(August 14, 2012 at 9:54 pm)Violet Lilly Blossom Wrote:

Cinjin Wrote:No, it's not. Your rights do not extend to depriving the entire future of the human race the right to exist.

Yes they do. Rights are subjective, because morals are subjective.

My gods but I hate when people tell me what I have the right to do or not do

Yes I hate it too, but if my rights end someone elses life, than too bad for me.
Should I have the right to end someone elses life just because I can say, "fuck you, those are my rights and I'll do what I want?"

Quote:Cinjin Wrote:No, it's not. Your rights do not extend to depriving the entire future of the human race the right to exist.

There is no such things as a right to life,or any other innate right(s) that I have been able to discover

(August 14, 2012 at 10:10 pm)padraic Wrote:

Quote:Cinjin Wrote:No, it's not. Your rights do not extend to depriving the entire future of the human race the right to exist.

There is no such things as a right to life,or any other innate right(s) that I have been able to discover

fair enough. than that also would mean that you have not found a right to deprive one of life.

(August 14, 2012 at 10:13 pm)Cinjin Wrote:

(August 14, 2012 at 10:10 pm)padraic Wrote: There is no such things as a right to life,or any other innate right(s) that I have been able to discover

fair enough. than that also would mean that you have not found a right to deprive one of life.

Of course,in principle,by direct action.

However,that does not infer I have an obligation to prevent others (especially anonymous others) from dying due to my in activity. I refer especially to the vast numbers of human beings you and I allow to die daily simply from starvation or from us failing to preserve the environment..

If, by the way, we want to have a discussion about why people in third world countries seem to be popping out kids left right and center we can do that, but it wont make you feel any better about our situation, and I damned sure don't think that anyone here would feel like carrying the population control torch to these people personally with full knowledge of their situation. I played peacekeeper for awhile, this is a touchy subject for me......these people, ffs imagine mounds of diapers rigged with anti-personal mines..people just falling down dead from starvation -as they walked- as a routine event of the day...people fight over the food you give them, human life has little to no value at all.

( I know I know, late addendum)

Destroying every other living thing before curtailing the population through legislation if it came to that would be sheer folly and would lead to an even more guaranteed to be irreversible extinction cycle.

All scenarios lead to extinction on this planet. Sad fact. The heart of the issue seems to be what we are willing to consider to temporarily stay the axe. Some things, for me, are beyond consideration in concept (even, as I have mentioned, I;d be likely to happily go along in practice). Telling another human being that they can't have a child is one of those things, for me.

(August 14, 2012 at 9:59 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(August 14, 2012 at 6:49 pm)apophenia Wrote: This seems profoundly confusing to me. How do we find solutions without trying to find solutions, through discussion, or through real world trials?

You keep using the plural.......have we been reading the same thread?

So intentionally released viral or bacterial pandemics, technological innovations to improve the quantity of resources, traveling to other worlds, voluntary limits on reproduction, forced limitation of reproduction, and re-engineering the human genome are all one solution according to you.

I'll have to remember this the next time you claim theists are out of touch with reality.

So, Rhythm, to you, humanity's numbers are more important than its duration? Not sure on the math there, but I doubt a predatory no animal is safe run would kill us off due to ecological collateral damage more effectively than enforcing common sense.

(August 14, 2012 at 10:52 pm)apophenia Wrote:

(August 14, 2012 at 9:59 pm)Rhythm Wrote: You keep using the plural.......have we been reading the same thread?

So intentionally released viral or bacterial pandemics, technological innovations to improve the quantity of resources, voluntary limits on reproduction, forced limitation of reproduction, and re-engineering the human genome are all one solution according to you.

I'll have to remember this the next time you claim theists are out of touch with reality.
[b]

The bolded bit is impossible, we could only hope to be more efficient with the use of resources, can't make something from nothing (and this is exactly what I argue for in every thread like this - and I got shit for it, if you'll read back a few posts). The italicized bit only works until someone tells you to go fuck yourself (which they will).

The rest are just different ways to forcibly control the population. What is it that I'm not effectively communicating about this? That is precisely what I take issue with, and I take issue with it because we seem to be on the track that population control would be easier or more effective than the bolded bit, well no shit, engineering a scenario where there are fewer humans around isn't exactly rocket science, but that doesn't make it a good idea. Well, I haven't seen anyone explain why, and I haven't seen anyone explain how we've reached that point, why we should favor population control over anything else.

Let me ask you Apo, why go through the trouble of intentionally releasing a viral plague, why go through the hassle of re-engineering our genome? A bullet to the head is just as effective and a hell of alot easier. Whats the fucking difference, are we hoping to wash our hands? Forced limitation of reproduction eh? By what means, likely, again, a bullet. You just let me know when you come up with something a little less sinister and genocidal, okay Apo?

---

(August 14, 2012 at 10:54 pm)Epimethean Wrote: So, Rhythm, to you, humanity's numbers are more important than its duration? Not sure on the math there, but I doubt a predatory no animal is safe run would kill us off due to ecological collateral damage more effectively than enforcing common sense.

No, Epi, according to a would-be-parent their child is more important than humanity's duration, and I don't personally think that I have a leg to stand on to argue with them to the contrary, especially the people who would be effected by this the most. Not you, not me (and I have a bunch of kids) no...again, overpopulation is not an issue of laws and regulations in first world countries. We don't need these laws, because we are already doing it.... We've already abandoned common sense if we're favoring population control over efficiency and conservation in the first place.