Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Overpopulation: You get to cast the deciding vote.
Poll: Overpopulation is a serious problem and you get to cast the deciding vote. Which do you choose? This poll is closed.
It is more important that people can decide how many children they want to have, than that they can have enough food to eat. So I vote that there will be no forced restrictions on having children, and so millions of people will starve to death.
36.00%
9
36.00%
It is more important that people do not starve to death, than that they have the freedom to reproduce at will. So I vote that there will be forced restrictions on having children, and so people will be forcibly made sterile once they have children.
Overpopulation: You get to cast the deciding vote.
July 11, 2015 at 3:22 pm
I think if we ever get to the point where forced sterilization is necessary we should start with people that have low IQ levels. Let the smart people have kids and let the stupid ones go extinct.
RE: Overpopulation: You get to cast the deciding vote.
July 11, 2015 at 3:25 pm
(July 11, 2015 at 2:59 pm)excitedpenguin Wrote: ...
Pyrrho Wrote:There are things that are worse than dying
What things are worse than dying?
Being continuously tortured for life. I think that would be one that most people would agree with. In my case, I think not having a good life is worse than death, but I know that many will disagree with that. I have made a living will and have instructed my wife to have the doctors "pull the plug" as soon as it is legal to do so. I do not want to have a bad life, and have no fear of death. Once one is dead, nothing bad can happen to one. So I think a bad life is worse than death.
(July 11, 2015 at 2:59 pm)excitedpenguin Wrote:
Pyrrho Wrote:There* are things that are worse than the extinction of the human race
Which things are worse than the extinction of the human race?
*I capitalized 't' in 'there' so as for the sentence to make sense out of context.
I think everyone being tortured for as long as they live would be worse than the extinction of the human race. (By "extinction," I mean the human race no longer existing.)
(July 11, 2015 at 2:59 pm)excitedpenguin Wrote:
Pyrrho Wrote:I have seen people post such sentiments before, but I do not agree at all.
I think, overall, we disagree only as far as we understand the word 'extinction' differently, which word was arguably used out of context by myself. Extinction is not necessarily a given state of things, it is also defined as a process. Or maybe I'm just not using it right.Anyway, forgive me for that. Let me then rephrase what I said about the extinction of humans, by declaring that the word[s] 'endangerement[of species]' should be read instead of 'extinction', wherever I used or made reference to this term.
I was, however, using it in the sense of them no longer existing; of being extinct.
The process may or may not be particularly unpleasant. If, for example, people got a virus that made everyone completely sterile, but otherwise had no effect on them, that seems to me to not be such a terrible thing. It would mean the eventual extinction of humans, but no one would be suffering horribly from the virus. Of course, some people would be upset by the fact that humanity would go extinct, but humanity is going to go extinct eventually anyway. I do not see the extinction of humanity, per se, as a bad thing. That "per se" is essential for my meaning. I can certainly think of bad ways in which humans could become extinct.
(July 11, 2015 at 2:59 pm)excitedpenguin Wrote: Pyrrho, please inform me if you got the alert regardless of my hiding the bulk of my reply. I would like to find out if this technique works.
I am easily able to read "hidden" text.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence."
— David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X, Part I.
RE: Overpopulation: You get to cast the deciding vote.
July 11, 2015 at 3:27 pm
(July 11, 2015 at 1:00 pm)Pyrrho Wrote:
(July 11, 2015 at 12:36 pm)Minimalist Wrote: No. If someone wants to not vaccinate their kids they have that choice as long as they keep them out of public schools. It is a choice not a violation. Choices do have consequences.
In order to be allowed to keep their children out of public schools, they must do some other things. They cannot just keep them out of school, but must meet the schooling requirements for their children in some way or other. So there is indeed force in the situation, though you are right that there is a way for them to not have their children vaccinated.
The same, though, applies to my hypothetical situation. You do not have to be forcibly made sterile; if you choose to not have children, no one forces the sterilization on you.
That's part of the choice, though. You do not have a right to expose others to contagious diseases. If you want to do that, you pay a price. Whether that price is worth it or not is up to the individual.
(July 11, 2015 at 1:04 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: ... It is not based on death of the individual, but on species extinction, and the reason that this is an important nuance is because the argument in favor of forced birth-control for humans is not based on the preservation of individual lives, but on the species as a whole. ...
No. If millions of people starve to death, that does not necessarily entail the extinction of the humanity. The choice is between millions of people starving, and between people being forcibly made sterile.
This can be examined in terms of animal overpopulation. When that occurs, then many individual members die of starvation and such things, but it does not necessarily mean that all of the members of that species die.
A brutal experiment could be done (which I hope no one does, but probably someone already has done something similar) with rats in a very large enclosure, with enough food for a thousand rats being delivered each day. The rats would likely overbreed and exceed the food limit, with very nasty results. The rats would likely fight and kill each other over food, and would also likely eat each other as well. My guess is that this would not cause the rats to all die off, and, if that is correct, there would be no extinction, just a nasty, brutal existence for the survivors. Eventually, perhaps, the rats would evolve to not overbreed, but unless and until that happened, there would be a very gruesome situation.
The hidden content is showcasing what I am replying to.
Rats don't have biological or nuclear warfare or some such means to scale war on a massive scale, in the likelihood of mass hysteria over food taking place.
RE: Overpopulation: You get to cast the deciding vote.
July 11, 2015 at 3:30 pm (This post was last modified: July 11, 2015 at 3:32 pm by IATIA.)
(July 10, 2015 at 9:49 pm)Dystopia Wrote: How do you propose even implementing the measure? How do you know who has kids? You know it's possible to hide it from society, right? How do you know someone is pregnant? How do you determine who has more or less kids? Which criterion?
Nazi Germany had ways. Friends, family and neighbors will squeal like stuck pigs. (not all of course, but enough)
You make people miserable and there's nothing they can do about it, just like god.
-- Homer Simpson
God has no place within these walls, just as facts have no place within organized religion.
-- Superintendent Chalmers
Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. There are some things we don't want to know. Important things.
-- Ned Flanders
Once something's been approved by the government, it's no longer immoral.
-- The Rev Lovejoy
RE: Overpopulation: You get to cast the deciding vote.
July 11, 2015 at 3:54 pm (This post was last modified: July 11, 2015 at 3:54 pm by Regina.)
I think forced sterilization is probably a step too far, however I would instead support taxing people with 2 children, and very heavily taxing people who have more than 2. This would have to apply only to people who do not have children yet, not to families which are already large, as it's not fair to suddenly slap that tax on them out of nowhere. That's more favourable in my opinion than forcibly sterilizing people. You can technically have as many children as you want, but it's strongly discouraged and tax is used as an incentive not to have more than 2.
That's how I'd do it. Sure it's still a bit unethical, but I don't think you can ever introduce population reduction without at least some unethical stuff. It's certainly more favourable than outright killing off living people or sterilization.
"Adulthood is like looking both ways before you cross the road, and then getting hit by an airplane"- sarcasm_only
"Ironically like the nativist far-Right, which despises multiculturalism, but benefits from its ideas of difference to scapegoat the other and to promote its own white identity politics; these postmodernists, leftists, feminists and liberals also use multiculturalism, to side with the oppressor, by demanding respect and tolerance for oppression characterised as 'difference', no matter how intolerable."- Maryam Namazie
RE: Overpopulation: You get to cast the deciding vote.
July 11, 2015 at 3:57 pm
(July 11, 2015 at 3:54 pm)Yeauxleaux Wrote: I think forced sterilization is probably a step too far, however I would instead support taxing people with 2 children, and very heavily taxing people who have more than 2.
Taxation does not work on the poor or unwilling.
You make people miserable and there's nothing they can do about it, just like god.
-- Homer Simpson
God has no place within these walls, just as facts have no place within organized religion.
-- Superintendent Chalmers
Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. There are some things we don't want to know. Important things.
-- Ned Flanders
Once something's been approved by the government, it's no longer immoral.
-- The Rev Lovejoy
RE: Overpopulation: You get to cast the deciding vote.
July 11, 2015 at 3:57 pm (This post was last modified: July 11, 2015 at 4:10 pm by Anomalocaris.)
(July 11, 2015 at 2:49 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:
(July 11, 2015 at 10:24 am)Chuck Wrote: Ultimately nothing can be right or wrong except through appeal to the desirability of its consequences. To argue think something can be right or wrong in itself without regard to its global consequences is to shatter any pretense to relevance of the very concept of right or wrong.
"The ends justify the means" - agree, or disagree? (I happen to disagree, YMMV.)
The consequences, not the ends, if ends if used to mean intentions.
The desirability of the overall probable consequences justifies the means, always. Further more desirability of overall probable consequences provides the complete justification for the means, and no other form of justification is admissible.
Nothing can be good whose overall probable consequence is bad. If its probable overall consequence is good, then it is kindergarten level intellectual infantilism to call it bad, for what possible material meaning would good have in that case, then?
Pyrrho Wrote:Being continuously tortured for life. I think that would be one that most people would agree with. In my case, I think not having a good life is worse than death, but I know that many will disagree with that. I have made a living will and have instructed my wife to have the doctors "pull the plug" as soon as it is legal to do so. I do not want to have a bad life, and have no fear of death. Once one is dead, nothing bad can happen to one. So I think a bad life is worse than death.
Losing the right to bear children, as per context, is not the same as being tortured for life. Nor is being tortured for life as likely to happen as death, given certain variables, such as population growth and unavailability of resources.
I don't see what it brings to the conversation to point out that there might be worse things than death or extinction.
Pyrrho Wrote:I think everyone being tortured for as long as they live would be worse than the extinction of the human race. (By "extinction," I mean the human race no longer existing.)
I refer you to the line of reasoning used in my previous reply[the above one].
Pyrrho Wrote:The term "extinction" can be used either way:
Pyrrho Wrote: I was, however, using it in the sense of them no longer existing; of being extinct.
I know you were.
Pyrrho Wrote: The process may or may not be particularly unpleasant. If, for example, people got a virus that made everyone completely sterile, but otherwise had no effect on them, that seems to me to not be such a terrible thing. It would mean the eventual extinction of humans, but no one would be suffering horribly from the virus.
I don't see why you pointed all of this out.
Pyrrho Wrote: [i]Of course, some people would be upset by the fact that humanity would go extinct, but humanity is going to go extinct eventually anyway. I do not see the extinction of humanity, per se, as a bad thing. That "per se" is essential for my meaning. I can certainly think of bad ways in which humans could become extinct. [/i]
How can you claim to know that the extinction of humanity is inevitable? We don't know what lies in the future, nor do we know for sure that the universe is finite in time. As for the sun going out, we don't know that we couldn't get around that in the billions of years left for it to burn. We might either learn how to manipulate the sun into subsisting, find a way to protect ourselves from its engulfing us and replacing it's energy or manage to travel to other solar systems before any of it happening.
Why do you have such a borderline nihilistic view of life?
Pyrrho Wrote: I am easily able to read "hidden" text.
I know you are. I meant if the site still showed you that you got a reply from me, regardless of my replying to you in this manner. I am asking about the Alert feature, to be precise.
(July 11, 2015 at 2:42 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:
(July 11, 2015 at 1:24 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: No. If millions of people starve to death, that does not necessarily entail the extinction of the humanity. The choice is between millions of people starving, and between people being forcibly made sterile.
I find it hard to swallow any justification of the actual dehumanizing of people based on hypothetical fears of mass starvation or other results of overpopulation.
Mind you, I'm not saying overpopulation is not dangerous. I'm saying that I would vote "no" in the OP scenario because I think there are other, more humane ways to address the issue.
My apologies for extending it to species extinction. That clearly wasn't in there, and was me inserting my own reading. I'll be more careful next time.
Your thinking that there are other ways to address the issue is irrelevant to the OP scenario, as that hypothetical scenario presents you with no choice in the matter. You either choose that way or millions die. That's the choice, not whether you choose more or less humane ways to do it.
RE: Overpopulation: You get to cast the deciding vote.
July 11, 2015 at 5:02 pm
(July 11, 2015 at 4:26 pm)excitedpenguin Wrote: ...
Pyrrho Wrote:Being continuously tortured for life. I think that would be one that most people would agree with. In my case, I think not having a good life is worse than death, but I know that many will disagree with that. I have made a living will and have instructed my wife to have the doctors "pull the plug" as soon as it is legal to do so. I do not want to have a bad life, and have no fear of death. Once one is dead, nothing bad can happen to one. So I think a bad life is worse than death.
Losing the right to bear children, as per context, is not the same as being tortured for life. Nor is being tortured for life as likely to happen as death, given certain variables, such as population growth and unavailability of resources.
I don't see what it brings to the conversation to point out that there might be worse things than death or extinction.
I was expressing disagreement with a principle that you claimed:
(July 11, 2015 at 12:07 pm)excitedpenguin Wrote: ...
If I had the choice between extinction and anything else at all, I would choose anything else. This is obviously the thing to do.
That is why it was brought up. If you believe your principle is irrelevant to the topic, why did you bring it up? And if it is relevant, then whether it is true or not is surely relevant.
(July 11, 2015 at 4:26 pm)excitedpenguin Wrote: ...
Pyrrho Wrote: [i]Of course, some people would be upset by the fact that humanity would go extinct, but humanity is going to go extinct eventually anyway. I do not see the extinction of humanity, per se, as a bad thing. That "per se" is essential for my meaning. I can certainly think of bad ways in which humans could become extinct. [/i]
How can you claim to know that the extinction of humanity is inevitable? We don't know what lies in the future, nor do we know for sure that the universe is finite in time. As for the sun going out, we don't know that we couldn't get around that in the billions of years left for it to burn. We might either learn how to manipulate the sun into subsisting, find a way to protect ourselves from its engulfing us and replacing it's energy or manage to travel to other solar systems before any of it happening.
Why do you have such a borderline nihilistic view of life?
The best current scientific evidence suggests that everything will die. That is why I believe it.
Regardless, I will be dead anyway, so it is irrelevant to my life.
(July 11, 2015 at 4:26 pm)excitedpenguin Wrote: I know you are. I meant if the site still showed you that you got a reply from me, regardless of my replying to you in this manner. I am asking about the Alert feature, to be precise.
...
I have over 500 "alerts." I ignore them.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence."
— David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X, Part I.
