View Single Post
Old 04-06-2006, 08:11 PM   #7
Frjrbefd

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
381
Senior Member
Default
Hi Silverbackman.

Glad to hear that you are at least not for coercing people into population control. That is good to hear.
At the moment I don`t think coercion is necessary. Incentives could do the trick to convince some to get sterilized. Also, since China went the coericion route, the term "population control" has gotten a bad rap. I prefer "population policy" -- which I feel the world should have one -- a concerted effort to reduce reduce reduce.

However, if you really want people to stop reproducing government is not the answer. Government interference in anything always ends up with lower quality anything. This includes reproduction control. I wouldn`t say that government ends up with lower quality in everything. Besides, orgs just cannot put in place the kinds of financial incentives that would be needed to move whole populations of countries.

If you want people to do such things you need to raise awareness yourself by starting your own organization, ect. The problem with government handing out rewards, ect. is that it still costs tax money on something a lot of people will disagree with. So at the root of your plan there is still coercion. I disagree that that would be coercion when it is a voluntary program. If you are going to include all taxes as policies of coercion, well, then -- I guess we are heavily coerced in everything we do. In that case the term "coercion" loses its meaning if it becomes the norm.

I wouldn`t say that farmers who choose to join a government program and who are paid to let a field go fallow for a season so that it can rest is coerced into doing that, would you? But, taxes pay for that field not producing.

Now for my opinion on the issue. I think it is good mankind increases its population. You can't forget the fact that we are animals, the higher population our species has the greater our chances of survival in a horrible situation. Now that may seem a bit silly, especially considering the fact that we have around 6.5 billion of us. But the truth of the matter is we are vunerable to many things such as astroids from space, super volcanoes, ect. Do you think we have a higher chance in the near future of being hit by an astroid, killing many of us -- or a population crash or war as countries feel perhaps forced to fight for natural recourses as they dwindle and must take care of their populations? I can imagine the latter being more possible than ther former -- seeing that mass extinctions from a cataclysmic catastrophe hasn`t occurred on a worldwide scale since man began civilization and agriculture about 10,000 years ago.


The ultimate goal of life is to survive and reproduce. So I see reproduction as a fundemental natural right. No government institution should force their view on reproduction. If someone wanted to get sterilized -- or that the incentives for a free college education weighed more in their head than having children and the government was offering the procedure for free, why do you think that is "forcing their view" on someone?

You can't compare a virus to a human. Sure you can. In fact, The Matrix did with Agent Smith`s sit down talk with Neo. The mechanics of reproducing are different, but the principle of spreading and destroying is quite similar. There is the "micro" and the "macro." We are the "macro" virus of the world.

A human is a highly evolved animal with culture and society . We are just a different kind of virus -- a virus with culture and society. We like to say, "we are animals but animals with a culture, civilization," so why can`t we say, "We are a virus with culture and society"? Is it just because we do not like the negative baggage of what a virus conjures up -- more so than what an animal image does?

In any case being the dominant species we deserve to do as we please with our enviroment and other species. This is the "might makes right" argument and looking at history you will find that many have been on the brutalized receiving end of this reasoning. If you reserve a particular defunct logic rather than sweeping it away, then it sits there waiting for its chance to rear its ugly head again.

But I doubt humans will become the ultimate destruction of this planet. Oh, I think the Earth will survive, but will we make it inhospitable for our species? I am sure the lowly cockroach won`t miss a beat.
Frjrbefd is offline


 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:48 AM.
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Design & Developed by Amodity.com
Copyright© Amodity