Sorry, Ali, I forgot the smiley face. ;)

No, I don't think you're stupid. I was just worried about how he might react when if he sees your post... "haven't you listened to ANYTHING I have said EVER?" ;)

Did I say that? About Dazza?

Exactly, not.
The isolation rule isn't a policy of the islanders. It isn't a policy of the leader. It isn't a policy at all.
It is one of the rules stipulated when the thought experiment was designed. The island is isolated by geography, by the nature of things. There are no other islands within reach.

The point of this example is to make us think about situations where there are too many people and not enough resources.
This is worth thinking about because planet Earth is rapidly heading toward that situation, if it isn't there already.
Your solution involves suddenly adding extra resources. In the context of thinking about planet Earth, you solution is akin to suggesting we send people off to another habitable planet nearby. Problem is, there are no habitable planets we can reach, or even that we (yet) know about.

Sorry, just checking my memory ... Is Dazza a fisheries management scientist or not?
I recall a book launch about freshwater fisheries management.
I recall a discussion about carp.
Have I got this totally backwards? was it someone else?
I've been doubting myself since yesterday when I divided 380 by 2 and got 160. duhhhhhh.

Ok, I was putting word into his mouth there. But I was thinking that your suggestion amounted to deliberate over-fishing, and he'd chide you for that.
That's where I was coming from.
Please enlighten me.

I was trying to make a point about right to life with this example but I now realize that it doesn't work so I guess this really doesn't have a point anymore.

If you want to discuss the current situation with overpopulation and the world I will put my 2 cents in. Or at least state my ethical problem.

If you want to make it more realistic to Earth today we would have to throw in some more variables. Overpopulation is not the biggest problem here, it is too many people with a high standards of living. For most of us, we could be replaced by 10 or 20 people with extremely low standards of living and they would still not use as many resources as us and we would have no problem on a global scale. But the problem occurs when those 10 to 20 people start using as many resources as we do.

This is a problem I am still very split ethically when I try to be realistic. Do I hold back other people's standards of living to protect my and the people around me's interests, lower my standard of living, or watch more people gain a higher standard of living and outstrip the world of resources and face a massive global economic collapse followed by war, disease, and all that fun stuff?

Nihilism sets in really fast here....

oh yes, he is a marine scientist and has quite a reputation in his field.

He might chide me for suggesting over fishing, but such is life. I wasn't being very serious in this thread anyway.

I just missed your meaning in the first place. Don't worry about it. It's all me. Like I said before, I think I really am stupid.

:lol:

Observation is not your strong point, is it?


...but I'm glad you noticed my ass. :D

:neutral:

Psssst! Mr monster is lacking the appropriate equipment to go with the title.

Well, I like your lateral thinking, but if I read the scenario correctly, the 200 surplus babies have already been born. I suppose they could kill the next 100 women to get pregnant. That would drop the population quickly and lead to a longer term decline as well, if they remove all those breeding females. Still, pretty harsh on them.

But you did give me another idea. Instead of killing 200 people and burying them ... they could kill 180 people and eat them.
This would temporarily reduce the pressure on the environmental resources and, if carefully managed, would allow the people to scrape through until natural deaths and enforced zero birth rate brought the population back under the threshold.

So which is preferable - to kill 180 people and eat them, or to kill 200 people and bury them?

EAT THEM! EAT THEM!

ZG - I can't believe you would ask people to make this choice without presenting at least one recipe.

Just kill 2/3 of anyone over 35. use a lottery system. any male who fathers a child during the year gets his name entered twice. repeat annually.

Just like the naive island people...We are going to try to migrate to the stars.......


If you don't like that analogy, which I'm repeating over and over:

Give some people vasectomies and let Darwinism take effect....you don't have to kill anyone.

The problem Pierce is too many people with low standards of living...not high. Which is why you have to learn and teach self-sustaining. If a little bit of wealth is used for this task it just might work. There are groups of people already trying to do this.


Can I be the first to say...Nihilism is for wussies. Easy to do...but no philosophy to live by. Unless you'd like to be a pro-active nihilist...which would be rare and worth watching..If only for entertainment value.
:)

of couse we don't have to kill anyone, it is just for entertainment value.