or three children quite well, whereas others would be better off not having any), this should NOT be my choice or that of any government agency. That should come down to the individual. The ability to have children should not be one that the government decides on.
I should point out that this is in fact the flip side of the "pro-choice" argument. If we assume that it is a woman's right to decide if she does not want to carry a child to term, it should also be her right (and her husband should also be part of the decision) to decide if she DOES want a child, or more than one if the couple desires. The government should not interfere. It is one thing to make resources available so that people can carry out their choices, whether it is to have or not to have children, but the government should never, EVER be in a position of telling people what to do. And to incentivize behavior that directly affects demographics--and especially manipulating that of another country, you BET that's creepy.
I should point out that this is in fact the flip side of the "pro-choice" argument. If we assume that it is a woman's right to decide if she does not want to carry a child to term, it should also be her right (and her husband should also be part of the decision) to decide if she DOES want a child, or more than one if the couple desires. The government should not interfere. It is one thing to make resources available so that people can carry out their choices, whether it is to have or not to have children, but the government should never, EVER be in a position of telling people what to do. And to incentivize behavior that directly affects demographics--and especially manipulating that of another country, you BET that's creepy.
I admit I mainly skimmed it, but I couldn't find a reference in there to the US giving condoms to anybody, only that US "pushed condom use in developing countries", which could mean paying for advertisements saying they were cool.
Could you give me an indication of which paragraph I should be reading, or at least what sub-heading it is under?
And even if it is true, see my above comment about how that isn't in any way limiting the number of children they have, it is merely allowing them to limit the number of children they have, should they so choose.
So,you believe that in the Federation, people will only have children if they need them?
Having 3 kids is not reproducing "willy nilly", but it does mean each generation would be 50% bigger than the last. Now if there is a short supply of space, food, or energy, a responsible person will modify his behavior to not put a further strain on the system, and that may mean having fewer children than he would like. But if food, energy, and space are all abundant, what is wrong with making more people?
Thirteen paragraphs down, under '1930's till present'.
'The birth control pill became the world's most popular method of birth control in the years after its 1960 début, but condoms remained a strong second. The U.S. Agency for International Development pushed condom use in developing countries to help solve the "world population crises": by 1970 hundreds of millions of condoms were being used each year in India alone.[1]:267-9,272-5 (This number has grown in recent decades: in 2004, the government of India purchased 1.9 billion condoms for distribution at family planning clinics.)'
I can't see how it is 'creepy' to want to stop the world from overpopulating and bringing people into the world that cannot be fed.
'It is one thing to make resources available so that people can carry out their choices, whether it is to have or not to have children, but the government should never, EVER be in a position of telling people what to do.'
That's what governments are FOR! If they don't protect the weak and the average from bullies, you have anarchy.
There's a STOS episode, 'The Mark of Gideon', that warns of the dangers of overpopulation. There was someone called Malthus, who did this, centuries ago. I like humans, fine, I just don't want to see quadrillions of them.
Last edited:
But that's what colonization of other worlds is for! You can have quadrillions of humans and it still wouldn't mean overpopulation because they will be spread across numerous worlds, each perfectly able to support a large part of that population without negative effects.
'But that's what colonization of other worlds is for!'
Not in my book, and not in TNG, I don't think. The point is to put a 'presence' and a 'representation' on another planet, in case anything happens to this one, like a meteor hit, or a sun going nova.
It's distasteful to reproduce without check. Animals only do it because they HAVE to, and look at what happens to them, if their numbers get too large.
Not in my book, and not in TNG, I don't think. The point is to put a 'presence' and a 'representation' on another planet, in case anything happens to this one, like a meteor hit, or a sun going nova.
It's distasteful to reproduce without check. Animals only do it because they HAVE to, and look at what happens to them, if their numbers get too large.
Okay, that's the exact same section I quoted, and it doesn't say what you said it would: there is nothing in there about the US giving condoms to Africa, or anyone for that matter. Merely the US encouraging their use.
Be sensible. Could Africans afford to BUY condoms? They were given away. For free. For the good of mankind as a whole. I thought it was common knowledge.
One thing I should have learned by now; you can't win an argument on a ST board. People just say that's what they said all along.
That doesn't even say anything about Africa: it mentions "developing nations" and cites India as an example.
The question isn't if we give condoms to Africa (we all agree that we do), but whether we did so before the advent of AIDS.
Well, you certainly can't win if the only evidence you can cite to support your position is "I thought it was common knowledge."
Try making a persuasive argument, and citing some relevant evidence. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised at the result. As it stands, you are unable to cite a source that supports your statement, yet are also unwilling to admit that you might be wrong. On those occasions where I have been unable to provide proof of something I thought was "common knowledge", I admitted that it might be my memory that was in error.
What you did there is called an ad hominem attack: rather than address what I said, you insult me personally (although lamely trying to make it non-personal by saying "people" instead of me specifically) and hope that by vilifying me it will undermine my credibility. If you have any evidence that I have a history of ignoring evidence that I am wrong, I would welcome it. If you do not, I would appreciate an apology for implying that I do.
Last edited:
Forgive me Spy one, but isn't Africa a developing nation?
Isn't it one of the most famous?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_&_Eve_(business)
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O119-BirthControlandFmlyPlnnng.html
'Meanwhile, the post–World War II concerns about overpopulation led philanthropic foundations and activist organizations, including the Population Council, the Ford Foundation, and the Population Crisis Committee, to join Planned Parenthood in calling for federal support for international and domestic birth‐control programs and reproductive services.'
And, they're doing it now:
http://www.overpopulation.org/
'Also released was a Global Health Initiative (GHI) document - http://www.pepfar.gov/documents/organization/136504.pdf, detailing how the GHI will dedicate new resources and funding, totaling $63 billion over six years, which includes goals and targets to prevent 54 million unintended pregnancies through increasing modern contraceptive prevalence to 35% in assisted countries and reducing the number of first births to women under 18.'
I remember reading an article about this in Playboy about twenty years ago.
Not everyone agrees that breeding willynilly is good. And, America sometimes does things for altruistic reasons.
But thats what you were saying all along.
Isn't it one of the most famous?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_&_Eve_(business)
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O119-BirthControlandFmlyPlnnng.html
'Meanwhile, the post–World War II concerns about overpopulation led philanthropic foundations and activist organizations, including the Population Council, the Ford Foundation, and the Population Crisis Committee, to join Planned Parenthood in calling for federal support for international and domestic birth‐control programs and reproductive services.'
And, they're doing it now:
http://www.overpopulation.org/
'Also released was a Global Health Initiative (GHI) document - http://www.pepfar.gov/documents/organization/136504.pdf, detailing how the GHI will dedicate new resources and funding, totaling $63 billion over six years, which includes goals and targets to prevent 54 million unintended pregnancies through increasing modern contraceptive prevalence to 35% in assisted countries and reducing the number of first births to women under 18.'
I remember reading an article about this in Playboy about twenty years ago.
Not everyone agrees that breeding willynilly is good. And, America sometimes does things for altruistic reasons.
But thats what you were saying all along.
Last edited:
It's a continent, actually. A geographical region, not a political organization.
It's a lot of developing nations, too. Actually, I've just asked my mother, who doesn't have a website, and she remembers America and the UK giving free condoms, for contraceptives, to Africa AND India.
Apart from the sites I have given.
- Status
Similar threads
