Human overpopulation

Everyday i see an increasing number of ads on TV/radio showing starving Africans or Asians as nothing but victims of their behavior.
These humanitarian organizations like Unicef are the true enemies of the poor, disempowering them and feeding them the pleasure-drug of believing that someone else is to blame and that the individual is not responsible for their conditions and their happiness. This opiate keeps them poor, but it buys votes and popularity for the people peddling it. Is it our responsibly to help poor people give birth to way more children then they can ever support?

Im sure many of you will mention the fact that we can fill the entire world population in Texas or whatever, but what kind of life would that be really?
Is there enough place for everyone? Yes. Is there enough food? Yes (but the climate change will make it difficult). Are there enough resources for everyone to have a good quality of life? No, we are 7 billion people on earth but we are all striving for a standard only 2 billion of us has, this is what makes the world highly overpopulated.

China realized this problem several decades ago and today their standards and economy is rising more then any other country in the world. Is this is a coincidence? Nope. Would this happen if they added 400-500 million more people? Nope. Would a global one child policy make the world a better place? Yes, why wouldn't it?
From an environmental point of view its the best thing that could ever happen, as well as for the animals (who are the real victims).
Is it more humane to let poor people give birth to an unlimited amount of children under horrible circumstances then forcing them not to?

There are a lot of question thrown in there but you make a key point. Too often people point accusatory fingers to places they only ever partly belong. Truth is we're all responsible to a degree but instead of looking in we look out and shun the responsibility to do anything about it. It's often reinforced through society as well sadly.

We live in a world in which personal responsibility too commonly isn't advocated or pursued even from central government. Truly if you ever want anything in this world to change you must first embody that change before pleading with others to do the same. Live it, breath it, do your best to make it happen. If you don't tackle your problems you're forever at the mercy of them, to tackle them firstly you must accept them and take responsibility for them. If that is never forthcoming change is never so.

Is some progress better than none? It's a key question. Too often people become limited in their thinking, selfish short term desires overcome them, long term meaningful change is stifled as a result. Just take a look at politics for a western example. Is the objective to implement long term meaningful change or just show positive points over the short term candidacy. Big changes happen over generations and scale over more than a single life time, much of politics is defective by design. Sacrifice is a necessity which is often avoided. The ends are considered to justify the means and artificial measures are put in place, as a result no substantial progression is ever made because attitudes don't change. That last part is key. Approach is far more important than position for the latter is only ever temporary.

there is a new virus thats starting to spread all over the world. H7N9 i think it is. supposedly its only gonna get worse, it can already spread human to human. i wonder how bad its gonna get. that should help cut down on the population.

i think we need to flood africa and asia with birth control lol, and get most of the population from stop giving birth. it is ridiculous how people in africa give birth when they cant even take care of themselves.

Is it more humane to let poor people give birth to an unlimited amount of children under horrible circumstances then forcing them not to?

How would you force them, exactly?

Human overpopulation is very much an issue I agree, but I think it's pretty hard to 'solve'. Who (which nation(s)) would enforce a global one child population? What are the penalties for not complying? Even if you ignore the many moral complaints, I don't think this would work at all or is realistic, from a practical point of view.

I think raising awareness on the issue and spreading knowledge and availability of birth control is the most humane and easiest way to normalize the world population. Other than that I'm in favor of colonizing other (habitable) planets, though it could take a long while before that becomes viable.

@AustralianGQ I hope that first paragraph is some kind of sick joke...

I've said this for years - but contraception is instrumental in reducing deaths and other arising problems in Africa. It wont happen over night or even years, but it will eventually make a recognisable impact and help them back to their feet.

Of course there are still other problems such as food shortages and lack of clean drinking water, but there is no point in supplying them with the relevant aid if they're are going to continue to overcrowd their homes with too many heads - so to speak. As even with this aid these resources will struggle to stretch to the means required of them. At least at the moment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrRabbit

Is it more humane to let poor people give birth to an unlimited amount of children under horrible circumstances then forcing them not to?

How would you force them, exactly?

Human overpopulation is very much an issue I agree, but I think it's pretty hard to 'solve'. Who (which nation(s)) would enforce a global one child population? What are the penalties for not complying? Even if you ignore the many moral complaints, I don't think this would work at all or is realistic, from a practical point of view.

I think raising awareness on the issue and spreading knowledge and availability of birth control is the most humane and easiest way to normalize the world population. Other than that I'm in favor of colonizing other (habitable) planets, though it could take a long while before that becomes viable.

@AustralianGQ I hope that first paragraph is some kind of sick joke...

---

China has forced their population for decades and it has worked very well. Sure there are individual cases where it gets brutal but with such high population thats inevitable, in the end its certainly worth it.
I don't know how a global one child policy could be applied but if China can do it, other countries in mainly Africa and Asia could as well.
It all comes down to the political leaders in respective country, if they realize the importance of the policy they can apply it.
Raising awareness and spreading knowledge has been done for decades already, unless nothing more concrete is being done the same problems will go on for countless decades more. By then, the environment will be fucked up and most of todays wild animals are extinct.

The answer to all this is simple. Be less idealistic and more practical. Like the one-child-policy currently, yeah. Life sucks sometimes, deal with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antiloop2

China has forced their population for decades and it has worked very well. Sure there are individual cases where it gets brutal but with such high population thats inevitable, in the end its certainly worth it.
I don't know how a global one child policy could be applied but if China can do it, other countries in mainly Africa and Asia could as well.
It all comes down to the political leaders in respective country, if they realize the importance of the policy they can apply it.
Raising awareness and spreading knowledge has been done for decades already, unless nothing more concrete is being done the same problems will go on for countless decades more. By then, the environment will be fucked up and most of todays wild animals are extinct.

---

Chinas one-child policy has more or less doomed the country in longer run and will have a major blow in world economy as well. In like 20 years or so, majority of the Chinese population is already old, this means all those children have to support not only themselves, but their 2 parents as well and they have to do it, by producing cheap goods for rest of the world. How do you think it will happen :P Its a demographical nightmare.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tep

Chinas one-child policy has more or less doomed the country in longer run and will have a major blow in world economy as well. In like 20 years or so, majority of the Chinese population is already old, this means all those children have to support not only themselves, but their 2 parents as well and they have to do it, by producing cheap goods for rest of the world. How do you think it will happen :P Its a demographical nightmare.

---

The one child policy has helped their population out of poverty, and future problems with the health care for the elderly is a fucking breeze compared to the problems they were otherwise going to have. Their birth rate is equal to other countries such as Norway and Sweden, their population has been stabilized for years its not shrinking. And if you compare countries with a high birth rate to those with a low, you will see that those with a low birth rate are also those countries that has the highest standard of living.
That a low birth rate would be in anyway critical is nothing but a myth created to justify the overpopulation going on.
Don't you think the same arguments were made back when they applied this policy in 1979?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antiloop2

The one child policy has helped their population out of poverty, and future problems with the health care for the elderly is a fucking breeze compared to the problems they were otherwise going to have. Their birth rate is equal to other countries such as Norway and Sweden, their population has been stabilized for years its not shrinking. And if you compare countries with a high birth rate to those with a low, you will see that those with a low birth rate are also those countries that has the highest standard of living.
That a low birth rate would be in anyway critical is nothing but a myth created to justify the overpopulation going on.
Don't you think the same arguments were made back when they applied this policy in 1979?

---

noone cared to argument in 1979 as China was deeply communistic country and noone in the western world would bother with them. Its different now as they have opened their country and it has become one of the largest economies in the world and part of the system.

Nature has a way of controlling things, trying to control nature will only bring more harm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tep

noone cared to argument in 1979 as China was deeply communistic country and noone in the western world would bother with them. Its different now as they have opened their country and it has become one of the largest economies in the world and part of the system.

Nature has a way of controlling things, trying to control nature will only bring more harm.

---

The reality is what makes your arguments wrong. Without this policy there would have been between 400-500 million more people which would have made them even more poor just like the rest of Asia. So why hasn't any other country with your suggestions been doing well?

If nature had a way of controlling things, humans wouldn't be destroying this planet including every other living creature living on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antiloop2

The reality is what makes your arguments wrong. Without this policy there would have been between 400-500 million more people which would have made them even more poor just like the rest of Asia. So why hasn't any other country with your suggestions been doing well?

If nature had a way of controlling things, humans wouldn't be destroying this planet including every other living creature living on it.

---

Ever thought that maybe it is the natural way and in order to save the Earth humans need to die out?
Anyways its going off topic, i am pretty sure that if there are too many humans in some country they will either a) die or b) migrate to some other country. Both trends have been happening and will happen in the future aswell. There are no ways in controlling it, if you control it you will soon end up in situation where many European countries are already (numbers of immigrants are exceeding the critical mass and original culture of the country feels threatened by it) or China will be in the future (as it will lose its position as the producer of everything).

My arguments have nothing wrong in them, if they would have 400 million more people, they would be able to produce 400 million more things, only reason China can be considered a successful country is because it transferred itself smartly from communism to capitalism (actually its still somewhere in between) and it took full advantage of its situation (of having loads and loads of cheap labor)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tep

Chinas one-child policy has more or less doomed the country in longer run and will have a major blow in world economy as well. In like 20 years or so, majority of the Chinese population is already old, this means all those children have to support not only themselves, but their 2 parents as well and they have to do it, by producing cheap goods for rest of the world. How do you think it will happen :P Its a demographical nightmare.

---

Nail on head. Also in Asia a one child policy will lead to a skewed sex ratio as is already happening in China. You will end up more males than females which could cause all sorts of social problems like female foeticide .

We need a different solution.

I genuinely believe that there is a cure for cancer. It is being hidden due to the fact the world could not cope with all the survivors. The population would skyrocket.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grill-Head

I genuinely believe that there is a cure for cancer. It is being hidden due to the fact the world could not cope with all the survivors. The population would skyrocket.

---

i seriously doubt it, as cancer victims do not make such a big % of overall deaths, those are 2008 stats, things have changed probably a bit, but i think overall the % will be the same

World	Deaths in millions	% of deaths
Ischaemic heart disease	7.25	12.8%
Stroke and other cerebrovascular disease	6.15	10.8%
Lower respiratory infections	3.46	6.1%
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease	3.28	5.8%
Diarrhoeal diseases	2.46	4.3%
HIV/AIDS	1.78	3.1%
Trachea, bronchus, lung cancers	1.39	2.4%
Tuberculosis	1.34	2.4%
Diabetes mellitus	1.26	2.2%
Road traffic accidents	1.21	2.1%

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tep

Ever thought that maybe it is the natural way and in order to save the Earth humans need to die out?
Anyways its going off topic, i am pretty sure that if there are too many humans in some country they will either a) die or b) migrate to some other country. Both trends have been happening and will happen in the future aswell. There are no ways in controlling it, if you control it you will soon end up in situation where many European countries are already (numbers of immigrants are exceeding the critical mass and original culture of the country feels threatened by it) or China will be in the future (as it will lose its position as the producer of everything).

My arguments have nothing wrong in them, if they would have 400 million more people, they would be able to produce 400 million more things, only reason China can be considered a successful country is because it transferred itself smartly from communism to capitalism (actually its still somewhere in between) and it took full advantage of its situation (of having loads and loads of cheap labor)

---

I think you are highly wrong, now parents have resources to provide their only child/children with a higher eduction which will favor China in the long run.
The investment in education will help them to develop new technologies of their own, rather than borrowing it from US or other western countries.
Besides the economical aspect, compared to the rest of Asia their standards will inevitably continue to rise. (if they choose to keep this policy.)

With your logic India would be either the worlds top producer of things or the worlds biggest economy as they have the highest population. Their economy is high however, but its also the country with worst standard of living among those top producers.
Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia and other parts of Asia would have been a much better place to live in if they applied this policy as well, it cant get any worse then it already is today.
The environmental benefits of this policy is something the rest of the world should be more grateful for.
In the end it all comes down to the quality of life, thats how you measure if a country (or the world itself) is overpopulated.
As it looks like today, the future will consist of alot of Africans and Asians, a horrible climate, (most likely) a lower standard of living globally, less nature, no rainforest's with most of todays wild animals extinct.
Why am i not surprised if future generations will look back at today just wishing we should have done something to prevent this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antiloop2

I think you are highly wrong, now parents have resources to provide their only child/children with a higher eduction which will favor China in the long run.
The investment in education will help them to develop new technologies of their own, rather than borrowing it from US or other western countries.
Besides the economical aspect, compared to the rest of Asia their standards will inevitably continue to rise. (if they choose to keep this policy.)

With your logic India would be either the worlds top producer of things or the worlds biggest economy as they have the highest population. Their economy is high however, but its also the country with worst standard of living among those top producers.
Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia and other parts of Asia would have been a much better place to live in if they applied this policy as well, it cant get any worse then it already is today.
The environmental benefits of this policy is something the rest of the world should be more grateful for.
In the end it all comes down to the quality of life, thats how you measure if a country (or the world itself) is overpopulated.
As it looks like today, the future will consist of alot of Africans and Asians, a horrible climate, (most likely) a lower standard of living globally, less nature, no rainforest's with most of todays wild animals extinct.
Why am i not surprised if future generations will look back at today just wishing we should have done something to prevent this?

---

It is pretty much clear to everyone that countries where the birthrate has been low for whatever reason (traditional western-europe countries, china etc) will see horrible times economically in pretty near future. The main reason is that the economical model of current western world is based on spending the resources of tomorrow. This means that majority of the countries in the world have lived based on the agenda, that the future generations will be as productive as the current ones. Problem here is that that with average life expectancy rising all the time, the % of older people (who are not working anymore, hence not producing anything) is rising and its rising fast and the number of younger people is not rising, if anything its getting smaller or only rising due to immigrants (which is another issues and topic).

Now one solution which has been already used in many countries and this includes making the age of retirement higher, but in reality, if the masses of retired people want to have the same quality of life as they have during their working days, they need at least 2 children (actually preferably on average like 2,5 or something). If 2 people have 1 children, it means that this 1 child on average has to support twice as many people (him and his 2 parents). Now put couple of generations of that together and you will see, that unless the elderly dont live long or the generations dont reproduce fast, it is ment to be doomed. Its simple math.
Problem with that is that the average age of having children is getting later and later and the average life expectancy as well.
Soon there will be a billion chinese pensionares who need to be supported. By who? They have no children?

Trust me on this, the big-population countries like India will be the next force in world economy as they actually have the human resources to provide necessary goods and services.

In rural India the poorer you are and the less financial support you have in your old age, the more kids they have. Children are viewed upon as a social safety net. The govt stepping in to provide this massive safety net is not realistic in the long run either.
There's a lot that can be done to slow population growth. Forcing a one child policy is not the answer - its a draconian primitive idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stormshadow

In rural India the poorer you are and the less financial support you have in your old age, the more kids they have. Children are viewed upon as a social safety net. The govt stepping in to provide this massive safety net is not realistic in the long run either.
There's a lot that can be done to slow population growth. Forcing a one child policy is not the answer - its a draconian primitive idea.

---

yea thats another point i forgot to add, only reason it worked in China is because it was a communist country, how on earth do you expect any democracy actually voting a party whos agenda includes giving you huge fines if you have more than 1 children.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tep

It is pretty much clear to everyone that countries where the birthrate has been low for whatever reason (traditional western-europe countries, china etc) will see horrible times economically in pretty near future. The main reason is that the economical model of current western world is based on spending the resources of tomorrow. This means that majority of the countries in the world have lived based on the agenda, that the future generations will be as productive as the current ones. Problem here is that that with average life expectancy rising all the time, the % of older people (who are not working anymore, hence not producing anything) is rising and its rising fast and the number of younger people is not rising, if anything its getting smaller or only rising due to immigrants (which is another issues and topic).

Now one solution which has been already used in many countries and this includes making the age of retirement higher, but in reality, if the masses of retired people want to have the same quality of life as they have during their working days, they need at least 2 children (actually preferably on average like 2,5 or something). If 2 people have 1 children, it means that this 1 child on average has to support twice as many people (him and his 2 parents). Now put couple of generations of that together and you will see, that unless the elderly dont live long or the generations dont reproduce fast, it is ment to be doomed. Its simple math.
Problem with that is that the average age of having children is getting later and later and the average life expectancy as well.
Soon there will be a billion chinese pensionares who need to be supported. By who? They have no children?

Trust me on this, the big-population countries like India will be the next force in world economy as they actually have the human resources to provide necessary goods and services.

---

If you compare the elderly problem to the poverty related problems, the poverty related ones are a much bigger issue and will always be.
Increasing the birth rate will also increase the poverty and lowering the standard of living, thats not making anything better whatsoever.
Either path you choose, there will be problems, you cant escape that.

A large economy does not mean the most developed, or wealthiest, thats something these overpopulated countries never will be.
By 2050 the standard of living for the masses will continue to deteriorate and erode going forward. New technologies and automation have created a situation where workers are becoming obsolete. As long as there are far more workers than available jobs, everyone will end up working for less as the supply of workers, exceeds the demand for workers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrRabbit

@AustralianGQ I hope that first paragraph is some kind of sick joke...

---

http://news.yahoo.com/bird-flu-strai...103334429.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AustralianGQ

there is a new virus thats starting to spread all over the world. H7N9 i think it is. supposedly its only gonna get worse, it can already spread human to human. i wonder how bad its gonna get. that should help cut down on the population.

---

:huh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AustralianGQ

http://news.yahoo.com/bird-flu-strai...103334429.html

---

36 Chinese killed and people start to get paranoid? Even if 1 million people died thats less then 1% of Chinas population and like 0.000001% to the rest of the world, its literally nothing.
And yeah, an epidemic would help solve the global overpopulation problem rather efficiently.
It was an horrific event, but the Black Death brought a lot of social change - it ended feudalism for one, allowing workers to bargain their labour for better income/conditions. Very probably, it set the stage for the Renaissance.
The ultimate outcome would probably be less hunger and a better society, an opportunity to start over.
As long as it doesn't affect animals (or at least not in a major degree) i would lie if i didn't wish for a world epidemic.

Who wants to volunteer to die via an epidemic to help curb population growth?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by engineKUBWA

Who wants to volunteer to die via an epidemic to help curb population growth?

---

an epidemic would make us all voulenteers unintentioally

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNMmVxhZP98

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AustralianGQ

http://news.yahoo.com/bird-flu-strai...103334429.html

---

That's not what I meant... I was referring to this quote: "that should help cut down on the population."
I hope you weren't serious by saying that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antiloop2

36 Chinese killed and people start to get paranoid? Even if 1 million people died thats less then 1% of Chinas population and like 0.000001% to the rest of the world, its literally nothing.
And yeah, an epidemic would help solve the global overpopulation problem rather efficiently.
It was an horrific event, but the Black Death brought a lot of social change - it ended feudalism for one, allowing workers to bargain their labour for better income/conditions. Very probably, it set the stage for the Renaissance.
The ultimate outcome would probably be less hunger and a better society, an opportunity to start over.
As long as it doesn't affect animals (or at least not in a major degree) i would lie if i didn't wish for a world epidemic.

---

Would you still feel this way if this epidemic killed you and/or your loved ones?

Even if there would be a new world epidemic that killed about 75-100 million people, that would only set us back about one-two years in terms of world population. So it would be incredibly temporary. Instead we need to change the mindset and make sure there won't be as many births, so again I believe acknowledging the overpopulation issue and coming together globally to solve the issue is what is needed. The phrase 'prevention is better than cure' certainly holds true in this case as well.

Problems that would disappear if there were less humans

Did anyone ever think about what a virus should do to be severely dangerous? Very high lethality after a long incubation time in which it shouldn't get detected in any way at all, not even by your immune system, while being highly contageous. That's hardly possible. During the days of the Spanish Flu and such, there just weren't scientists who were researching antidotes. Now we do. It's hardly possible for a pandemic to happen these days, unless it's in Africa or something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tep

It is pretty much clear to everyone that countries where the birthrate has been low for whatever reason (traditional western-europe countries, china etc) will see horrible times economically in pretty near future. The main reason is that the economical model of current western world is based on spending the resources of tomorrow. This means that majority of the countries in the world have lived based on the agenda, that the future generations will be as productive as the current ones. Problem here is that that with average life expectancy rising all the time, the % of older people (who are not working anymore, hence not producing anything) is rising and its rising fast and the number of younger people is not rising, if anything its getting smaller or only rising due to immigrants (which is another issues and topic).

Now one solution which has been already used in many countries and this includes making the age of retirement higher, but in reality, if the masses of retired people want to have the same quality of life as they have during their working days, they need at least 2 children (actually preferably on average like 2,5 or something). If 2 people have 1 children, it means that this 1 child on average has to support twice as many people (him and his 2 parents). Now put couple of generations of that together and you will see, that unless the elderly dont live long or the generations dont reproduce fast, it is ment to be doomed. Its simple math.
Problem with that is that the average age of having children is getting later and later and the average life expectancy as well.
Soon there will be a billion chinese pensionares who need to be supported. By who? They have no children?

Trust me on this, the big-population countries like India will be the next force in world economy as they actually have the human resources to provide necessary goods and services.

---

The model is wrong, yeah. It's not so much that we live of the resources of tomorrow (that's called investing) but we live of resources that will only exist in maybe a 100 years time or never at all (that's called modern banking). So that's a problem.

Solutions? Well, old people are no longer capable of doing stuff. If they would be, they could continue to work to have a good life. So we need to invest in stopping diseases like Alzheimer. Also, we should invest more in (genetic) research to slow down the aging process. Now, you might think that's just moving the problem but think about this: If you have one person who lives to be a 160 years old, of which he can work a 130 (estimating education + retirement = 30 years), that's more efficient than 2 people of 80 years old who can work a total of a 100 years (they need twice the education and twice the retirement time). So basically, we could increase the efficiency of human life.

Another solution is IT/Robotics. Computers and robots can do stuff we don't have the workforce for anymore.


I think we could greatly increase production this way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrRabbit

That's not what I meant... I was referring to this quote: "that should help cut down on the population."
I hope you weren't serious by saying that.

---

hey, im stating a fact. if it becomes an epidemic, that will cut down on world population. dont be so sensitive.

An important point needs to be made as I think the topic title is likely to bring some knee-jerk responses from people.

Numbers (I.e. the physical number of people) is not a problem, it never will be until it has been determined no matter what humanity does resources do not match demand. I.e. people are dying as a result of inadequate resources, not inadequate social / monetary factors. We're not at that point yet.

So what is the problem then? Attitudes.

How they affect distribution of resources, food + water, money, social care & education.

People aren't just producing in great number for no reason. Perhaps for a little insight you should begin looking into those reasons and discuss them.

I also want to put a marker down here. If one of you is ever to fall into the trap as to view 'people' as the problem, do everybody a favour. Log off TF, walk to the bathroom & look into the mirror. What do you see? What divides 'you' from those you're discussing?

Consider yourselves lucky that you're not faced by. and embroiled in the difficult circumstances those we're discussing are in. You don't choose your origins. You and I could just as easily been born in much less 'virtuous' circumstances.

So please to those participating in the thread, think carefully about how you engage on topic & consider the above before posting. Considered language and a little empathy go a long way.

Thanks Darren you nailed it. What make your life more valuable than a Chinese?

"Numbers (I.e. the physical number of people) is not a problem, it never will be until it has been determined no matter what humanity does resources do not match demand. I.e. people are dying as a result of inadequate resources, not inadequate social / monetary factors. We're not at that point yet."

Since earth obviously has a finite amount of any given resource, the physical number is important as the the demand for resources will increase the more people it gets.
From an environmental perspective, if the human population were small compared to the total carrying capacity, we shouldn't see the natural ecosystems dying all around us.
Lets not forget about the real victims here, http://images.mnn.com/sites/default/...tion-graph.jpg
The more our own numbers grow, the more we compete for space with the animals. (if this wasn't obvious enough)

"So what is the problem then? Attitudes."

The main attitude that needs to change is that everyone has the right to have as many children as they like, regardless of the consequences on themselves, the children or the society in general.
We have countless laws, regulations and beliefs that limit our behavior but when it comes down to limiting reproduction all bets are off.

"People aren't just producing in great number for no reason. Perhaps for a little insight you should begin looking into those reasons and discuss them."

Is it not logical to demand people take responsibility for their actions?

Consider yourselves lucky that you're not faced by. and embroiled in the difficult circumstances those we're discussing are in. You don't choose your origins. You and I could just as easily been born in much less 'virtuous' circumstances.

True, but we are all at choice in our actions and in the way we choose to perceive our circumstances

"So please to those participating in the thread, think carefully about how you engage on topic & consider the above before posting. Considered language and a little empathy go a long way."

You need to look at how the "moral compass" is in a constant shift towards empathy and away from reason. It is this shift that refuses to allow us to accept the natural order of things and accept that dieing is a good thing because it allows others to live a better life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antiloop2

Is it not logical to demand people take responsibility for their actions?

---

It's plenty logical to want people to take responsibility but there is a danger in giving criticism or attempting change in the wrong areas & ways. My post earlier in the thread alludes to this.

If everybody took responsibility there would would be few problems other than those natural in the world. As people don't or only some of the time do, we have wider ranging issues as a result.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antiloop2

You need to look at how the "moral compass" is in a constant shift towards empathy and away from reason. It is this shift that refuses to allow us to accept the natural order of things and accept that dieing is a good thing because it allows others to live a better life.

---

Death is natural and certainly something people need to come to terms with.

As for the other points, can you explain them further?

I don't understand how you see empathy and reason as two ends on a scale. Empathy is nothing more than positioning yourself in anothers shoes, whether that be emotionally or intellectually. It's a very important ability to have because it is the first method someone comes across in 'stepping back'. I.e. detatching themself from the subjective and all associated to that. Only in doing that can we begin to see problems in their natural light.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antiloop2

"Dying because it allows others to live a better life"?

---

Can I ask how you define 'better' and how you reach this conclusion?

"I don't understand how you see empathy and reason as two ends on a scale. Empathy is nothing more than positioning yourself in anothers shoes, whether that be emotionally or intellectually. It's a very important ability to have because it is the first method someone comes across in 'stepping back'. I.e. detatching themself from the subjective and all associated to that. Only in doing that can we begin to see problems in their natural light."

You want to help people because it makes you feel good and it seems like the right thing. What you will end up doing is causing famine, war, increased violence, rape, disease and eventually killing billions.

Tribes in Africa survived for thousands of years in an ecosystem that kept their numbers low and sustainable. Then comes the 20th century and a new age of compassion. Compassion drove westerners to make life "better" for these tribes. They gave them medicine, provided food, clean water, inoculated them, reduced infant deaths and so much more. A good, moral thing to do, right? Except they couldn't perceive what the long term effects would be. They did not realize that they were removing natures ability to maintain a sustainable population. Their population swelled and could only be kept alive- although just barely- by western help. They became dependent on aid since their ecosystem could not feed their numbers. Rather than recognize this, westerners continue to help which keeps the population surviving off of crumbs while people suffer a horrible existence. Had westerners never interfered with their way of life those people would still live the way they had always known. Now, millions are born into a decadent state of horror.

This is the fate of the entire world, which will lead to world wide famine, disease, increased atrocities and eventually war. It began with people just wanting to help but it will end with a world so overpopulated that life itself is punishment for billions.

Can I ask how you define 'better' and how you reach this conclusion?

By preserving one life in a country incapable of taking care of their own people, you allow that child to grow up, reproduce and continue/worsen a cycle of famine, crime and disease.
You save the life of one person which causes the suffering of generations. Why is it so hard to just let nature take its course? There is nothing amoral about natural death.

Nature isn't a thinking entity. It is not God, it is not always right, it is not the ultimate solution to everything. Also, because it's hard to define. Who says us helping people in Africa isn't nature? Altruism is actually natural, but the way we 'help' Africa isn't working (yes I agree). Our tailbone is natural, doesn't help us for shit. The way we started using fire so many years ago, was that natural? Maybe we shouldn't have done that. Then we might have died out altogether but hey, nature right? Just pointing at what's "natural" is not actually a solution, it doesn't work that way.

I'll stick with being more practical and less idealistic. Less religion, less babies, no whining about "we shouldn't play God" when talking about genetic research, proper use and recycling of resources. It's time to stop fucking around with all our little funky cultural ideals and egotripping, and build a professional humanity, because the way it's now we will screw up for sure. We're like an organisation that's growing from a startup to a serious business, but if we don't professionalize it will all come crumbling down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antiloop2

Is it more humane to let poor people give birth to an unlimited amount of children under horrible circumstances then forcing them not to?

---

No ones 'letting them' it's not nearly as simple as your making it out to be and these humanitarian organisations are definitely not the 'true enemies' - what a retarded thing to say. It all comes down to education... these places have so little in terms of education and understanding around birth control (religion plays a massive role too) that yes people have too many children. Tones of subjective social aspects also effect how many people choose to have children and again, these are things engrained in thier societies for decades - not something you just choose to do or not.

The problem with population control is not the amount of newborns coming into the world but the rising ageing population. People are living much much longer and that's whats putting a strain on society/economy NOT an increase in children born.

I agree with other things you say, but you are misinformed on a few things for sure!