The good of society

[tendomentis]

Okay, so this issue has come up countless times in human history. The instances that people tend to remember first are the instances that involve someone with an ulterior motive using "the good of society" to justify a personal agenda.

But does that make the notion wrong in and of itself? Sure, certain people in human history (and you know who you are) have abused it, as others have abused other noble ideals, but is it wrong?

Infertile couples "cheating" natural selection to breed using artificial insemination and surrogate mothers (especially considering how many orphaned children go unwanted). The multi-billion dollar birth control industry (and all the nasty side-effects that accompany it, like increased risks of breast cancer, mood swings, etc). Even immunology.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for human progress, but I think that progress for the individual's sake MIGHT be incorrect. Ideally, progress would be made to further the efficiency and evolution of humanity as a species, not allow certain individuals to sate their individual desires at the long-term expense of the species.

All of this is IMHO obviously, but what do you think? Can you think of other examples of cheating our own evolution? Do you think progress for the individual should outweigh progress for the species? Can you think of instances where progress for the individual might also provide immediate or long term progress for the species (and vice versa)?

Sound off

[Boozy]

The multi-billion dollar birth control industry (and all the nasty side-effects that accompany it, like increased risks of breast cancer, mood swings, etc).

Are you saying birth control is bad for society or good for society?

Also, the birth control pill actually regulates mood swings for many women.

[tendomentis]

I was citing artificial birth control as a negative for the human species at large.

My personal viewpoint is that any circumvention of our species' natural evolution will inevitably have a negative impact on our species as a whole in the long term.

[Sylvia727]

Except that humans are overpopulated. If we have too many humans in an area, then they will use up all the resources and die out. Birth control, counter intuitively, prevents extinction and helps humanity as a species.

[Boozy]

My personal viewpoint is that any circumvention of our species' natural evolution will inevitably have a negative impact on our species as a whole in the long term.

Why does birth control affect evolution?

Actually, let me rephrase: Human evolution is a process that takes place gradually over generations and generations, involving billions of people. How is it possible to determine what, if any, effects something like birth control may have?

[tendomentis]

Yes, and that's how natural selection works. Those humans that lack the ability to self-regulate their own procreative activity (which, due to the negative long-term effects it brings about, namely overpopulation, could be identified as an undesirable trait) simply remove themselves from the gene pool and the humans that remain do not posess that same trait.

In the same way that the proto-humans that lacked the ability to self-regulate their hunting practices and starved to death were removed from the gene pool by their own actions.

This is by way of an example. Their is more to overcome as a species than simply our lack of self-regulation in this one area.

At least, in my opinion.

[Giggle Goose]

Yeah; I also thought heard that some forms of birth control can actually reduce the risk of ovarian and other types of cancer. Not sure of the details; but that's what I've heard from my doctor.

I also think it's necessary since us humans are one of the only (or possibly THE only) species that has sex for pleasure and recreation. So if every single person ended up having a kid with all the sex we're obsessed with these days.....yikes.

[Sylvia727]

Well, no. That myth was perpetuated by scientists' reluctance to investigate or analyze sexual relations. Many or most animals have sex for pleasure. Look up bonobos, for example. They have sex so often they get bored of it.

[Amethyst Hunter]

The multi-billion dollar birth control industry (and all the nasty side-effects that accompany it, like increased risks of breast cancer

*takes deep breath*

BIRTH CONTROL DOES NOT CAUSE CANCER!!!!!!!!!

To date, there is NO conclusive evidence proving that.

Sorry, but it drives me absolutely batshit insane to hear that boldfaced lie being repeated - especially since it's a favorite tactic of anti-choice groups using it to try and bar access to birth control (nevermind that some of us actually NEED it to control fucked-up menstrual cycles!).

Contraceptions and their effectiveness/side effects differ for everyone; that's why you're encouraged to meet with your doctor and talk through your options.

[blas87]

Birth control has saved my life, and I will never look down upon it, nor will I ever look down upon any other woman (and maybe if we ever get to it, men) who uses it.

I wil cheat and continue to cheat, if that's how we're going to refer to it. And I don't care. I don't want kids. This works for me.

[AFPheonix]

Wait. What? Are you advocating against any technological advance? Because I can guarantee the first proto-human that used another animal's hide to keep warm instead of dying out in favor of another extremely hairy specimen thwarted natural selection.

The first farmer thwarted natural selection not only of the plants he started selecting as breeding stock (artificial selection) but that of generations after him who developed into agrarian societies from nomad hunter/gatherers.

As for birth control, would you prefer the inevitable die-off that would occur if we all exceeded our planet's ability to feed all of us? In case you missed it, there's food shortages already in several parts of the world. I don't know about you, but that would be one hell of a mess.

[Seshat]

Yes, and that's how natural selection works. Those humans that lack the ability to self-regulate their own procreative activity (which, due to the negative long-term effects it brings about, namely overpopulation, could be identified as an undesirable trait) simply remove themselves from the gene pool and the humans that remain do not posess that same trait.

And self-regulating their own procreation doesn't count? Because that's all birth control is.

Humans have been regulating their own procreation for as long as archeologists have been able to find communities. Masturbation and homosexuality have been used to permit sexual activity without procreation, abortificant herbs and other techniques have been used, and excess infants that make it past those hurdles have been exposed and left to die.

Modern birth control, surgically-safe abortions, and abortificant pills are simply technological advances on things humans have been doing for millenia. As for masturbation, homosexuality, and infanticide - all have examples in more 'natural' animals. Especially infanticide: in hard times, mothers of many, many species will eat their just-born children.

[blas87]

Anyone who thinks masturbation is a bad thing obviously wasn't single for very long periods of time.

[tendomentis]

Somehow this became a birth control thread, and that's not what I had intended.

You who advocate for it primarily use yourselves as examples of why it's a good thing, and that was the point of the thread. Does the good it does for YOU outweigh the long-term negative effects on the species at large?

To say that archaeologists have found evidence of some form of birth control in human history (of which I am aware, lamb intestines for example) isn't saying much as the length of recorded human history is merely a fraction of our species development.

Also, while some forms of birth control may reduce the risk of some types of ovarian cancer, they also increase the risk of breast cancer (and, in the interest of setting a good example, my backup).

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/co...ancer_Risk.asp

I'm not against progress in and of itself (see my first post again for clarification). I'm at odds with progress that benefits the individual at the expense of the species.

An example: our species developed natural immune responses to a plethora of diseases over the course of our species' evolution without the need for a multi-billion dollar pharmeceutical industry. We would encounter a new disease, and while many might die off, the humans left were only alive because their physiologies had handled the disease better. They go on to reproduce, and their offspring inherit that immune response, yadda yadda yadda, thousands of generations later we don't even feel the effects of that disease OR its effects are severely diminished. Is it harsh that so many had to die that could have been saved through "modern medicine"? From the individual's standpoint, absolutely. From the species' standpoint, clearly not.

If you think my position is cold, just bear in mind that I have lost loved ones to cancer/illness, but this is still my position.

And yes, I did just "yadda yadda" evolution

[Boozy]

Is it harsh that so many had to die that could have been saved through "modern medicine"? From the individual's standpoint, absolutely. From the species' standpoint, clearly not.

Define "human progress". You would like us to evolve to what end, exactly?

Does letting people die even though we have the technology to save them sound like progress? To me, it sounds like regression.