Author Topic: Stem Cells FTW! :D  (Read 25892 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
This rape discussion is missing one major argument. The rapist and the victim do not live in isolation. The victim is likely to have a mate who is not going to want to raise another mans child. The best evolution strategy for him is to therefore pick up a big rock and smash in the skull of anyone who is a known rapist.

There goes your evolutionary advantage right there. If you die upon your first attempt to procreate you're not likely to have much success passing on your genes.
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

[ Diaspora ] - [ Seeds Of Rebellion ] - [ Mind Games ]

 

Offline Grug

  • 211
  • From the ashes...
This rape discussion is missing one major argument. The rapist and the victim do not live in isolation. The victim is likely to have a mate who is not going to want to raise another mans child. The best evolution strategy for him is to therefore pick up a big rock and smash in the skull of anyone who is a known rapist.

There goes your evolutionary advantage right there. If you die upon your first attempt to procreate you're not likely to have much success passing on your genes.

Hence Bobbobau's point. ;)
Hence what I thought was common sense... =/

 

Offline karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
Must have missed that post somehow :)
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

[ Diaspora ] - [ Seeds Of Rebellion ] - [ Mind Games ]

 

Offline aldo_14

  • Gunnery Control
  • 213
Think I said that in different terms myself, as well :)

 

Offline Grug

  • 211
  • From the ashes...
Anyone for a sip of the blood of our enemies?
(erh, figure of speech)
« Last Edit: May 03, 2006, 08:04:31 am by Grug »

 

Offline aldo_14

  • Gunnery Control
  • 213
Anyone for a sip of the blood of our enemies?

Actually, I'm listening to the lamentations of their womenfolk at the moment.

 

Offline Grug

  • 211
  • From the ashes...
"Give me your hand, and I'll give you my hope" ?

Semi-non-relevance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tran_Hung_Dao

 

Offline Goober5000

  • HLP Loremaster
  • 214
    • Goober5000 Productions
This is a very poor analogy.  It makes no sense.  You over simplifier the rate of a disease like Cholera would spread and picture the whole story the way you like to see.  On top of that, Cholera does not choose how slowly it kills it's host so it has time to 'plan' where else to attack.

Okay, well first of all, even if the analogy is flawed, cholera does behave in this way - this sort of situation has been observed, documented, and predicted.  As for cholera "choosing" to do this or that, that was anthropomorphization for the sake of readability.  What really takes place is basic natural selection: in the epidemic case, the virulent strains of cholera outbreed their tamer counterparts; while in the constrained case, the virulent strains kill their hosts too quickly and the tamer strains slowly but surely become dominant.

So I assumed that this sort of emergent reproductive behavior would hold true for any ecological group, whether cholera, humans, or platypuses.  However, I don't have enough of a biological background to support it further, especially given the sheer volume of posts in response. :p So perhaps we should set aside the rape issue and return to the original point. :)

Yeah, I bet you feel your own religion is something special. I also bet that so do everyone else that has such strong belief. Quite a bit of people can say that their beliefs are more than opinions and have been proven to be true, by either logic or experience or both. The trouble is that logic can be flawed and experiences about these things tend to be quite difficult to verify. Also, it is suspicious to me how many religions tend to have their own proving pieces of evidence and logics stating that the have the right God and right way to serve him.

...

Everybody has opinions, and everybody feels strongly about them to some degree.  But doesn't everybody feel strongly about facts too?  How would you respond if Big Brother came along and tried to convince you that 2 + 2 = 5?  Given that facts and opinions provoke similar responses in their defense, it can be hard to tell them apart.

But the difference exists.  Suppose that you and your friend stayed up late one night playing video games, and the next morning you read that he was arrested on suspicion of a murder committed at that exact same time.  You know he couldn't possibly have committed that murder, since you were with him.  Even if all the evidence seemed to point to his guilt, wouldn't you vigorously defend your friend?

It's the same with me.  I was there when God did something, so I have firsthand experience.  And admittedly, up until then part (not all) of Christianity was theoretical, or at least disconnected, from what I saw in my day-to-day experience.  But God stepping in with a miraculous healing was the keystone that completed the arch.

Quote
the one right turbo-belief of über-god

:lol: Titled. :)

if some priest tells me that god exists and that jesus died for our sins, what can i do?  all i have is his word and a book.

A valid question.  I guess the only thing you can do is ask God to prove it to you.  I know it sounds lame, but it's ultimately what has to happen.

Quote
No; rationality is morally neutral.  It only becomes "good" or "evil" in the hands of those using it.

Then why are you trying to justify such a ludicrous premise with it?

What with what - rape with rationality?  If it's ludicrous, that only proves that it can be used incorrectly as well as correctly. ;)

Quote
Well, i think you need to find and read a book, then. :)

Interesting.  Perhaps we could each recommend a book to each other? :) (And no, I don't mean the Bible - not yet, anyway. ;))

Quote
It's inherently dangerous, I think, to just assume rape is some default behaviour rather than a rare aberration.

Maybe so.  And maybe I was just attributing to rape what could also be attributed to high prolificity. :)

What if I said I have seen a few things in my time myself that I found questionable?
Mostly though, through friends I'd consider fairly intelligent and trustworthy, have heard some seemingly unbelievable tales as well.
My point is, you  can't just assume that 1) your the only one in the world that sees and experiences things, and 2) that your way / friends way of viewing things are the most logical and most correct outcomes.

Oh, I wouldn't necessarily disbelieve you.  I've seen plenty of strange things as well - the miraculous healing was more akin to a linchpin or keystone than a trump card.

But I would say (and again, I guess I can't help but say it given my perspective) that God was responsible for those unexplainable things, even if they didn't happen in a God-related context.

Quote
I would say the same back at you. (minus the part prevented seeing by spiritual forces, - infact was that incinuating the devil was stopping me from seeing it -assume he exists even? o.O ) That you have a very one sighted view, and that you are infact the blind one without exposure to other religeons, ideals, and lives. You've simply accepted the one you've grown up with, assumedly told all your life that your belief was the right one, and that any other interpretation of the world is most likely wrong, and possibly influenced by the devil.

You're assuming that I'm just parrotting what I've been told.  Not true - as I've said, I've reached this point through experience.  And again, certain beliefs, like the occurrance of present-day miracles, I've only arrived at based on what I've seen in the past year or two.

Part of the problem, which unfortunately can't be helped here, is that you're reading my posts here and now and you didn't have a chance to interview me five years ago. :)

And I don't automatically assume that any belief which doesn't fit within my rigid framework is wrong.  In fact, we're supposed to accept correction humbly and with an open mind.  I've been won over to an opposing viewpoint many times before, in religion and elsewhere.  But this particular thing is a core principle.
« Last Edit: May 03, 2006, 09:03:47 pm by Goober5000 »

 

Offline Grug

  • 211
  • From the ashes...
Well, what can I say to that. Blanket statements such as "God is responsible for every miracle, even the ones claimed by others." one cannot argue against. So many other religeons claim the same thing. Ultimately, its this form of extremism that causes so many of the worlds problems.

The core principal is your particular viewpoint. Many other christians also fight for the right of this research, what say you to that? I guess they are all being influenced by the devil.

Look, I'm not trying to offend, but I see this kind of hard core belief as a basis for many other problems in the world. I see it as arrogant, and inflexible in its fundamental principles. Near every religeon in the world is based on fundamental tenants that basically constitute intolerance and a general distrust of humanity. It's a breeding ground for corruption, exploitation and extremism towards others of different beliefs.

I can respect my beliefs, I can respect your beliefs. Hell, I'll even fight for your right to believe in whatever you like. But here you are using your belief as a basis for why stem cells should not be researched on, the research of which could benefit so many. All it comes down to is that you believe it is a person, I do not. I base my decision on scientific evidence, you base yours on the belief of the existance of a soul, a God, and that the Bible is true. Something that is yet to be proven. Something that rely's on your religeon being right. That I see as wrong on the most basic of levels when we are supposed to be living in a world established on the basis of freedom. You are only trying to impede other's rights, based on the assumption that your beliefs are correct. See the catch?

It's getting to the point where discussion is nearing futility, when you can't even accept that your belief isn't accepted by everyone, and can't see why a law should not be based on this belief of yours.

 

Offline aldo_14

  • Gunnery Control
  • 213
Quote
What with what - rape with rationality?  If it's ludicrous, that only proves that it can be used incorrectly as well as correctly.

Not when you're using a false premise as basis.

Quote
Interesting.  Perhaps we could each recommend a book to each other? (And no, I don't mean the Bible - not yet, anyway. )

I've read the bible*. Generally speaking I prefer my fiction to be crime & science fiction novels, though.

* (why do you think I'm an aetheist?)

Quote
Maybe so.  And maybe I was just attributing to rape what could also be attributed to high prolificity.

Explain?
« Last Edit: May 04, 2006, 02:59:07 am by aldo_14 »

 

Offline Bobboau

  • Just a MODern kinda guy
    Just MODerately cool
    And MODest too
  • 213
I was christian, I went to a catholic highschool, it was nice, nice people, and I had to read a whole lot of the Bible, but I must have missed the part were God dicatated to Moses that life begins somewere before the blastisis stage at conception, I do remember a few references to the relationship between life and breathing, but that's about it. your side of the argument is based on belief, but this belief is not based on anything, not even scripture, it's mostly political, and the fact you don't see that is particularly frustrating.
Bobboau, bringing you products that work... in theory
learn to use PCS
creator of the ProXimus Procedural Texture and Effect Generator
My latest build of PCS2, get it while it's hot!
PCS 2.0.3


DEUTERONOMY 22:11
Thou shalt not wear a garment of diverse sorts, [as] of woollen and linen together

 

Offline Wild Fragaria

  • Geek girl
  • 23
This is a very poor analogy.  It makes no sense.  You over simplifier the rate of a disease like Cholera would spread and picture the whole story the way you like to see.  On top of that, Cholera does not choose how slowly it kills it's host so it has time to 'plan' where else to attack.

Okay, well first of all, even if the analogy is flawed, cholera does behave in this way - this sort of situation has been observed, documented, and predicted.  As for cholera "choosing" to do this or that, that was anthropomorphization for the sake of readability.  What really takes place is basic natural selection: in the epidemic case, the virulent strains of cholera outbreed their tamer counterparts; while in the constrained case, the virulent strains kill their hosts too quickly and the tamer strains slowly but surely become dominant.

So I assumed that this sort of emergent reproductive behavior would hold true for any ecological group, whether cholera, humans, or platypuses.  However, I don't have enough of a biological background to support it further, especially given the sheer volume of posts in response. :p So perhaps we should set aside the rape issue and return to the original point. :)

I think it's rather daring of you to randomly talk about things that you don't have much background of.  What's worse is that you didn't even bother to look up a reference or two to support your claim.  Keep in mind that assumption is not the way to make you win a debate  :doubt:

 

Offline aldo_14

  • Gunnery Control
  • 213
This is a very poor analogy.  It makes no sense.  You over simplifier the rate of a disease like Cholera would spread and picture the whole story the way you like to see.  On top of that, Cholera does not choose how slowly it kills it's host so it has time to 'plan' where else to attack.

Okay, well first of all, even if the analogy is flawed, cholera does behave in this way - this sort of situation has been observed, documented, and predicted.  As for cholera "choosing" to do this or that, that was anthropomorphization for the sake of readability.  What really takes place is basic natural selection: in the epidemic case, the virulent strains of cholera outbreed their tamer counterparts; while in the constrained case, the virulent strains kill their hosts too quickly and the tamer strains slowly but surely become dominant.

So I assumed that this sort of emergent reproductive behavior would hold true for any ecological group, whether cholera, humans, or platypuses.  However, I don't have enough of a biological background to support it further, especially given the sheer volume of posts in response. :p So perhaps we should set aside the rape issue and return to the original point. :)

Cholera (a bacterial infection) spreads as the result of fecal contaminated water rather than any direct transmission from human-human. There's a reduced, if any, survival advantage on a species-level to surviving within the human environment compared to surviving within fecal matter.  Remember natural selection is based on environmental pressures.

 

Offline Goober5000

  • HLP Loremaster
  • 214
    • Goober5000 Productions
Look, I'm not trying to offend, but I see this kind of hard core belief as a basis for many other problems in the world. I see it as arrogant, and inflexible in its fundamental principles. Near every religeon in the world is based on fundamental tenants that basically constitute intolerance and a general distrust of humanity. It's a breeding ground for corruption, exploitation and extremism towards others of different beliefs.

Standing up for what you believe in is intolerance, eh?  So tolerance, then, would be not standing up for any particular thing, swaying in the wind from one belief to another.

As for a general distrust of humanity, that's a valuable thing IMHO.  It makes you stop and take a second look at things, and it encourages cautiousness.  Blindly trusting in anything is inevitably going to lead to disappointment - either because things didn't turn out the way you thought, or because someone took advantage of that blind trust to stab you in the back.

Take a look at the debate over national ID cards.  Which is better: a general distrust of the government and its motives, or a feel-good dismissal of concerns on the grounds that government always has our best interests at heart?

Quote
You are only trying to impede other's rights, based on the assumption that your beliefs are correct. See the catch?

And I would counter that by saying that you're coming to a mistaken conclusion because you don't see the whole picture.  You are impinging on the fetus's rights because you can't accept that it's a living person.

Quote
I've read the bible*. Generally speaking I prefer my fiction to be crime & science fiction novels, though.

* (why do you think I'm an aetheist?)

Ha ha.

I was going to recommend this book, which was recommended to me by the aforementioned Scott and which I'm currently reading.  It's a good read.

Quote
Quote
Maybe so.  And maybe I was just attributing to rape what could also be attributed to high prolificity.

Explain?

In other words, there are certain cases where humans reproduce prolifically, and certain cases where they don't.  I assumed that rape would play a significant part in the former case, whether or not it was the major contributor.

I was christian, I went to a catholic highschool, it was nice, nice people, and I had to read a whole lot of the Bible, but I must have missed the part were God dicatated to Moses that life begins somewere before the blastisis stage at conception, I do remember a few references to the relationship between life and breathing, but that's about it. your side of the argument is based on belief, but this belief is not based on anything, not even scripture, it's mostly political, and the fact you don't see that is particularly frustrating.

Well there's that Psalm where David mentions being in sin from the time of conception; and there's the passage where John the Baptist leaps for joy in the womb; and Jesus being described as conceived by and in the Spirit.

And this isn't political - in fact, I've gotten more and more disgusted with politics over the past two years.  It's based on both Scripture and experience.  The fact that you don't see that is frustrating for me. :)

I think it's rather daring of you to randomly talk about things that you don't have much background of.  What's worse is that you didn't even bother to look up a reference or two to support your claim.  Keep in mind that assumption is not the way to make you win a debate  :doubt:

Right. :rolleyes: First of all, the cholera thing was something I read in a scientific magazine - I think it was Discover, but I'm not sure - about a year ago.  I forgot most of the details, but the core points were that in otherwise identical communities, one community suffered a severe outbreak of cholera and one suffered a mild one.  The difference was due to their water supply, and the explanation given was the one I related above.

 

Offline Bobboau

  • Just a MODern kinda guy
    Just MODerately cool
    And MODest too
  • 213
well if you are alive from the moment you are conceived acording to the bible, then why is causeing a woman to miscary not treated as murder in the Bible?
Bobboau, bringing you products that work... in theory
learn to use PCS
creator of the ProXimus Procedural Texture and Effect Generator
My latest build of PCS2, get it while it's hot!
PCS 2.0.3


DEUTERONOMY 22:11
Thou shalt not wear a garment of diverse sorts, [as] of woollen and linen together

 

Offline Goober5000

  • HLP Loremaster
  • 214
    • Goober5000 Productions
If you're referring to that "if a man strikes a woman..." passage, "giving birth prematurely" isn't the same as miscarriage, from what I've heard.  But I've also heard that that's a fairly recent interpretation, so I dunno.  However, that passage aside, there are plenty of other places in the Bible that support life beginning at conception.

And I've found what may be the article I was thinking about before:
http://www.discover.com/issues/sep-02/rd/breakbelly/
The article I read was longer than this, so this may be just a summary or a different article altogether.  But it shows how cholera would adjust its behavior according to its environment: if there is an abundance of available hosts, the cholera bacterium stays in its virulent form, whereas if hosts are few and far between, it reverts to its less infectious form.  I would presume it does this to preserve the host's life long enough for the disease to be passed on.

 

Offline Bobboau

  • Just a MODern kinda guy
    Just MODerately cool
    And MODest too
  • 213
well, this is what the king James version says:

Exodus 21:
"22If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

23And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life

24Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

25Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

note verse 23, were it talks about giveing life for life, right after it says that the guy should be fined, as if the unborn were property.
Bobboau, bringing you products that work... in theory
learn to use PCS
creator of the ProXimus Procedural Texture and Effect Generator
My latest build of PCS2, get it while it's hot!
PCS 2.0.3


DEUTERONOMY 22:11
Thou shalt not wear a garment of diverse sorts, [as] of woollen and linen together

 

Offline Grug

  • 211
  • From the ashes...
Look, I'm not trying to offend, but I see this kind of hard core belief as a basis for many other problems in the world. I see it as arrogant, and inflexible in its fundamental principles. Near every religeon in the world is based on fundamental tenants that basically constitute intolerance and a general distrust of humanity. It's a breeding ground for corruption, exploitation and extremism towards others of different beliefs.

Standing up for what you believe in is intolerance, eh?  So tolerance, then, would be not standing up for any particular thing, swaying in the wind from one belief to another.

As for a general distrust of humanity, that's a valuable thing IMHO.  It makes you stop and take a second look at things, and it encourages cautiousness.  Blindly trusting in anything is inevitably going to lead to disappointment - either because things didn't turn out the way you thought, or because someone took advantage of that blind trust to stab you in the back.

Take a look at the debate over national ID cards.  Which is better: a general distrust of the government and its motives, or a feel-good dismissal of concerns on the grounds that government always has our best interests at heart?

Look, don't purposely misinterpret what I'm trying to say. Standing up for your beliefs is one thing, I'd stand up for freedom, for civil rights etc, but I would not stand up for stopping scientifically harmless, beneficial research. Ultimately it comes down to you forcing us to accept that souls exist, and that stem cells possess such a thing, to which I say: No thankyou, kind sir. I stand up for my right not to have to believe that.

Quote
You are only trying to impede other's rights, based on the assumption that your beliefs are correct. See the catch?

And I would counter that by saying that you're coming to a mistaken conclusion because you don't see the whole picture.  You are impinging on the fetus's rights because you can't accept that it's a living person.

Your retort completely relying on me having to accept your faith in being correct, or that a soul exists in a tiny undeveloped cell.
Again, see the catch?

I'm sorry, but I refuse to accept this as any kind of basis to prevent research in this area. It is pretentious of you to demand that I submit to your faith being correct, and that stem cells have any sort of resemblence of the existance of a soul. Something I would never see myself accepting, lest christ be reborn and come to my living room and have a chat with me, or I meet the great maker when I die and he clarify's things for me.
« Last Edit: May 05, 2006, 04:59:47 am by Grug »

 

Offline Herra Tohtori

  • The Academic
  • 211
  • Bad command or file name
Ookay...  :wtf:

Regardless of our interpretations of what the Bible says about things that were completely incomprehensable those days (like embryotic stem cell research), id doesn't change the fact that if we start using the bible as a basis of our legislation, we have to accept anyone using anything they believe in as the source of their legislation. Like the Quaran. Or anything written down long enough a time ago.

Again, even if you are 100% are about what you believe in, doesn't make your belief a fact. The value of the text in the Bible (any transcription) is completely equal to, say, Veda-scribes of Hindus', or the Quaran, or the book of G'Quan for that part. All may describe real events, but the events were interpreted by people who could possibly have no knowledge of how earthquakes could happen, thus they were miracles and that's it. Same for diseases, seas opening (that really can happen duo interference of low-frequency waves) and stuff like that.

So, it's quite pointless in this conversation to go nitpicking about what the Bible says. I think we should more be concerned about intention of using any religion as basis for legislation.

Okay, that fills my need for rant today.  :p

Now to make this message something else than meta-discussion, my view of the origins of morality go along aldo's view. First there was the hunter-gatherers, and convenient things of course were soon noticed. Like, it was noticed that having children with relatives too close would decrease the health of the population. They didn't know the reason for this as we know it now, but they did notice it and it became immoral to have an affair with too close a relative. Same goes for killing, stealing and all the other things like that. Killing members of the society wasn't feasible because it weakened the population, not to mention that these first people had practically al the emotional abilities we do, so they must have quickly noticed that killing made the relatives and close ones of the victim very pissed, which often reluted in more violence, further weakening the society. Thus I believe they quite early developed some system of rules. And this is long before a concept of monotheism (meaning a single personal god) sprouted up behind some moist stone.

Of course you can argue that God is the source of morality the same way he would be the source of anything, If he really made up the universe, but I still see morality more of a by-product of other things defining our personality. I think morality derives from intelligence and emotional abilities, particularly ability to empathy, and is not some kind of a profound characteristic of humanity. If God would have given all the people one set of moral (on style of "apt-get install moral-pack-1.2.2"), wouldn't it be same throughout the world? But it isn't, so if you still think God is the source of moral, he must divinely give the right set of morals to those who serve him. But wait, I've noticed that even amongst christians there are great differences in moral and ethic principles! How is this possible?

It's possible so that the athic thinking is a by-product of intelligence and emotional abilities of human beings, and cultural traditions from thousands of years ago are still vibrant in many places, mixing with ethics, thus forming a set of moral principles.

Also you should be wary of mixing morality with ethics. Ethics is what a person feels to be right or wrong, morality is more like an attribute defining society, being a mixture of the ethics of all the people in it, added with traditions deriving ethics that ages ago dead people had. Religious traditions also add to morality, but they have no effect in ethics IMO.
There are three things that last forever: Abort, Retry, Fail - and the greatest of these is Fail.

 

Offline aldo_14

  • Gunnery Control
  • 213
Quote
Standing up for what you believe in is intolerance, eh?  So tolerance, then, would be not standing up for any particular thing, swaying in the wind from one belief to another.

As for a general distrust of humanity, that's a valuable thing IMHO.  It makes you stop and take a second look at things, and it encourages cautiousness.  Blindly trusting in anything is inevitably going to lead to disappointment - either because things didn't turn out the way you thought, or because someone took advantage of that blind trust to stab you in the back.

Take a look at the debate over national ID cards.  Which is better: a general distrust of the government and its motives, or a feel-good dismissal of concerns on the grounds that government always has our best interests at heart?

Politicians are an entirely different breed from science.  In particular, they have different vested interests.  Moreso, we can weight advantage-disadvantage in the same manner as ID cards and come up with 'Stem cell research = good'.  What Grug is citing as intolerance is that you know you are standing up based on personal belief - opinion - and that taking that stance automatically removes any tolerance (acceptance) of the alternate belief (ignoring the scientific arguement, too).  Would you be happy if Shariah law was instated in the US?

Quote
And I would counter that by saying that you're coming to a mistaken conclusion because you don't see the whole picture.  You are impinging on the fetus's rights because you can't accept that it's a living person.

And the counter is that you are impinging the rights of humanity for the best medical treatment and life by refusing to accept that the foetus is not a person.

The use of 'accept,'I note, involves the assumption you are correct.....the basic belief that Grug must be wrong.

Quote
Ha ha.

I was going to recommend this book, which was recommended to me by the aforementioned Scott and which I'm currently reading.  It's a good read.

Why ha?  I think it's fiction, and dull fiction at that.  sorry if that annoys you, but I felt like making the point that it's not a very special book in my eyes, just a mythology.

anyways, I'm not sure there's anything I'd want to read less than a propaganda piece; if it's anything less than a proper neutral scientific book, not a 'here's some stuff we can liberally interpret as God' (first pages of the sample on Amazon - disease are demons), it's useless to me.  i'm not interested in being pushed other peoples opinions or philosophies.

Quote
In other words, there are certain cases where humans reproduce prolifically, and certain cases where they don't.  I assumed that rape would play a significant part in the former case, whether or not it was the major contributor.

So you assumed that rape increases with population booms?  Do you have any evidence whatsoever to back that up?  Because it strikes me that all crimes would increase with population, but to cite rape as a contributor to sudden reproductive spikes you'd need to attribute as a casual factor, and then identify why it became that causal factor.

Quote
   And I've found what may be the article I was thinking about before:
http://www.discover.com/issues/sep-02/rd/breakbelly/
The article I read was longer than this, so this may be just a summary or a different article altogether.  But it shows how cholera would adjust its behavior according to its environment: if there is an abundance of available hosts, the cholera bacterium stays in its virulent form, whereas if hosts are few and far between, it reverts to its less infectious form.  I would presume it does this to preserve the host's life long enough for the disease to be passed on.
http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/06_02/cholera_trip.shtml
http://www.phschool.com/science/science_news/articles/efficient_germ_cholera.html


This is not conscious adaptation; let's make that clear.   Cholera does not decide 'oh, I'm in a gut, better switch these 'ere genes on and off'.

It's going to be an evolutionary response; cholera bacteria mutations that can selectively (instinctively, to paraphrase) activate defense mechanisms in the gut without losing their natural environment (contaminated water) adaptations are obviously going to prosper.  what you seme to be implying by using this as an example (if used correctly) is that in a population growth situation humans would automatically switch to rape because it's more efficient (even thought it isn't) than normal courtship.  But that alone ignores that this is triggered (in cholera) by a severe environmental change requiring this activation - i.e. selecting it (offhand IIRc it's protein based) - in order to survive.  Rape is, in contrast, in no way whatsoever a survival mechanism.

Basically, it does not do 'this to preserve the host's life long enough for the disease to be passed on'; it does it because the other strains of cholera that don't or didn't were outcompeted by those that did.