Most people that I've met have said murder, suicide, genocide, holocausts and natural disaster ect... Are horrible, are tragedies and should never happen again, when in reality they are needed because the world would be way more over populated now than it is already because there would have been a hell of alot more people to reproduce babies, if wars, holocausts, natural disasters ect... Didn't happen.
Panzer tank. Let's put it this way. If every single person in your family, and every friend you have ever had died from a terrorist attack on a plane, would you still feel that way?
I'd hope so. But as rafterman said emotions aren't always logical.
Over population with animals works like this: the population grows and grows, until the food supply is strained. The pop goes down a bit and remains relatively level.
But with all the wars and genocides that'll never happen.
It's lowering the population in China, but it's leading to infanticide due to the fact that everyone wants a boy. If all parents worldwide were to be that particular about it to kill 50% of children at birth, that birth limit would lower the population quite a bit. Especially because with no females, there can't be any reproduction in the next generation.
I suppose if a limitation had to be placed a limit of at least two (1 male and 1 female) would be more effective. It would still help with the control of the population and not lead to problems such as in China.
Each just makes you appreciate life a lil' bit more.
I take no pleasure in pointless lose of life.
As for the rest of this thread I think freakenstein has pretty much said it all.
Overpopulation is a myth that has been perpetuated for centuries. Every time we pass a landmark date, the doom sayers just move it up. I have yet to see any evidence indicating the human species is at risk of overpopulation.
So lets see if there were 10 million rats in your backyard trying to crawl their way into your house for food, event gnawing at your flesh would you think its a myth? The fact is since humans try to remove themselves from the natural way of things they have come up with many ways to continue those natural occurrences, lack of resources leads to expansion expansion leads to conflict and leads to starvation, war, and all the things that cause death, and we associated death with evil for some reason, yet many points of religion is to accept death, or at least ease the thought anyways I don't believe in evil just self preservation.
So lets see if there were 10 million rats in your backyard trying to crawl their way into your house for food, event gnawing at your flesh would you think its a myth?
So lets see if you can create a strawman analogy to try and prove a baseless point which has already been disproved, would you win the argument?
I don't think theres a specific predetermined dooms day but I think eventually the world will be at risk of overpopulation.
There have been dozens of 'apocalypse' dates set over the years, and none of them have turned out to be true.
Also, note that I have little interest in what you believe, but I am interested in why you believe it. Please tell me why, and if you have any evidence for it. If you can't reply to that request, then I suggest you either find some, or evaluate whether your beliefs really are logically sound.
I say that all deaths fit a purpose. Whether it's good or not is an opinion. To the eyes of a vigilante serial killer, those who he/she kills are good deaths that were well deserved. To the rest of society, the killings were horrible and nobody deserves to die in such a manner.
The same holds true with any reason for killing, or the belief in whether it's good, or not. Some people might consider natural disasters good because it kills off some of the population. (which is illogical, seeing as it will take an awful lot of disasters to make a real difference)
I myself think that some of the above are needed for population control. Are we overpopulated? No. But honestly, we shouldn't strive to be, either.
My opinion is neutral. It's good, and it's bad, all at the same time.
So you're the first to be killed in this new drive for a lower population. Still think it's a good idea?
Whether it's good or not is an opinion. To the eyes of a vigilante serial killer, those who he/she kills are good deaths that were well deserved. To the rest of society, the killings were horrible and nobody deserves to die in such a manner.
Sadly, not all opinions are created equal. You're free to share them, but not to act on them when they go outside the realm of only affecting you and start affecting others.
No. But honestly, we shouldn't strive to be, either.
No one has suggested that.
It's good, and it's bad, all at the same time.
I fail to see how there is anything inherently good about the concepts of war or genocide.
I would be dead. I wouldn't have anymore ideas.
No, if you knew you would be the first to die were this drive for a lower population take place, would you still agree to it? Thought not.
No, if you knew you would be the first to die were this drive for a lower population take place, would you still agree to it? Thought not.
Of course not, like I said, emotions are illogical, it would be hard to find someone who would let them self die in order to save 100 people, but it would be morally better.
