african population projected to quadruple by 2150
Offline The number one cause of enviormental destruction is human population growth, the human populas has more than doubled in the past 45 years. This population however isnt seeming to slow or subside. What can be done to prevvent futher ecological problems? What would be the rational way to solve the problem? How would one institute this change? What problems are the biggest concerns to you personally that would be affected by mass population increase? With a greater populas will we burn our self of all the finite resources we rely on? what future does this trend of increase set for the future of our planet?
Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.-Karl Marx
- Login to post comments
there are numerous ways, however all of them are subjective in rationality and morality. euthanasia for the terminally ill: already been proposed, blocked by theism. abortion: stigmatized by theists. genocide: just plain looked down upon (buy why? a typical genocide claims hundreds of thousands....wouldn't that multitude make a sizable fighting force? if you can't/refuse to defend yourself, you will be killed, in any situation)
new world order. the current order is far too sympathetic to the weak and stupid.
massive ecosystem extinction, overcrowding, plague, hysteria, instantaneous chaotic anarchy......either that, or communist new world order....
it's happening as we sit here theorizing on computers
gross. sewage. infested. quagmire.
Fear is the mindkiller.
But alas fear if we went around killing everybody wouldnt that make us just as immoral as theists? also i dont see what the fus about abortion is, an embreyo that isnt a full life force isnt a theist, dont they tell you to kill people who reject their beleifs?
Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.-Karl Marx
come on, dude, you've read my posts on the subjectivity of morals. the idea that all killing is wrong is completely at odds with rationality.
a completely rational, objective viewpoint would suggest that some amount of killing is absolutely necessary. the wholesale killing of livestock to sustain the human masses is not seen as immoral. the killing of wildlife that comes in contact with human society-at-large is not seen as immoral. why is the killing of excess humans seen in a negative light (to put things lightly(pun totally intended))?
all of these things benefit the 'human world'. why is any one form of killing any more distasteful than the next?
Fear is the mindkiller.