• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Should we really be trying to reduce death?

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

daw840

Member
Aug 15, 2007
14,788
1
1,155
USA
www.myspace.com
Seriously. With the population exploding exponentially in the last couple of hundred years, should we really be concerned with things that cause death? It's sad when someone dies, we can all agree on that I think, but at the same time I feel like people need to die. I don't think we can suport this kind of growth for very long. Should we even really care about all of the issues that we seem to care so much about? Maybe things like gun deaths, drunk driving, wars, disease, etc need to happen to prevent everyone from perishing one day. Maybe they're actually a good thing? It seems completely counter intuitive, but is it?

 
Grizzlyjin

Grizzlyjin

Supersonic, idiotic, disconnecting, not respecting, who would really ever wanna go and top that
Jun 23, 2004
24,048
40
0
So we should stop caring about the current quality of life to deal with something that probably won't even happen, even in the far off future?

Population rates steady off when countries advance...I don't see how purposely letting everything go to shit would make things better for anyone. We should always strive for the best possible society we can.
 
S

smr00

Banned
Dec 19, 2011
7,166
0
0
The real problem is people having 32 kids by the age of 20.

Seriously people.. Go get some goddamn birth control.
 
D

daw840

Member
Aug 15, 2007
14,788
1
1,155
USA
www.myspace.com
Grizzlyjin said:
So we should stop caring about the current quality of life to deal with something that probably won't even happen, even in the far off future?

Population rates steady off when countries advance...I don't see how purposely letting everything go to shit would make things better for anyone. We should always strive for the best possible society we can.
Click to expand...

But making things better for everyone is moving towards making things catastrophic for everyone....
 
C

carfo

Banned
Mar 27, 2009
9,295
1
0
As population increases so does the economy, and food becomes more abundant somewhat ironically.
 
P

Piecake

Member
Jun 11, 2004
16,157
0
0
daw840 said:
Seriously. With the population exploding exponentially in the last couple of hundred years, should we really be concerned with things that cause death? It's sad when someone dies, we can all agree on that I think, but at the same time I feel like people need to die. I don't think we can suport this kind of growth for very long. Should we even really care about all of the issues that we seem to care so much about? Maybe things like gun deaths, drunk driving, wars, disease, etc need to happen to prevent everyone from perishing one day. Maybe they're actually a good thing? It seems completely counter intuitive, but is it?

Click to expand...

No, the best way to decrease our population is to bring the rest of the world out of poverty and ignorance. Once a nation starts to urbanize and educates itself, especially women, the birth rate goes down

All developed nations right now have basically no growth or negative growth, and the pop growth of developing nations is deecreasing due to a lowering birth rate.

The issue is poor nations, and its pretty stupid and evil to advocate death when we can simply raise their economic and social status to lower that nations birth rate
 
T

teh_pwn

"Saturated fat causes heart disease as much as Brawndo is what plants crave."
Jun 14, 2004
14,600
36
1,585
Austin
OP has it backwards. You reduce out of control population by giving healthy standards of living worldwide. If every nation were 1st world, population would be declining right now without any malicious force causing it. Read up on what Bill Gates has been doing the last 8 years.
 
Joe Molotov

Joe Molotov

Member
Nov 25, 2005
16,079
1
1,500
Maybe if you were living in a 3rd world country, you would appreciate someone trying to cure diseases and minimize suffering. Try it sometime!
 
O

Orayn

Member
Jul 4, 2010
34,288
4
920
Minnesota
Piecake said:
No, the best way to decrease our population is to bring the rest of the world out of poverty and ignorance. Once a nation starts to urbanize and educates itself, especially women, the birth rate goes down

All developed nations right now have basically no growth or negative growth, and the pop growth of developing nations is deecreasing due to a lowering birth rate.

The issue is poor nations, and its pretty stupid and evil to advocate death when we can simply raise their economic and social status to lower that nations birth rate
Click to expand...

Exactly. Developed nations sit pretty close to replacement rate as it is, so their "lack of death" isn't exactly the biggest contributor to dangerous world population growth.
 
J

joseph1594

Member
Jul 5, 2009
668
0
0
United States
Considering the human population is going to eventually level off and then start to shrink in the next hundred years, I don't think it is a problem. The current population growth rate isn't going to continue at this rate.

Also, decreasing death rates and infant mortality has a strong correlation with rising living standards and in turn lower population growth rate. Population growth rates in developing countries are going to decline dramatically as they establish middle classes.
 
J

jamesinclair

Banned
May 13, 2005
26,049
1
0
Piecake said:
No, the best way to decrease our population is to bring the rest of the world out of poverty and ignorance. Once a nation starts to urbanize and educates itself, especially women, the birth rate I goes down

All developed nations right now have basically no growth or negative growth, and the pop growth of developing nations is deecreasing due to a lowering birth rate.

The issue is poor nations, and its pretty stupid and evil to advocate death when we can simply raise their economic and social status to lower that nations birth rate
Click to expand...

Poor people aren't the ones taking many species to extinction so they can pay 10000 to have a stronger erection
 
S

sans_pants

avec_pénis
Feb 1, 2005
5,057
0
0
We should absolutely be trying to end death. Well restrict births before we give up on making peoples lives better. We also have plenty of earth left, you should worry more about rampant consumption
 
C

CarpeDeezNutz

Member
Aug 24, 2012
15,723
1
600
Would people who think that way refuse medical treatment if they needed it? How committed are they to the "people need to die" philosophy?
 
I

injurai

Banned
Oct 18, 2011
35,280
0
0
Milky Way
www.youtube.com
Earth can sustain a lot more people. The problem is how wasteful we are, and how quickly we are destroying it's renewable resources.

Eventually the population will drastically fall off and humanity will reach a sort of equilibrium with nature. I believe that won't happen until after we get off oil and live on nearby renewable resources.
 
J

jtb

Banned
Jun 20, 2009
19,674
1
0
NYC
No. Developed nations have stable birth rates, so the goal needs to be economic growth, rather than worrying about having too many people. People will die. They may just take a little longer to get there.
 
W

Woorloog

Banned
Apr 18, 2010
19,089
0
0
Piecake said:
No, the best way to decrease our population is to bring the rest of the world out of poverty and ignorance. Once a nation starts to urbanize and educates itself, especially women, the birth rate goes down

All developed nations right now have basically no growth or negative growth, and the pop growth of developing nations is deecreasing due to a lowering birth rate.

The issue is poor nations, and its pretty stupid and evil to advocate death when we can simply raise their economic and social status to lower that nations birth rate
Click to expand...

A problem with modernizing/industrializing developed nations is that they will see growth in industry and consumerism. Both of which Earth CANNOT sustain at the moment. Environment won't take the extra stress kindly, and some resources are rather limited as it is (or will be soon (25 years or so, more or less)).

Of course, if the population growth is let go unchecked, we're going to run to the same, or similar problems anyway.

Letting people die won't solve either problem, and is kinda unethical, not that anyone really cares about that, or at least anyone won't be able to act on it. People dying or having weak human rights are not important, except as pretext for securing strategic resources.
 
F

flash ban

Banned
May 30, 2013
225
0
0
teh_pwn said:
OP has it backwards. You reduce out of control population by giving healthy standards of living worldwide. If every nation were 1st world, population would be declining right now without any malicious force causing it. Read up on what Bill Gates has been doing the last 8 years.
Click to expand...

except for religious nuts who don't believe in birth control.
 
P

Piecake

Member
Jun 11, 2004
16,157
0
0
jamesinclair said:
Poor people aren't the ones taking many species to extinction so they can pay 10000 to have a stronger erection
Click to expand...

So, whats your solution? Kill rich people? Keep poor people poor?

The best thing we can do is to bring up the economic level of everyone to reduce the birth rate, which will begin to decrease our world population. Wealthy nations should move to renewable resources for obvious reasons. One benefit of this is that it will make non-renewable resources much cheaper because there will be less demand. This will make it easier for poor nations to catch up.

And we are fucked in 100 years anyways once our Phosphate runs out. Course, if we reduce our population to a decent amount it might not be too bad, or actually come up with a synthetic, but right now, its not loooking good
 
P

Polari

Member
Jan 20, 2005
11,044
1
0
34
New Zealand
Piecake said:
The best thing we can do is to bring up the economic level of everyone to reduce the birth rate, which will begin to decrease our world population. Wealthy nations should move to renewable resources for obvious reasons. One benefit of this is that it will make non-renewable resources much cheaper because there will be less demand. This will make it easier for poor nations to catch up.
Click to expand...

 
T

Timedog

good credit (by proxy)
Oct 15, 2004
29,501
1
0
Portland via Spokane
www.nutella.com
Are you going to go first, OP? Or should it mostly be the poors and brown people that are populating so rapidly?

If the answer to the first question is no, then maybe we ought to try and fix the problems that make people poor people have so many children. This would require some empathy though.
 
S

showx

Banned
Oct 13, 2012
154
0
0
Who the fuck are you to say who lives or dies?

The chinese have been playing god and let me tell you, they are having the time of their lifes now, but when their population starts decreasing like hell they will reap what they sowed.

When there are no more developing countries, we will conquer space.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

I just started reading Marvel comics, but what are the best runs that I should really read?
Replies
32
Views
1K
started Kingsora
sol_bad
After DLSS, what else can we expect from AI/Machine Learning for games in the future?
Replies
16
Views
1K
started Elysion
hlm666
Opinion I have a theory about the existence of souls and ghosts.
Replies
244
Views
8K
started SUPERGGK
SUPERGGK
2 3 4 5
LTTP: Death Stranding PS4 Slim (2019)
Replies
8
Views
703
started EverydayBeast
Miles708
Things that should be taught at school and things that shouldn't.
Replies
114
Views
3K
started mcjmetroid
nush
2 3
Top Bottom