Sigh.... It's simple. Burn all the people with HIV and aids, then blow up all the monkeys.
Sigh.... It's simple. Burn all the people with HIV and aids, then blow up all the monkeys.
In no posts have you reconciled the issues with the implication of what you see as "what people can afford", you show no understanding of personal investment in issues as subjective value judgements, and display the arrogance to judge people for not considering what you find to be important, to be worth investing in.
As for overpopulation being a social construct. Of course it is.
So is morality, social justice and humanitarian work.
The point isn't whether or not the idea of over-population is a concept or not - it's whether it's reasonable to say that population growth has an impact on living conditions, and earth - and guess what, it does.
It boils down to whether, our numbers can be sustained while at the same time preserving the environment, and sustaining the high quality of life that we have now come to except for ourselves, and for the future.
Fact of the matter is that the above is already impossible. That's why the vast majority of the world aren't living in the same conditions as say, the people in Germany, Norway, Switzerland, Japan, and so forth. The majority of China, India, Africa, and surrounding regions don't live as long, they don't keep the same standards of health, go hungry, and go without even a semblance of the access to information and worldliness as the countries I mentioned above, and others similar to them.
The naive idea that you could somehow raise all the poor, the sick, and the uneducated, up to the standard of your average middle-class Norwegian household, with the resources and technology we have now, is completely out of touch with reality.
That, as far as I am concerned, is the very definition of over-population.
People all around the world are dying at this very moment, because we don't have any way of feeding them, clothing them, or getting them medicine without making sacrifices that most people either can't or won't make.
In other words, we have to give some up to make things get better.
If there was simply some easily available resource we could put our hands into, and hand over to the poor, we'd rather do that wouldn't we? The idea that resources exist aplenty for all, directly contradicts the proclaimed necessity for donations and foreign aid.
So what you're actually saying, is that somebody is taking too much of the resources(the west), and therefore it needs to be re-distributed. If you were to equalize the entire world though, pull all the Chinese, Indian, African and middle-eastern poor people up to the western concept of middle-class, then it isn't far-fetched to assume you'd have to take so much resources, that you'd leave the modern western developed world with so little left that we wouldn't be able to retain a semblance of the societies we have now, and that includes instances such as NASA, giant medical corporations that are trying to cure HIV/AIDS, cancer and so forth, and IT corporations that work to bring us into the future information-wise.
The very fact that our technology and resources don't suffice to sustain a global population of middle-class citizens at least, is over-population.
Saying that something like, for instance, the world could sustain 10 billion people on earth, if we just accepted that we'd have an average life-span of 50 years, and would live with the material goods consistent with families living in the Favela of Brazil, really is incredibly dumb.
It simply means one has no idea what people say when they speak of over-population.
(all of this doesn't even start to address what will happen to the environment once all of adult China and India decides they need a personal car, like more or less every adult in the developed west, or once they start copying our use/dispose mentality, or once they decided they all need more living space etc.)
The fact of the matter is that, now, in this day and age, certain people lead comfortable lives in comfortable housing, with well-paid jobs, access to health-care, and access to quality education and entertainment.
You can try to shame those people for doing that, and go "you need to give up your stuff to make a change for the people who have less", but it's just pointless. Why would they? And why should they?
I could walk around in old clothing, with messed up teeth, and shitty personal hygiene, whilst living in a tiny apartment with 10 other people to save resources, and give up all my money to charities, and still probably lead a generally better life in one of my two countries of residence(Norway or Japan) than most people in the 3rd world, but why the hell would I?
Why would I condemn myself to a lesser life than I can, with this one and only life I have, whilst surrounded by people who'd have more than me on a daily basis, for the sake of making things better people in another place whom I'll never know nor meet, for the sake of the sin of having been born in the 1st world, and the sins of my forefathers who screw over the forefathers of those in the 3rd world, nothing for which I had any choice or say in.
No thank you. Sounds like a dystopian secular version of original sin, aimed at providing childish visionaries a way of shaming other people into providing a desired change in a way that alleviates the work-load for said visionary.
If you want to consider that to be morally repugnant, you can, but it's completely pointless. I'm not going to play ball with your moral paradigm, and neither are most people.
Personally, I just hope more and more people would stop having children, and then we could more and more resources on creating automated societies and dote on the few children that do get born, rather than wasting it on people who're in more cases than not, not going to contribute anything of merit to the collect body of human knowledge and culture anyway.
Thus, the rest of us could kick back and do the stuff that really matters - like indulging in substances, getting laid, making art, reading books, watching movies, playing games, and thinking.
At the end of the day, I believe we've past the point of no return. The old broken societies can't be saved. They'll try their best, over-reach like China is now, and then they'll break under their own weight and collapse entirely.
In the end, the earth will be divided by futuristic cityscapes inhabited by one evolutionary progeny of mankind, who all live in peace within the confines of their automated societies - contrasted by broken wastelands and jungles, where the other progeny of mankind lives in continued conflict in conditions similar to that of our earlier primate ancestors.
Anyway, good luck with that activism of yours!
The Common Sense United Front
ZAZAZAZAAAA, DADADADAAAA DAAAA, SHWAMSHWAMSHWAMMMM DUUUU DIIIII DAAAAAAAAAA
i do think that overpopulation is a thing, but i don't think that it follows that we shouldn't be trying to erradicate horrible diseases which kill too many awesome people. the way i see it either we should be having way less kids, or devoting a lot more money to figuring out how to make other planets liveable. or both. right now we're doing neither, and it's a fvcking disaster.
unfortunately, some of the people who argue that overpopulation is a thing also have white supremacist feelings, which hurts the credibility of the idea i guess. because they only want non-white people to stop having kids :/ .
Last edited by postrook; 07-19-2014 at 05:59 PM.
Since it's unlikely that we'd have the resources to evenly divide the population between the old worlds and the new we'd still have an overpopulation issue on the old world while the new world could, possibly, sustain the growth for generations.
TL DR? New worlds are not the solution to overpopulation.
fvck yr logic. we should terraform new worlds because it would be awesome
I'd rather live in an overcrowded hellhole, than in a world that already has a cure for HIV but decides not to use it. (Just finished reading your post agian, hian. Dark stuff man. I am more optimistic than you are.)
From this point of view, it ought to be strange not to make an effort to finding it. (Also getting rid of it ought to make it easier to get to **** strangers, which is kinda a big perk.)
Last edited by Ronin; 07-20-2014 at 11:55 PM.
This reminds me of how everyone was huffing and puffing about Brazil during the world cup. Now that the world cup ended, I haven't heard anything about Brazil. Now there is a new country I'm suppose to give a **** about, I think it was Qatar. I forget which comedian it was, but people only care about diseases that have affected them. You simply can't care about all them. That's the good thing about specializations. Groups of people work on different shit. If I had to donate $5 dollars to every cause, Id need to come up with millions of dollars. Hint: I don't have that kind of money. And if I allowed myself to be guilt tripped about every cause out there, cause its only 5 dollars, I wouldn't be able to afford food. There is a cause for everything. Turds are a little small? probably a cause for it.
Next thing we know, you're busting our ass over not caring about Diabetes. Then its Gonorrhea. Maybe you'll hit hunger next. Maybe Encephalitis next.
Everyone can not worry about every little thing happening in the world. There just isn't enough room in the brain for all that shit. Everyone has their niche they worry about. That is good. That means there is at least someone worrying about everything. If it had to be all or nothing, I bet it'd be nothing.
Lets make a deal. You worry about HIV/AIDS, Ill worry about drug addiction.
In the end, Ill spend my money on whatever the **** I want. i rather donate to drug addiction research than HIV/AIDS. Does that make me a monster? I simply don't care.
Last edited by Rebuzzal; 07-21-2014 at 05:40 PM.
“The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightning and a lightning bug.”
Sadly, a quick glance at my bank statement points out I am in no position to make any donations.
(Unless I wish to live of donations myself).