Is it time to reevaluate our approach to "human rights?"

[even_sven]

@msmith537

They also don’t practice a lot of birth control. That is more of a factor than any conscious desire to have lots of kids because it makes good economic sense. That’s a lot of economic thinking for someone who lives in a mud hut.

Have you done a lot of household surveys on the reproductive decision making among people who live in mud huts? There is tons of literature on how families determine their optimal family size, and it is indeed a complex decision rooted in practical economics. Do you really think the poor are exempt from the basic laws of economic choice?

While there is some global “unmet need” for contraception, in most cases a couple’s target family size lines up pretty well with their actual family size, and contraception is more often used as a tool to space and time births rather than as a means to reduce total fertility rate.

[Farmer_Jane]

And yet they can’t often feed themselves or provide adequate health care, shelter, education and the like.

[dngnb8]

FESTIVAL!!!

@Mosier

Better hope your own ideas about who to kill prevail, and not someone else’s!

Exactly

It is always a good idea when someone else is a victim. Or if you would gladly volunteer yourself, what if they target your wife, child, etc.

[Boyo_Jim]

I think it’s very interesting that we are discussing mass killing under the banner of “human rights”.

[Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus]

@MrDibble

Oh, those (rich, white people) weren’t the people you were thinking of eliminating? Fancy that…

Consider an impoverished family of 12 and a wealthy family of 3; each consumes the same amount of resources overall but the latter family obviously enjoys a substantially more comfortable existence. Purely on an environmental basis, do you assert that the poor family is somehow more virtuous, noble, or laudable?

[Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus]

@Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus

Consider an impoverished family of 12 and a wealthy family of 3; each consumes the same amount of resources overall but the latter family obviously enjoys a substantially more comfortable existence. Purely on an environmental basis, do you assert that the poor family is somehow more virtuous, noble, or laudable?

ETA: I think the chief difficulty in advocating family planning services internationally is the widely held belief that to be poor and numerous somehow is a noble objective from which it would be wrong to hinder anyone.

[Boyo_Jim]

@Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus

Consider an impoverished family of 12 and a wealthy family of 3; each consumes the same amount of resources overall but the latter family obviously enjoys a substantially more comfortable existence. Purely on an environmental basis, do you assert that the poor family is somehow more virtuous, noble, or laudable?

IMO, we kill off the rich first because they have nicer stuff that the rest of us can split up.

[MrDibble]

@Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus

Consider an impoverished family of 12 and a wealthy family of 3; each consumes the same amount of resources overall but the latter family obviously enjoys a substantially more comfortable existence. Purely on an environmental basis, do you assert that the poor family is somehow more virtuous, noble, or laudable?

The ratio from poorest to wealthiest isn’t 1 to 4 - it’s 1 to 9. So 300 million Americans = 2.1 billion Sierra Leoneans, and there just aren’t that many sub-1 footprinters in the world.

And no, I’ve said nothing about any virtue or nobility, just took the OP’s stated reason at face value.

[MrDibble]

Whoops, that should be 2.7 billion not 2.1 billion, sorry

[Farmer_Jane]

Seriously, guys? Let’s start nuking. The environmental fallout will be worth it. Those who are dead won’t be using up resources.

Unfortunately, we can’t nuke the shit out of China.

[Der_Trihs]

@Farmer_Jane

Unfortunately, we can’t nuke the shit out of China.

Sure we can; they’ll nuke us in return, but if the goal is global population reduction that just means we need to kill fewer Americans ourselves.

[Inigo_Montoya]

@Boyo_Jim

I think it’s very interesting that we are discussing mass killing under the banner of “human rights”.

It’s easier if you channel your inner Vulcan: The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

[LonesomePolecat]

@John_Mace

How many people do you propose to kill, and can you clarify the selection process? Also, is this something that is run on the honor system, by country, or do we get the UN involved. Or maybe the US takes the lead and forces other countries to comply? Better yet, we might turn it over to the Germans. They have historically shown themselves to have a certain proficiency in such matters.

Best to turn it over to the communists. They have repeatedly shown themselves to be the indisputable masters of mass slaughter.

[LonesomePolecat]

@Esox_Lucius

I think that all boils down to economics, which will force us to “cull” the population (by eliminating support for fringe groups) before there’s any need for mass killings. “Human rights” is a luxury that only affluent states can afford.

I think we should just rely on good old-fashioned war, famine and plague.

What can I say? I have a weakness for the classics.

[Inigo_Montoya]

@LonesomePolecat

I think we should just rely on good old-fashioned war, famine and plague.

Glib, but why not? These were, no doubt, our original population controls anyway.

[foolsguinea]

@Mosier

The people you want to kill in order to make the world a better place are different from the people others would want to kill in order to make the world a better place.

Better hope your own ideas about who to kill prevail, and not someone else’s!

Get the death toll high enough, and it may not matter so much who’s killing whom. It may be easier to foment internecine open warfare on class and religious lines than to remake the billions of humans in a green mold.

[Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus]

@MrDibble

The ratio from poorest to wealthiest isn’t 1 to 4 - it’s 1 to 9. So 300 million Americans = 2.1 billion Sierra Leoneans, and there just aren’t that many sub-1 footprinters in the world.

Is that 1:9::average Sierra Leonean:average American, or some other comparison, e.g. poorest in either place, or richest, or the outlier either way?

[Esox_Lucius]

@LonesomePolecat

I think we should just rely on good old-fashioned war, famine and plague.

What can I say? I have a weakness for the classics.

Those are inevitable outcomes when there’s a severe shortage of resources, so I’m sure your weakness would be indulged.

@Inigo_Montoya

Glib, but why not? These were, no doubt, our original population controls anyway.

And the reason they don’t control the population now is that we have the economic means to overcome them. Take away a government’s ability to support high-level health care and a human rights infrastructure that protects the disadvantaged, and we’ll return to the good old days.

[MrDibble]

@Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus

Is that 1:9::average Sierra Leonean:average American, or some other comparison, e.g. poorest in either place, or richest, or the outlier either way?

Averages, as per that graph. I’m sure it’s much, much worse for richest : poorest