by entropyfails » Sat 16 Jun 2007, 00:54:48
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ClassicSpiderman', 'C')ultural conservatives lament the fact that in most industrialized countries, political support for abortion is about 60% to 80%. They surmise, 'How could societies which believe in killing their offspring survive?'
And the 80% who disagree with that logic think of the population thinks, "Why would 20% of the population want to have children when they are not ready? " One group is thinking about the individual quality of life and the other group accepts a lesser quality of life for a larger population. Your conservative group that feels that only the number of humans count is a non-evolutionary stable strategy in an era of increased technological power.
How can we prove this is non-stable? We need to chart the destructive power of the individual along with the number of dissatisfied individuals in the society.
Tech Power Chart
1 person maximum kill in a single incident
Time | Kills
-----------------
-10k 10
0 20
1600 50
1800 100
1900 1000
1940 3000
1950 1,000,000
1960 10,000,000
1990 1,000,000,000
2020 10,000,000,000
As time goes on... the disaffected become far more powerful. I'll run a couple numbers to prove my point.
Obviously, the average disaffected murder amount is far less than the theoretical maximum. I'll use 4000 people as a fair number for the next few years. I've also used the rates of murderously disaffected people (approximately) from the US and the number of murderously violent people in the middle east for the conservative society model.
Case A: Abortion Society
Pop 200,000,000
Murderously Disaffected : 0.00009% aprox
Psycho's per year: .66
Deaths Per Year: 2,600
Case B: Conservative Society
Pop 400,000,000
Murderously Disaffected : 0.00016% aprox
Psychos per year: 666
Deaths Per Year: 2,664,000
As time goes on, this discrepancy in disaffected people becomes even more critical. The conservative position of "be fruitful and multiply endlessly" simply has no stability in human evolution. Scientists even have a term for it, overshoot.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ClassicSpiderman', '
')Abortion is nature's way of getting rid of the genetic chaff--a sort of collective self-imposed suicide for it's adherents. Abortion is not the end of the world, it's the end of THEM.
To believe this logic you must first believe that there is a genetic component to willingness to get an abortion. No such genetic link has ever been shown and there is no real way for such a deep cognitive issue in modern humans to have a genetic basis. Therefore, your entire post is complete nonsense. (In as much as both your point about societies survival has been shown false and by revealing your unstated premise that abortion decisions have some genetic basis to select on.)
But no one is surprised when a fundamentalist fails to understand evolution.