The Need to Breed

[Epimethean]

Santayana FTW, eh?

[Shell B]

I have to admit, that whole fucking with the human genome and releasing a viral Malthusian catastrophe shit is creepy. She's got her off days, that one.

Still, suggesting that telling someone not to have children is somehow worse than killing every other animal on the planet is fucking utterly stupid and I kind of hope you're drunk.

[The Grand Nudger]

We keep invoking this "kill every other human being on the planet" bit like there isn't anything else that we can do about this. Even so, if you were told that the child you had been hoping for was a non-starter, that you just couldn't have it because it would kill everyone on the fucking planet.....do you really think that this would stop you? Do you have any confidence that such a statement would stop others?

It isn't an issue of worse, sure, worse for me, but that doesn't mean worse for you. We could have a difference of opinion on that, at the end of the day that's what we'd be arguing. No, I'm criticizing this notion on the grounds that our metrics are flawed, our acceptence of this -at this time- is an indicator of laziness and capriciousness -not any attempt to save the world-, and that anyone who had to make this decision in earnest after all else had been considered and attempted would have a better picture of the situation than ourselves and (likely) more options available.

[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.

[Epimethean]

"Even so, if you were told that the child you had been hoping for was a non-starter, that you just couldn't have it because it would kill everyone on the fucking planet.....do you really think that this would stop you?"

If there were evidence pointing to it, yes. The horror movie doorbell should never be answered.

[Shell B]

We keep invoking this "kill every other human being on the planet" bit like there isn't anything else that we can do about this.

Que? You said you would kill every other animal on the planet before implementing population control by controlling how many children people can have.

Even so, if you were told that the child you had been hoping for was a non-starter, that you just couldn't have it because it would kill everyone on the fucking planet.....do you really think that this would stop you?

Yes. The only reason I would consider it is if a partner strongly wanted one. I would love it no less, but I would prefer to adopt. I am nearly 30 years old and have had no children of my own, but raised someone elses. I think my life speaks for itself in that regard. I have no intention of having hordes of them, either, if I have any.

Do you have any confidence that such a statement would stop others?

No, we will, as we have always, have to rely on the intelligent people and those that give a shit. Of course, I see absolutely no reason why people would not be able to have one or two children. In fact, not allowing that is counterproductive. Thus, your example of not being able to have that child that your bleeding heart so strongly desired is just plain silly. Of course people would be able to have children. We'd just have to kill octomom.

anyone who had to make this decision in earnest after all else had been considered and attempted would have a better picture of the situation than ourselves and (likely) more options available.

Well, I certainly hope those people won't be the homicidal maniacs that think releasing genetically altered psychopathic maniacs or viruses into the population are not the ones making that decision. Of course, they will make thinning out the herd easier, as I am sure they will start massive war and wind up being the ones eating shit for it.

[The Grand Nudger]

The "bolded bit" is not knowably impossible at this time.

Whats not "knowably impossible" about creating resources out of thin air?

That you would advocate a position so absurd makes plain the histrionic nature of your arguments.

If my position were absurd with regards to anything other than my own opinions (likely to be absurd since we're invoking an absurd scenario, a no-win) than you could just show me where thanks.

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.

The probability of success for what, population control schemes? Markedly higher if we leverage force, I'll wager. What's my all or nothing conclusion, show me?

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.

No, according to me out of the few selections you offered all those I characterized as a bullet to the head are no different than a bullet to the head.

By that same argument, all government is coercive and immoral, a bullet to the head of the citizenry.

LOL, laying aside that it often is, coercive is a requirement, immoral is not.

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?)

No, I'm not, but apparently you're having trouble reading, I made no comparison between re-engineering the genome and voluntary limits. If I hit you in the head with a bat or a brick there would be marked differences, not that they would matter to you, and so it goes with your more sinister offerings.

Regardless, whether you consider it impossible or not, it is still an alternative solution.

So is my bullet, why is the bullet not good idea?

That you have an absurdly unsupportable view of its probability does not eliminate it as an alternative.

What is it that you're referring to in all of this, what probability? The only thing I even began to address from the angle of probability was politely asking. We do that, it hasn't worked. I feel pretty confident in stating that the probability of getting something like this by politely asking is low to nil.

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.

I'm sorry, is the probability of success for population control by asking people politely not to do something like having children seriously an issue of disagreement between us? Is that a fact I've distorted? Is that a truth I've made up?

[Reforged]

I'm not entirely sure its unreasonable to request for a set period of time every individual be restricted to conceiving one child only. Its not like you'd shove the ones already over the limit back in the womb.
Seems odd this is such a controversial issue, we know over-population is a problem.

[The Grand Nudger]

Que? You said you would kill every other animal on the planet before implementing population control by controlling how many children people can have.

Yes, Shell, those are my animals. It should be pretty well known by now that I extend very little courtesy to animals other than human beings (and none if there's a conflict of interests)

Yes. The only reason I would consider it is if a partner strongly wanted one. I would love it no less, but I would prefer to adopt. I am nearly 30 years old and have had no children of my own, but raised someone elses. I think my life speaks for itself in that regard. I have no intention of having hordes of them, either, if I have any.

Sounds great Shell, nothing wrong with that.

No, we will, as we have always, have to rely on the intelligent people and those that give a shit.

Im not sure that everyone who is making the largest contribution to this problem is dumb, or doesn;t give a shit. In some cases having a ton of kids seems pretty damned smart, and I bet they're decent people even though they had a ton of kids. Here's the point that I'm really trying to drive home (Apo seems to think that I'm pulling this out of my ass but whatever). You and I don't have any confidence that others would willingly go down this road. If we really wanted to do this (population control) what options does that leave us? How have people responded to these sorts of things in the past? If they say "go fuck yourself" and we say "okay, well thanks anyway, have as many kids as you like" we're ot actually doing anything different than what we are doing now, we aren't actually controlling the population at al. If what we're doing now doesn't work (and that would seem to be the case thats being made) and we do want to control our population ( and that seems to be the case that's being made -not necessarily by you) then wtf are we talking about?

Of course, I see absolutely no reason why people would not be able to have one or two children. In fact, not allowing that is counterproductive. Thus, your example of not being able to have that child that your bleeding heart so strongly desired is just plain silly.

Tut tut, as of the last census we here in the US have a child per household on average. Telling them they can;t have one is telling the average they can't have any. For something like this to work it has to have an effect on the averages. If we already have an average of one or two kids, why do we need population control?

Of course people would be able to have children. We'd just have to kill octomom.

All the octomoms in this country weren't able to dent our very low child per household number. It's about all of us, not just a couple of people with 8 kids right? Look, Octomoms in the states are not the ones leading to this big overpopulation problem. I'm going to keep saying this until it really sinks in for everyone (not really directed at you Shell, you just presented me the opportunity).

Well, I certainly hope those people won't be the homicidal maniacs that think releasing genetically altered psychopathic maniacs or viruses into the population are not the ones making that decision. Of course, they will make thinning out the herd easier, as I am sure they will start massive war and wind up being the ones eating shit for it.

Hehehe, I hope alot for those people myself. Not the least of which is the hope that a significant portion of them are my direct descendants..and preferably a few dozen generations removed from dear old Great great - - - Grandad.lol.

[Violet]

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?"

Yes, you should.

And I also have the right to kill you and your family in response Should be is irrelevant... don't see why you should be so sanctimonious regarding such a subjective issue as morals.

But then... I never do