We may use cookies to help customize your experience, including performing
analytics and serving ads.
Learn More
Forums → WEPR → Population Control
| 85 | 12256 |
So. How do you guys feel about population control? Is it ethical? Is it logical? Is it necessary? What kind of population control do you think would work best, if any at all? Can I haz cookie?
- 85 Replies
Its all depends on the country that does this. Unfortunately I do not know much about the subject. I'll be back after Wikipedia.
Can I haz cookie?
What have you done to deserve said cookie?
Is it ethical?
It depends on whether you're talking about killing people who are already living in order to corral the population(in which case, hell no), or if you're talking about limiting the number of children someone can have. I think that the latter option is entirely feasible, and not at all unethical. If you have, say, more than three or four children, then you probably won't be able to properly take care of them. I think people should be allowed to have children, just not an obscene amount of them, otherwise neglect will take place, not even counting what could happen with overpopulation.
Is it logical?
It is indeed. See above.
Is it necessary?
Not now and probably not in our lifetimes, but yes, probably sometime in the future. China already has the sort of population control I'm thinking of, if I'm not mistaken(I may be).
What kind of population control do you think would work best, if any at all?
Limitation or some kind of offspring cap for people. I think that four or more kids is entering the zone of ludicrous(LDS, I'm looking at you).
Can I haz cookie?
I don't have a cookie, and if I did, I wouldn't give it to you. I'm greedy like that. xP
I think population control is necessary, because the world will overfill in the future if we don't stop it.
And yes, it is totally necessary and logical.
More people mean more costs for the state.
Less people, less costs.
Can I haz cookie?
Sure, I will put one into my disc tray and send you per e-mail
Can I haz cookie?
No.
Its not even necessary at it probably wont be for a very VERY long time. There is still so much space on the Earth and who knows, maybe in the future we can terraform Mars somehow and live there. We can also find Earth-like places in the future so you never know.
We can also find Earth-like places in the future so you never know.
We may even be able to artificially create such places in the future.
If there were some way to decide who should die and who shouldn't that was entierly unbiased, then sure go ahead and kill people.
My way of deciding who lives and who dies is simple.
All people who have an IQ of say, less than 70 should go, since they are really a burden on society. All mass murderers and people who are in jail with no chance of parol, or people who are umpteeth time offenders should get killed as well. All people over the age of 90 should also get knocked off the pecking order, as well as those who can't drive more than 20 mph because they have really bad reflexes. All the people who live in Africa who will starve to death within a year or less should get killed, more out of sympathy than anything else.
If anyone disagrees with this, or thinks some persons should be added, please let me know.
More people mean more costs for the state.
Less people, less costs.
Not necessarily. If there are enough taxes as there should be, the gov'ts most popular job is making money off of providing services (a.k.a. not having a deficit/large debt)
But yeah, even though this will soon be necessary, it isn't nice at all, and HidenBeast has a REALLY good point. What happens when we're trying to kill dumb people and our paperwork gets messed up and we kill some geniuses. What the **** do they deserve that for?
I do support this to a pretty decent degree, though. I've come to terms with the fact that either overpopulation will cause a global ecology collapse or that the masons (lol! jk, gov't) will kill the useless people.
The really interesting thing is to see whether the US will go out and kill the Chinese/Indians to reduce the population AND get rid of the overseas-jobs problem or if it will be the other way around.
Obviously, this is why we keep trying to improve the H-bomb hahaha.
It depends does this involve the cutting down of the existing population? If yes, then it is entirely unethical and shouldn't be done, excusing extenuating circumstances.
However a simple limit on the number of children in a family is not something I have a problem with. I don't care how much you love children, it is not acceptable to have ten of them!
Just beacause someone is old means they should die?
Are you trying to make me feel bad for a man or woman who is going to die within the next ten years almost guaranteed? If someone is that old, they live through extreme pain every day of their lives. I don't care if they tell you different, living, for a 90 year old is just making yourself endure pain everyday of your life.
This guy has the exact right idea If you don't agree with every person dying once they reach an alloted age, then at least consider what this man has to say. I really think that this man has the right idea in life.
they live through extreme pain every day of their lives
This is an assumption with virtually no basis in fact. Also the man you referenced does not advocate murder, he along with many others are right in the opinion that if a patient wishes to 'ull the plug' they have every right to do so. However, he is not saying that any person that is older, or suffering a terminal disease is to be murdered.
All people who have an IQ of say, less than 70 should go, since they are really a burden on society.
What you're suggesting here, might as well be a culling. Humans are not cattle that they can be bread to form some kind of 'super' race. Simply because these people were born less fortunate than you does not mean that they are but trash.
All the people who live in Africa who will starve to death within a year or less should get killed, more out of sympathy than anything else.
Your are advocating the deaths of one BILLION people. That is 16% of the worlds population. If this is your sympathy, I would hate to see your kindness. Also let's look at the phrasing here shall we, what you seem to be saying is every single one of these people are starving, and liable to die, do you know what a blanket statement is?
In addition, you seem to have this view that Africa is so underdeveloped and inferior that no one there could possibly be able to survive. While there might be places like this, there are also many that are the opposite. Every place on Earth has it's extremes, if one were to wipe out entire populations simply because of the presence of those less fortunate within it's ranks, the Earth would be a very dead world indeed.
valkery, your sick. Just beacause someone is old means they should die? What if someone is 90 and fought in WW2 got killed. No one should die just because they are old. We have no right, anyone, to play "all powerful god".
Unlike you, he was thinking with logic, not morals. Morally I think it's wrong too but logically it is sound. A better idea for the present is too learn how to tera form our own planet. Terra-forming is not a new idea but a good one. Most people don't realize the vast spaces we still have on the planet. That space may be inhospitable, but by changing the terrain we can make it so. once there is no space without wrecking the planet we may have to look for other planets or create them. Underground cities is also a good idea.
Every major 'inhospitable' area has huge impacts on global climate, to terraform them would lead to massive global changes. In addition it would take far too many resources to keep these areas at their terraformed state.
Why not increase the strength of the ozone in that area? It would be more passive than changing the ground. After a while the ground would change by itself.
Why not increase the strength of the ozone in that area? It would be more passive than changing the ground. After a while the ground would change by itself.
Wind patterns, rain fall, etc. has a lot to do with it. Simply strengthening the ozone (what?) isn't going to do much on Earth.
(what?)
sorry, when I was talking about inhospitable environments, I was thinking desert.
isn't going to do much on Earth.
I meant that if we made the environment completely hospitable we'd have more population room. What about underground cities?
You must be logged in to post a reply!