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.
I fail to see how there is anything inherently good about the concepts of war or genocide.
It gives good people something to fight against rather than each other.
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.
If we don't act on our opinions, what are they?
And opinions of people do affect everyone, if even in the tiniest way.
Although in this case I do see what you mean.
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.
If you were forced to worship Hitler or you would die, would you do it?
So with your logic, those people died so more people can live, or less, depending on how you look at it...
So basically your saying its good for other people to die, so other people can live, dieng is dieng, the said things are not good, and the population issue is easier to solve with the option of living on mars coming closer to veiw, while the other things will be harder to stop, thus in my reasoning they are worse then population, but over population whould cause most of those, but still...
It gives good people something to fight against rather than each other.
To be fair, if you are in a war, you are fighting against someone.
I read most of the previous posts, but not all of them. So excuse me if someone already mentioned this.
What you guys are talking about is called "Utilitarianism." According to Wikipedia, Utilitarianism basically means meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome.
In other words, anything (IE war, famine, murder) is justifiable as long as it is beneficial to humankind.
In my opinion, it is completely ridiculous. Due to the complexities of reality, you never know the exact outcome of your actions. This means that you can never know if your actions were justified or not. For instance:
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.
OKay. Kill one, but save 100. That gives you a net profit of 99 people. So you win! Right?
Well, not necesarily. For instance, maybe those 100 people you saved were all genocidal neo-nazis (woops).
Maybe you were about to cure cancer when you killed yourself. By committing suicide, you doomed millions of people to die.
Sure, a lot of people die in wars, which might help stave off over population.
But what happened right after WWII? The baby boom.
Point is, you can't ever isolated things into "causes" and "effects," because everything is both.
Firefly: I never said I hold to a Malthusian point in the first place. That kind of thinking has long been dealt its death blow, and it's time this thinking is too.
Well, not necesarily. For instance, maybe those 100 people you saved were all genocidal neo-nazis (woops).
Maybe you were about to cure cancer when you killed yourself. By committing suicide, you doomed millions of people to die.
I'm sure that if they were all genocidal neo nazis that would be pointed out before killing yourself, and I doubt anyone able to(or close to being able to) cure cancer would ever get in that situation, and the odds of who ever is picked would be so low that over all the times that the situation would have to be repeated to get a 'sacrifice' who would cure cancer, you would end up with more people saved by 'suicides' then who could be cured by cancer. Hope you understood that, a more than a little tired right now.
errr...so u tell me i could go outside kill everyone after cuting legs, arms...and then kill myself and it would be good?
No that would be wrong cuz it's like your torturing the person first. I'm saying just killing them may prove beneficial without torturing them.
There have been dozens of 'apocalypse' dates set over the years, and none of them have turned out to be true.
I already said I don't think theres a preset date for it to happen. I think it's gonna happen slowly but surely.
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.
Everything I've said is the reason why I think Wars, Holocausts and Genocides , may turn out to be good. Which is to save over population and sure if you reach a point where we are over populated we'll eveentually go back down in not being over populated but with most likely millions of people starving to death but with wars, holocausts and genocides that won't happen because people will die at masses for what ever reason.
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.
Like rafterman said emotions are illogical and no one could answer that unless the question became a reality.
OKay. Kill one, but save 100. That gives you a net profit of 99 people. So you win! Right?
I would never do that but I would save one person to kill 100, because it gives a new profit of about 99 more jobs, more homes, and more food.
Also if we find colonization on a different planet other than Earth possible then I'll think all of my above are wrong like genocide, suicide ect... But until then I think it has benefits in it.
Also if I could change that title to 'Wars, Genocides, Holocausts = Good?' I would because I realized everything else is to little to matter like maybe 10 000 deaths a year is to insignificant of a small number to think it's good.
I've become more and more convinced that this topic is going to go no where, because there have been some clearly unethical things said with really no moral grounding. Close discussion before people embarrass themselves further, please.
Firefly: I never said I hold to a Malthusian point in the first place. That kind of thinking has long been dealt its death blow, and it's time this thinking is too.
I never meant to imply you did, as it seemed fairly clear you were playing Devil's Advocate, I was merely fleshing out why it doesn't work.
Point is, you can't ever isolated things into "causes" and "effects," because everything is both.
You made some excellent points. Without further details some of the questions do become a bit moot to answer effectively.
Everything I've said is the reason why I think Wars, Holocausts and Genocides , may turn out to be good. Which is to save over population and sure if you reach a point where we are over populated we'll eveentually go back down in not being over populated but with most likely millions of people starving to death but with wars, holocausts and genocides that won't happen because people will die at masses for what ever reason.
Honestly I think better education and distribution of birth control would be a much better and more humane long term solutions then killing. If all the things you suggest as being beneficial, really did provide an significant impact to our population growth then why do you think we are still doomed to overpopulation? Keep in mind as pointed out a good chunk of our population boom came just after a global war. So it would seem these things aren't benefiting us as you suggest.
Keep in mind as pointed out a good chunk of our population boom came just after a global war
That was a shame and that only happened after one war. There was no baby boom after WWI, The Anshi Rebellion, Mongol Conquests, Qing Destiny conguest of the Ming Destiny, Taiping Rebellion, Conquests of Tumur ect... Need I continue? Your just naming the odd exception.
If all the things you suggest as being beneficial, really did provide an significant impact to our population growth then why do you think we are still doomed to overpopulation?
Because I don't think anymore major wars will happen on a tremendous scale because everyones afraid of nuclear warefare.
That was a shame and that only happened after one war. There was no baby boom after WWI, The Anshi Rebellion, Mongol Conquests, Qing Destiny conguest of the Ming Destiny, Taiping Rebellion, Conquests of Tumur ect... Need I continue? Your just naming the odd exception.
True but it still shows how ineffective these things are as population control.
Because I don't think anymore major wars will happen on a tremendous scale because everyones afraid of nuclear warefare.
Coming from you I'm not sure if this is an optimistic or pessimistic view.
True but it still shows how ineffective these things are as population control.
I would've thought it would've showed how effective it is because if theres 10 major wars and genocides and only one baby boom after one of those wars or genocides it would still take out a huge chunk and more than the baby boom would create correct?
Coming from you I'm not sure if this is an optimistic or pessimistic view.
Lol I guess it's a little of both on the optimistic part, if none of those happen not as many good people would die. And on the pessimistic view not as many bad people would die and the population would be WAY higher leading to not enough homes, jobs or food.
I would've thought it would've showed how effective it is because if theres 10 major wars and genocides and only one baby boom after one of those wars or genocides it would still take out a huge chunk and more than the baby boom would create correct?
No, as it was pointed out poorer less developed areas tend to have higher birthrates. Wars natural disasters and the like can live an area impoverished. So while such destruction can result in a short term population drop the long term effects are more likely to increase the population. As I stated a better solution would be to have a well educated area with a good distribution of birth control.
Hypothetically if we didn't have to divert resources to wars, natural disasters and the like we could instead focus those resources on improving the quality of life and giving such areas the means to properly control birthrates on there own.
