Originally posted by GrimReaper86
He's not encouraging people, technically, he's supporting their free will.

And I am supporting your free will to live by what you preach.

So the solution has nothing whatsoever to do with harming ANYONE, it never did.

It has to do with every single person who buys into this world and supports the inequality, to look in the mirror and smack themselves really really really hard, because they are looking at the problem, in all its thick skulled glory, and they need to snap out of the insantiy.

Problem Solved. CASE CLOSED.

A couple of things worry me in the responses by folks here
ATS is a mind cracked wide open type site-you’re here because you are different and more inquisitive than the average brain.
There’s plenty of food now… the problem is the waste? Not really think of a problem…think of something you hate every day and wonder why-it’ll be constructed by a human.
From congestion to a hospital waiting list, from developing world (yours is next) resource scarcity to energy price rises, to overburdened infrastructure and food security concerns, it’s us, people! And changing the human condition is impossible unless any of those factors directly influence the change (eg because we have to, by drastic changes in behaviour which guarantee life, or to not change=death.
Life is finely balanced on earth and if we become too many, then disease, war and famine will reduce numbers; but currently that is not the case for most citizens who blindly carry on unaware that we are the singular root of every problem, and even if they did know that… the likely hood of them amending their behaviours in line with stewardship of this planet would be nil.
It should now be obvious that we should not save every dying man, that if you want to smoke you should (but do not make recourse to public health for smoking related illness).
You want to die, really really? Come this way…
You want to drive fast? Go ahead.
You want a child please do but only have one.
Euthanasia should be obvious.
The problem with all of this is that we generally hold life in some sacred regard, its sacrosanct, it’s a religious precept and its now our concept-to even think of harming life or giving anyone a choice that may even come close (but often doesn’t) is seen as tantamount to murder, those are the words used by the catholic church for abortions.
Speeding must therefore be tantamount to murder, along with suicide, but please breed like rabbits and wage war on heathen enemies when your lands are not enough, which really is tantamount to murder but anyway..
I really don’t want to bash religion, its teachings were fine for the time, when no one knew how vast earth was, but now in this world we have now we are in need of more advice, we know it’s a small planet and we're developing faster than we ever have, if we delay for longer then the rebalancing solutions presented to us will not be ones of our choice. I really don’t think the high end UN figure of a trillion people is sustainable; I’m a bit edgy over 6bn to be frank.
Letting depressed people kill themselves and letting the sick take an easy ride down the dark stream is not enough,you’re hitting a tiny fraction of the billions of humans that are healthy and want to #, for each of the terminal cases you’d have to slot at least 10 healthy folks somehow and make it seem “nice” or like “free will” eg Government Whisky for our Alcoholic Friends and a 100mph minimum speed limit through suburbs. The safest cars would be the ones where if you even shave another vehicle/bush/kerb a spike in the seat thrusts upwardly through your torso, it’s the opposite of an airbag.
You need to be selective about who you take out of the gene pool so careless drivers in “100% fatal if crashed only slightly cars” is my contribution to solving the population issue.

Give the least able the most dangerous jobs is another favourite of mine and should have the population plummeting in no time-it would also be loved by leftist equality hippies until folks start dying because you need arms to fly a passenger jet.
But
When all is said and done…Human rights will have the last word and ethics will have us at each other’s throats in the long run, unless we learn some self control.
The Earth is finite, we are not, thats it. its phyics and maths and if projections are correct its a certainty that resources will run out.

Originally posted by Druscilla

Perhaps a more pertinent question might be how to go about a more equitable distribution of wealth considering that the main concern regarding over population is the effect it has on quality of life where larger populations are impoverished and go to starving.

I'm sorry, but how is sacrificing my lakehouse going to feed and clothe those impoverished populations? Would you want me to sell it and send the money....to whom? It's not going to happen.

If YOU want to sell your extra goodies, have at it. I earned everything I have...yes I built it and I'm not going to give it some poor slob who had the unfortunate luck to be born into poverty. We donate to our local charities where we know the money goes 100% to the cause. It's unreasonable to think that " a more equitable distribution of wealth" is going to permanently give those billions of unfortunates a better life?

Originally posted by GrimReaper86
Your encouraging those that support the free will to end ones own life to end their lives even if they don't feel as though they want to so who's really the monster here?

Originally posted by GrimReaper86
and I think you need to learn reading comprehension....I never called you a monster, I said you were delusional, and you still are.

O….K……..

Any individual has the 'right' to self terminate at any time, (not suggesting it , just sayin) does anyone seriously believe that this could ever be a right anyone else could give you.

If a person is really intent on terminating their existance, really who is going to stop you.

Originally posted by Mr Tranny

Originally posted by GrimReaper86
Your encouraging those that support the free will to end ones own life to end their lives even if they don't feel as though they want to so who's really the monster here?

Originally posted by GrimReaper86
and I think you need to learn reading comprehension....I never called you a monster, I said you were delusional, and you still are.

O….K……..

Ok you got me at my own game, lol. Although, technically I still didn't call you a monster, I implied it but whatever. Either way my point is still valid and that doesn't change just because I forgot about that one little tidbit.

Taking away people's free will is still an awful thing to do, and either way the op still isn't encouraging people to kill themselves, he's supporting free will.

Originally posted by GrimReaper86
Taking away people's free will is still an awful thing to do, and either way the op still isn't encouraging people to kill themselves, he's supporting free will.

What you are still refusing to acknowledge is when you attach something to an external need, or condition, then you step across that line to the point that you ARE encouraging it.

Example 1: “People should have the right to ride the subway.”

That argument is supporting the free will of the people to ride the subway when ever they want. You are not encouraging them to ride the subway in any way, shape, or form.

Example 2: “People should have the right to ride the subway, because the traffic, and pollution, in downtown NY is getting to the point that something will have to be done.”

That is stepping across the line to encouraging them to ride the subway. That statement helps convince people to do something they would otherwise not do. Because if they don’t, they feel as though they are helping contribute to the “traffic, and pollution”

The same as with your monster statement. In the suicide/overpopulation argument, the encouraging condition is implied. You don’t just come out and state it. You just heavily imply it right up to the very point of actually coming out and saying it.

You know that if you come out and say it, then you will be rejected. If you just hold the needle right to the peg for several years, then cultural norms will shift, to the point that allowing suicide to fight overpopulation is the norm. Then you will ratchet down the next step and start talking about how it shouldn’t be a choice any more. That is how creeping cultural change works. It moves so slowly that people don’t realize they are moving.

You support something up until the point it becomes inconvenient. You support free will and the overpopulation idea to get people use to the idea of people dieing for the good of all. Then when people get use to that, then you will stop supporting free will, and strictly push the overpopulation argument, for the good of all.

I am sorry but I am an immovable object. I do not move with the tides, no mater how slow they may be.