(February 15, 2016 at 7:45 pm)drfuzzy Wrote:(February 15, 2016 at 5:20 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote: I think it's both physical and mental, but if we're able to provide both mental and physical optimum health, the problem would disappear.
As for the population problem, it's a problem either way. I hardly think we can say people need to die so that there's enough resources for other people to live. How is that any different from saying we should kill large amounts of people right now so the rest can lead better lives? It's not really, except for the fact that in one case you're advocating killing them directly, and in the other indirectly. We've got to come up with solutions to the problem of increasing population/diminishing resources, but advocating not preventing death if we can is not the way to go about it.
Note that I didn't say people need to die, or we need to kill large amounts of people - - that was posted by another. The problem I see is reproduction. If lifespans increased, while the earth was still over 7 billion people, then the only answer (other than colonization) would be for most young couples to have NO children. We're not even talking limiting reproduction to one child . . . there would have to be a way for the population number to drop dramatically. (And remember that X billion people aren't going anywhere . . . they aren't dying off.) There would have to be a way to identify an optimal population number, something that safeguards natural resources and allows for the best for every child, and some measures would have to be in place to get there . . . and stay there. I don't know how that would be accomplished.
I don't know either, but that's no reason to let people die once you can prevent that from happening. We'll need to figure it out in due time, and maybe start talking about it well before it, since it's better to plan for these kinds of changes before hand to a certain extent than be overwhelmed with such extreme circumstances all at once.
