COMMENTS:
It wouldn't solve them, because it merely halts the problem where it is; but it may mitigate the downhill rush we're currently in.
It would solve ALL of our problems
by x__ on Wed Aug 18, 04 3:48pm
[+]
wipe it down to 2 billion
by x__ on Wed Aug 18, 04 3:49pm
[+]
Do you mean EUGENICS? Some of the world's richest men might agree with you, but it sounds downright Nazi to me.
Probably not.
no doubt about it.
I never mentioned killing anyone zig. And eugenics is not the same thing as population control.
Here, if I had said 'don't you think we should kill everyone that I don't approve of in order to create a master race of superhumans?' that would qualify as eugenics. But I didn't say that.
herzog: Please tell me how population control differs from eugenics in principle?
Are you talking about forced sterilization, forced abortion, forced birth control, disease, famine or...what? How would you achieve this drastic reduction in numbers?
Or rather, not reduction, but stabilization...?
Eugenics: 'The study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding.'
How does limiting population growth fit that definition?
As to how it would be done, in reality it probably can't. This is a hypothetical. I suppose mass distriubtion of contraceptives could have some effect. Maybe limiting by law how many children each couple can have, then sterilizing them once they've reached their quota.
Like I said, I don't know how, it was merely a question.
And let's cut out that shit with calling everyone who disagrees a nazi, it get's tedious.
I'm not suggesting YOU are a Nazi, but the Nazis did explore similar trains of thought.
As for the suggestion that reproduction be limited by law: China is already utilizing that technique, and all it really does is increase the infanticide of unwanted children, particularly baby girls. I'm sure you wouldn't be up for that?
If eugenics equals controlled selective breeding, then that is comparable to a blueprint for fascism. Remember Hitler's dreams for a 'superior' Aryan bloodline and try not to shudder.
I never said we should be breeding people for a specific purpose, tall and blonde for instance, that is eugenics. I merely said we should limit the amount of kids people have.
The chinese kill girls because of their culture, I never suggested we do that. Again let me reiterate: this is hypothetical. Let's say that you could flip a magical switch and make it so couples could only have a kid when someone else died, so the population remained consant, would that be a good thing?
What was so bad about the NAZIS anyway? They wanted to create their own homeland a place for the german people. If all the world was the same no one would be fighting what would you call the other person a stupid german if your one? But to control the population istead of sending these starving countries food and aid should send them condoms. Why feed babies when they could just not have any? Have a programme so they learn to know how to have safe sex so they wont be having 12 babies per family.
herzog: In an ideal world, I'd be all for a magical switch to keep population levels in balance - as long as it didn't involve forced sterilization, forced reproductive limits or breeding programs, but unfortunately this is not something available to us if we are to remain civilized. There are certain very wealthy individuals in the world who are dedicated eugenicists - Warren Buffett is one example. I'm sure they're already drumming up a plethora of wicked ways to reduce the world's population by half, while making it appear accidental. Not that they'll get away with it, but their ideas are enough to make even Josef Mengele green with envy.
Trying to control the population of the world will solve nothing. And anyway, herzog, what problems are you talking about? Let's see, crime, war, disease etc etc. The human race is violent to its core (as you continually claim) so even if the poulation of the world is 1 million we will still be killing each other (according to you). It is part of our nature to make war on each other. Or so you say. So why suggest that population control could cut crime when everyone knows that you think it would make no difference?
Very well stated Cretin...
I think some of us may be focusing too much on HOW such a thing could happen vs the ballot question: Assuming it happens, what impacts would it have.
Uncontrolled overpopulation, as we have now, *does* contribute to a host of problems. Arresting the further increase of population would, I would think, arrest its contribution to further social degeneration.
Now, HOW population control might be achieved, the repercussions of that, and whether it is Good or Bad ... that is another ballot.
cretin: While it wouldn't make those problems go away, it would halt the effects population had in contributing to these problems, don't you think?
Much of society's problems are common in any species' population, from a biologist standpoint. Overcrowding rats leads to increased frequency of violence, disease, waste accumulation, and sexual deviations, for example.
'The human race is violent to its core (as you continually claim)'
I said 'aggressive', not violent, there is a difference I suggest you look it up. Aggression can lead to violence, and often does, but it doesn't have to.
'so even if the poulation of the world is 1 million we will still be killing each other (according to you).'
Of course people would still kill each other. I didn't say this would create peace on earth. I said, asked actually, if it would go 'a long way towards solving' these problems, not anhilate.
'It is part of our nature to make war on each other.'
It is part of our nature to be aggressive, that can be expressed in many ways. War is one of them, but far from the only one.
'So why suggest that population control could cut crime when everyone knows that you think it would make no difference?'
I don't think you could make any case against it reducing disease, poverty, starvation and pollution, that much is self evident. So your only argument is wether or not it would reduce conflict, which I have already answered. Try reading a little before your next comment.
And right now you're being very confrontational, and shall I say, aggressive?
herz says: I don't think you could make any case against it reducing disease, poverty, starvation and pollution, that much is self evident.
*Reducing* it ... I would agree. But *not* dealing with growing population would, I assert, *increase* each of these problems.
Exactly, there is a direct correlation between population, specifically population density, and all those things I listed. Like in the study you mentioned dealing with rats, overcrowding is not helpful to any species, humans not excluded.
Use your aggressive feelings, boy. The hate is swelling in you now. Thanks for the warning. I wouldn't want to turn to the dark side like you did.
violent hateful pigs should be put to sleep and then people who've evolved past power and materialism should get to start the world over, it would be like living in heaven, the earth would be beautiful forever, it would get even better instead of worse every decade. You'd give your life for the ultimate good of mankind wouldn't you? :D
by x__ on Fri Aug 20, 04 7:57am
[+]
folks: Note --- he did not say *Reduce the population* ... he said *Maintain at current levels.*
Let's say we come up with a good way to keep the population fixed at the levels it's at now, around 6 billion. Would that go a long way towards solving the major problems of the day (crime, war, poverty, disease, starvation, pollution), yes or no? If not, why?
So if it stays the same and crime is related to overcrowding, nothing would change.
Admit it, herzog, you want to reduce the population because, like many New World Order cockroaches, you think there are too many useless eaters.
'So if it stays the same and crime is related to overcrowding, nothing would change. '
Of course it would. It would give infrastructure and technology a chance to catch up. So far we've been struggling just to keep up with the massive population explosion we've experianced in the past few centuries. If we halt that we'd have a chance to stablize things. I thought this would be obvious, I'm sorry I should have spelled it out for you.
'Admit it, herzog, you want to reduce the population because, like many New World Order cockroaches, you think there are too many useless eaters.'
Now you're just trolling.
Guest: By providing intelligent debate, you risk compromising the poor regard in which the average anonymous Guest is held. ;-)
This poll is not about how population control would be done, it is about whether or not it would help, which it would. Hunger, there would be enough food, there would be enough jobs, etc.
This poll is not about how population control would be done, it is about whether or not it would help, which it would. Hunger, there would be enough food, there would be enough jobs, etc.
Sorry about the duplicate comment above.
Well, maybe it will.
No, there is a baby bust anyway right now. It is predicted the world population will decrease on its own.
Birthrates, having already fallen below replacement levels in Europe and Asia, are now plummeting throughout Latin America as well.
.. 2 billion
by x__ on Tue Aug 24, 04 1:27pm
[+]
Legalized cannibalism would.
that question seems so evil
|
