[SonicPs]

Yes, coercion is basically what government does, directly or indirectly. However we know that in order to prevent anarchy and ensure peace we need some coercion in our lives. We need a government to coerce people into not killing, rob banks, ect. I think most logical human beings believe coercion is okay in this case.

Yes. And those examples you have given are negative incentives/consequences. Positive reward for behaviour modification is an oft overlooked strategy. But, when applied correctly, volunteers to do something comes out of the woodwork. Look at the U.S. military. It is not just the base pay that gets volunteers into the ranks -- neither is it just the need to crave the spirit of adventure. Many persons see the benefits of a college tuition pay system from the government as a big inducement to volunteer -- besides the other benefits that come along with volunteering for something that may prevent you from "reproducing" -- death; due to war or military accident.


By creating financial incentives for people to not reproduce is basically forcing people who don't agree with population control to pay their hard earned money for something they don't support. Is that right? Leadership is not always about doing what is popular. Sometimes when the boat is sinking, the captain or person in charge will have to make hard decisions on who goes into the lifeboat -- regardless of who paid for their tickets and what price they paid. But, if the captain made an announcement and asked for volunteers to stay with the main ship as it sinks, knowing it will take three hours to sink and that coast guard vessels would be there for them in 2 hours and then offered some large financial incentives, I would bet the gamblers amongst us, who may be hard pressed for cash, would calculate their odds and consider volunteering to stay -- especially if it were a gambling cruise ship -- lol.

You seem to be talking about "reproducing" as if since it is some kind of "natural right," and that it is also the choice of action for common sense. It isn`t, and "reproducing" is a behaviour that is quite maliable.

Would you lif[k]e it if someone forced you to pay taxes for something you didn't support (such as experimentation on animals)? That is a reality, so the question should not be posed as a conditional. Our taxes "do" support animal experimentation. The military is one of the largest users of animals for experiments and tax funds provided to researchers in the form of grants are quite common.

Of course, I don`t like that so I lobby against it. That is democracy. We can use our arguments to try and convince our reps to adopt certain policies. If the government were to ever adopt policies that did not irk someone, then the government would probably cease to exist. "Not likeing" something in government is a given from at least some members of society. It all depends on which one wins out.

As for human population, Earth is just too taxed with us scurrying around in almost every crivice. If the logic of thinning a deer population in a particular region is used and given for the benefit of the environment, why shouldn`t population reduction be applied to humans as well in regions where overpopulation is a problem? Are you saying logic is prejudicial? -- or like sexism and racism, speciesism is quite ok to use the same logic of "us vs them" to let us run rampant pushing all other lives and ecological systems to the brink of destruction?

You mean Morpheus? lol. Yes, probably so. Been a while.

Anyway I am not surprised that Agent Smith said because he is EVIL . And he himself ends up becoming a virus himself in the third movie. Doesn`t matter who said it or what he was. The analogy is quite right. As a whole on this planet, we are a species that do not find a healthy equilibrium within our population. Look at many low income large populated countries. Look at their environment which they have impacted on. Even in countries that are not so overly populated with larger incomes, you will still see a lot of destruction by our species not living in harmony with the natural ecological systems of the region. We invade, displace, and destroy.

A population policy would be the appropriate shot in the arm we need to reign in our virus selves. Roll back the desiese if you will so that the Earth and all her creatures could live within the chronic presence of us.