One of the largest changes in population growth rates in India (if I remember correctly) is due to the spread of one major technological device: the television set. People in remote villages are now being beamed broadcasts of Indian made soap operas showing families, in cities, having one or two children ONLY. As people watched and began to understand what was going on, the number of children per family started to decline starting in the mid 1970s.
Another overall technology booster is the drop in infant mortality rates. Large families are due, in part, to the expectation that most children won't survive childhood and families planned accordingly. As basic sanitary conditions in many of the "underdeveloped" nations slowly start to improve (clean water, sewers, basic sanitary knowledge) children have been surviving at a greater rate. Add to the mix a widespread usage of low cost vaccines and it is no wonder that birthrates in most of sub-saharan africa has dropped from an average of 6 children per family to just over 4 children per family.
All of this leads up to the question of what will happen to the world as low cost computers, satellite networks and distributed power sources allow even the remotest and poorest places on the planet to link up with the rest of the world. Of course literacy rates will have to jump worldwide for this sort of technology to be useful...
The subject of this Message is the Jack Williamson book "Brother to Demons, Brother to Gods" (yes it is SF)which describes our future earth after genetic engineering takes place. Mankind (as such) is divided into: Premen (people like us, unmodified humanity), Trumen (the purified human race), Mumen (genetically modified humans that can live in hazardous environments) and Gods (purified humans that have been genetically modified with ET material). This book sums up one view on this topic and should be a quick read for anyone interested in it.
Next up on the hit parade is world food supply. Sorry world food supply is not declining. Even the UN doesn't say THAT. What is said is that the current food supply is not well delivered to all people who need it (that is an economic and supply problem, NOT a growth and production problem).
Finally freedom in the US. Yes there are many sources trying to censor citizens within the US. When distribution of information was limited to expensive hardcopy output there was only a small chance of stopping "unliked" information. In cold war Poland, mimeograph machines (black market) were used to distribute information against a far more dictatorial regime than most US citizens can imagine. And they did that without mimeograph carbons, too! (typewriters and aluminum foil were the answer). As the distribution of information moves to a softcopy over a redundant digital system, censorship becomes a meat-ax approach by governments willing to stop the free flow of discussion (witness China blocking news sites). With the advent of satellite phone systems, there will be no way to stop distribution of information on a global scale to any point on the planet. Couple that with inexpensive receivers and the only way to censor information is to live in a non-technological setting. Self-censorship is the best form of censorship and we will all learn how to practice it, eventually (both on the consuming and generating side of information).
Finally, as for the screening of infants for genetic problems... many maladies are NOT genetic. Your chance of becoming a diabetic is only raised a couple of percent if there is a background of it in your family (it is a widespread condition, influenced by many factors of which genetics is only the smallest part). Other conditions, such as a prediliction for certain types of cancer, are only an increase in probability, not a certainty of getting the disease. Perhaps genetic engineering can cure us of these problems. Perhaps not. But any rational discourse on the subject must start with an understanding that quantity of life is not the same as quality of life. Parents make decisions for infants/ children which you may not agree with, and which may be harmful in the long run to the child. Is this wrong? And if it is, what is the solution? (argument is one avenue...how about making parents get a license to have children?) Can the discussion on the topic even be started? If not, why not?
Slashdot Mirror
One of the largest changes in population growth rates in India (if I remember correctly) is due to the spread of one major technological device: the television set. People in remote villages are now being beamed broadcasts of Indian made soap operas showing families, in cities, having one or two children ONLY. As people watched and began to understand what was going on, the number of children per family started to decline starting in the mid 1970s.
Another overall technology booster is the drop in infant mortality rates. Large families are due, in part, to the expectation that most children won't survive childhood and families planned accordingly. As basic sanitary conditions in many of the "underdeveloped" nations slowly start to improve (clean water, sewers, basic sanitary knowledge) children have been surviving at a greater rate. Add to the mix a widespread usage of low cost vaccines and it is no wonder that birthrates in most of sub-saharan africa has dropped from an average of 6 children per family to just over 4 children per family.
All of this leads up to the question of what will happen to the world as low cost computers, satellite networks and distributed power sources allow even the remotest and poorest places on the planet to link up with the rest of the world. Of course literacy rates will have to jump worldwide for this sort of technology to be useful...
==JM==
The subject of this Message is the Jack Williamson book "Brother to Demons, Brother to Gods" (yes it is SF)which describes our future earth after genetic engineering takes place. Mankind (as such) is divided into: Premen (people like us, unmodified humanity), Trumen (the purified human race), Mumen (genetically modified humans that can live in hazardous environments) and Gods (purified humans that have been genetically modified with ET material). This book sums up one view on this topic and should be a quick read for anyone interested in it.
Next up on the hit parade is world food supply. Sorry world food supply is not declining. Even the UN doesn't say THAT. What is said is that the current food supply is not well delivered to all people who need it (that is an economic and supply problem, NOT a growth and production problem).
Finally freedom in the US. Yes there are many sources trying to censor citizens within the US. When distribution of information was limited to expensive hardcopy output there was only a small chance of stopping "unliked" information. In cold war Poland, mimeograph machines (black market) were used to distribute information against a far more dictatorial regime than most US citizens can imagine. And they did that without mimeograph carbons, too! (typewriters and aluminum foil were the answer). As the distribution of information moves to a softcopy over a redundant digital system, censorship becomes a meat-ax approach by governments willing to stop the free flow of discussion (witness China blocking news sites). With the advent of satellite phone systems, there will be no way to stop distribution of information on a global scale to any point on the planet. Couple that with inexpensive receivers and the only way to censor information is to live in a non-technological setting. Self-censorship is the best form of censorship and we will all learn how to practice it, eventually (both on the consuming and generating side of information).
Finally, as for the screening of infants for genetic problems... many maladies are NOT genetic. Your chance of becoming a diabetic is only raised a couple of percent if there is a background of it in your family (it is a widespread condition, influenced by many factors of which genetics is only the smallest part). Other conditions, such as a prediliction for certain types of cancer, are only an increase in probability, not a certainty of getting the disease. Perhaps genetic engineering can cure us of these problems. Perhaps not. But any rational discourse on the subject must start with an understanding that quantity of life is not the same as quality of life. Parents make decisions for infants/ children which you may not agree with, and which may be harmful in the long run to the child. Is this wrong? And if it is, what is the solution? (argument is one avenue...how about making parents get a license to have children?) Can the discussion on the topic even be started? If not, why not?
==========JM==========
I think this article at FEED is pretty close to what Jon is trying to get at
f i.html
http://www.feedmag.com/column/interface/ci164lo