Subject:
|
Re: what do you think of editorals regarding the environment?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 30 May 2001 12:31:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1003 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tom Stangl writes:
> WARNING - harsh reality follows, don't read it if you are soft at heart or
> can't deal with a little adversity....
:-)
> I agree with much of the article, just not the way he stated it. I am all for
> People First. If you want me to weigh people against a subspecies of some
> fish/bird/frog/whatever, people win hands down for me.
But to what extent? I don't happen to agree with you, but I understand it.
But to what extent? If a cow or a person, but only one, will survive then you
pick the person. Fine. What if the person wants to wipe out a species so that
they can harvest the last of it to make expensive handbags? Is that equally
kosher?
> That being said, I think anyone that has more than 2-3 kids should be
> castrated/fixed/whatever. I DON'T CARE if you have the financial wherewithal
> to support more than that, I don't think you have the right to subject the
> planet to more than what is needed to keep our species going. Bank some
> sperm/eggs after having 2-3 kids (in case of accidents that kill you, your
> kids, or both), and DON'T HAVE ANY MORE. The Osmonds should be shot ;-) • [snip]
> What is scariest is that (in general) the more intelligent the couples
> involved, the LESS likely they are to have kids, or have fewer kids. So over
> time, unless we curtail population explosion, the average intelligence of the
> planet will continue to decrease (while the average IQ would still be 100, the
> actual intelligence level denoted by that 100 will drop - i.e. someone with an
> IQ of 100 in 2100AD might test as 80 in 2001AD). Not what we as a species
> should desire.
We as individuals don't. Our species has no desires. I don't see these two
views as particularly compatible. I take the stance that as a bright and
productive member of our species, I have a responsibility to reproduce. If
you're not part of the solution...
> I think the best thing that could happen to Earth right now is a plague that
> kills half the population off over a period of a year or so (the survivors
> would need time to burn/bury all the bodies for sanitary reasons)
I think it would be as or more effective and easier on our economy if all it
did is render 90% of the women sterile.
> And that plague can start in India and China, since they're irresponsible
> enough as to have over ONE THIRD of the world population right now.
But their population per se isn't really a problem. If they were consuming
their share of resources, you would have a valid point. That plague out to
start in North America since we're the heaviest users of world resources --
regardless of our particular population density. And it's not as if either
India or China are small places.
> There, that ought to wake a few people up ;-)
I doubt it particularly. It was a cute post, but lots of people feel as you
do.
> Don't agree with me? That's fine, but you won't change my mind on any of the
> above. I'm doing my part, I'm not going to have kids at all.
How can you have a mind that is unchangable? Why even converse if you can't
grow and you're already perfect? I sincerely don't get it.
Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
29 Messages in This Thread:
   
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
