Too Many People In The U.s,and Possibly The World

[RigorMortis]

Try a bike or public transport cos you are part of the problem you are describing...

 

[Chrono]

Try a bike or public transport cos you are part of the problem you are describing...

aye Rigah i live in tulsa oklahoma.. out here only lance armstrong ninjas use a bike for pub transport

 

[o-a-ksavage]

but it is IMORAL to persue your self interests if they cause unreasonable harm to other bodies. As an extreme example, you dont just go round killing people because you find it fun and it makes you happy. comparing nazis to placing limits on how many kids a couple can have seems pretty mismatched to me. there is no blood and gore involved in this proposal, just some conservative practices of makin babies.

Going around killing people is not in your self-interest as a human being. You will soon rightfully be killed by someone who is defending themselves. Self-interest in the moral sense means long-term rational self-interest. Having kids does not cause harm to other bodies anyway. In fact, what if one of those kids invents a cure for aids that would otherwise have not happened, but I guess you population control guys wouldn't like that either. Blood is involved in this proposal totally. That's like saying no blood is involved in communist countries because that is not there goal, but the Soviet government was responsible for the deaths of over 30 million of their citizens. What if someone decides that they would rather have two kids? The government would come and either try to kill the kid, take him away, or take the parents to jail. What if the parents decide they have done nothing wrong and refuse to go to jail? They will be shot.

 

[Equality 7-2521]

Going around killing people is not in your self-interest as a human being. You will soon rightfully be killed by someone who is defending themselves. Self-interest in the moral sense means long-term rational self-interest. Having kids does not cause harm to other bodies anyway. In fact, what if one of those kids invents a cure for aids that would otherwise have not happened, but I guess you population control guys wouldn't like that either. Blood is involved in this proposal totally. That's like saying no blood is involved in communist countries because that is not there goal, but the Soviet government was responsible for the deaths of over 30 million of their citizens. What if someone decides that they would rather have two kids? The government would come and either try to kill the kid, take him away, or take the parents to jail. What if the parents decide they have done nothing wrong and refuse to go to jail? They will be shot.

depends what you call rational. to some, having as many babies as you want is rational. to others its not.

and when i said "cause harm to other bodies", i was not specifically talking about human bodies. im talking planitary bodies etc too.

it doesnt make sense to say that if the person who invents a cure for aids wasnt born that it would never happen. those kinds of things are invented with the ideas from many different minds. not just one. so it would most likely still be invented, just by other people and at a different time.

and blood doesnt HAVE to be involved. its like any law, if you break it, you face the consequinces. true that population control laws would need harsh penalties though.

and regarding that frilly lable you gave me of "population control guy", let it be known that i am not dead set in my ideas on this subject. at the moment, my ideas seem logical to me but i have not decided that my ideas are definitly the only/best solution to the fucked upness of this world. im merely debating with you to see what i can get out of you. you seem pretty dead set in your ideas though so feel free to lable youself. but dont lable me.

pz

 

[The Bastard]

Try a bike or public transport cos you are part of the problem you are describing...

no im not cuz im the only one in my family that drives. when my mom or uncle needs a ride sumwhere i take them. large familys with 1 car per member are the problem. and retard truck drivers that flip 16wheelers over on the highway

 

[Cloudchamber]

its just another form of production control. like factories n shit are not allowed to exceed emition standards of certain toxic chemicals. its the same sanerio, except with babies being the form of polution. and people ARE polution in our current state of living.
whatcha reckon?

At first, I thought this was an astute observation; however, it soon became clear to me that your theory is among the most disturbing ideas I have ever heard. This analogy of yours draws a parallel between humans (living, breathing, spiritual, and sentient beings) and toxic chemicals that have no useful purpose. Ironically, you seem to be spewing thought pollution. Yet, no one is advocating censorship of your ideas.

It is true that many people are useless, or worse, malignant, but this theory of yours has a fatal flaw. If, as you suggest, we should somehow prevent people from being born, there is no way of determining who will grow up to be a detriment to society, and who will be a godsend.

What about the brightest minds of our time? What about the super athletes? What about religious people (Mormons) whose church commands them to multiply like rabbits? Would you invade these people's rights to multiply despite their superior DNA or religious belief??

Treating people like pollution is a bad idea. How do you propose implementing this plan? In China, women are undergo compulsory sterilization and/or abortion. If they don't like their child's sex, they get an abortion or abandon their baby on the hillside. Think about what you are saying, man! This is America--"the land of the FREE" is not an anachronism; eeugenics and population control, on the other hand, are MAJORLY anachronistic.

Matt

 

[o-a-ksavage]

depends what you call rational. to some, having as many babies as you want is rational. to others its not.
and when i said "cause harm to other bodies", i was not specifically talking about human bodies. im talking planitary bodies etc too.
it doesnt make sense to say that if the person who invents a cure for aids wasnt born that it would never happen. those kinds of things are invented with the ideas from many different minds. not just one. so it would most likely still be invented, just by other people and at a different time.
and blood doesnt HAVE to be involved. its like any law, if you break it, you face the consequinces. true that population control laws would need harsh penalties though.
and regarding that frilly lable you gave me of "population control guy", let it be known that i am not dead set in my ideas on this subject. at the moment, my ideas seem logical to me but i have not decided that my ideas are definitly the only/best solution to the fucked upness of this world. im merely debating with you to see what i can get out of you. you seem pretty dead set in your ideas though so feel free to lable youself. but dont lable me.
pz

Aright man, basically the basis of my opinion on this issue is the fact that an individual's life belongs to himself and no one else. The only way he should be punished is if he violates the rights of someone else, and the only way to do that is through physical force. The only moral purpose of a government is to protect individual rights, from both foreign and domestic threats. That is what America was founded on, but unfortunately has not been able to maintain, and the vast majority of people abroad and in the US do not understand this or agree with this concept. The philosophy of altruism has planted in people's minds that the only way to live morally is to sacrifice yourself for other people, and that you have no right to live for yourself. That is why socialism has spread while capitalism, the only system that respects individual rights, has gradually faded out of existence. Most people do not have a moral defense for capitalism or individual rights, I do. So I do not mind at all if you lable me based on what I say and believe, and don't be surprised if I do the same thing to you. Judge and prepare to be judged.

 

[Equality 7-2521]

Cloudchamber:
My comparison makes sense to me but I understand why it wouldnt make sense to you if your taking it the way you explained. For example, you said toxic chemics have no useful purpose but in reality, you cant produce the product in the factory without emitting the toxic chemicals. So the toxic chemicals do have a useful purpose i.e. neccessary to produce whatever the factory produces. So if you want more product, your going to have more toxins....more good stuff in exchange for more bad stuff. The same is true for humans. Humans are useful and are all of those glorious adjectives you used to describe them but they also pollute. If you have more people ("good"), then you have more pollution (bad). As a matter of interest, humans are the ones that make the factories and produce the product and emit the toxins in the first place.....so i really dont know how you arnt seeing the link between the two.

"Thought Polution".....sorry, i mean no disrespect but......LOL! If my ideas are poluting your world, then you need to find another way of entertaining ideas. I can and will think whatever I want mate. Neither my ideas, nor the next mans ideas need be censored. That would defeat the purpose of conversation between humans.

Um, there never was a way of determining who will be a detrement and who will be a godsend to society. Henry Ford quite school early and people would have thought he will just be another bum but then he invented cars, making him a godsend. Anyways, i dont even know where you were going with this idea.

No your not listening. I am NOT proposing that people not be able to multiply. The super athlete and the religious person can still have kids just like everyone else. My idea is that if people still have kids but dont have TOO MANY kids, everyone will be happy and everyone will have space and the planet will live on.

Im aware of what happens in China. The point is you dont get something for nothing. Im not saying my idea is the ultimate solution and that it would be able to be implemented seemlessly with no problems. Im merealy saying that if everyone had no more than one baby each, the population would not increase and we would be able to preserve living conditions. You talk about America being the land of the "free" but your getting fucked every day of your life in more ways than you realise, if thats what you think America is.

Do you have an idea of how to solve the population problem? Or do you reckon we should just keep on keeping on untill we cant keep on anymore?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

o-a-ksavage:
An individuals life belongs to himself and he should be punished if he violates the rights of someone else, yeah. Is multiplying to the point where we will eventually reach a stage when we run out of physical space on which to multiple (or simply die from lack of resources) not a violation of anyones rights? Sounds like not just a domestic threat and not just a foriegn threat.....it sounds like both to me....a world threat.

And im not talking about living for yourself or living for others, Im talking about living for "us". Humans are a breed. Surely it is in every right minded individuals interests to wish for our breed (that we think is so unquestionably supirior) to continue to breed for as long as possible. Anyone who did wish this, wouldnt even NEED a law to be placed on them making sure they dont have more than 2 kids....they would simply do the math and realise that if you have more than one child per person, you are increasing the population and therefor increasing the rate at which we all die.

Regarding the labling judging thing, to be honest i dont mind if you lable me. you can call me what you want mate. im wont be phased in the slightest. the main reason i suggested you dont lable me is because all it does is show me that you are jumping to conclusions unrationally. seriously man, your lables are a waste of breath. im more interested in your definitions. keep placing lables if you wish though. im going to stick to my method of replying to the reasoning...with reasoning.

pz

ideas?

 

[RigorMortis]

no im not cuz im the only one in my family that drives. when my mom or uncle needs a ride sumwhere i take them. large familys with 1 car per member are the problem. and retard truck drivers that flip 16wheelers over on the highway

i thought it was about you getting to work?

 

[o-a-ksavage]

An individuals life belongs to himself and he should be punished if he violates the rights of someone else, yeah. Is multiplying to the point where we will eventually reach a stage when we run out of physical space on which to multiple (or simply die from lack of resources) not a violation of anyones rights?

No it is not. If it is please give me an example of a circumstance in which it is.

And im not talking about living for yourself or living for others, Im talking about living for "us". Humans are a breed. Surely it is in every right minded individuals interests to wish for our breed (that we think is so unquestionably supirior) to continue to breed for as long as possible. Anyone who did wish this, wouldnt even NEED a law to be placed on them making sure they dont have more than 2 kids....they would simply do the math and realise that if you have more than one child per person, you are increasing the population and therefor increasing the rate at which we all die.

I completely disagree that having more than two kids increases the rate at which we all die. Where has this been proven? Throughout history, the population has increased, and so has the quality and length of life. Most people produce more than they consume, which means they benefit society. Wealth is created, it is not a stagnate amount to be split up between a growing population. And I unquestionably do believe that humans are superior to other animals. I got love for animals, but anyone who values his mind should value humans over animals, or--reason over instinct.

Regarding the labling judging thing, to be honest i dont mind if you lable me. you can call me what you want mate. im wont be phased in the slightest. the main reason i suggested you dont lable me is because all it does is show me that you are jumping to conclusions unrationally. seriously man, your lables are a waste of breath. im more interested in your definitions. keep placing lables if you wish though. im going to stick to my method of replying to the reasoning...with reasoning.

Man, I'm not trying to PHASE you. Why would that be my goal? I don't have beef. I called you a population control guy because you are advocating population control, if you don't like that than don't advocate population control. I would not give a fuck if someone said I'm a pro-capitalism guy, or an anti-racism guy, becuase I am. If you are sensitive about it, you are insecure with your views. And come on man, I think I have responded with reasoning this whole time.

 

[StressWon]

and retard truck drivers that flip 16wheelers over on the highway

dont get me started!

 

[The Bastard]

i thought it was about you getting to work?

its about traffic in general, too many people on the road. too many people everywhere. pretty soon there aint gunna be enough fuckin air to breath,
yo stress u drive big rigs or sumthin? do you post on illmuzik from truck stops and hotel lobbys, keep on truckin lol

 

[shogun3001]

its about traffic in general, too many people on the road. too many people everywhere. pretty soon there aint gunna be enough fuckin air to breath,

operation population control is already in its begginning stages.
when world war 3 cracks off
your worries are over my friend.

all it takes is a nuke dropped on wisconsin
and next thing your worried bout is if we have enough people to draft into invading
north korea.


this has been my theory since i was 14
only the variables have changed a bit.

i live in LA and i know bout traffic.
and i know bout overpopulation.

hope we will have flying cars and super cities in my life before the apocolypse comes!

 

[Equality 7-2521]

No it is not. If it is please give me an example of a circumstance in which it is.

OK. Howabout the rights of future generations? i.e. their right to live in a healthy sustainable environment and our responsibility to make this available to them.

I completely disagree that having more than two kids increases the rate at which we all die. Where has this been proven? Throughout history, the population has increased, and so has the quality and length of life. Most people produce more than they consume, which means they benefit society. Wealth is created, it is not a stagnate amount to be split up between a growing population. And I unquestionably do believe that humans are superior to other animals. I got love for animals, but anyone who values his mind should value humans over animals, or--reason over instinct.

I do not have "proof" for you regarding my ideas (hence the reason I am not claiming my ideas to be conclusive solutions). My ideas come from mathematics I did in my head. i.e. having more than one kid per person = population increase = less resources = dying quicker.

Man we are talking about two completely different things. Your talking about people producing more than they consume. For starters theres no way that this can be possible as you cant produce something out of nothing. Even more to the point, the form of production that humans take part in does not replace that which they depleted to produce what they did. Your talking about money and gadgets and shit man. I agree that shit is created. I am talking about natural resources though. If money (the created wealth you speak of) runs out, we can still survive as we did before all that shit was invented (savages or whatever) but if natural resources run out, we die. Money cannot buy a rejouvinated environment, esp when it is being spent on destroying it. It really is not rocket science to realise that the more people on this earth, the faster natural resources are depleted. Like, step outside your front door and my side of this debate will be staring you in the face.

And yeah i assumed you concidered humans to be superior, hence the reason I figured it was in your interests to want them to exist for as long as possible.

Man, I'm not trying to PHASE you. Why would that be my goal? I don't have beef. I called you a population control guy because you are advocating population control, if you don't like that than don't advocate population control. I would not give a fuck if someone said I'm a pro-capitalism guy, or an anti-racism guy, becuase I am. If you are sensitive about it, you are insecure with your views. And come on man, I think I have responded with reasoning this whole time.

i just assumed it was your goal to phase me cos i couldnt work out any other reason why youd want to lable me. See, I DO think you have responded with reasoning this whole time (and ive quite been enjoying it btw....thanks for this chat) and thats why your labelling stood out like a fish out of water. I just didnt expect it, as i thought youd use your words better. Im really not sensative about it bro, my emotional security is the last thing you need to be addressing. But yeah, if your still convinced the labelling was an integral part of you getting your point across to me, then hey, be my guest. Im generally willing to listen to anything if the person thinks that it will help me understand what they are saying.

 

[o-a-ksavage]

OK. Howabout the rights of future generations? i.e. their right to live in a healthy sustainable environment and our responsibility to make this available to them.

Unborn people do not have rights. You do not have rights until you are a human being. This is the basis for the abortion argument. I am for abortion because I believe the woman has a right to her life, while any unborn baby is not yet a person and does not have rights. If a phetus has rights because it is potentially a human, then can a human be burried alive because it is potentially a corpse? But the thing is, I do not believe that we are putting future generations in danger. That's what people said at the start of the industrial revolution, and look at the quality of life now compared to then. I believe that the free market solves these problems.

Man we are talking about two completely different things. Your talking about people producing more than they consume. For starters theres no way that this can be possible as you cant produce something out of nothing. Even more to the point, the form of production that humans take part in does not replace that which they depleted to produce what they did. Your talking about money and gadgets and shit man. I agree that shit is created. I am talking about natural resources though. If money (the created wealth you speak of) runs out, we can still survive as we did before all that shit was invented (savages or whatever) but if natural resources run out, we die. Money cannot buy a rejouvinated environment, esp when it is being spent on destroying it. It really is not rocket science to realise that the more people on this earth, the faster natural resources are depleted. Like, step outside your front door and my side of this debate will be staring you in the face.

Nah, dude, we're talking about the same thing. People can produce way more than they consume, in terms of food and everything else. The perfect display of this is the fact that in America in the last hundred and twenty years or so the amount of farmers compared to the population has decreased from like 50 percent to like 3 percent, but the amount of food available has greatly increased. This has been a result of the technological advances. When I speak of technology I don't mean just Ipods and shit, I mean things that significantly increase quality of life, like medical advances, farming equipment, and factory equipment that lowers production costs and makes everything way more affordable to everybody. Personally I would rather die than be sent back to the stone age, which you talk about like it's no big deal. Back then you had to spend 18 hours a day working JUST to maintain your life. There was really no time for things like making beats, reading, watching movies, choppin it up with friends, playing sports or most of the things that we as people in the 21st century enjoy and often take for granted. When I step out my front door what I see is cars, homes and little kids running around who are healthy, shit that was nonexistent 100 years ago. The belief that we are coming to the end of the limited supply of natural resources is just false. We actually continue to progress and produce more resources to survive on.

 

[The Bastard]

Unborn people do not have rights. You do not have rights until you are a human being. This is the basis for the abortion argument. I am for abortion because I believe the woman has a right to her life, while any unborn baby is not yet a person and does not have rights. If a phetus has rights because it is potentially a human, then can a human be burried alive because it is potentially a corpse? QUOTE]

YUR CRAZY AS SHIT BRO, LOOK AT THIS PIC OF AN ABORTED CHILD, U TELLIN ME THATS NOT A LIFE?

 

[o-a-ksavage]

Ah man that's nasty and lightweight sad but I'm still saying no.

 

[The Bastard]

Ah man that's nasty and lightweight sad but I'm still saying no.

I KNOW ITS OFF TOPIC BUT HOW ISNT THAT A LIFE.IT HAS A HEAD,ARMS,LEGS,A BRAIN,A HEART. THAT BABY COULDA BEEN THE DOCTOR TO DISCOVER THE CURE FOR AIDS, OR THE FIRST ASTRONAUT ON MARS.U SAYIN ITS OK FOR IT TO GET BURNED JUST CUZ IT WOULD BE AN INCONVINIENCE TO ITS MOTHER?

 

[Equality 7-2521]

Unborn people do not have rights. You do not have rights until you are a human being. This is the basis for the abortion argument. I am for abortion because I believe the woman has a right to her life, while any unborn baby is not yet a person and does not have rights. If a phetus has rights because it is potentially a human, then can a human be burried alive because it is potentially a corpse? But the thing is, I do not believe that we are putting future generations in danger. That's what people said at the start of the industrial revolution, and look at the quality of life now compared to then. I believe that the free market solves these problems.

sounds like a good rationalisation so as to assume no responsibilty for those that come after you. rights are given. so whether an unborn child actually has those rights is not the question. its whether we should give the unborn child the right to a healthy life in the first place. i think that as the people who are alive and active, we should take responsibily to assign rights to the next generation for a healthy life and then act upon it to make it so. i reckon this is essential if humans are to exist for longer than it looks like they will.
it seems blatently obvious to me that the lives of future generations are being put in danger. shit is getting more fucked up every day. in mexico, people wear gas masks when they go outside because of the polution. in parts of europe, it rains acid (which is killing the black forest). this doesnt sound like good quality life to me. but yo it looks like we are gonna have to agree to disagree on this one because i think humans and the planet are degrading in health where as you think the opposite so we have kinda reached a dead end. time will tell though.

Nah, dude, we're talking about the same thing. People can produce way more than they consume, in terms of food and everything else. The perfect display of this is the fact that in America in the last hundred and twenty years or so the amount of farmers compared to the population has decreased from like 50 percent to like 3 percent, but the amount of food available has greatly increased. This has been a result of the technological advances. When I speak of technology I don't mean just Ipods and shit, I mean things that significantly increase quality of life, like medical advances, farming equipment, and factory equipment that lowers production costs and makes everything way more affordable to everybody. Personally I would rather die than be sent back to the stone age, which you talk about like it's no big deal. Back then you had to spend 18 hours a day working JUST to maintain your life. There was really no time for things like making beats, reading, watching movies, choppin it up with friends, playing sports or most of the things that we as people in the 21st century enjoy and often take for granted. When I step out my front door what I see is cars, homes and little kids running around who are healthy, shit that was nonexistent 100 years ago. The belief that we are coming to the end of the limited supply of natural resources is just false. We actually continue to progress and produce more resources to survive on.

what im trying to say though, is that we would still have all this technology even if less people were born. if we only have one child per person, that doesnt automatically send us back to the stone age. its just maintanance. im dont want to go back to the stone age (but unlike you, id prefer to live in the stone age than die. not because id prefer anything than dying but because id still happily live my life away untill my time was up), im just suggesting that humans have come far enough for the time being and should think about sustainable development for a bit. there are certain things which we produce more of than we consume......food is one (not counting the starving countries) but thats because we have come up with all kinds of synthetic foods. eventually though, we will be eating so much synthetic food and breathing so much poluted air etc etc, that we will create a super disease which makes people drop like flies and we wont have enough time to invent the cure. fun times.

 

[o-a-ksavage]

but yo it looks like we are gonna have to agree to disagree on this one because i think humans and the planet are degrading in health where as you think the opposite so we have kinda reached a dead end. time will tell though.
.

Good call. This debate has reached a dead end fasho.