I want people to die.

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by alexb123, Oct 13, 2005.

  1. valich Registered Senior Member

    Mercy killing of a suffering animal that is about to die anyways with no possible hope of survival is quite a different matter than the outright slaughter of innocent victims, or of genocide, aka Hitler, Slovenia, some African nations.

    All life has a right to live and you as a solitary individual have no right to create an altruistic new code of morality that dictates otherwise.

    In contrast, a vast proportion of people on Earth are utilitarian humanitarians and philanthropists who put their money, resources, and abilities to work in a civilized way in helping the needy and in trying to find and provide civilized humanitarian ways to deal with overpopulation. Your proposal is uncivilized and barbaric.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. alexb123 The Amish web page is fast! Valued Senior Member

    Valich I like your example of the kindness of mankind, it is pleasing to the mind. However I am posing the question here is it really now truly humanitarian to save lives? Is it not becoming more and more a fact of life that harsh solution will be needed for our long-term survival? Therefore death and killing will become humanitarian in its own right?
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. em.... Not wanting to chuck a spanner in the works or anything, but wouldn't it actually slightly more actually humanitarian to prevent the onset of such extremes where by that sort of logic becomes a necessity in the first place rather than advocating its inevitability before the situation has become anything of the sort?

    It's just, y'know, a really rather obvious sort of question....
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. valich Registered Senior Member

    Humanitarianism, as in the "giving of humanitarian aid," means to provide "help" to those in need. Humanitarianism means for the welfare of ALL of society: not for just a part of it by eliminating half. Your redifinition of humanitarian is selfish, sadistic, and sick. You're a sadistic person with a mental problem, possibly prone to violence, and should seek psychiatric help before you start hurting other people, or "killing" them as you are proposing.
  8. Xylene Valued Senior Member

    If you want people to die in large numbers, Valich, just wait for this northern Winter. Bird flu has been confirmed in Rumania--which is grossly overcrowded because of Cuacescu's policies--and the flu has every chance of becoming a world wide pandemic as soon as the virus changes a little bit so we human-to-human transmission. Besides, some nice scientists have just managed to recreate the 1918 flu virus (which killed 50 million peopl world-wide just after WW1). All we need now is for Osama or some other terrorist wonk to get into that lab and release the virus, and

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    we have another 1-in-40 death-toll like we did back then. :bugeye:
  9. alexb123 The Amish web page is fast! Valued Senior Member

    Valich you say that humanitarian mean to provide help for the welfare of all. Ok lets take AIDS, which is a good method of population reduction. It would be helpful to withdraw all AIDS drugs and let the disease take its natural course and wipe-out millions. AIDS is a good natural population control method. Now this method of course would not help the AIDS victims but if humanitarian means to "help all" then yes in the “long-term” this method would help "all".

    Valich thank you for your analysis of my mental state, which DSM criteria would best suit my condition. It’s always good to see a qualified physiatrist giving informed advice on forums about the environment.
  10. orcot Valued Senior Member

    I can't believe that any project that envols pasivley/activley killing your population is going to be recieved well.
    But I do agree that it would be for the world best if the human population would drop or at least stops growing.

    But the "world leaders" do actually try to bring their populations down. CHina is perhaps the biggest example because it has his 1 child policy.
    But even North America and West Europa have their projects, by activly supporting the ID of first a career and then children.

    I do agree that the world population is still raising but this is mainly a problem of the poorer nations.

    But if I had to choose to birth controle option it would be the one about 0.75 children per person. This way is better the Chinees methode because you still have some options left afther a divorce, and people that would like a big family could purchase the rights of others. So childrenless couples get a financial bonus.
    And if you put all the orphens in the sale department and ask only like 0.5 for them and asks more for couples that have significant genetic flaws. Than you wouldn't have any orphans and a whole lot less handicapt people in the world
  11. valich Registered Senior Member

    The China one child policy is much more of a myth than a reality. Believe me: I lived there, I know. Most Chinese still have three to five children. That law is seldom if ever enforced and why they try to, there's always ways around: they just pay off the small fine, ignore the village cadre, leave town when tey conduct a census, pay off the municipal officials in charge, migrate and blend into the cities where they're no longer registered.

    The biggest problem with over population, as I think I mentioned above, is in Africa, where many countries still believe in having as many children as possible (8,9,10) and have many wives as possible (its legal) because the health conditions are so poor that a lot - sometimes most- of the children do not live long. Then the children - as in China too - are married off at unbelievable early ages (girls 8, 9, 10 years old), so that they can start their own families to support their parents and pass on the family name.

    Avian Bird Flu spread to Romania and Turkey in the largest delta region there. This delta region is a major stopping off point for migratory birds heading to Northern Africa for the winter. If there's one country that is totally unprepared for a pandemic flu outbreak, it is Africa. The World Health Organization WHO, keeps saying that its not "if" but "when." Looks like it may initially start bigtime in Africa.
  12. Slacker47 Paint it Black Registered Senior Member

    to original post:

    not necesarily less humans, just less use/misuse of the environment

    although, killing is a blast, so have at it.
  13. devils_reject Registered Senior Member

    What we need is to tell the government to introduce permits for giving birth. I mean I was just thinking about this, why do I have to share the same space with some other ding dong's carbon copy. We share the roads so we need a driver's license so why in the world can't we introduce permits for giving birth, which by the way takes up a lot more than highway space. It will also cut down the number of abandoned babies and STD's, not to mention the ever increasing population space. Too often two ass holes think they are in love and pump out a baby only for them to revaluate their socio-economic and emotional position thereafter, contributing to poverty and psychological scars. Every government needs to enact this law, at least until a new industry or idea is discovered. America doesn't need to seal its border, just introduce birth licenses and documented aliens. The reality is people just don't know what they have, easy come easy go.
  14. GodlessEvil God is dead Registered Senior Member

    We need another war.
    Peace=lazyness, and instead of banding together with fellow man, peace just seems to seperate people, nobody has anything to worry about, people are bored.
    And nobody seems to strive towards anything but extra cash, there is no "fight for your country"
    it is more like "fight for someone else so you can keep driving and making cash and eating junk food".

    Unfortunatly we have nukes, and that really does spoil things, the weaponry today is too severe to the point where nobody can actually win, which is IMO a real shame.
  15. devils_reject Registered Senior Member

    I am not sure I buy your sentiment. For one thing War happens everyday, just on a more subtle level, war is just elevated stress. The constant hussling and bussling around town is a battle itself. Besides one man's peace is another's battle.What we need immidiately is birth permits. As if its not enough to deal with people the ass hole has to pump out a replica of himself. We need to do this for ourselves and all other species
  16. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    For one thing, we need to make heroes out of people who choose non-reproductive forms of sex. Two guys or two gals making love aren't going to contribute to the population problem, and the STDs problem is greatly exaggerated. If we straightened out a lot of the confusion that has been deliberately created by various agencies, there wouldn't be nearly so many problems educating people and getting them to go along with the program. Forcing people to obey all sorts of confusing guidelines screws up their lives and forces them to rebel because no normal person can get a mental handle on what they're supposed to do anyway, so they say to hell with it. Asking them nicely and making the requests plain, simple, and consistent goes a long way toward gaining cooperation.

    If a person can't see that he or she is contributing to the survival of the species by not having children, he or she will do the next best thing. The lowest common denominator is to contribute to the survival of the human species by breeding more humans. It takes no education. If the education is incomprehensible, it doesn't seem real, it doesn't seem right, so the person in question does the one thing that she can understand to be right.

    Bird flu won't help a bit. If anything it will inspire a baby boom. Everyone who loses a relative or a child will have two to compensate, one for replacement and one to make certain. This kind of thing can go on for a better than 50 percent mortality rate, so any disease too much short of an Omega strain is not going to do the job. And I don't want it to go this way anyhow.

    I think that the world is being pushed towards mass sterilization, both by surgery and by actual irradiation of affected areas of the world using neutron bombs or the like. Maybe the only thing that makes this like a conspiracy is a shared attitude about life. Christ on an effing pogo stick, if we can get together and declare mass suicide, you would think it would be easier to get together and decide that quality shall be chosen over quantity. Except that the first choice is by default and the second choice requires some actual mental work, say at least on the mental level of a 14 year old.
  17. devils_reject Registered Senior Member

    Yep, if you look at history the populatiion explodes after a major disease or catastrophe. I don't think there is too much confusion because everybody does a quick socio-eco evaluation before and after having a child except for the accidental mistakes. The government is having a say on abortion and sanctity of life so why the effing hell can't they implement birth permits? Its the municipal and federal leaders obligation to revaluate the current social infrastrucrures of a vicinity before allowing mothers to pump out more babies. Same shit happens in the animal kingdom won't you agree?
  18. valich Registered Senior Member

    Well why don't we start by killing you. That would be a "harsh solution" to your proposed survival strategy. Or, unless you are being a hypocrite, you aught to start by committing suicide! Bye. No more posts tomorrow, right?
  19. Gudgeon Registered Member

    Take an example from easter island, the people there thought that they can live for the rest of time on that large island. But in the end, there were not enough recources on that island to support them. So the population there died out. Earth is like an island, no where to go, but there is a non-violent way to solve this problem.

    Find a planet and send half of the world to colonize it. (like the Europeans colonized the west in the 1700s)
  20. stupidgirl Registered Member

    No. Prevention is entirely overrated. If we thought like that we'd have nothing to bitch about and no excuse to kill people. You're wildly insane suggestion would require people to think before acting, and be responsible for their actions when they don't. Like Alain said on the first page, we'd rather kill off the unwashed masses so we can have our Ford Exhibition, I mean Expedition, running along spitting and swallowing poisonous fumes and natural resources respectively so that we can pretend to society that we off-road on the weekends.

    That similar thinking manifests itself in so many areas of our culture. We are so accepting of our social and political structures and so comfortable in how things are done that we think, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it, but when things suck I'll make someone else pay." People fail entirely to look at why things "suck" and come to understand that the systems are "broke". We feel so superior and think we've come so far, people have holed up and don't look at how far we should or how far we can go.

    Thats why I think we need to solve the space travel problem. (I know, now is when I fly off to crazy idealist land....) Then similar minded people can just take off and start their own planet...provided they can find one magically available and waiting. I know its a fantasy, but I would love nothing more than to leave this planet to the people who think "it ain't broke" and laugh at them from 20 light years away. Hey, a girl can dream can't she?
  21. Xylene Valued Senior Member

    If global warming and its geological side-effects really get under way, you'll get mass-death in spades.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  22. zembowz Registered Member

    I think some people are starting to stop some desaters from happening.

    Just look at all the adds to stop smoking and drunk driving. They kill lots of people and yet it is not enough. I think we should just let people that are stupid enough to kill themselves do it. Am I right?

    And another thing we may use up a lot of resourses on Earth but when the richer countries start starving are we really going to give more food to the poor ones? I don't think so.
  23. ZenDrake come to the darkside Registered Senior Member

    Jumping into the conversation late here...
    It is with fascination that I read the range of opinions
    about this suggestion. :bugeye:
    Contrary to the lore of yesteryear overpopulation doesn't
    seem like its going to be the deal breaker that it was thought
    to be in decades past. As a matter of fact, the educated sectors of
    society are breeding UNDER replacement levels now, though this
    is a phenomenon largely contained to the western hemisphere.
    There are more than one reason for this; economically, it isn't beneficial
    for an educated man and woman to put aside the much needed second
    income to take the time out to have a child, and add to that the
    cost of raising a child to maturity, the cost can become prohibitive
    and is a factor in many a couple remaining childless. College educated
    women in particular are putting off raising a family in favor of
    pursuing careers which is also a factor in this.
    Population decline is hitting Europe particularly hard causing
    EU countries to offer incentives to citizens to have more children.
    This is being overshadowed by the population growth due to
    an influx of non skilled immigrants from the lower socioeconomic
    strata of other countries.
    So what we have is a decline in high IQ circles and a growth in the
    underclasses typified by lower IQs.
    This situation is what is called dysgenic.
    Planned parenthood is actually having a detrimental effect on society
    as those having the abortions and those practicing birth control are
    for the most part those who we need to procreate.
    The underclass is breeding like crazy as it pays for them to pop out another one; their paycheck goes up...
    And the stigma attached to single motherhood has been eroded to such
    a point that it has become romanticized for teen girls to squeeze out
    illegitimate future convicts.
    Welfare has been shown to be generational, and can be viewed as a custom
    of not working and expecting the state to provide; and is passed down from parent to child and to their children after them.
    Those that do get off of welfare have a predominant presence in
    governmental and city services continuing the tendency to be
    taken care of by the state.

    Spermicidal corn and grain has been developed btw; and is being used
    in Mexico and S. America.

    in a couple generations, someone is going to have some prime real-estate.

    before going, ponder this:
    Before killing off huge swaths of people manually,
    consider a plague, throughout history plagues have hit
    the poorest populations first and hardest as higher
    socioeconomic levels live in generally cleaner environments
    and have fewer disease carrying vectors associated with them.
    I've heard it suggested that the European plagues of medieval times
    were at the end eugenic for the reason that the majority of the victims
    were from the peasant population leaving the higher IQ alleles to repopulate.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    flame away me bloodyhearts.

Share This Page