World over population and Eugenics, I not a nazi.

[bush_cheney2004]

Really? You think to impress people here with such arcane knowledge as the exponential function? Seriously?

Be gentle....perhaps he was never exposed to e^x or natural logarithm earlier in life.

YouTube to the rescue!

[wyly]

I would argue that you have a right to have children, and would further argue that if you are going to have overt population control that you ought to be able to have two living children (as it takes two to make one). Not so sure I am a big fan of it though.

two kids per family is not enough to sustain a population, ZPG depending on the country requires a birth rate of 2.1 to 3 births to sustain population growth....China's birth rate is 1.5, Canada's birth rate is also 1.5, if it not for immigration our numbers would decline...

Why would reducing the occurence of good people being sidelined by horrible genetic conditions possibly be bad for the human race? That is assuming that those genetic conditions serve some kind of purpose, which I am sure they do not.

it's not an issue regardless as long as the birth rate remains below replacement the genetically weak have no effect...

the entire key to world population growth is education, and easy access to birth control for women...educated people understand to achieve a comfortable life you need to limit family size...

[Oleg Bach]

The key is to fully understand that the most rich and powerful and the most educated of our leaders are no more up on the subject of human survial and good quality of life - than some peasant pooping in a hole in the ground in a grass hut - The so-called prosperious and powerful think they are superiour..Have you ever thought that your ambtion and supposed superiority was gained through harming others

[Oleg Bach]

Altering the human race it bad - we make mistakes.

[CitizenX]

the entire key to world population growth is education, and easy access to birth control for women...educated people understand to achieve a comfortable life you need to limit family size...

How much of this is due to Christian views on contraception, and their work in the third world?

Bonam: Really? You think to impress people here with such arcane knowledge as the exponential function? Seriously?

I simply put up a video related to the subject that thought people might find of some interesting. If you have a problem with the content then criticize or critique it.

Edited August 7, 2011 by CitizenX

[wyly]

How much of this is due to Christian views on contraception, and their work in the third world?

the christians are a problem because they entrench this belief in religion among the superstitious uneducated poor....but it's also present in non christian cultures I would think it's easier to fix those situations as it's generally not part of a religious doctrine, education birth control would be an effective measure where religion is not a factor...

either way the problem will correct it self there will come a time when it becomes impossible to feed those who ignore population control...

[Oleg Bach]

the christians are a problem because they entrench this belief in religion among the superstitious uneducated poor....but it's also present in non christian cultures I would think it's easier to fix those situations as it's generally not part of a religious doctrine, education birth control would be an effective measure where religion is not a factor...

either way the problem will correct it self there will come a time when it becomes impossible to feed those who ignore population control...

The Vaitcan and their international matieral interests would disappear in a year if suffering and poverty suddenly disappeared - they enjoy being "kind" to the poor - but have no plan to get rid of poverty and suffering.

[Pliny]

I knew the topic title would make some eye balls to bulge out. But before you think I'm some sort of weirdo Nazi, thoughtless freak hear me out. This is a two part question that are not really related directly.

You are obviously a left wing liberal how could any one confuse you as some sort of weirdo Nazi?

After all weirdo Nazis supported the "science" of Eugenics and euthanasia....what's that? You do support genetic engineering and euthanasia?

Question 1: I believe that almost every problem that the world faces is directly linked to overpopulation.

Pollution, Over consumption of natural resources, Global warming, ect.. My question is as a

global community do we have a responsibility to organize for some system of population control.

Do you have a right to have as many children as you want, an example is the Duggar Family 19

kids and counting (freaks)?

History repeats itself. Overpopulation was considered a problem in Roman times as well and has been a concern of some people since then.

The problem is not overpopulation.

But let me guess, you support all the right laws that anyone, mostly politicians, can dream up to bring it under control.

Question 2: This one might get me called heartless. I direct this question to the people that believe in

evolution. My question is do you think that helping to cure genetic diseases is detrimental to

the human race? Over time will this make us weaker as a species. I'm sure in the future that

these genetic disease problems might be solved before reproduction. I'm not an expert on

this subject, and I'm not a heartless bastard just curious.

Let me ask you a few questions. Do you think that there are certain undesirables in the population? What's a genetic disease, having five fingers on each hand? Obviously, you believe in evolution but any evolutionary divergence of the species could be confused as a genetic disease if you assumed your point of view to attempt to eliminate "genetic diseases".

A good project for you would be to try and figure out how the human population can quit eating and excreting. That would be the perfect solution to overpopulation, wouldn't it? We would simply have the singular problem of how to pile ourselves up higher and higher when we run out of horizontal space.

Essentially, the problems of living are about continuing our existence not about how to contain or curtail it. Once we start planning that, we can only hope our stupidity and inefficacy will prevent us from totally wiping ourselves out.

Edited August 18, 2011 by Pliny

[CitizenX]

You are obviously a left wing liberal how could any one confuse you as some sort of weirdo Nazi?

After all weirdo Nazis supported the "science" of Eugenics and euthanasia....what's that? You do support genetic engineering and euthanasia?

Yes I'm for genetic engineering and euthanasia. I follow logic and reason, not the words of some spaghetti monster in the sky. Let me ask you, if bad people use science in a immoral way does that make the science immoral?

History repeats itself. Overpopulation was considered a problem in Roman times as well and has been a concern of some people since then.

The problem is not overpopulation.

If overpopulation isn't the problem what is? I realize that especially in North America over consumption is a problem.

But let me guess, you support all the right laws that anyone, mostly politicians, can dream up to bring it under control.

No absolutely not. But like all problems that effect the world as a whole, it must be solved internationally.

Let me ask you a few questions. Do you think that there are certain undesirables in the population? What's a genetic disease, having five fingers on each hand? Obviously, you believe in evolution but any evolutionary divergence of the species could be confused as a genetic disease if you assumed your point of view to attempt to eliminate "genetic diseases".

I think that all though all precautions were taken on my part, that you have confused what I have said or asked. Please re-read my statement and question.

[dre]

You missed my point. We don't live in caves. Everyone who needs glasses is able to get them. Needing glasses is no longer a weakness that we need to worry about. It should not even be called a weakness.

Here is another example: diabetes is a disease today but in the past people with the dietary tendencies that lead to diabetes had an advantage: http://healthblog.ncpa.org/blame-evolution-for-diabetes/

If short: you are wrong to class traits as weaknesses simply because they require technology to compensate. Technology is an inseperable part of our environment today.

You missed my point. We don't live in caves. Everyone who needs glasses is able to get them. Needing glasses is no longer a weakness that we need to worry about. It should not even be called a weakness.

Thats a poor example because its only true from your perspective. The reality is that roughly 2 billion humans do not have access to visual aids that would help them lead happier and more productive lives. An easy majority of those with impaired vision. Access to visual aids in the developing world is rare and expensive.

[Pliny]

Yes I'm for genetic engineering and euthanasia. I follow logic and reason, not the words of some spaghetti monster in the sky.

So who should be euthanized first? People that beleive in some weird spaghetti monster in the sky?

It may start out innocently enough but the common good is so useful in justifying the decision of who should be euthanized. Old people do really want to die you know. It would be better for them and better all around if they did, don't you think?

Let me ask you, if bad people use science in a immoral way does that make the science immoral?

Are you talking about politicians?

Only good people will use science. Bad people don't even believe in science. Right?

Science isn't about morality. The purpose it is used for could be considered to be immoral.

If overpopulation isn't the problem what is? I realize that especially in North America over consumption is a problem.

No. The problem is always of logistics. It is never over-population. Overpopulation has been a concern since Roman times.

What's over-consumption? It can only be more consumption than someone else. North America is consuming more than South America? Overconsumption is only a judgement. Does it mean we are going to run out of something? If we cut back on consumption it only means we run out later. Once again it is a probelm of logisitics. We never ran out of whale fat, because we discovered coal, we never ran out of coal because we discovered oil - we just need to continue to discover. Politically engineering discovery usually leads to chaos.

No absolutely not. But like all problems that effect the world as a whole, it must be solved internationally.

Yeah, euthanasia should help. We just have to apply international solutions.

I think that all though all precautions were taken on my part, that you have confused what I have said or asked. Please re-read my statement and question.

You said you weren't a nazi but ....I don't know....The theory is there.

[dre]

I also dont think we NEED radical solutions to over population. Birthrates will come down as more of the world developes.

[CitizenX]

Pliny I think that you have taken what I have said wrong. When I talk about euthanasia I'm referring to voluntary euthanasia (Assisted suicide). Euthanasia the practice of intentionally ending a life to relieve pain and suffering. I am not taking about the killing of people because they have three fingers or because they are from another race.

Overpopulation isn't the problem, the problem is always of logistics? Please explain.

I think that all though all precautions were taken on my part, that you have confused what I have said or asked. Please re-read my statement and question.

[Pliny]

Pliny I think that you have taken what I have said wrong. When I talk about euthanasia I'm referring to voluntary euthanasia (Assisted suicide). Euthanasia the practice of intentionally ending a life to relieve pain and suffering. I am not taking about the killing of people because they have three fingers or because they are from another race.

Yes, I know. Adolf claimed he was just putting Jews out of their misery.

You would be amazed at what the power over life and death will evolve to.

What about people who are deemed unable to make or at least communicate their decision should someone decide for them....a doctor maybe? Or maybe if someone contracts a terminal illness and there is potential for pain and suffering...we could advise them to end it all so they don't suffer. We could save billions on health care, too - just thought I would mention those savings.

Overpopulation isn't the problem, the problem is always of logistics? Please explain.

Logistics - filling the needs and wants of people by getting it to them. Overpopulation is simply someones idea that he is being inconvenienced by having to wait his turn for something. It probably stems from the concept of self as being more deserving than others. The hardcore enthusiast of promoting the idea of overpopulation probably has a contempt for people.

The size of population will not exceed our ability to provide for ourselves. So you are really worried about the logisitics of providing for ourselves and not about the size of population.

Advocates of population control actively work to decrease population and have for centuries instead of figuring out ways to supply the needs of the population. Visions of wall to wall people, starving masses that can't feed themselves, consumption always being termed over-consumption, social and economic inequality are all assigned to the single problem of over-population. It is the single evil in their view and we would be so much better off if the population were half of what it is currently.

[CitizenX]

I realized no matter how carefully I ask the question people would either misunderstand, misinterpreted, or simply not read what I said and jump to conclusions. Pliny I really think you should re-read what was written.

[Pliny]

I realized no matter how carefully I ask the question people would either misunderstand, misinterpreted, or simply not read what I said and jump to conclusions. Pliny I really think you should re-read what was written.

I read it and found enough to realize that you have not thought through the issue and it's progressive end result. I know you have only the best intentions at heart. Euthanasia for all the right reasons. Dying with dignity and all that. The road to hell is paved with good intentions though. I always suspect someone's promotion of other people's good intentions and that they haven't looked closely at the originators actual intent. You are right to distance yourself from Nazism because the push from heavy advocates is nothing more than a renewed effort to institute the practice. Once that occurs there are people who will make "good intentioned" decisions for others. We won't require any vetting or procedural regulations on those deemed qualified for the procedure. Useless people can be done away with by a simple signature - from a Doctor or licenced professional, of course.

Why should we have to go through the whole burdensome procedure when the case for euthanasia is so obvious?

Essentially, I am against the creation of an industry of death. It is you that decries the corporation and it's existence for profit. Do you not realize that this will create corporations for profit? If it is entirely left to the political and not done for profit then it too will grow a bureaucracy that demands taxp[ayers money at ever increasing levels.

I am not against a doctor, charged with doing no harm, and person or even responsible family member, making a decision that nothing more can be done or that there is no sense in continuing a life that will know nothing but suffering. Am I an advocate then of euthanasia? No. But I am not saying there is no case for it. There is always an exception to the rule.

I note on another thread that you also call yourself a left-wing libertarian and oppose the ownership of private property. You should think that one through as well. It is a kindergarten society that would tolerate the idea of no private property in which case only two scenarios are posssible - chaos or tyranny. In a kindergarten if there is no oversight there is chaos. If the teacher is present then there is caring sharing tyranny and he/she will direct the use of materials by students. With private property there is some concept of the sanctity of a person and life itself. Would you feel safe in a world where anyone could decide you should not have something that they want and they should have it or maybe you should at least share it with them. A car, clothes, a home, food; it all needs to be shared. you have no right to be upset when it is not there for you. But sharing implies that someone has the right to direct the use of which falls under the definition of ownership. So basically the kindergarten teacher is the owner in her caring-sharing classroom and the politician the owner in a society of wealth redistribution. Certainly in society we are not dealing with children. Hopefully, we are dealing with adults, but we are creating a dependency on government to determine fairness and adjudicating sharing with the intent of caring. Basically, the idea of left wing libertarianism will result in chaos or tyranny if you follow it through. The vision of a perfect world may be the place to start but respect for the individual and the sanctity of person and property cannot be absent.

Classical liberalism, the closest political concepts to libertarianism, which used to be on the left side of the currently understood political spectrum finds itself on the right side as the center shifts to the left.

[Silas XIV]

Question 1:

Do you have a right to have as many children as you want, an example is the Duggar Family 19

kids and counting (freaks)?

Well come on, we whites are less than 9% of the world's population!! SOMEONE has to pick up on your behalf!! There is nothing wrong with having that many kids; in fact, I support it! What the problem is, the third world foreigners who come here and bring their entire tribe with them. They breed like weeds and contribute nothing to society.

[CitizenX]

Pliny we may not agree on this one. Yes I call myself a libertarian left, but this simply means my political views resides in that political territory. It doesn't mean I'm a full on anarchist. But as a libertarian I believe in full self-owners. If I'm ever put in a situation in which I am sure to die in a very slow and painful way, I believe it is my personal right to use any means to either ease my pain through ie Heroin, or end my life. I also don't believe that there is any reason why your idea of an "industry of death" has to be created. All that is needed is for the government to allow people their natural rights of self ownership to be exercised. This can and should be allowed at any hospice. Like Jack Kevorkians device, a machine can be set up where the individual can commit the act. This is an act that is decided by the individual not by any State or group. It is a natural right.

http://postimage.org/image/2kc2j1i5g/

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

[Pliny]

Pliny we may not agree on this one. Yes I call myself a libertarian left, but this simply means my political views resides in that political territory. It doesn't mean I'm a full on anarchist. But as a libertarian I believe in full self-owners.

Full self owners? I assume you mean self-ownership. Or do you mean self-owners? Owners of yourself?

If I'm ever put in a situation in which I am sure to die in a very slow and painful way, I believe it is my personal right to use any means to either ease my pain through ie Heroin, or end my life.

I agree with that. I just don't want to see government make it an institution. Institutions have a tendency to be progressive and come up with better ideas all the time. If there is a famine and there are "useless eaters" around it is easy to abandon the morality of feeding them in order to preserve one's self. At that point it may not be you who decides whether or not you are a useless eater. If you could always be the one making the decisions there is no danger but some fall out of favour for what ever reason and are then not allowed to make their own decisions for themselves and are forced to have them made for them.

I also don't believe that there is any reason why your idea of an "industry of death" has to be created.

Call for no laws to be made and leave it in the hands of mature adults. Progressivism is the nature of of any group and will always attempt to expand its powers.

All that is needed is for the government to allow people their natural rights of self ownership to be exercised. This can and should be allowed at any hospice. Like Jack Kevorkians device, a machine can be set up where the individual can commit the act. This is an act that is decided by the individual not by any State or group. It is a natural right.

Then why appeal to the State to make it legal? Similar to making no law regarding an establishment of religion they should make no law regarding euthanasia. There is a law against murder which is right.

[CitizenX]

Call for no laws to be made and leave it in the hands of mature adults. Progressivism is the nature of of any group and will always attempt to expand its powers.

You seem to be afraid of Progressivism, so I will assume that you lean to the conservative side. I don't know if I agree with your last statement "Progressivism is the nature of any group and will always attempt to expand its powers"

Then why appeal to the State to make it legal? Similar to making no law regarding an establishment of religion they should make no law regarding euthanasia. There is a law against murder which is right.

I agree, I am against any Paternalistic Legislation.

Edited September 15, 2011 by CitizenX

[Pliny]

You seem to be afraid of Progressivism, so I will assume that you lean to the conservative side. I don't know if I agree with your last statement "Progressivism is the nature of any group and will always attempt to expand its powers"

Things never remain the same, they are constantly changing, either growing or shrinking. Groups tend to to not wish to shrink. Governments are the only agency that society deems or will allow to use force or delegate the use of force. If it has the power to grant one the right to end his life by a law it has the power to decide who shall be allowed to and they might encourage some to, if you know what I mean.

If you think population is a problem now what will you think when and if it gets to 12 billion. do you think it will be easier to decide who should live and who should die for the "collective good"? That's where a euthanasia law escalates the State will decide before nature will and nature may be kinder.

[dre]

Things never remain the same, they are constantly changing, either growing or shrinking. Groups tend to to not wish to shrink. Governments are the only agency that society deems or will allow to use force or delegate the use of force. If it has the power to grant one the right to end his life by a law it has the power to decide who shall be allowed to and they might encourage some to, if you know what I mean.

If you think population is a problem now what will you think when and if it gets to 12 billion. do you think it will be easier to decide who should live and who should die for the "collective good"? That's where a euthanasia law escalates the State will decide before nature will and nature may be kinder.

Its pretty unlikely our population will ever hit 10 billion, never mind 12.

[Bonam]

Its pretty unlikely our population will ever hit 10 billion, never mind 12.

Ever is a long time. Near term, population growth will likely level off. Later on? Who knows. No prediction regarding the path of human civilization has a chance in hell of being accurate more than 50-60 years in the future. 300 years from now we could be extinct, we could be living on Earth with 9 billion people, or we could be trillions of non-localized omnipotent consciousnesses spread throughout the universe, or an uncountable number of other possibilities.

Edited September 16, 2011 by Bonam

[dre]

Ever is a long time. Near term, population growth will likely level off. Later on? Who knows. No prediction regarding the path of human civilization has a chance in hell of being accurate more than 50-60 years in the future. 300 years from now we could be extinct, we could be living on Earth with 9 billion people, or we could be trillions of non-localized omnipotent consciousnesses spread throughout the universe, or an uncountable number of other possibilities.

Im talking about the current trend though. Its likely to peak by the end of this century then start to contract. There would have to be a pretty big game changer to get much beyond that.

[CitizenX]

What do you think of these video's?

Part 1 of 5 please go to youtube for rest

Edited September 16, 2011 by CitizenX