The Need to Breed

[Angrboda]

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.

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. That its a good solution to our problems. 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?

The "bolded bit" is not knowably impossible at this time. That you would advocate a position so absurd makes plain the histrionic nature of your arguments. At present, it's unknown what the probability of its success will be, though many consider it improbable. That you feel the need to take it and stretch it to an absurd all or nothing conclusion is typical of your argument here. Apparently, according to you, no matter how we approach the problem, it's coercive and immoral, "a bullet" to the head of those who resist. By that same argument, all government is coercive and immoral, a bullet to the head of the citizenry. You may only be able to see things in black and white, but that's a limitation you have, and is not a realistic appraisal. You asserted that no alternative solutions were offered. I showed alternatives. Your response is to deny any real and important differences between these approaches. And no matter what solution is offered, since you apparently aren't capable of discriminating between vastly different methods, all methods will be equal to you. (Really, re-engineering the genome is the same as voluntary reproductive limits? Are you high?) Regardless, whether you consider it impossible or not, it is still an alternative solution. That you have an absurdly unsupportable view of its probability does not eliminate it as an alternative. Sure, you can equate all methods as essentially the same by distorting the facts and making up your own truth (as you did here regarding the possibility), but when you do, you have left reality, and are simply exercising your biases. That's neither reasonable, nor truthful.