Is it right to put people first?

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by MetaKron, Oct 29, 2008.

  1. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,396
    I killed some ants yesterday. I hated it but felt I had no choice.
    I wear leather but not fur.
    Every time I eat, I think of what lived & died so I can survive.
    When I'm bit by a cat, I put hydrogen peroxide on it (the bite not the cat) & kill for my better health.
    Hunting for sport is repulsive to me. I'd hunt if I needed to.
    I believe animals bred & raised to feed us should be treated well.
    Hatred or apathy for other living beings seems horrible & freaky to me.
    1111
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    How about for rapists, murderers, thieves, burglars, drug addicts, pimps, politicians who lie or deliberately deceive, used car salesmen, ..., and the list goes on and on. How do you feel about those people?

    Baron Max
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,396
    Why do you include drug addicts in that list?
    1111
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    Okay, let's take the ol' druggies out of the list. Now will you answer the question?

    Originally Posted by StrangerInAStrangeLa: "Hatred or apathy for other living beings seems horrible & freaky to me. ”

    How about for rapists, murderers, thieves, burglars, (deleted), pimps, politicians who lie or deliberately deceive, used car salesmen, ..., and the list goes on and on. How do you feel about those people?

    Baron Max
     
  8. Simon Anders Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,535
    That was my point, note the last question....
    But we agree, in any case.
     
  9. Pinocchio's Hoof Pay the Devil, or else.......£ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106
    Hmm:scratchin:but over the past 200 years bureaucracy and laws have changed lifestyles to the extent where it is pretty much impossible for this to happen on mass (to be self-reliant)..so we buy from shops-suppliers-makers/manufacture's etc..
    the point of the whole politic is to ensure the welfare of its people or you have civil unrest. So it comes to social-economic mechanics which the government must keep in motion to avoid this,therefore it must be their responsibility.Look at the loss of farm produce in Zimbabwe over the last 10-15 years it is pretty much inline with its economy.
     
  10. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    So you want the people, the citizens, to be totally dependent on something that we call "government"? ...which is, really, just another bunch of people?

    Why doesn't that sound like a good idea to me?

    And more importantly, why do you think that's such a great idea? Do you like feeling/being dependent on someone else? Do you think everyone would like that?

    Baron Max
     
  11. Pinocchio's Hoof Pay the Devil, or else.......£ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106
    It doesn't sound like a great idea to me either but it is the way things are now for nearly all in western countries and others to, there is not enough land for every single person to be self-sufficiant so what do you suggest? it is the only option.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    To put mankind first we need the basics food,water,air and the simpsons with the loss of any of the first 3 nothing else is possible, and need foward planning a goal not the chaos we have now.
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2008
  12. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    Well, I think there's a big difference between total dependence and self-sufficient. Why not strike a nice happy medium where the people can, at the very least, feel a tiny bit of freedom?

    Well, I think that "To put mankind first" is one of the problems that's gotten us into this fuckin' mess! The ideal of "mankind" is a mamby-pamby, liberal ideal that pretends to take all of mankind into it's bosom! That's bullshit! "Mankind" also includes all the murderers, rapists, thieves, robbers, burglars, child molesters, ..., and every other vile human on the fuckin' planet. See? It's just idealistic bullshit!

    Second, I think if you took a close look, you'd discover that "big government" is the very fuckin' thing that's gotten us into this mess. Yet you want to make that monstrousity even bigger and give it even more control over our lives. What's wrong with that picture???

    Baron Max
     
  13. swarm Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,207
    Enough to live on.
     
  14. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    Not if you don't have a plow ...or horses to pull it ...or seed to plant ...or a way to harvest the crops ...or a way to store it ...or a way to process it into food ...or a pot to cook it in ...or ..........well, you get the picture.

    Baron Max
     
  15. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    Who decides how much is enough for a farmer to live on? One of the reasons that "Western" civilization can afford to eat is because farmers are often financially successful.
     
  16. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    The problem with that statement is that tons and tons of food comes from nations OTHER THAN the USA! We import tons of food from South American countries, so, yeah, those farmers are doing quite well. But that doesn't help farmers in the USA, does it??

    Baron Max
     
  17. swarm Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,207
    The farmer's body.
     
  18. swarm Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,207
    None of those require any one else.
     
  19. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    The activists have done a lot more damage to positive efforts like private breeding of rare species.
     
  20. Pronatalist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    750
    In a world in which most anything that could seem to keep human populations "in check," is fast fading away, hadn't we better plan to eagerly welcome growth?

    So the world is growing more urban. Let the planet urbanize with people to whatever extent needed.

    It is neither the responsibility of governments to curb natural babymaking, nor to feed all the people. What is the responsibility of government, is to get out of the way, and let the energy producers, and farmers, and miners, and manufacturers, get potentially rich, abundantly supplying all the things that so many people would want and need.

    Technology growth is already very much population-driven, and perhaps it's only a matter of time, for vast farmlands to be eventually converted into human residential housing, as the growing human race finds itself having to grow ever denser and vaster over more and more land. But I consider that very good, not bad, as agriculture is becoming quaint and outdated and may ultimately give way to more synthetic ways of producing more high-quality and consistant foods. Already, at least for people with money, the naturally-multiplying human race, increasingly faces the curious prospect of "unlimited" food, not hunger. There is yet another curious "overpopulation" theory, that people have too much food, which supposedly fuels wild population growth, at least in the animal kingdom. Would the anti-human liberal "environmentalist" over-educated pagans, or whoever, please make up their minds which phony crises to worry us about? Too little or too much food? Too much ozone on the ground, too little up high? Seems like one problem might cancel the other out? I think population phobics tend to fear that humans will too readily solve too many problems, and that the real prospect might ultimately be global overcrowding.

    I very much believe that feeding mankind is an obvious priority, and I do not at all believe in imposing any form of population "control" upon humans. In the past, people kept depopulating the countryside to move to the opportunity, jobs, excitement, crowds of the big city. Not exactly the best form of growth, as I would rather see the cities grow from the natural increase of all the people already in them, not by sucking population out of surrounding countrysides in search of better jobs. Why can't more jobs be made somehow more portable, so that people may have the option of staying on their traditional or comfortable lands? Anyway, I would love to see people move back to the countryside, but now at urban densities, as there gets to be so many of us.

    Contrary to popular myth, wars appear to do little or nothing towards "controlling" natural human population growth. We add another 70 or 80 million people to the planet, each year. Fewer people than that, died in both WW1 and WW2? In most any major disaster, population rebounds to cover all the numbers of people lost, in a matter of just a few hours or days. Each day, another 211,000 people. Each year, nearly another Mexico of people. Every 15 years, another India of people. Fortunately, the world is still quite a big place, and not everybody is born in the same places. By expecting all nations to properly explore how they may best naturally grow denser with people, the planet can easily be made to hold lots more people, well into the forseeable future.

    That there is now so many of us humans alive, is yet all the more practical and moral reason, why people should want to put people first. Keep the babies right on coming. I believe most all parents, have plenty good enough reasons to enjoy having as many children as they are having. I don't believe humans were designed to use any form of "birth control," and to avoid the side-effects of Big Pharm's shoddy contraceptive potions and poisons, would obviously have to imply that continued "traditionally very large" families would/should be just the normal and natural and proper thing. Feed people and they multiply all the more? So much the better, as more and more people would be glad to experience life.
     
  21. swarm Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,207
    There is nothing special about people. Over shoot the carrying capacity of the ecosystem and the population will crash with the excess dying through starvation and disease.
     
  22. Pronatalist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    750
    Biological references are not adequate to describe complex human behaviors/progress.

    Perhaps you are partly right in a way, but still mostly wrong.

    NWO globalists are cabal-conspiring to manufacture false scarcity, by monkeywrenching the economy to rob people of the fruits of their labors. I heard in a video about their plots, that much of our money we work so hard to earn, goes to taxes, interest, and inflation, due to the wealth-destroying monster created in 1913 of the Federal Reserve. Letting evil, greedy bankers control our money supply. We have mostly fiat "money," now, no longer "receipts" for gold or silver, but nearly worthless "Federal Reserve Notes" of debt. Know how much a Federal Reserve Note is worth? About 3¢ or 4¢, in 1930 or 1913 money. No wonder even a gumball costs 25¢. Hard to find much of anything that cost a penny anymore. Pennies are pretty much only good for, reminding us that our money used to be worth something.

    Now what do you suppose happens when the economy inevitably collapses under the crushing weigh of Big Brother government and rampant socialism, never-ending monkeywrenching bailouts? Gasp! All the sudden, worsening poverty. Must be "too many" people, so why rob people of only their wealth? Start slaying off the "surplus" population understandably outraged, just cull off ever more people in some sort of Nazi-like genocide, or a needless World War 3?

    If people could simply be free to work together, there never need be an "overshoot," and humans could dominate nature and themselves and ADAPT to simply populate the planet vaster and denser and denser, perhaps to someday eventually "outgrow" the planet to spread to more worlds.

    But I fear we are too selfish, stupid, uninformed, to ever progress to some sort of Star Trek-like "Federation of Planets." Except for God's grace, we would have already perished, or soon would. And the "overpopulation" depopulation agenda, would be a rather obvious way for humans to "shoot themselves in the foot," so to speak. What more likely way to start a major war, but to make people hopping mad, robbing them of their children?

    You say there's nothing special about people? Even a YouTube video info text, likens humanity to "Gaia is pregnant," and really does want and need to have this "baby." Why do people cling to outdated and useless "overpopulation" metaphors, insisting humans to be just mere biological "animals" subject to biological "overshoot?" As I see, even nature wants humans so numerous, and to go on and naturally increase all the more. In nature, most all life seeks to expand to fill most every niche. Why not so also with supposedly intelligent human life? But humans are different, as we can expand and form our own additional niches, and cram the niches all the more efficiently with more and more of our own progeny. Villages and towns and cities, obviously can grow larger, closer together, and more numerous, and how could nature "object" as humans are a part of nature, and as we more dominate, nature and humans become increasingly "one and the same thing," and nature becomes more intelligent, and more humane, or at least more human. The "new nature" then seeks to fill the planet more completely with humans, letting cities naturally coelesce into one another if they must, due to somewhat limited or confining land spaces.
     
  23. swarm Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,207
    There is absolutely nothing partly about it. Over shoot the carrying capacity of the ecosystem and the population will crash with the excess dying through starvation and disease.

    There are no ifs, ands or buts.

    Overshoot and collapse. You can watch it many places in Africa right now. There are no exceptions. It is not a nice way to go.
     

Share This Page