|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
 Posted: Mon Aug 31, 2009 10:19 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| OnTheOtherSide wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| OnTheOtherSide wrote: |
I used to care a lot about climate change and trying to stop it.
Now, I think that this world is just NOT going to stop itself from self-destruction and it does not matter what I personally do. So I have pretty much just accepted the idea that disaster is coming to cleanse the Earth of it's human pests. |
This is the exact Malthusian style hatred of humanity (eventually becoming the eugenics movement in the first half of the 20th century) that morphed into environmentalism after WWII.
The environment is important and should be looked after, but most of the ideas that humans are pests that need to be culled or exterminated is based on bunk science and stems from eugenics (we just don't call it that anymore). |
Humans are pests.
We don't have to be, we could live in harmony with the Earth. But we are not. And the human population keeps growing out of control.
Population control is a subject that is offensive to lots of people, because it means limiting the amount of humans on this Earth. But it should be done.
We are out of balance with the rest of the Earth's system because of our modern technology and agricultural techniques. We are playing God on this Earth. It can't last forever. |
I guess you've bought into the lies, hook line and sinker. Humans are not living out of harmony with the earth. You've just been brainwashed into thinking this your whole life, and take it for granted as being true. It isn't. The earth is doing just fine. You Malthusian types have been saying the "end is nigh" for hundreds of years, and you're just as wrong now as you were then.
What you are really advocating is neo-Feudalism. A world without factories or mass production, where we all live in "harmony" with brute nature. What this really means is being a society of serfs, because the only way to accomplish this is by force. This is not a world you or anyone else (except those in charge) would actually enjoy living in.
There are actually people in government (like Obama's Malthusian science czar John Holdren) who have published books advocating forced sterilization (he specifically mentions adding sterilants to the water supply) and a global police force to enforce population control. These people effectively want to cull humanity, and I despise them for it. You seem to be taking the same stance. You might want to reconsider how immoral it is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 31, 2009 10:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"John Holdren, Obama's Science Czar, says: Forced abortions and mass sterilization needed to save the planet"
http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/
This contains actual quoted text from his book Ecoscience.
| Quote: |
| Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society. |
| Quote: |
| One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption�especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society. |
| Quote: |
| Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock. |
| Quote: |
Toward a Planetary Regime
...
Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime�sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.
The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries' shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits. |
| Quote: |
| If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many people have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure in a world where factionalism seems, if anything, to be increasing. The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization. |
Yes, there are eugenicists in the highest levels of government... not a conspiracy theory.
Last edited by visitorq on Mon Aug 31, 2009 10:28 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OnTheOtherSide
Joined: 29 Feb 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 31, 2009 10:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| OnTheOtherSide wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| OnTheOtherSide wrote: |
I used to care a lot about climate change and trying to stop it.
Now, I think that this world is just NOT going to stop itself from self-destruction and it does not matter what I personally do. So I have pretty much just accepted the idea that disaster is coming to cleanse the Earth of it's human pests. |
This is the exact Malthusian style hatred of humanity (eventually becoming the eugenics movement in the first half of the 20th century) that morphed into environmentalism after WWII.
The environment is important and should be looked after, but most of the ideas that humans are pests that need to be culled or exterminated is based on bunk science and stems from eugenics (we just don't call it that anymore). |
Humans are pests.
We don't have to be, we could live in harmony with the Earth. But we are not. And the human population keeps growing out of control.
Population control is a subject that is offensive to lots of people, because it means limiting the amount of humans on this Earth. But it should be done.
We are out of balance with the rest of the Earth's system because of our modern technology and agricultural techniques. We are playing God on this Earth. It can't last forever. |
I guess you've bought into the lies, hook line and sinker. Humans are not living out of harmony with the earth. You've just been brainwashed into thinking this your whole life, and take it for granted as being true. It isn't. The earth is doing just fine. You Malthusian types have been saying the "end is nigh" for hundreds of years, and you're just as wrong now as you were then.
What you are really advocating is neo-Feudalism. A world without factories or mass production, where we all live in "harmony" with brute nature. What this really means is being a society of serfs, because the only way to accomplish this is by force. This is not a world you or anyone else (except those in charge) would actually enjoy living in.
There are actually people in government (like Obama's Malthusian science czar John Holdren) who have published books advocating forced sterilization (he specifically mentions adding sterilants to the water supply) and a global police force to enforce population control. These people effectively want to cull humanity, and I despise them for it. You seem to be taking the same stance. You might want to reconsider how immoral it is. |
I know it's immoral. But it's nature's harsh reality.
Most specie self-limit. For example, if there are too many goats, there will not be enough grass to go around for them to eat and some will starve. Because the grass levels are too low.
Too much grass? Then more goats will thrive. They exist in this sort of co-dependant relationship. EVERY species on this Earth exists in complex relationships with one another like this.
Humans however, have removed themselves fromt his whole system with agricultural techniques that are out of balance withthe food chain. We eat cows, chickens and pigs. So we play God and create lots of those.
Locusts, slugs and beetles eat our food, so we kill them off.
We have stepped out of the food chain completely. And are playing God with it. We started playing God, and became out of balance when we began mass agriculture.
And this doesn't even cover the modern pollution we are causing. That is a whole other layer to this onion.
You are thinking in terms of morals and ethics. I'm thinking in terms of the reality of what WORKS for the Earth's system. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OnTheOtherSide
Joined: 29 Feb 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 31, 2009 10:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
"John Holdren, Obama's Science Czar, says: Forced abortions and mass sterilization needed to save the planet"
http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/
This contains actual quoted text from his book Ecoscience.
| Quote: |
| Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society. |
| Quote: |
| One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption�especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society. |
| Quote: |
| Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock. |
| Quote: |
Toward a Planetary Regime
...
Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime�sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.
The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries' shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits. |
| Quote: |
| If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many people have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure in a world where factionalism seems, if anything, to be increasing. The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization. |
Yes, there are eugenicists in the highest levels of government... not a conspiracy theory. |
Lots of people agree with them. I agree with this for the most part.
Humans, like every other species on Earth need to limit their population.
Are you suggesting that the human population should just grow forever and ever? Do you have any idea how screwed up the environment will be by the time the population levels off? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 31, 2009 10:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| OnTheOtherSide wrote: |
I know it's immoral. But it's nature's harsh reality.
Most specie self-limit. For example, if there are too many goats, there will not be enough grass to go around for them to eat and some will starve. Because the grass levels are too low.
Too much grass? Then more goats will thrive. They exist in this sort of co-dependant relationship. EVERY species on this Earth exists in complex relationships with one another like this.
Humans however, have removed themselves fromt his whole system with agricultural techniques that are out of balance withthe food chain. We eat cows, chickens and pigs. So we play God and create lots of those.
Locusts, slugs and beetles eat our food, so we kill them off.
We have stepped out of the food chain completely. And are playing God with it. We started playing God, and became out of balance when we began mass agriculture.
And this doesn't even cover the modern pollution we are causing. That is a whole other layer to this onion.
You are thinking in terms of morals and ethics. I'm thinking in terms of the reality of what WORKS for the Earth's system. |
You are describing humans as animals that need to be culled. This is a disgusting, and hypocritical position for you to take. If it's so important, then why don't you be the first to do your part, and go blow your brains out? Didn't think so...
Also, you have no science on your side to show that humans have "overpopulated" the earth. It is actually very easy to sustain the current population, and even expand it much more.
Most of the problems have to do with our corrupt government and monetary system (which is a giant ponzi scheme brought on by un-backed, inflationary fiat currency and fractional reserve central banking), which misallocates resources towards the lowest forms of consumerism. It does not follow, however, that humans are too many and need to be killed off.
If you truly believe the eugenicists arguments, then you are nothing but a sadistic, sick person, and a hypocrite. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 31, 2009 10:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| OnTheOtherSide wrote: |
Lots of people agree with them. I agree with this for the most part.
Humans, like every other species on Earth need to limit their population.
Are you suggesting that the human population should just grow forever and ever? Do you have any idea how screwed up the environment will be by the time the population levels off? |
Hypocrite. Go and sterilize yourself first then. Then you can talk to the rest of us.
You are naive enough to think that you will actually be excluded from such plans. The people who actually have any power to implement them (hint: you're not one of them) do not see you as an exception. They want you and your children dead. Ever think about it that way? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 31, 2009 10:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| OnTheOtherSide wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| OnTheOtherSide wrote: |
I used to care a lot about climate change and trying to stop it.
Now, I think that this world is just NOT going to stop itself from self-destruction and it does not matter what I personally do. So I have pretty much just accepted the idea that disaster is coming to cleanse the Earth of it's human pests. |
This is the exact Malthusian style hatred of humanity (eventually becoming the eugenics movement in the first half of the 20th century) that morphed into environmentalism after WWII.
The environment is important and should be looked after, but most of the ideas that humans are pests that need to be culled or exterminated is based on bunk science and stems from eugenics (we just don't call it that anymore). |
Humans are pests.
We don't have to be, we could live in harmony with the Earth. But we are not. And the human population keeps growing out of control. |
No living creature lives in harmony with the Earth. Every species in the world would multiply beyond the point of sustainability if it could succeed. Most species fail to do this because they simply too flawed; they run into some natural obstacle that stops them from expanding further, and that's that. That's not harmony, it's conflict. Humans have more or less won that conflict. That doesn't make us "less harmonious," it just means we're an incredibly capable species.
Honestly, anyone using "nature" and "harmony" in the same sentence needs to watch less Lion King and Bambi and observe the real world. There's nothing harmonious about nature at all. In fact, to be honest, under human stewardship driven by sufficient scientific understanding, the Earth could possibly see more harmony and stability than it ever has at any time in its history.
| OnTheOtherSide wrote: |
| We are out of balance with the rest of the Earth's system because of our modern technology and agricultural techniques. We are playing God on this Earth. It can't last forever. |
Nonsense, the very advantage that allows us to expand unchecked is the advantage that can allow us to overcome even the threat we pose to ourselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OnTheOtherSide
Joined: 29 Feb 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 31, 2009 10:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| OnTheOtherSide wrote: |
I know it's immoral. But it's nature's harsh reality.
Most specie self-limit. For example, if there are too many goats, there will not be enough grass to go around for them to eat and some will starve. Because the grass levels are too low.
Too much grass? Then more goats will thrive. They exist in this sort of co-dependant relationship. EVERY species on this Earth exists in complex relationships with one another like this.
Humans however, have removed themselves fromt his whole system with agricultural techniques that are out of balance withthe food chain. We eat cows, chickens and pigs. So we play God and create lots of those.
Locusts, slugs and beetles eat our food, so we kill them off.
We have stepped out of the food chain completely. And are playing God with it. We started playing God, and became out of balance when we began mass agriculture.
And this doesn't even cover the modern pollution we are causing. That is a whole other layer to this onion.
You are thinking in terms of morals and ethics. I'm thinking in terms of the reality of what WORKS for the Earth's system. |
You are describing humans as animals that need to be culled. This is a disgusting, and hypocritical position for you to take. If it's so important, then why don't you be the first to do your part, and go blow your brains out? Didn't think so...
Also, you have no science on your side to show that humans have "overpopulated" the earth. It is actually very easy to sustain the current population, and even expand it much more.
Most of the problems have to do with our corrupt government and monetary system (which is a giant ponzi scheme brought on by un-backed, inflationary fiat currency and fractional reserve central banking), which misallocates resources towards the lowest forms of consumerism. It does not follow, however, that humans are too many and need to be killed off.
If you truly believe the eugenicists arguments, then you are nothing but a sadistic, sick person, and a hypocrite. |
You are just reacting based on morals and your instinct for human survival. I don't want to die either. But if it has to happen, it has to happen.
There is a lot of science that backs it up. any books and articles and studies have been written.
Forget science, how about common sense? Human population cannot grow indefinitely it's just pure common sense.
Your theory is pushed by people who simply want to continue the current way of life indefinitely. And right now, your theory is the mainstream, accepted one. Just wait. In a few decades the moment of truth will arrive when the population approaches ten billion, IF we even get there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OnTheOtherSide
Joined: 29 Feb 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 31, 2009 10:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| OnTheOtherSide wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| OnTheOtherSide wrote: |
I used to care a lot about climate change and trying to stop it.
Now, I think that this world is just NOT going to stop itself from self-destruction and it does not matter what I personally do. So I have pretty much just accepted the idea that disaster is coming to cleanse the Earth of it's human pests. |
This is the exact Malthusian style hatred of humanity (eventually becoming the eugenics movement in the first half of the 20th century) that morphed into environmentalism after WWII.
The environment is important and should be looked after, but most of the ideas that humans are pests that need to be culled or exterminated is based on bunk science and stems from eugenics (we just don't call it that anymore). |
Humans are pests.
We don't have to be, we could live in harmony with the Earth. But we are not. And the human population keeps growing out of control. |
No living creature lives in harmony with the Earth. Every species in the world would multiply beyond the point of sustainability if it could succeed. Most species fail to do this because they simply too flawed; they run into some natural obstacle that stops them from expanding further, and that's that. That's not harmony, it's conflict. Humans have more or less won that conflict. That doesn't make us "less harmonious," it just means we're an incredibly capable species.
Honestly, anyone using "nature" and "harmony" in the same sentence needs to watch less Lion King and Bambi and observe the real world. There's nothing harmonious about nature at all. In fact, to be honest, under human stewardship driven by sufficient scientific understanding, the Earth could possibly see more harmony and stability than it ever has at any time in its history.
| OnTheOtherSide wrote: |
| We are out of balance with the rest of the Earth's system because of our modern technology and agricultural techniques. We are playing God on this Earth. It can't last forever. |
Nonsense, the very advantage that allows us to expand unchecked is the advantage that can allow us to overcome even the threat we pose to ourselves. |
I am not going to argue this. I've spoken my piece. Time will be the judge. There is nothing we have right now that can save us from the threat we pose to ourselves. But there are new diseases being created right now that will one day be unleashed on the public..... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 31, 2009 10:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| OnTheOtherSide wrote: |
| Most specie self-limit. For example, if there are too many goats, there will not be enough grass to go around for them to eat and some will starve. Because the grass levels are too low. |
Humans do this too. If there aren't enough food and resources for all the humans, the population will plummet.
| OnTheOtherSide wrote: |
| Too much grass? Then more goats will thrive. |
And right now, there's clearly "enough grass" for the human population to thrive, because said population keeps going up.
| OnTheOtherSide wrote: |
| Humans however, have removed themselves fromt his whole system with agricultural techniques that are out of balance withthe food chain. |
Humans haven't removed themselves from this system. There is finite possible food the Earth can produce for humans. When that point is reached, people will starve. The limit being higher doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
You keep saying "Playing God" again and again and again, but that's just silly. What does playing God even mean? Humans aren't doing anything supernatural, they're just using their natural capabilities to compete in the world. Every species will do anything in its power to expand as far as possible, there's nothing unnatural about it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 31, 2009 10:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| OnTheOtherSide wrote: |
| I am not going to argue this. I've spoken my piece. Time will be the judge. There is nothing we have right now that can save us from the threat we pose to ourselves. But there are new diseases being created right now that will one day be unleashed on the public..... |
Well, given your grim view of humanity, that should make you quite happy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OnTheOtherSide
Joined: 29 Feb 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 31, 2009 10:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| OnTheOtherSide wrote: |
| Most specie self-limit. For example, if there are too many goats, there will not be enough grass to go around for them to eat and some will starve. Because the grass levels are too low. |
Humans do this too. If there aren't enough food and resources for all the humans, the population will plummet.
| OnTheOtherSide wrote: |
| Too much grass? Then more goats will thrive. |
And right now, there's clearly "enough grass" for the human population to thrive, because said population keeps going up.
| OnTheOtherSide wrote: |
| Humans however, have removed themselves fromt his whole system with agricultural techniques that are out of balance withthe food chain. |
Humans haven't removed themselves from this system. There is finite possible food the Earth can produce for humans. When that point is reached, people will starve. The limit being higher doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
You keep saying "Playing God" again and again and again, but that's just silly. What does playing God even mean? Humans aren't doing anything supernatural, they're just using their natural capabilities to compete in the world. Every species will do anything in its power to expand as far as possible, there's nothing unnatural about it. |
What you are failing to acknowledge is that our system of agriculture drives other species into extinction and consumes land. Other species USE the land and leave the balance in tact, humans TAKE OVER the land and ruin it for all other species. That's the key difference.
Humans are in a class by themselves because they till the land, conduct agriculture on it and control each on every creature on that plot of land. Only plants we can use are planted and all others are chopped down and tilled under. Foriegn species that eat OUR food are killed through pesticides and other means.
This system has been working. But it's like a runaway train that has not quite crashed yet. The crash will come innevitably.
You mst be blind if you cannot see the environmental destruction going on right now.
Last edited by OnTheOtherSide on Mon Aug 31, 2009 10:54 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OnTheOtherSide
Joined: 29 Feb 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 31, 2009 10:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| OnTheOtherSide wrote: |
| I am not going to argue this. I've spoken my piece. Time will be the judge. There is nothing we have right now that can save us from the threat we pose to ourselves. But there are new diseases being created right now that will one day be unleashed on the public..... |
Well, given your grim view of humanity, that should make you quite happy. |
Most people just want to pacify themselves with a warm and fuzzy feeling of optimism. I like to face the facts instead. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 31, 2009 10:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| OnTheOtherSide wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| OnTheOtherSide wrote: |
I know it's immoral. But it's nature's harsh reality.
Most specie self-limit. For example, if there are too many goats, there will not be enough grass to go around for them to eat and some will starve. Because the grass levels are too low.
Too much grass? Then more goats will thrive. They exist in this sort of co-dependant relationship. EVERY species on this Earth exists in complex relationships with one another like this.
Humans however, have removed themselves fromt his whole system with agricultural techniques that are out of balance withthe food chain. We eat cows, chickens and pigs. So we play God and create lots of those.
Locusts, slugs and beetles eat our food, so we kill them off.
We have stepped out of the food chain completely. And are playing God with it. We started playing God, and became out of balance when we began mass agriculture.
And this doesn't even cover the modern pollution we are causing. That is a whole other layer to this onion.
You are thinking in terms of morals and ethics. I'm thinking in terms of the reality of what WORKS for the Earth's system. |
You are describing humans as animals that need to be culled. This is a disgusting, and hypocritical position for you to take. If it's so important, then why don't you be the first to do your part, and go blow your brains out? Didn't think so...
Also, you have no science on your side to show that humans have "overpopulated" the earth. It is actually very easy to sustain the current population, and even expand it much more.
Most of the problems have to do with our corrupt government and monetary system (which is a giant ponzi scheme brought on by un-backed, inflationary fiat currency and fractional reserve central banking), which misallocates resources towards the lowest forms of consumerism. It does not follow, however, that humans are too many and need to be killed off.
If you truly believe the eugenicists arguments, then you are nothing but a sadistic, sick person, and a hypocrite. |
You are just reacting based on morals and your instinct for human survival. I don't want to die either. But if it has to happen, it has to happen. |
Talk about a non sequitur... it doesn't have to happen! Obviously, that's the point.
| Quote: |
| There is a lot of science that backs it up. any books and articles and studies have been written. |
Give examples, or I'm going to assume you've got nothing. I already know most of it is funded by Rockefeller foundations and think tanks. These people are the largest funders of eugenics in history (including Nazi Germany, which was very much influenced by forced sterilizations carried out in the USA). All of this bunk pseudo-science is easily refuted.
| Quote: |
| Forget science, how about common sense? Human population cannot grow indefinitely it's just pure common sense. |
Yes, common sense. Malthus would've said 1billion people was the end of the world, based on his idea of common sense. Mine is that as technology improves, so does our ability to support ourselves. As live improves, birth rates tend to stabilize and drop on their own (in the West they are actually falling). This is the opposite of decreasing our standards of living, while forceably sterilizing people like animals.
| Quote: |
| Your theory is pushed by people who simply want to continue the current way of life indefinitely. And right now, your theory is the mainstream, accepted one. Just wait. In a few decades the moment of truth will arrive when the population approaches ten billion, IF we even get there. |
It's foolish to use the word "indefinitely", but there is not reason why it shouldn't continue for the foreseeable future. Your idea of neo-Feudalism is the most barbaric I can think of. You are advocating an absolute nightmare, and justifying it with nothing except your callous disregard for human life. There is no impending peril from overpopulation, and you have no facts on your side.
Last edited by visitorq on Mon Aug 31, 2009 10:57 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 31, 2009 10:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| OnTheOtherSide wrote: |
| What you are failing to acknowledge is that our system of agriculture drives other species into extinction and consumes land. Other species USE the land and leave the balance in tact, humans TAKE OVER the land and ruin it for all other species. That's the key difference. |
It's not a key difference at all. Any species would drive any other number of species into extinction if it could do so and doing so would benefit it. That's not playing god, it's totally natural. There's no altruism in nature; even human environmentalism at its core is about humans, because we benefit from a world with other species in it.
All you're pointing out is that humans are more capable than other species. There's nothing unnatural about that, and it's not playing god. It's just plain old natural competition.
| OnTheOtherSide wrote: |
| This system has been working. But it's like a runaway train that has not quite crashed yet. The crash will come innevitably. |
And if it does, it will be exactly the same as when the goats run out of grass. They over-grazed, and over-reproduced, and a backlash occurs as a result.
Your attempt to condemn anything humans do as unnatural is simply in error. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
