The Forum Site - Join the conversation
Forums: Religion & Philosophy:
Philosophy

Procreation as an engine of change

Reply to Topic
AuthorMessage
Pages: 1 2 · >>
Conflict On March 25, 2024




Alcalá de Henares, Spain
#1New Post! May 06, 2017 @ 13:13:22
For a long time, sexual reproduction has been the primary method of implementing cutural, social and economic change. New generations have been critical in creating human beings with more open minds, wider visions and the desire to move forward.

Please, correct me if I am wrong, but hasn't society reached the point where procreation is only necessary to maintain the demography and continued successes of various countries? From my studies, it would seem that the generations of the 1970's and the 1980's were people who took part in the best reforms in terms of education and change that can be, and that the generations of the 1990's and 2000's are now living lives that allow them wide degrees of latitude.

Let's discuss this, please. It's something that's only occured to me recently and I'd like to explore very much.
twilitezone911 On March 25, 2019




Saint Louis, Missouri
#2New Post! May 06, 2017 @ 14:01:52
in late 60's and 70's, the trend back then, i remember a boy and a teenager that " the population bomb " occurred , it was called something else at the time.

i forgot the figure that scientists predicted it will be at certain in history. the world will be so overpopulation, that we all starve.

the movie, " solvent green " basely we should eat by turning dead people's ashes and make a food substance to eat by people. tv movie called " the last child ".

the movie was about the government would control by law, the population. couple only have two children only. no more children anymore. the government will terminate the mother's pregnant with the proper necessary actions, they need to take. even, the government has to kill the mother with the child in her.

the movie is basely focus on one couple try to flee to canada, where they would safe to have the third child.

i guess people obsessed back then, i read books on this subject about the population back then in 70's. i was fastication to read, and how somewhat stupid to consider to limit the population.

people would do anything they want to, will keep the population growing, because the bible tell that you need multiple for the growth of the human race. that is our excuse, is scientifically and moral correct, but is right? yes and no!

not control the population by termination be stupid, but to education people to think twice to have a child or prevent to have a child. it is the most common sense that force people not have a child at all.
mrmhead On about 21 hours ago




NE, Ohio
#3New Post! May 06, 2017 @ 15:11:26
@Conflict Said

For a long time, sexual reproduction has been the primary method of implementing cutural, social and economic change. New generations have been critical in creating human beings with more open minds, wider visions and the desire to move forward.

Please, correct me if I am wrong, but hasn't society reached the point where procreation is only necessary to maintain the demography and continued successes of various countries? From my studies, it would seem that the generations of the 1970's and the 1980's were people who took part in the best reforms in terms of education and change that can be, and that the generations of the 1990's and 2000's are now living lives that allow them wide degrees of latitude.

Let's discuss this, please. It's something that's only occured to me recently and I'd like to explore very much.


Are you suggesting humankind has reached the pinnacle and we should rest on our laurels?

Humans have built upon the successes of the previous generations. True, not every "generation" has been able to move forward as much as others, but it doesn't mean we've flat-lined.

There just needs to be another disrupter to initiate the next leap. Maybe that person is already born, maybe that advancement has already been made, just not spread.

There are always people looking for The Next Big Thing - and someone will find it.

It's when you think you've "Made it" and either lock down controls to stifle change, or instill the lack of desire to change that you've come to the end of the line.
twilitezone911 On March 25, 2019




Saint Louis, Missouri
#4New Post! May 06, 2017 @ 16:16:38
technology and advantage of science shows us, they are try change our ways for the better.

i think that religion is helpful and hinge to all advantage mankind. without agruements about religion. people won't move to better or safeguards unless not in the bible.

when will be people move on from the bible?
mrmhead On about 21 hours ago




NE, Ohio
#5New Post! May 06, 2017 @ 20:18:10
@twilitezone911 Said

technology and advantage of science shows us, they are try change our ways for the better.

i think that religion is helpful and hinge to all advantage mankind. without agruements about religion. people won't move to better or safeguards unless not in the bible.

when will be people move on from the bible?



I know very little about Scientology, but isn't that what Scientology attempts? Something other than the bible? I don't know if it dismisses the bible or moves on from the bible - kind of like how Christianity doesn't dismiss Judaism, it just kind of "moves on"
chaski On about 9 hours ago
Stalker





Tree at Floydgirrl's Window,
#6New Post! May 06, 2017 @ 20:59:04
@Conflict Said

For a long time, sexual reproduction has been the primary method of implementing cutural, social and economic change.


I think that you might be confusing natural selection with human whimsy.
twilitezone911 On March 25, 2019




Saint Louis, Missouri
#7New Post! May 06, 2017 @ 21:18:13
@mrmhead Said

I know very little about Scientology, but isn't that what Scientology attempts? Something other than the bible? I don't know if it dismisses the bible or moves on from the bible - kind of like how Christianity doesn't dismiss Judaism, it just kind of "moves on"


i wasn't think about scientology at all, but i don't know about it. either. i am not a little know about it, i am not a fan.

i wasn't think about judaism or any religion, in some ways, they have excuses or belief. i can't rule them out completely, even common sense has to with religion.

what i mean why we are so depend something that written over thousand years that had little scientific facts behind it. we depend what men has seen or observed back then, that has prove anything, we suppose to trust and belief now?
Conflict On March 25, 2024




Alcalá de Henares, Spain
#8New Post! May 07, 2017 @ 13:49:43
@chaski Said

I think that you might be confusing natural selection with human whimsy.


How so?
Erimitus On July 01, 2021




The mind of God, Antarctica
#9New Post! May 09, 2017 @ 01:59:46
I too was thinking evolution but not natural selection; artificial selection.
twilitezone911 On March 25, 2019




Saint Louis, Missouri
#10New Post! May 09, 2017 @ 04:15:30
i been thinking about cloning basely, is religion only thing, why people are afraid of cloning?

are we more afraid that someone clone hilter again? artificial insemination can insert the dna from hilter, probably get the same result. some idiot probably has adolph's dna cells in his freezer.

years ago, that the close of being cloning are animals. scientists have produces or they have cloning with pigs. i have read much lately about others animals that been cloning. years ago, people were afraid to eat cloning or artificial meat that sell at your local grocery.

what is the difference of organic and regular meat? it is a difference process, is not like you see in the meat, eye balls. without see eye balls that meat is clone.

you probably would know the difference, you were standing next to a clone. if fda tell grocery stories that don't have tell their customers, that the ground chuck from a cloning clone. would the customers know the difference, if the meat perfectly the same, taste the same as regular ground chuck.

would know the difference between a regular cow or a clone cow, if you stand right in front of them?

a regular baby and a clone baby came out from the same mother at the same time as twins. would the mother love the clone child less than her natural child?

it seem the the bible said it is wrong or inhuman to have a clone baby, then it is wrong. if god gave us the ability to wonder and go beyond understand of humanity.

why would god want to teach us to create life, if cloning could be a factor in our future!
Erimitus On July 01, 2021




The mind of God, Antarctica
#11New Post! May 09, 2017 @ 04:50:50
@Conflict Said

For a long time, sexual reproduction has been the primary method of implementing cutural, social and economic change. New generations have been critical in creating human beings with more open minds, wider visions and the desire to move forward.

Please, correct me if I am wrong, but hasn't society reached the point where procreation is only necessary to maintain the demography and continued successes of various countries? From my studies, it would seem that the generations of the 1970's and the 1980's were people who took part in the best reforms in terms of education and change that can be, and that the generations of the 1990's and 2000's are now living lives that allow them wide degrees of latitude.

Let's discuss this, please. It's something that's only occured to me recently and I'd like to explore very much.


Premise: Sexual reproduction has been the primary method of implementing cultural, social and economic change.

Comment: It is not clear to me what you mean by that. Please explain.


________________________________________


Sexual reproduction is a way that biological changes occur.

Proposition: Sexual reproduction (the creation of new living organisms by combining genetic information from two individuals of different genders) results in a gradual development of organisms from a simple to a more complex form.

Biological changes result in social changes but the changes (it seems to me) would be gradual over many generations not from generation to generation.

New generations change both socially and psychologically in a way similar to biological evolution.

New generations adapt to changes in their social environment in the same way that they adapt to their physical environment.

Is any of that correct?
________________________________________

Premise: society has not reached the point where procreation is only necessary to maintain the demography and continued successes of various countries.

E: I do not understand

________________________________________


Premise: The generations of the 1970's and 1980's took part in the best possible reforms in terms of education

Premise: The generations of the 1980's and 2000's are living lives that allow a wide range of latitude.

E: As usual I seem to be missing the point. Are we saying that societies evolve from generation to generation?
Conflict On March 25, 2024




Alcalá de Henares, Spain
#12New Post! May 09, 2017 @ 19:16:07
@Erimitus Said

Premise: Sexual reproduction has been the primary method of implementing cultural, social and economic change.

Comment: It is not clear to me what you mean by that. Please explain.


________________________________________


Sexual reproduction is a way that biological changes occur.

Proposition: Sexual reproduction (the creation of new living organisms by combining genetic information from two individuals of different genders) results in a gradual development of organisms from a simple to a more complex form.

Biological changes result in social changes but the changes (it seems to me) would be gradual over many generations not from generation to generation.

New generations change both socially and psychologically in a way similar to biological evolution.

New generations adapt to changes in their social environment in the same way that they adapt to their physical environment.

Is any of that correct?
________________________________________

Premise: society has not reached the point where procreation is only necessary to maintain the demography and continued successes of various countries.

E: I do not understand

________________________________________


Premise: The generations of the 1970's and 1980's took part in the best possible reforms in terms of education

Premise: The generations of the 1980's and 2000's are living lives that allow a wide range of latitude.

E: As usual I seem to be missing the point. Are we saying that societies evolve from generation to generation?



To begin with, procreation as an engine of change is important as a means of evolving the human species and keeping its numbers up. Said method, however, is not an ideal way of life, as it involves thinking with the lower body parts and in more old fashioned ways.

To name an example of what I meant by 1970's generations being able to do more things, I give you Cara Buono, an American Actress. She attended Columbia University and married the founder of Ethos Waters. These things were the first to be done of her generation, but the world had changed in such a way that allowed her to do them. So, already, circumstances were favorable to people from blue collar families like her, or she'd have been discouraged along the way and not finished what she started.

Now, her daughter will grow up in a world where what her mother did is commonplace, so, unlike the middle ages when reproduction was necessary to advance the human race, she will be more at liberty to do what she wants rather than subscribe to a regime that urges its children to procreate in order to ensure future development.

Does this clarify the matter?
chaski On about 9 hours ago
Stalker





Tree at Floydgirrl's Window,
#13New Post! May 09, 2017 @ 21:30:18
@Conflict Said

How so?


"sexual reproduction has been the primary method of implementing cultural, social and economic change

Actually sexual reproduction is the process of assuring (on some lever) the continuation of the species as a whole.

Sure there are examples of people wanting to create a superior race or to keep their race "pure". And, there are people that are attracted to each other because of the things the do and the clothes they wear...how much money they have...what social group they were born into.

Still, I doubt there is any solid evidence that these attractions are ultimately about implementing change. They are essentially human whimsy applied to "natural selection".

Reproduction is actually more about the stability and survivability of the species.

Regardless, reproduction is not really a tool to implement anything beyond a short term and misguided human desires.

Now religion and war...these are about implementing cultural, social and economic change on others while at the same time securing the stability and survivability of one group over others.

As to the part about procreation is only necessary to maintain the demography and continued successes of various countries, I doubt seriously that most humans procreate with the intention maintain the demography or successes of their countries (there are admittedly some historical examples...sort of). We in the West certainly don't do this...our birth rates have been on the decline for decades. We rely more and more on immigration, even if people don't want to admit it.

The countries of the 2nd and 3rd world, where the vast majority of population growth is, have put themselves in a state of run-a-way population growth that, if anything, threatens their cultures, societies, economics...and their countries.

[Note: Way over simplified.]
Erimitus On July 01, 2021




The mind of God, Antarctica
#14New Post! May 09, 2017 @ 23:40:30
Does this clarify the matter?

E: I am not sure. I am a slow study and I appreciate your patience.

________________________________________



The production of offspring results in a species becoming different.

A species becoming different is important to its survival.

Without change a species does not evolve.

If a species does not evolve it is unable to adapt to environmental changes.

If a species does not adapt it will not survive.


If a species is to survive it must be able to adapt to changes in its environment.

The production of offspring may result in a specie increasing its population.

________________________________________

The desire for coitus is a compulsion that may interfere with logical thinking.

Coitus may result in procreation.

Procreation is not always the intent of the fornicators.

Coitus without considering the possibility of procreation is other than an ideal.


Are any of the above assertions correct?

________________________________________

Proposition: 1970's generations were able to do more things.

Comment: I do not understand how procreation enables anything.

________________________________________
mrmhead On about 21 hours ago




NE, Ohio
#15New Post! May 10, 2017 @ 00:18:20
Alligators have been on the planet for billions of years, procreating - yet you don't see them flying to Mars ....
?
///
(they're arms can't reach the spaceship steering wheel)

Reply to Topic<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>
Pages: 1 2 · >>

1 browsing (0 members - 1 guest)

Quick Reply
Be Respectful of Others

      
Subscribe to topic prefs

Similar Topics
    Forum Topic Last Post Replies Views
New posts   Philosophy
Thu Feb 15, 2018 @ 03:10
64 5018
New posts   Society & Lifestyles
Fri Jul 08, 2005 @ 02:21
2 468
New posts   Society & Lifestyles
Wed Sep 09, 2015 @ 18:33
46 5477
New posts   Video Games
Thu Apr 21, 2011 @ 20:34
16 1996
New posts   Pics & Videos
Sun Mar 11, 2007 @ 15:12
11 631