You might have noticed that more and more people can'r find work, there are more and more food shorteges in certain parts of the world, unsufficient resources for everybody i.e. water, electricity, and so on. The are many problems on a material plan, but we often forget what happengs on a moral level. From the moment i began existing as a conscient beying i have been feeling that life isn't valued enough or at all in our times and societies.
there's also the effect we have on the planet im not talking about our inpact on ecology (there is that too!!) i'm pointing out that we have made many spicies exting or on the verge of extinction, not to mention the enormous amount of resources we deploy often in detriment of other living creatures and other humans.
so the problems are here what are the solutions? is reducing our numbers is a solution?
It would make things less threatening, surely. Best thing to do is of course still trying to live sustainably with our environment, no matter how many we are. I don't think reducing the actual population would be well seen; I'd propose to reduce the growth. How to do? Making a one baby policy would be stupid, since industrial country families don't have that much children. I'd say we'd have to raise life standart for all third world countries up to industrial country standart. Poor families tend to have much more children than others.
Which is kinda weird, since that makes them more poor since they have to pay for all of their stuff along with their own stuff.
It's a hard time to raise that many kids, true. But it is easier for ten children to carry for their parents once they have grown, than for only one or two (less cost for each child). Also, the chance that enough survive is higher.
I don't think reducing the actual population would be well seen; I'd propose to reduce the growth
Yes! That`s the solution! Shoot us all!
of cours making other victims wasn't what i insinuated, but rather how HahiHa said "reducing the growth".
Also, the chance that enough survive is higher.
like i said previously, we have less consideration for human lives. i do understand what you ment by that, but still in our times we have doctors who help ill children, and having 3 or 4 children sick insted of 1 doesn't realy help nor doctors with their task nor parents with their money.
There is enough land and resources for everybody. It's just that noone manages it properly or cooperates in fair usage. Look at a map of the globe an think on this for a while.
PS war has always been a major population regulator.
You'll need to educate people, encourage the use of contraceptive methods and devices and possibly nudge child bearers in the right direction a bit subtly. Thinking about reducing population is a bit ambitious at the moment. Sure population is projected to definitely plateau within the next several decades (you can't rise uncontrollably forever), but we also have to make sure that we aren't driven to oblivion before that. Aside from actually reducing growth, you'd need to develop and explore methods of producing the necessities for human survival in a sustainable manner. You'd need to be conscious of the environment and of the growing strains of a burgeoning population.
Yeah.
I'd say we'd have to raise life standart for all third world countries up to industrial country standart. Poor families tend to have much more children than others.
That's what needs to be done.
Figures such as Malthus predicted that our population growth would be our downfall. Famine, disease, etc. So far, we haven't imploded but I advise against complacency.
Malthus predicted that our population growth would be our downfall. Famine, disease, etc
Famine is an existing condition in some parts of the earth and in northen countries too, same for the diseases there are here as fell (bird flu, aids,.... ). as for etc. war over oil, land, water ....... The material needs are important, but as mentioned in the thread, life isn't valued, i.e. 100 of people are being fired just for some profit.
Let us see.... Should we continue to wallow in disease, and starvation where people are dying because of a lack of food and proper medical care, and millions if not billions of people the world over either have no jobs or lack sufficent income to provide for themselves? Or should we get rid of all the people who are staving to death, those who are mentally ill, or unstable, such as mass murderers and people with down syndrom, and those who are physically infirm in other ways? I say option two, while more cold blooded and "cruel" is the better of the two options.
Honestly, if there are millions of people who starve to death every day, would it not be more ethical to get rid of them and than spread the population of the over crowded cities out to the land that they used to occupy? Would it not also be more ethical to get rid of the infirm elderly who are nearing their twilight years and spend ever waking moment sitting in a rest home that they will never leave unless it is in a body bag or in the back of an ambulance? People who have major mental or physical issues also are a burden on society. They take many funds to stay alive, and they can't really do anything to benifit the world.
I think that a world wide culling of all the "unsatisfactories" is needed. That may sound like Hitler or some other mad man, but who deemed them crazy? The people who thought them mad were the ones to weak to stomach what they were doing. Now, granted, killing because of race or because of religious beliefs is not to be condoned, but purely because the people you are killing then are those who may still be able to progress society. However, Hitler also did away with the mentally infirm and physically deformed. That never reaches the History books. It is always how Hitler killed millions of Jews. It seems as if no one even cares now that the infirm died. They may act like it now, but in a hundred years, when the economy of the world is great and everyone is healthy and free from the disease and malnutrition that plagues us now, the will see that it was a good idea after all.
Now, if you are going to kill around a billion to two billion people, you have to follow it up with something. I also would propose that there be a child allotment act instated in which every woman on the planet is allowed two children for her entire life. It doesn't matter who the father(s) are, they get two kids. That would make the population settle and also decrease slightly over the next couple thousand years. The planet can handle 5 billion people. It can't handle 7 billion. I don't care what you people with your morals think, it isn't going to stay peachy keen forever, and when it crashes it is going to crash like nothing anyone has ever seen. Better to do the "heartless" thing now, rather than letting the world crumble later.
Assume NU. If NU, then exterminate humans as painlessly as possible, because negative happiness would be ended. But if negative happiness is so powerful, then more people would commit suicide. Evolutionarily, it doesn't make sense. Negative happiness must not overpower positive happiness, even though it seems like it, because we still enjoy life. Thus NU is false.
NU is wrong because it ignores positive happiness. Therefore, Act Utilitarianism is better because it is inclusive of positive and negative happiness.
Reducing doesn't mean killing. yes the situation requiers fast and smart actions, but in no case should they be so extreme. I can see what Valkery means even though its a little harsh,(shooting the horse with a broken leg.) and im repeating myself again human life isn't valued anymore. the only objective that i would like to see achieved is our societies taking more care of people(even in our days slavery still exists in many countries). And in developped countries we work long hours just to gain some useless good that don't serve us well.
Valkery is kinda right, although I also wouldn't use these radical methods. But I admit it would be the fastest and easiest way to solve the problems. Before killing the already living infirm and mentally ill however, I would see what can be done in matter of contraception and abortion first. Set up a law to not even bring to live those who would be killed afterwards anyway. And assign the infirm to tasks they can still do; they are not useless, they have experience and know-how that can be used.
