Is it right to put people first?

And I suppose that you think that you can do better than the human race does.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Even the lowest form of animal life does better than humans do!!

Baron Max

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Last time I checked I was a member of the human race..

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sure it can. Not that it will be popular..

 

Exactly.
And definitely better than Metakron

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Wars and disease always result in net population gains. We've had those for as long as we've been a species and have adapted to theme.

There are only three proven means to reduce population: equal rights and protection for women including birth control, a rise in the level of education for the general populace, and a rise in the standard of living for the general populace.

 

Well, that's a silly thing to say, ain't it? Even without wars and diseases, the population continues to grow. But the wars and diseases result in less people who are fuckin' and producing!

Oh, sure ...let's just give everyone a million dollars a year and send them all to college! Wow, what a perfectly realistic solution!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Baron Max

 

No, its the flat out truth. During and after times of war and disease the birth rate increases significantly resulting in a net gain in population. You may have even heard of this thing called the baby boom that happened after WWII.

And the people who are left more than make up for it.

The GI bill, which gave all GIs enough to live on in school and a free education is perhaps the best thing that ever happened to our country. It drove the research boom of the 60's and 70's and we are still living off the gains we made then.

Investing in the education of your people always pays big dividends.

 

I don't think the Baby Boom even came close to replacing the dead that WW II caused. Are you so sure of your numbers? Or are you, for example, counting all the people born in India or such places even while the war was going on?

Not if it cripples the present population.

And another thing that you haven't taken into account; If everyone in the whole nation has a college degree, then it won't mean much in the workplace world. So only those who've gotten Master's degrees will find work. So, ...what good is that college education?

Baron Max

 

The US gained 29 million people from the baby boom. Our total losses in WWII were 418,500.

Even if it creates hardship. Its called investing in the future.

What a crock of shit. It means everything in the workplace if you want the work place to be something other than flipping burgers.

Great! What a wonderful work place it would be to have educated people around instead of idiots.

It means you are educated. I know you aren't educated enough to appreciate that, but it is a good thing in and of itself.

 

Human population pretty much only goes up.​

Oppressed or stressed populations, are all the more natural signal to people to breed prolifically, as it's one of the easiest and most natural ways to "fight back." And probably also a natural survival mechanism. People generally don't like wars, and most people aren't the actual soldiers who go to fight, and so some way is hopefully soon found to restore the peace. Meanwhile, the natural flow of babies is steady and relentless. War destroys the resources and infrastructure people need, often far more than the actual population numbers, so wars serve as misery and to punish people for their sins, quite often without actually reducing populations much in terms of sheer population numbers, comparitively speaking. And usually most people aren't actually the fighters, but most people actually are the breeders.

And more people fuckin' and producing is a good thing to encourage anyway. I would much rather so many people be enjoying making love/babies, than be fighting amonst themselves.

Well obviously not everybody is going to be so readily duped into using nasty unnatural "birth control," nor will everybody find reason or means to get a lot of "education" right away. So if we are going to be realistic, idealistic, or whatever, shouldn't we be planning along the lines of welcoming a natural transition towards an even more heavily-populated world? There's lots of places that can be found or made, to put lots more people perhaps to come along, gradually or eventually.

 

Yes, we should put people first. That is the nature of being an apex predator and top species.

That does not mean we should not be considerate of the emotions and rights of other animals, though.

 

So only when we feel like it ?

 

Actualy it the 2 world wars didnt have any effect on the population explosion...

Nothing has slowed down the population growth at all it is a fallacy

NOTHING

 

Just a quick thought, (I know the OP was to do with animals) this planet is not run with the 'Ideals of putting mankind first' it is run with the 'Ideals of putting money first' which obvoiusly doesnt work (look at any news channel in any country)...

There has to be a crunch over the next 200-300 years of total change (perhaps another civilization colapse liken to the mayans,romans,egyptians etc)..imo it will be in the next 50 years.

Perhaps 1 day we will have a utopian idealistic world run by intelligence not monetary greed or by 2600 we will have to find new planets to colonize and even then if we have not controlled the growth rate by 7000ad the mass of human tissue would equate to the mass of the known universe.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

How much farming can a farmer accomplish without money?

 

bit confused to the relavence of this but farmers should farm to earn money not be given money to farm....maybe get paid a wage and all the crops go into fueling the people (ofc only in a crisis situation)

And as the pop' increases there will be less arable/grazing land available meaning more and more farms closing..perhaps they should all be government owned as the PRIORITY is feeding mankind not making money for old macdonald (that is if you are putting mankind first)..

How much farming can be done with no land?

 

Is it the responsibility of the government to feed all the people of the world? Or even the people of their own nation?

Baron Max

 

It is amazing how much the animal rights activists have controlled humans.
Humans no longer dominate all ecosystems.
Humans are no longer causing the extinction of other species.
Humans no longer experiment on animals, own animals and drive animals out of areas.

Humans have been victimized by members of their own group, the animal rights activists, who have taken away our power and domination.

Look at us.

Cowering in the corners of the world, not daring to....

what is it by the way?

 

I think you've projected far too much power on animal activitists. Basically none of what you're noted above is actually true. Humans still do all those things, the activitists have stopped very little, and only in selected areas.

Baron Max