It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Lets talk about euthanasia, suiside and 7 billion people.

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 11:10 PM

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

You know we share this planet with other living things right?

I'm not an advocate of population reduction, however there seems to be little regard shown by the 'overpopulation deniers' towards the multitude of 'lower' species that can do nothing but run, hide, flee, watch and die as we humans eat, burn, pollute, destroy and f^^k this planet into a wasteland.

People who think this problem is about space are nuts.

edit on 4-12-2012 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)

We agree entirely then on space and numbers not being the problem.
honestly, we agree there as I read it.

As for the other? It depends. The two worst words, I know... Are we talking about the totally obscene disregard for intelligent life? If I'd known more about the Sea Shepherds awhile back when I had something from an inheritance, I would have seen about volunteering and supporting them myself. If that may give some indication of my feelings on wanton slaughter of intelligent and I believe to be, sentient life. I'd love to find a group similar but even small mortgages still need paid and that wouldn't seem to on any level.

On the other hand? I look at humans as a species and from natural biology. I see the eye placement of a predator, the intelligence granted only to apex predators (and then some on steroids for us) and the whole oral and digestive system for a predator would be expected to have. So, stock animals are necessary. It's what's for dinner.

So is hunting to balance nature ....since we willfully exterminated almost every OTHER apex predator on Earth. Nature can't do that job itself anymore.

I think the issue I'd see in that is just all about one word. Respect. Respect for nature, respect for other life and respect for one's self. I think that is what is most lacking to throw everything radically out of balance.

posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 11:17 PM
I think you need to separate suicide and self-induced euthenasia.

Most people who kill themselves dont do it because their life is going to be horrible for the last few years, they do it because there life has been horrible for a few years and they cant cope and they have noone to help them, theyre depressed, etc.. these people are wasted lives if they kill themselves... we need to find ways to help these people.

But if someone faces a life of searing agony rolling around in their own #, with no hope for change, then they should be given the option to end it provided theyve at least tried all treatments/etc

Just to clarify what I said here a bit better, I in no way endorse forcing people to make a choice/not make a choice - people should be allowed to choose whether they live or die. But letting someone commit suicide because theyre depressed without trying to help them in my opinion is almost as bad as actively killing someone.. You can't force them to stay alive, but you shouldnt just say 'everyone who feels they want to die, go on then, off you go!'
edit on 5-12-2012 by cartesia because: explain better

posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 11:38 PM

Originally posted by JiggyPotamus
Maybe, but I think you missed what the OP was saying. The OP was not supporting killing people because our population is too large. Not at all. All he/she was saying was that those who wish to kill themselves, without any outside urging, should be allowed to do so. Or the OP may have just been raising the question, without expressing support either way. I do not know if your message was intended for the OP, but if so, I think you owe them an apology.

There are fine lines between condoning, supporting, and encouraging.

When you tell someone that it is OK to kill themselves because there is too many people in the world, you have stepped across all lines to the point of encouraging them to kill themselves.

And you will be encouraging them to kill themselves to support a nazi-eugenics wannabe form of environmentalist new world order

For any law against suicide on the books is symbolic. It is to symbolize that society does not condone what you did. For there is no way to punish someone for committing suicide because they are already dead. It is part of the social safety net that is there to try to persuade people to find a better way to deal with their problems than suicide.

To remove that law from the books, would be one thing.
To set up a place where people can go to kill themselves cleanly, and painlessly, is another thing all together.
To use the excuse of “too many people” as an excuse to do the two prestated things is a HORRENDOUSLY different thing all together!

You have went from the point of condoning it, to facilitating it. When the forced extermination proved to be too unpopular, they turn to brainwashing the population so they will exterminate themselves. It is more socially acceptable, so to speak.

It is the cheapening of human life. It goes along the same lines as government supported abortion.

My previous statement is a blanket statement to all people. If you truly believe that people should be encouraged to kill themselves to reduce the population on this planet. Then practice what you preach. Be the first to set the example. Kill your selves in the name of your environmentalist religion. It will save us the trouble of doing it for you.

There is a resurgence in ugenics, along with this nazi-esc environmentalist crap that has been rising. People can clearly see it. Sooner or later, there will be a revolt against this BS. The people that was pushing it will be the only ones hurting then. We have fought a war over it once, we can do it again.

posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 02:53 AM
reply to post by Biigs

personally I believe that euthanasia isn't a terrible thing, we put our suffering pets down all the time. it should'nt be an issue for people to show that same kind of mercy for some one you love that is suffering, I think some people are naturally selfish and want to hold on to what they feel belongs here and keep it that way as long as possible, thats why these things can be such an issue.

posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 11:02 AM
Euthanasia, overpopulation, and compassion, can't be used in the same theme. Euthanasia and overpopulation maybe if you're not a very nice person, and definitely euthanasia and compassion if we're talking about helping to end someone's incredible suffering or coming to grips with a patient long on life support with no brain activity, but not all three together.

Overpopulation is a not so strange bedfellow of global warming; each rife with motive, agenda, and employ scare tactics to spread a similar message of "humans are bad".

posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 01:07 PM
Sounds good... you go first

posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 01:21 PM
Overpopulation is a myth, and another control mechanism of the bad guys.

If we all stood right next to each other the whole worlds population would fit in Jacksonville Florida.

"If you fit three people per square meter you could stick all the people in the world in a space of 2,280 square kilometers [adjusted for current population, which may be underestimated], or 880 square miles. Jacksonville is 874.3 miles"

If we all lived in Teaxas we would all have a cozy 1/4 acre or so.

Site with the cold hard "FACTS" lol

They want you to buy up the myth, just like they want you to buy up global warming, and the ancient astronaut BS.

If you believe all this BS. Please by all means euthanize yourself.

posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 01:27 PM
reply to post by PassiveObserver

congratulations for not actually reading any of the posts.

instant summery: Its about the attitude to those in a situation where its beneficial for them to do so and have the option to, without the stigma it has on them or their family - not to save the human race by doing so.

edit on 5-12-2012 by Biigs because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 01:58 PM
reply to post by Biigs

"....that the mental state of some through suicide (not through drug use or sexual/violent abuse induced) people should be tolerated, for the good of the better stronger of the species to be able to choose."

"....therefore why really restrict those who may slow it down with no impact to the 'healthy' population, making smarter faster healthier humans."

"I dont think this way but i accept that such things might be in an intelligent species future, to really control its environment..."

I must say after focusing on these comments of yours that I see no difference to the racist bigoted elitist eugenists from Darwin on down. THIS kind of justification and reasoning is symptomatic of a mind who views those less fortunate as not worthy of life. An intelligent species isn't ALL THAT INTELLIGENT if it can't figure out a way to provide comfort and peace in the last dying days of a person who needs it.  Only a NON-INTELLIGENT SPECIES would consider letting the person put a gun to their head as better. It's the same bastard logic used when saying that murdering a child through abortion is better than the alternative of a poor starving child on the street - how about not having sex in the first place?

"Skin for skin!" Satan replied. "A man will give all that he has to save his own life."

He has you over the barrel right now - and you will support murder because of it. The elderly and disabled are already feeling rejected and ostracised because of our mad desire and chasing of youth and good looks. Let's just put more pressure on them to off themselves. Stop and think about where this evil will go. Do you understand how social engineering and how peer pressure works? I can honestly today picture a near future where the weak in our society will feel the insane pressure to end things out of being made to feel like a burden.

posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 02:28 PM
reply to post by WhoKnows100

So you ignore most of the statement and pick on one part without referencing the context at all.

im not sure how i can explain anything any clearer to you.

Sorry for wasting your time.

posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 03:50 PM
reply to post by Biigs

I'll admit I jumped the gun. I get really defensive when people bring up overpopulation.

I honestly don't know how I feel about the issue you are talking about. I personally was suicidal for many years, but I'm not now. That's the kicker I guess.

A lot of people go through periods in life where it seems unbearable. I tried pills mixed with alcohol several times, I tried hanging myself only to be found unconscious by my father, and I tried to shoot myself only to have the gun jam when I pulled the trigger which honestly was a deeply spiritual (for lack of better words) experience. I haven't been the same since.

I am a 33 year old single male. Having never even dated or kissed a person. Living alone with 6 cats. I am employed full time. I have a mortgage on a little house, and not on any kind of financial aid. As far as like the continuation of the Human species goes though, I am an utter waste of space. TMI?

Humanity vs. Society?

As far as like people with incurable diseases and people being kept alive in vegetative states. They most certainly should be able to leave, but they make healthcare providers a boat load of money annually so I don't see it ever being an option. because when insurance providers actually pay claims, they raise the rates for everyone else to compensate so the more people that need the money the more money they make. Insurance is truly nothing more than a money making scheme between insurance providers and healthcare providers, and now the government.

Prisoners cost the state money, but make the prison owners money. Like why won't they just let James Holmes off himself is beyond me.

Money really is the root of pretty much everything.

And then there is all the "suicide is a one way ticket to hell!" dogma that has been programmed into so many people. Touchy subject for sure.
edit on 5-12-2012 by PassiveObserver because: to much information. lol

edit on 5-12-2012 by PassiveObserver because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-12-2012 by PassiveObserver because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-12-2012 by PassiveObserver because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 03:59 PM
If not for the total absolute abuse of this.
I would say yes.

and THEN the Gov would Chose who Die's!

posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 04:04 PM
What about the murderers who face 50 years of their life in prision for a crime they can't live with any way, but they chose not to take their life because of their family and cost the state 50 years of feeding the sorry son of b-

what about those?

suicide and euthanasia is never straight forward and some day it may be excusable without the stigma.

I do not approve of their, im simply discussing the fact that our own view of it is always bad because you always need to save a life never to destroy it, no matter the pain it causes.

posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 04:53 PM
reply to post by Biigs

Population does not need to be controlled by man . It will be controlled by nature very effectively . Then there is the death sentence called Agenda 21 by the UN . The Globalist ELite have basically a list of people to remain alive and I'll bet your names aren't on it . So you will not have to worry about population then . I doubt you names are on any of the Deep Underground Bunker list .

posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 05:00 PM
The only issue with 7 billion people considered "over-population" comes from TPTB. As this number increases its tougher to condition/control more and more people. It would be easier to control a smaller human work force given how technologically dependent the world has become.

That is the issue, not food/water/land shortages..

They just don't need 7 billion button pushers, it is a waste of resources. (and it kinda is)

posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 05:12 PM
reply to post by Biigs

Dont be silly. There is still plenty of room on this planet and there are plenty of places able to grow food. The desalination of the ocean for drinking water takes care of that so why reduce the population. The more the merrier I say.

posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 05:21 PM

Lets talk about euthanasia, suiside...

Off-tangent post... I like how you spelled suiside. It should be spelt that way, IMO. The english language (native english speaker here) is very inconsistent. It's a pet peeve of mine.

Why do we have 'c' and 'k'.... when many times, they have the same sound?

Why do we have 'x'... when all that it is... is the sound of 'ks'? Ex: sax = sacks, sex = secks.

Our society is so 'sophisticated', supposedly... but people who look at our alphabet probably wonder if a child invented some of the letters.

note: moved topic to new thread
thank you

edit on 5/12/2012 by MarkJS because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 06:17 PM
reply to post by Biigs

Hannibal has been known to dine on the finer cuts of meat.
you want suicides and euthanasia? Are you hungry?

posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 07:12 PM
There is nothing wrong with either euthanasia or rational suicide in end of life situations but it is not a solution to over population.

The easiest way to bring down birth rates around the world is to 1) empower women to control their fertility and maybe more important 2) eradicate poverty.

Study after study has shown that women will choose to have less children given the means and right. Studies also show that the poor (without access to health care, food, jobs, etc) have more children. It's not only because they don't have access to birth control, it is also because children are the only hope these people have for support if case of illness, accident and in their old age.

My Grandparents had nine living children, mostly to ensure their survival if something happened to them. They assumed one or more of their children would be able to care for them. This was before Social Security in the US. It's still true today in many communities in the US and will become prevalent again if the Republicans are successful in 'privatizing' Social Security or getting rid of it entirely.

This is a valid discussion but not in terms of population control.

posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 08:11 PM
reply to post by Biigs

I mostly grew up in the country, when a animal got hurt or to sick to make better my dad or grandfather would usually say "it's time to put the poor creature out of it's misery, no need for it to suffer." I should have the same consideration available. As far as I'm concerned, if I'm in great pain with no hope for recovery I should have the option to seek a doctor to help end my suffering. This way my family wouldn't have to clean up the mess, I wouldn't be a burden and I could go in peace, before my mind or body completely abandoned me.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in