[lutusp]

> then someone else replies with a casual implication that population control would be an effective remedy.

I hope you aren't talking about me. Population growth is the problem, but there is no solution, at least not one that civilized people would or should accept.

Maybe you should read my first post again. I don't wave my hands at population as though control is an easily applied remedy -- I state it as an insoluble problem.

[indefatigable]

OK that's good to hear. But read about the history of eugenics if you'd like to know how other people might misinterpret your argument.

[lutusp]

> ... read about the history of eugenics if you'd like to know how other people might misinterpret your argument.

In the above post I did explicitly point out that there are no political solutions to the population problem -- I called them disasters, and eugenics is certainly on the list of all-time political disasters.

The reason is simple -- nature is smarter than us. When evolution works, when nature produces something remarkable, it's not because we're smart, it's because nature is.

We're faced with a problem that's easy to state and impossible to solve. Virtually anything we can think to try would make the problem worse. We've proven that with our total mishandling of the antibiotic issue. We now know what can go wrong, we have the required information, but we don't seem to be able to craft an effective remedy.

Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methicillin-resistant_Staphyloc...

[b1daly]

Jesus man, nature, at least in the context discussed here as evolution, is not smart. It's just description of what happens. I've heard of no convincing explanation of natural selection that describes it as an intentional force. On the contrary, nature is about as dumb as a rock.

[lutusp]

> Jesus man, nature, at least in the context discussed here as evolution, is not smart.

You mean, speaking as the product of random, undirected evolution by natural selection? My remarks were meant to suggest that evolution sometimes produces results that are so fantastic that poorly educated people are tempted to attribute the outcome to supernatural forces.

> I've heard of no convincing explanation of natural selection that describes it as an intentional force.

Who said anything about intention? Evolution by natural selection is a totally random process that selects the most fit genotype during a random selection process. We are the result -- everything we are, results from a process with no goal or even complex rules. What's truly amazing about evolution is how much results from such simple rules.

> On the contrary, nature is about as dumb as a rock.

Quite true -- and the smartest person, the most beautiful creature, the richest works of art, all sprang from nature "dumb as a rock". Which means nature is smarter than us. Maybe this time you'll understand what I'm trying to say.

No God, no designer, no wizard behind a curtain, just natural resources and natural selection. With the results that we see around us.