Population control - Yes or No

originally posted by: RevolutionAnon
a reply to: PanPiper

The general idea of population control, whether deemed favourable or not, will become essential to survival. The population grows constantly, faster than it diminishes. It is only logical to install a limit before it becomes to bad. Killing people? no. Limiters on children per family? yes.

Anyone who can think critically will understand that our increased life expectancy coupled with ever present multiplication is futuristically detrimental to survival.

We have the land and the resources to support a much larger global community
You have been lied to about over population

Go research the issue and see the lie

originally posted by: Raggedyman
It's always great to hear of eugenics and who is preaching it.
The old, wealthy, famous person who already has children and has leached off society already.

I would personally like to see the top 5 to 10% of the worlds elite wiped off the face of the planet and their wealth distributed throughout society
It would end hunger, help endangered species...
Don't quote me but I think the top 5% own 90% of the worlds wealth.

The true parasites are the greedy
The true mentally ill are those who follow the teachings of the true parasites

But hey, why not kill poor people, sick people, that makes sense

a reply to: PanPiper

While most forms of population control are negative and should be avoided, one positive one I can think of is adoption. If you want less children to be born, then promote the idea that families should adopt unwanted children. Less total births, more children with homes and hopefully, a win-win situation for all.

Careful with arguments like this, it is easy to legitimize very inhumane ideas with cold logic alone, let's make sure population control merely reduces birth rates to stop overpopulation and not actually become a form of eugenic social manipulation.

a reply to: Raggedyman

So forcing animals outside of their habitat for us to survive seems reasonable?

a reply to: stosh64

How would money end poverty? Didnt know you could eat a dollar bill nor a copper coin?

originally posted by: Tiamat384
a reply to: PanPiper
Sure. Let's strip ourselves of the right to life, freedom and the pursuit of happiness. Life because one form of population control is extermination. Please, demonstrate this. Freedom because we would not be free to have children or the number of children we would like. The pursuit of happiness because there are many who find happiness in creating a family. I'm not sure this is true anymore, but even if one person is then you are stripping them of their rights.

If pursuit of happiness is at the cost of others, isnt that egocentric? Isnt a well balanced way of life something to achieve instead of your own happiness?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: TerryDon79
Make that 3. Lead by example Hitler, I mean PanPiper.

4.

With all the screen names he has had it would reduce the population of this site by half if he did himself in.

5.

My dog expressed feelings about it too.

Half the site? A quarter, maybe, but half?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Im starting to blush

a reply to: PanPiper
No. It isn't. What you're suggesting is.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I was at a Church seeing my uncle feeding the old and poor, over 500 people gathered.

Only thing i remembered was the few who said;" Hey its a free meal..!"

And when they were asked to leave they said;" Its a free country "