Because they are giving you the benefit of the doubt that you might be sane.
What makes you assume they will just up and die? Maybe they will just go and rob people who have food? Maybe they will hijack airplaces and crash them into government buildings and landmarks.
As other people pointed out, the moral solution is to not have 20 children in the first place. Once they are here, someone, like it or not, has to deal with them.
I guess it all depends upon your definition of overpopulated, doesn’t it?
Correcting someone’s misinformed belief is part of dispelling ignorance, is it not? Being as natural selection does in fact determine who lives and who dies, there was nothing smart-assed at all in saying that it does. Unlike, say, insinuating that someone was deliberately posting inflammatory comments merely to get a rise out of others when all they did was answer a poll with an opinion that differs from yours.
Also, I still fail to see how allowing a natural process to occur is amoral. Natural process is, to me, the epitome of morality. Just because we can keep brain dead people alive, we’re “morally” obligated to? What’s next, are you going to tell me about the “sanctity of life?”
I would be interested in seeing that evidence.
I’ve never believed that it would reach that point, but rather use it as an example when people on an obviously overpopulated planet point to how much open space there is as justification that the world isn’t overpopulated.
Where is this surplus supply of food that wouldn’t need to be taken away from people with to feed those without?
Why ? Nothing is more amoral than natural. Viruses aren’t out to get you, your immune system doesn’t care about you, and flowers don’t care if you find them pretty; it’s all genetic programming, not a matter of choice. Without choice, there is no morality, therefore nature is amoral.
[QUOTE=msmith537]
Because they are giving you the benefit of the doubt that you might be sane.
Being pragmatic is hardly a reason to question someone’s sanity.
Now you’re just appealing to my anarchistic side, but that’s neither here nor there. If they survive long enough to reach a point in life where they’re capable of doing those things, what’s to stop them from doing it regardless?
What if there is someone who wants to support them, such as a family member? Then what? This is what I mean when I say that our human nature gets in the way. My mistake was to say that humans have rational thought. The problem is that humans are irrational. It would be rational to kill off people who are a burden to society. The problem is, humans do not operate on what is rational. Morals may not be rational, but they are a fact of life. People behave based on what they think is right or wrong, not just on what is best for them, personally.
The problem with your argument is that it is not a simple matter precisely because of morals, which exist and are part of the human condition whether you like it or not.
It is the farthest thing from ridiculous. The fact that natural selection is no longer a significant factor in which homo sapiens live or die shows that we have lifted ourselves above the laws of nature.
What tomndebb said.
By that argument, it would be better to say that nature is beyond the ken of the trappings of morality altogether.
This is exactly why morality should not be a part of the issue. Specifically because everyone out there has someone they would choose to protect and sustain, and that is what got us to where we are now. With morality removed, there could be no favoritism or unjust benefit to the wealthy, etc.
That it is a simple matter made more difficult by morals is precisely my argument, yes. I disagree, however, at the implication that the human mind is incapable of separating reality for morality.
Arrogance in its purest form.
It is everywhere. Plain waste and abandoned for is evident everywhere in the U.S. The poor in the U.S. certainly don’t go hungry unless there is something else going on. On a more macro level, just the U.S. sometimes produces huge grain surpluses and other crops as well. The government often buys it up to prop the farmers up and keep the market from collapsing. Then they try to figure out what to do with it. You ever see wheels of government cheese they give out? That isn’t simply to help people eat. That is a way to eat up some of the dairy supply.
The food supply simply isn’t an issue here or in many other countries. We could produce more if we wanted to very easily. However, that creates an economic problem because the people that need the food don’t have any money to pay the farmers here to make it. It isn’t all that popular for the U.S. government to start buying it up and airdropping it in every poor countries of the world. It wouldn’t get in the right hands anyway and could produce some undesirable side effects (stray cat syndrome).
We have extra food now and we could certainly make more without taking a crumb away from anybody that has it now. However, it isn’t that simple. That is why he said it was a distribution problem because it is true.
Reduced, perhaps, but certainly not eliminated. There will always be a percentage of the population deemed deviant or “criminal”, if you will.Every society has crime, however the *definition *of crime may vary widely.
Let’s just put that percentage of deviants at 10% for shits and giggles. If 99% of the world’s population would die off tomorrow, 10% of the remainder would still be criminals.
Furthermore, the population of the planet was considerably less four hundred years ago, but there was still plenty of murder, theivery, and rape.
Whatever gave you the idea that smaller populations are more equitable? As I said above, the population of Europe was considerably less four or five hundred years ago, but it was incredibly inequitable. Dukes with diamonds sewn on their clothes rode fat horses past starving peasants. Kings ate off of gold plates while the poor had nothing at all to put in their wooden bowls.
Perhaps, but from what I’ve read most people in this thread seem to agree that it is immoral to allow the “unfit” to die when we have the technology to give them long and happy lives. I think that most would probably agree that forced birth control would be considered immoral. Pretty much, that settles it. Barring dropping bombs on random locations, there’s no way of otherwise controlling the population.
Again, though, does that preclude preventive medicine? Must I hope that my child is fit enough to fight off any polio bugs in the public pool, or am I allowed to innoculate him/her? Isn’t that “cheating?”
At what frequency? I didn’t inherit my mother’s deformed pelvis. I know personally two mentally-handicapped people who married and had a perfectly healthy infant. Malformities or handicaps are not always inheritable, and even ones which are aren’t certain to appear in the offspring. There’s a higher likelihood, but it’s not a certainty.
If you’re going to use this as an argument for the reason why we should control the population, please provide concrete data that 1) there is a known and demonstratable problem with people passing on their genetic weaknesses, and 2) that it’s so pervasive that it’s weakening the human population as a whole. (How many healthy people have to breed to “cancel out” one genetically inferior child in the pool?)
How is it wasting resources? If my husband is a vegetable and I choose to pay for his health care, how is that harming you? That money gets circulated back into the economy. My husband may be given some experimental treatments which could change his condition, leading to the advancement of science as a whole. (Perhaps one of the treaments shows a potential in helping paralyzed people, too.)
I also have to ask: how much do* you*, as a walking, breathing and consuming person, contribute to society? Just as a basis of comparison, you see. Let’s say you’re an Average Joe who earns the median income of $40,000 a year. If you get into a horrible car accident and have no insurance, what’s society’s incentive in using tax dollars to treat you? If your contribution to society amounts basically to paying your taxes, it’s not really worth it, is it? We’ll probably spend more money patching you up than you’ll contribute to the public kitty in your lifetime, especially if you’re no longer able to work. So, if it’s only a numbers game, you’re not really worth it.
If you worked as a teacher, or as a scientist, would that bump up your worth over if you just stapled papers in an office? What about if you were a movie star or an athelete? (Should we invest more in the athelete who is apparently genetically superior to the rest of us?) What about if you’re a person with a high IQ, versus someone who’s just an Average Joe who wouldn’t get very far on Jeopardy? Would charity work add value? What about race? Criminal record? Attractiveness? (What about genetically superior people who are as ugly as a baboon’s ass?)
Stephen Hawking has been mentioned several times. He’s a great example. He’s worked on some of the most complex ideas in science and physics known to man from his mechanized wheelchair. Genetically, I guess you could say he’s worthless, but his mind is priceless. He cannot move much more than his eyes, yet he’s one of the most brilliant people of our age. So, please answer the question that others have asked: should he be left to die?
Lastly, and most imporantly, who is in charge of deciding whether someone is fit to reproduce or live, and upon what criteria should this be based?
Saying that morality “should not” be part of the issue is pointless, because human nature MAKES it part of the issue. Morality is part of human nature and the human condition. It cannot be separated out because some people believe it “should” be.
Again, the human mind can concieve of many things that are impossible to implement in reality.
Humans have, through natural selection, evolved a large brain. This brain has allowed the weakest among us physically to survive…those who otherwise nature would have killed off. Call it arrogant if you want, but it is a fact.
If eliminating crime and deviant behavior were the only reason to reduce the population, you’d have a fair argument against the practice, but it isn’t. Besides, while statistically speaking 10% would remain criminals, there would still be 99% less criminals to worry about than there were before.
Smaller populations have the capacity to be more equitable because what might be great, sweeping, impossible changes now would be much more manageable. If the leadership is corrupt, that’s a different matter entirely.
Which is why, as I’ve stated already, morality has no place in the discussion.
If I ruled the world, innoculations would be allowed.
Inheritability would be a moot point if the disability or deformation were enough to prevent them from surviving long enough to procreate. If they’re able to overcome their particular handicap, more power to them.
It’s been a while since high school biology class, but isn’t it common knowledge that genetic predispositions are passed along to ones progeny?
Well, the machines that are keeping him breathing use electricity that could be used elsewhere. The food that nourishes him could be used elsewhere. The time and effort that whatever number of doctors and nurses put in to ensure his survival could be used elsewhere.
Arguing that his condition might lead to a scientific breakthrough that would be unnecessary is futile.
Again, why is the threat that I might not survive under these conditions supposed to scare me out of my belief? I’m a pragmatist and a realist. If I cannot survive on my own, then I don’t survive. I have no more a right to live than anyone else does.
Maybe you could write his eulogy.
Isn’t it obvious? Nature.
No, your nature makes morality a part of it. Some people are willing and able to differentiate between what is “right” and what is “proper”.
We’ll have to agree to disagree on that because, frankly, I have no problems at all in separating the two.
Survival is not arrogant. Presuming to be above the laws of nature is.
Because they have moral compunctions, and have no reason to do so. Removing those compunctions and giving them a reason would be foolish.
Below, not beyond. It’s too mindless, too stupid and unaware to be moral.
:dubious: That’s a . . . bizarre statement. Morality is the only check on such favoritism; without it, there would be nothing but favoritism.
Actually, I wouldn’t call him genetically worthless; I’m sure much of his brilliance is genetic. The problem is, natural selection always throws the baby out with the bathwater. It’s a blunt instrument; it doesn’t care about his brilliance, just about that one defect.
Well, we have been attempting to dispell several of your examples of ignorance:
On the other hand, you seem to be resisting the corrections offered.
But their impact would still be the same.
Look at little communities who suddenly have a string of robberies. The whole town goes nuts, usually blaming an influx of [insert minorty group here] and freaking out about how nowhere is safe “these days.” The true cost of crime is not felt only by the victim, but by the community at large.
Secondly, you’d have a smaller “tax base” on which to support criminal justice. The penalties for crimes would have to be harsher and more immediate, meaning the chances for injustice are substantially raised.
Ever read any of those apocalypse novels? They’re quite interesting. One of the aspects that most of them have in common is a complete breakdown of law and order. Roving gangs rampage and loot across the land, raping and killing anyone not well-armed and strong enough to defend against them. I’d guess that such a scenario is likely, and if my guess is right, that’s a hell of a worse crime problem than we have today.
Sweetie, leadership is almost always corrupt. The king/leader/chief always gets the largest share of resources (disproportionate to his actual needs) which he doles out to his cronies. The lowest guy in the rankings always gets screwed. It’s a funamental fact of human nature. Wealth=status=power=corruption. Hell, you even see it in chimp societies.
There have been a notable few societies which have been more egaltarian than others, but they tended to get their asses kicked when the barbarians invaded. (Power requires enforcement thereof, meaning you have trained fighters on hand.) But you gotta realize that Western ideals of possession and greed have become so incredibly pervasive around the world that it’s unlikely survivors of a wave of human die-offs would form into to Happy Hippy Communist Communes.
I don’t think you get what I’m saying. How can morality not be part of the discussion when the only possible “solutions” to the problem are inherently morally repugnant to many people?
You realize that the number of people who are completely unable to care for themselves is very, very small in comparison to our overall population, don’t you? So small that it won’t make a dent in our population if we threw them out to die like dogs. (And they won’t be reproducing much, either.)
So, what’s the point, again?
Right now, I have two lamps burning in my bedroom, and no one is in there. I’m wasting electricity willy-nilly. (As an American, it’s my God-given right to waste things.) Seems like targeting people like me would be a better way to save electricity resources than pulling the plug on a relatively small number of comatose patients.
Dude, have you seen the shit that they feed to comatose people? It’s so vile, you’d have to be comatose to consume it. There is no other “use” for that food than using it as compost.
Have you seen how many people entered med school last year? We’re not facing a shortage of them. Secondly, most comatose people live in nursing homes, not hospitals, which have their own funding.
You don’t know much about medical research. See, a development or a new understanding of how the body works is not applied just to one single ailment. Doctors researching cancer may learn something from research into gingivitis, for example. You never know where a discovery might lead.
That’s incredibly big of you. Can I take it, then, that you currently have a living will refusing all lifesaving medical intervention? If tomorrow, you fell down the stairs and broke your neck, you would insist you be left alone? Quite noble of you to put your money where your mouth is. I commend you. Here’s hoping that appendix holds out.
If you’re not, may I ask why? Are you waiting for everyone else to do it first?
You did not answer my question: in your scenario, would an injured person be left to bleed to death or die of infection from lack of medical intervention?
Sheesh, that was sort of nasty. It didn’t answer the question, either.
Okay, spell it out for the rest of us who aren’t so clever:
Would you leave an injured person to die under your scenario?
Should Stephen Hawking be dumped out of his chair onto the floor and left to perish?
Perhaps we developed such large brains and the ability to communicate so we could talk the other members of the clan out of killing us when we broke a leg. 
Not “proper”-- I think you mean “pragmatic.” I agree, of course, that there are times when we must steel our hearts and gird our loins against sympathy in order to do what is right, but this isn’t one of them. I’ve pointed out why weeding out the “unfits” wouldn’t make much of a dent in our population, and others have pointed out that the “problem” is virtually non-existant. Drastic circumstances call for drastic measures, but compared with the other, very real problems facing our planet, like global warming, this is a fart in the wind.
Overpopulation is a problem. Overfarming the land we grow our food on is a problem. Knocking down too many ecosystems is a problem. If you do not think that these are problems, then that is because you are part of the problem.
We’ll start having trouble growing enough food for our massive population soon enough.
The United States is not overpopulated. I recall from reading Business 2.0’s real estate issue that somewhere around 95 percent of our land is undeveloped, so plainly we’re not squeezing each other out. The problems that people tend to attribute to overpopulation (urban sprawl, traffic, pollution, environmental destruction, and the flat-out ugliness of the suburbs) can all be attributed to poor urban planning. If you went back a few decades, you’d find that the laws concerning urban development in many cities were utterly absurd, such that they actually encouraged flight to the suburbs and wasted space in the interiors. Oftentimes the laws of a particular city made construction nearly impossible, while surrounding suburbs (which were officially different cities) had almost no regulations at all. The result of this is ugly subdivisions, long commutes, traffic, and pollution.
Luckily, the trend has started to reverse in recent years. The experience of New York City shows that it is possible for a city government to tackle inner city crime, get the downtown area cleaned up, restart economic growth, and attract people back to the true urban areas. Other cities are now starting to follow suit.
Neither have you offered any evidence to support your claims. It comes down to the simple fact that overpopulation is a subjective term and we have differing opinions. Having an opinion is not ignorant, and if I were presented with reliable evidence to the contrary of my personal opinions I would adjust them accordingly.
I also disagree that humans are moral by nature and believe that morality can be removed from the discussion. This too is an opinion we differ on that cannot be proven, thus, I’m no more ignorant on the matter than you are.
Natural selection also has nothing to do with how much money I make, the price of fuel in Chattanooga, or the color of my grandmother’s hair. What’s your point relevent to the discussion?
All I resist is your opinion framed as fact because it’s yours.