TeenHelp
Page 1 of 3 1 23
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

TeenHelp (http://www.teenhelp.org/forums/)
-   Current Events and Debates (http://www.teenhelp.org/forums/f38-current-events-debates/)
-   -   World Population to Reach 7 Billion on Oct. 31 (http://www.teenhelp.org/forums/f38-current-events-debates/t87322-world-population-reach-7-billion-oct-31-a/)

Jocelyn. October 26th 2011 09:14 PM
World Population to Reach 7 Billion on Oct. 31
 
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-08-12/t...eau?_s=PM:TECH

Quote:
The world's population is forecast to hit 7 billion in 2011, the vast majority of its growth coming in developing and, in many cases, the poorest nations, a report released Wednesday said.
A staggering 97 percent of global growth over the next 40 years will happen in Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, according to the Population Reference Bureau's 2009 World Population Data Sheet.
Quote:
High fertility rates and a young population base in the developing world will fuel most of the growth, especially in Africa, where women often give birth to six or seven children over a lifetime, the report says. The number is about two in the United States and 1.5 in Canada.
A stark contrast can be drawn between Uganda and Canada, which currently have about 34 million and 31 million residents, respectively. By 2050, Canada's population is projected to be 42 million, while Uganda's is expected to soar to 96 million, more than tripling.

chickenonsteroids October 26th 2011 09:17 PM
Re: World Population to Reach 7 Billion on Oct. 31
 
I wonder what it'll be in 20 years time

Anyway, this could end up in some awesome innovation, this can't be all bad news can it ?

Pelios October 26th 2011 10:19 PM
Re: World Population to Reach 7 Billion on Oct. 31
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickenonsteroids (Post 747033)
I wonder what it'll be in 20 years time

Anyway, this could end up in some awesome innovation, this can't be all bad news can it ?
8.3 Billion.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44928812
Click "Jump to chart"
As far as the bad news it is indeed bad news, we can't handle it. Maybe Overpopulation isn't the real problem but it is controlling and hording natural resources. With that many people reproducing, also comes rampant STD's. Those third world countries don't allow women to get birth control without their husbands "permission"
"My friends advised me to go to a nearby clinic, but I was told I must come with my husband. Now I have laid the issue in the hands of God."
*) In God's hands.... come on. =/

Guile October 27th 2011 12:12 AM
Re: World Population to Reach 7 Billion on Oct. 31
 

OMFG!You'reActuallySmart! October 27th 2011 12:17 AM
Re: World Population to Reach 7 Billion on Oct. 31
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guile (Post 747141)
Usually I'd say no but in this case, I agree, especially because of the picture.

Guile October 27th 2011 12:18 AM
Re: World Population to Reach 7 Billion on Oct. 31
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Man And XX Master (Post 747145)
Usually I'd say no but in this case, I agree, especially because of the picture.

Penultimate October 27th 2011 10:28 AM
Re: World Population to Reach 7 Billion on Oct. 31
 
The best solution - have a law like a china does - only one/two children per family. The worlds population is growing everyday. The problem being this : The world is already in a economic recession and there is already a lack of jobs meaning unemployment levels are already very high, this then adds to people having to receive social security/welfare money/benefits from the governments. There is also a lack of housing, no matter how many houses , flats and high rise blocks are built with the worlds ever growing population there will be a need for more houses, this then means more land being built on - deforestation , and in turn this will just add to global warming.
This is why there needs to be a law. That states one/two children per family. The UK is already considering cutting child benefits for families who have more than 3 children.

Lexie Grey October 28th 2011 03:49 PM
Re: World Population to Reach 7 Billion on Oct. 31
 
According to census.gov, it's expected to reach seven billion sometimes in March of this coming year.

Aversion October 28th 2011 11:51 PM
Re: World Population to Reach 7 Billion on Oct. 31
 
Me and my friend George have come to the conclusion that if we could have one wish, we'd wish for a plague to wipe out the genetically weakest half of the earth's population, thereby ensuring the survival of the superior half.

Kol October 29th 2011 03:04 AM
Re: World Population to Reach 7 Billion on Oct. 31
 
Eugenics should be banned!

Aversion October 29th 2011 10:22 AM
Re: World Population to Reach 7 Billion on Oct. 31
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ✖Truth✖ (Post 748237)
Eugenics should be banned!
Yeah, let's just let everyone breed at a constant exponential rate.. who cares about the world population..

Guile October 29th 2011 10:40 AM
Re: World Population to Reach 7 Billion on Oct. 31
 
I wish we could just have a million more of me XD the world would quickly be a better place!

~Mr. Self Destruct~ October 30th 2011 08:01 AM
Re: World Population to Reach 7 Billion on Oct. 31
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guile (Post 748397)
I wish we could just have a million more of me XD the world would quickly be a better place!
Getting egotistical Guile? :P
Personally, I'm not in the favour of eugenics in the sense that we could perpetuate "superior" beings, considering I'm not anthropocentric on this issue, given the impacts overpopulation also has on the environment.
If living conditions could be "evened-out" somewhat it would be easier to reinforce child limits, but I hardly see many accepting that notion as a solution.

Aversion October 30th 2011 09:02 AM
Re: World Population to Reach 7 Billion on Oct. 31
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Mr. Self Destruct~ (Post 748835)

Getting egotistical Guile? :P
Personally, I'm not in the favour of eugenics in the sense that we could perpetuate "superior" beings, considering I'm not anthropocentric on this issue, given the impacts overpopulation also has on the environment.
If living conditions could be "evened-out" somewhat it would be easier to reinforce child limits, but I hardly see many accepting that notion as a solution.
If we leave it how it is, we will all die. Leaving it how it is is not an option.

~Mr. Self Destruct~ October 30th 2011 09:24 AM
Re: World Population to Reach 7 Billion on Oct. 31
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cosmo (Post 748854)

If we leave it how it is, we will all die. Leaving it how it is is not an option.
Trust me, I'm aware. It's a goddamn tragedy, being perpetuated by people too concerned with their rights to bear as many children as they want. I'd have respects for that right if it weren't being used to destroy the human race and the Earth.
What I'm concerned about is people's reactions toward birthing limits. Sure, it's somewhat cringe-worthy, but it's nowhere near as bad as the alternative.
I'm not disagreeing with the fact something NEEDS to happen, I'm just raising the point that many (if not most )people will.

Guile October 30th 2011 09:35 AM
Re: World Population to Reach 7 Billion on Oct. 31
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Mr. Self Destruct~ (Post 748861)

Trust me, I'm aware. It's a goddamn tragedy, being perpetuated by people too concerned with their rights to bear as many children as they want. I'd have respects for that right if it weren't being used to destroy the human race and the Earth.
What I'm concerned about is people's reactions toward birthing limits. Sure, it's somewhat cringe-worthy, but it's nowhere near as bad as the alternative.
I'm not disagreeing with the fact something NEEDS to happen, I'm just raising the point that many (if not most )people will.
We need to do it fairly, throw out race, colour, etc. Just do it based on important, genetically praiseworthy, qualities.

~Mr. Self Destruct~ October 30th 2011 09:55 AM
Re: World Population to Reach 7 Billion on Oct. 31
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guile (Post 748865)
We need to do it fairly, throw out race, colour, etc. Just do it based on important, genetically praiseworthy, qualities.

I'm not opting for any real eugenics, just a lowering of population, through gradual process and no judgement of "qualities" of any kind. But that has to happen soon, because famines on Earth, our impact on the globle, it just gets worse everyday.
Eventually, we'll kill ourselves to the point we have an acceptable level of population, but who knows the damage that could occur before then? It's a risky damn scenario.

Aversion October 30th 2011 10:04 AM
Re: World Population to Reach 7 Billion on Oct. 31
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guile (Post 748865)
We need to do it fairly, throw out race, colour, etc. Just do it based on important, genetically praiseworthy, qualities.
I'm wondering Guile, could it be we agree on something?!

I'm interested, what sort of qualities are you thinking of? Personally I'm thinking resistance to disease, IQ (which is mostly hereditary), strong/tall men preferred (I realise this rules me out but it's for the greater good). That's all I've got for now, I'm going to spend some time looking into the things one may inherit.

Guile October 30th 2011 11:40 AM
Re: World Population to Reach 7 Billion on Oct. 31
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Mr. Self Destruct~ (Post 748835)

Getting egotistical Guile? :P
Genetically speaking, I'm the cream of the crop! No familial diseases, tall, blond, physically fit, very intelligent, charismatic, attractive XD


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cosmo (Post 748871)


I'm wondering Guile, could it be we agree on something?!

I'm interested, what sort of qualities are you thinking of? Personally I'm thinking resistance to disease, IQ (which is mostly hereditary), strong/tall men preferred (I realise this rules me out but it's for the greater good). That's all I've got for now, I'm going to spend some time looking into the things one may inherit.
Although I would say tall is a good thing, it's not the most important factor (I'm 6' I guess that's average?) and intelligence has to be equally valued with strength. Nonetheless, I would say the most important factors, in no sort of order are,

  • Lack of Hereditary Disease
  • Intelligence (IQ being an easy way to test)
  • Talent at the arts/artistic intelligence (IE music, acting, etc.)
  • Height/Weight (hereditary obesity is a no-no)
  • Proper features (IE Aligned eyes, nose, mouth, etc.)
  • Resistance to Disease
  • A good diversity of human "phenotypes" (We need people from all over the world, a mix of Germans, French, Russians, Africans, Asians, Mexicans, etc.)
  • Mental Stability
  • Physical Fitness
  • Etc.

See people seem to think that Eugenics = Racist, sure, I would rather pick some blond haired girl to marry, but that's because people are naturally drawn to similarities, it doesn't mean I want to use it to get rid of everyone else XD

Snufkin October 30th 2011 12:24 PM
Re: World Population to Reach 7 Billion on Oct. 31
 
Looks to me that if we used eugenics, I'd be the first into the gas chambers.

Marguerite October 30th 2011 01:17 PM
Re: World Population to Reach 7 Billion on Oct. 31
 
I don't agree with eugenics at all, but I could almost stomach the idea if we were just talking about weeding out diseases, deformities etc.

I'm not saying I agree with it because as someone else has already briefly mentioned I think we'd end up with and 'us' and 'them' scenario with people who still have disabilities (because even if it were law I'm sure it wouldn't be all encompassing... it's not that difficult to get pregnant and stay off the radar). I'm not saying it would be taken to 'Gattaca' extremes, but I definitely do think it would create a huge discriminatory divide.

But I said I could stomach it because I understand where people are coming from... if it would work, a world with less disease would be fantastic. However I think it's funny how people in this thread have professed to just want a smaller, more healthy population yet we've already heard ideas about intelligence, artistic talent and 'proper features' (whatever that means).

So where do we draw the line here? And how can you tell if someone if intelligent or has artistic talent before birth? Because surely we are smart enough now as a society to realise that just because someone has intelligent parents does not mean they will be intelligent themselves, and vice versa, of course.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guile (Post 748897)
Genetically speaking, I'm the cream of the crop! No familial diseases, tall, blond, physically fit, very intelligent, charismatic, attractive XD
Genetically speaking.

Also, what does being blond have to do with anything? This reminds me of something but I can't put my finger on it...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snufkin (Post 748909)
Looks to me that if we used eugenics, I'd be the first into the gas chambers.
I know you're (probably?) joking but I do wonder how many people who support eugenics, particularly in this thread, would actually be alive if eugenics was being implemented while they were in the womb.

I also wonder how those who support it would feel it they had some kind of deformity or genetic disease, and if they consider themselves superior to those who do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cosmo (Post 748395)

Yeah, let's just let everyone breed at a constant exponential rate.. who cares about the world population..
This would be valid if we only had two options...

1) let the world's population grow until we can no longer support ourselves.

or

2) eugenics eugenics eugenics!

Fortunately that is not so.

Aversion October 30th 2011 01:36 PM
Re: World Population to Reach 7 Billion on Oct. 31
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marguerite (Post 748918)
I don't agree with eugenics at all, but I could almost stomach the idea if we were just talking about weeding out diseases, deformities etc.

I'm not saying I agree with it because as someone else has already briefly mentioned I think we'd end up with and 'us' and 'them' scenario with people who still have disabilities (because even if it were law I'm sure it wouldn't be all encompassing... it's not that difficult to get pregnant and stay off the radar). I'm not saying it would be taken to 'Gattaca' extremes, but I definitely do think it would create a huge discriminatory divide.

But I said I could stomach it because I understand where people are coming from... if it would work, a world with less disease would be fantastic. However I think it's funny how people in this thread have professed to just want a smaller, more healthy population yet we've already heard ideas about intelligence, artistic talent and 'proper features' (whatever that means).
Because if we're going to be culling the herd, so to speak, we should be removing the weak ones and keeping the strong ones, not the other way around, of course. I do see what you mean about the possibility about 'discrimination' but then consider this: What is more important? Our survival and improvements as a species or their feelings?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Marguerite (Post 748918)
So where do we draw the line here? And how can you tell if someone if intelligent or has artistic talent before birth? Because surely we are smart enough now as a society to realise that just because someone has intelligent parents does not mean they will be intelligent themselves, and vice versa, of course.

I don't know about artistic talent, but actually intellingence is almost entirely decided by inheritance. If two parents are almost braindead, their child probably is too. While of course if they get no education they won't become smart, there is such a thing as innate intelligence, and some possess it and some don't. I'm not sure how one would measure it, but I'm fairly certain one can and seeing as none of us are brain surgeons, not one of us are qualified to even attempt to debate the how's of it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marguerite (Post 748918)
Also, what does being blond have to do with anything? This reminds me of something but I can't put my finger on it...
Yes.. that did occur to me as well..


Quote:
Originally Posted by Marguerite (Post 748918)
I know you're (probably?) joking but I do wonder how many people who support eugenics, particularly in this thread, would actually be alive if eugenics was being implemented while they were in the womb.

I may or may not, depends on the criteria. I have some good qualities and some bad. Honestly though if I agreed with the criteria then, being utilitarian in my personal philosophy, I would gladly sacrifice myself for the greater good. I don't mind dying as part of a group if it means humans can continue to survive and prosper.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marguerite (Post 748918)
I also wonder how those who support it would feel it they had some kind of deformity or genetic disease, and if they consider themselves superior to those who do.
As horrible as it sounds, those without genetic deformities are superior to those with. Imagine a scale, where 0 is worst, 200 best, 100 average. A person with a severe genetic deformity would be between 0 and 50. That doesn't mean I don't sympathise with them or spend time with them, but if we're going to be truthful then you have to accept that they are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marguerite (Post 748918)
This would be valid if we only had two options...

1) let the world's population grow until we can no longer support ourselves.

or

2) eugenics eugenics eugenics!

Fortunately that is not so.

What's the other option? The problem is less that our future population is unsustainable, but that our current population is unsustainable.

blumemusik♫ October 30th 2011 03:30 PM
Re: World Population to Reach 7 Billion on Oct. 31
 
Yeah, it's not going to be sustainable in the future, it's barely sustainable now. But that's just life's way of making sure that the world doesn't become overrun by people. The population is going to reach a peak, and then go down, and reach a plateau basically. However, if we start genetically modifying people to survive on less food or whatever, that's when we're going to reach a problem.

Torchwood's Miracle Day anyone?

Marguerite October 30th 2011 03:52 PM
Re: World Population to Reach 7 Billion on Oct. 31
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cosmo (Post 748926)

Because if we're going to be culling the herd, so to speak, we should be removing the weak ones and keeping the strong ones, not the other way around, of course. I do see what you mean about the possibility about 'discrimination' but then consider this: What is more important? Our survival and improvements as a species or their feelings?
I wasn't suggesting that we 'kill the strong ones and keep the weak ones'. I was advocating for not 'culling the herd' at all. Also, when I was talking about discrimination, I wasn't talking about school yard bullying. I was talking more along the lines of insitutional discrimination. I have a feeling this would be one of those things we'd look back on years in the future, thinking, how could the people at that time have thought that was acceptable?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cosmo (Post 748926)
I don't know about artistic talent, but actually intellingence is almost entirely decided by inheritance. If two parents are almost braindead, their child probably is too. While of course if they get no education they won't become smart, there is such a thing as innate intelligence, and some possess it and some don't. I'm not sure how one would measure it, but I'm fairly certain one can and seeing as none of us are brain surgeons, not one of us are qualified to even attempt to debate the how's of it.
I'm not trying to get into a nature vs nurture debate here, all I'm saying is that just because someone has extremely intelligent parents does not mean they are going to be extremely intelligent themselves. If they are raised by extremely intelligent people (parents or otherwise) then yes, they probably will be intelligent themselves. But if you take the child of two people with low IQs (but high enough to function in society independently) and the child of two people with high IQs, then give the child with the intelligent parents a poor education, and the other the best education money can buy, who do you think is going to be more intelligent?

I'm not saying there isn't a hereditary component (obviously I'm not qualified to debate this at any length) but it certainly isn't all it hinges on, and I'd doubt it's even the main thing it hinges on.

On the topic of intelligence, how intelligent are we talking here? What is the ideal? Over 100 or 115+? 130+? 140+?

You're smart, obviously, but are you smart enough to warrant being alive in this new, 'ideal' world?

And why does being smart have to be an 'ideal quality' anyway? Just because they're smart doesn't mean they're a good person or they'll make any great contribution to society. Look at Guille. He's obviously a really smart guy, but despite what he thinks I don't think filling the world with billions of Guille's is going to make the world a better place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cosmo (Post 748926)
As horrible as it sounds, those without genetic deformities are superior to those with. Imagine a scale, where 0 is worst, 200 best, 100 average. A person with a severe genetic deformity would be between 0 and 50. That doesn't mean I don't sympathise with them or spend time with them, but if we're going to be truthful then you have to accept that they are.
I don't have to accept it, because it isn't true. Just because someone rates between 0-50 on a scale you just made up doesn't really mean anything. But it does show something, which is that there is no 'scale'. I mean, superior in what way? Who decides that; you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cosmo (Post 748926)
What's the other option? The problem is less that our future population is unsustainable, but that our current population is unsustainable.
Why does there need to be another option right this second? We're not at crisis mode right now. Maybe in 100 years people in the west will have decided having kids is not cool and the population rates in our countries will plummet. People are already having far less children than they were a few decades ago. Maybe we'll have decided to do something about climate change and the state of the world is turning. Maybe conditions will have improved in the third world and there will be more access to contraceptives. Maybe we'll have stopped being so fat. Maybe an epidemic will and passed by and killed a bunch of us off.

Baxter October 30th 2011 04:46 PM
Re: World Population to Reach 7 Billion on Oct. 31
 
The most genetically superior survive? You realize black people are the most physically superior? Why don't we just wipe out anyone but them then?

Someone of a 'mixed race' is considered less superior? Really? Might as well wipe out North America then, the area that is reproducing the least.

Anyone with a history of depression or other problems might as well go too. That's basically anyone on TH, for the most part.

Mythic October 30th 2011 05:15 PM
Re: World Population to Reach 7 Billion on Oct. 31
 
The earth has a carrying capacity. At some point, humanity will tip the scales enough on resources that our population can't sustain its own growth. From there, our population will either plateau, or it will plummet if the resource consumption too heavily outweighs the demand for them.

Am I worried? A bit. But when you look at what countries are having the highest population growth, it's generally countries that can't sustain the growth for ecological, political or social reasons. Case in point? Countries in the horn of Africa have a very high birth rate, but warfare, draught and other factors have started to take their toll, and it's only a matter of time before they reach their regional tipping point.

TheNumber42 October 30th 2011 07:10 PM
Re: World Population to Reach 7 Billion on Oct. 31
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marguerite (Post 748968)
I wasn't suggesting that we 'kill the strong ones and keep the weak ones'. I was advocating for not 'culling the herd' at all. Also, when I was talking about discrimination, I wasn't talking about school yard bullying. I was talking more along the lines of insitutional discrimination. I have a feeling this would be one of those things we'd look back on years in the future, thinking, how could the people at that time have thought that was acceptable?
Or they'll look back and think thank God (well probably not, hopefully if only the intelligent ones can reproduce religion will die off too) that someone was able to see what was coming and save humanity from itself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marguerite (Post 748968)
On the topic of intelligence, how intelligent are we talking here? What is the ideal? Over 100 or 115+? 130+? 140+?

You're smart, obviously, but are you smart enough to warrant being alive in this new, 'ideal' world?
Why does it matter if we're smart enough or fit enough or anything enough? I don't anyone here is saying we should murder anyone that doesn't fit the cricketer, just that those who have yet to be born should be controlled. I don't care if it were determined that I was genetically unfit to reproduce, my want as a human to pass on my genetic material is insignificant in comparison to the fate of humanity.

And to your earlier question about what I would've felt if this decision had been made while I was still in the womb: Not a single thing. I wasn't yet conscious, if I had died at that moment (assuming I was even really alive) it wouldn't have mattered to me in the slightest. I would have ceased to exist and not ever comprehended what I missed. Would've mattered a bit to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marguerite (Post 748968)
I don't have to accept it, because it isn't true. Just because someone rates between 0-50 on a scale you just made up doesn't really mean anything. But it does show something, which is that there is no 'scale'. I mean, superior in what way? Who decides that; you?
Superior in regards to surviving and perpetuating humanity. These qualities could easily be distinguished and standardized by a board of scientists or the like, it wouldn't be hard and it definitely wouldn't put genetically deformed people on the upper side of the list, no matter how sorry for them we might feel or what sort of people they are.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Marguerite (Post 748968)
Why does there need to be another option right this second? We're not at crisis mode right now. Maybe in 100 years people in the west will have decided having kids is not cool and the population rates in our countries will plummet. .
This isn't something that is going to happen 100 years from now, people are already starving, resources are already scarce. The world is already overpopulated. In 100 years, at the current rate, it will be far too late.

Up In The Clouds October 30th 2011 08:01 PM
Re: World Population to Reach 7 Billion on Oct. 31
 
The US has a fairly stable population rate. The problem is African countries.

It looks like if we decided to use Eugenics I'd be in line to live! I'm a female, no known diseases, healthy height and weight, fairly intelligent, musical ability. You guys so realize you've just decided to kill half of the website because many of the people on here have mental disorders.

There should be a three child rule in every country to keep the population stable. Some people will have baby after baby, and their kids will have just as many kids. Part of Africa's hunger crisis is the fact there's to many people!

TheNumber42 October 30th 2011 08:17 PM
Re: World Population to Reach 7 Billion on Oct. 31
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Up In The Clouds (Post 749109)
The US has a fairly stable population rate. The problem is African countries.

It looks like if we decided to use Eugenics I'd be in line to live! I'm a female, no known diseases, healthy height and weight, fairly intelligent, musical ability. You guys so realize you've just decided to kill half of the website because many of the people on here have mental disorders.

There should be a three child rule in every country to keep the population stable. Some people will have baby after baby, and their kids will have just as many kids. Part of Africa's hunger crisis is the fact there's to many people!
You do realize that, unless I was severely mistaken, no one here is saying we should kill anyone, just that we should prevent new people from being born from parents with questionable genetics as a way to lower the population overall. Don't try to sensationalize eugenics into some sort of second Holocaust. We're not talking like that at all.

Guile October 30th 2011 09:28 PM
Re: World Population to Reach 7 Billion on Oct. 31
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Up In The Clouds (Post 749109)
The US has a fairly stable population rate. The problem is African countries.

It looks like if we decided to use Eugenics I'd be in line to live! I'm a female, no known diseases, healthy height and weight, fairly intelligent, musical ability. You guys so realize you've just decided to kill half of the website because many of the people on here have mental disorders.

There should be a three child rule in every country to keep the population stable. Some people will have baby after baby, and their kids will have just as many kids. Part of Africa's hunger crisis is the fact there's to many people!
Yes, I'm simply speaking of steralization.

Snufkin October 30th 2011 10:05 PM
Re: World Population to Reach 7 Billion on Oct. 31
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marguerite (Post 748918)
I know you're (probably?) joking but I do wonder how many people who support eugenics, particularly in this thread, would actually be alive if eugenics was being implemented while they were in the womb.
Yeah. It was very tongue in cheek, since I realise we're not actually killing anyone. I do feel like the gas chamber reference was relevant though.

I'm not sure how eugenics is going to get the population to not become overcrowded. It might slow it down, but eventually we'd have a nation of "superior" people who keep breeding. So we basically have more and more "superior" people. Nothing to do with fixing the numbers though.

I find the whole thing ridiculous. I'm not sure why the human race is in competition with itself to find "superior" people. I'm not trying to outdo anyone with what I'm capable of, I'm just happy to live. Maybe that makes me a hippy, and maybe I'm out of touch with reality.

But the way I see it, if two people with dwarfism love each other, I'm not gonna tell them not to have a child, who will most likely inherit their small stature. If two people with a mental disability love one another, who are we to tell them not to have a child?

It just seems to me like everyone is up on their high horses saying we should cut off the human race that isn't doing anything, or is worth less. Why should anyone be worth less? It's beyond racist, sexist, homophobic - it's playing God. The very thought of it stinks of extremism and the smell is sickening me.

Blond hair indeed. Next we'll be deeming Polish people inferior.

Fabrication October 30th 2011 11:28 PM
Re: World Population to Reach 7 Billion on Oct. 31
 
Don't surprise me whether it be tomorrow or next year. It was bound to happen anyway.

Marguerite October 30th 2011 11:35 PM
Re: World Population to Reach 7 Billion on Oct. 31
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNumber42 (Post 749079)

Or they'll look back and think thank God (well probably not, hopefully if only the intelligent ones can reproduce religion will die off too) that someone was able to see what was coming and save humanity from itself.
Let's say everyone in the future is very intelligent thanks to eugenics. You do realise that it will mean nothing. All that will happen is that what is considered smart now will slowly start to be considered as being the lower end of the spectrum. We can't all be doctors and lawyers... we need people to be 'cogs in the machine', and if you've got people who are very bright stuck in menial jobs, all across the country, you're going to have extreme class devides.

You mentioned religion. Can you imagnine the religious warfare that would go on? Most of our society subcribes to one form of a religion or another. Most of these religions on moral grounds would be against eugenics.

What about racism? Not within our own boarders, but more generally. If we're some race of 'superior' beings, then what are we going to think about the rest of the world?

And how long until this spills over until we have a holocaust type situation on our hands? Are people really going to want to take babies home from the hospital if they have something wrong with them that wasnt detected before birth? What about people with mental illnesses that develop later in life? What about homosexuals? They can't reproduce [with each other] so is there really any point in keeping them around? How are we going to feel about people who have cancer? What about someone, perfectly healthy, who loses a limb later in life? What if someone isn't up to our 'standards', intelligence wise?

And even if we don't start lining them up for the gas chambers straight away, how are they going to be treated? How are they going to get employment, or find a place to live? Nobody wants to hire an 'imperfect' person in a 'perfect' world. What kind of lives would they have?

Yeah, I'm sure we'll look back fondly.


Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNumber42 (Post 749079)
Why does it matter if we're smart enough or fit enough or anything enough? I don't anyone here is saying we should murder anyone that doesn't fit the cricketer, just that those who have yet to be born should be controlled. I don't care if it were determined that I was genetically unfit to reproduce, my want as a human to pass on my genetic material is insignificant in comparison to the fate of humanity.

And to your earlier question about what I would've felt if this decision had been made while I was still in the womb: Not a single thing. I wasn't yet conscious, if I had died at that moment (assuming I was even really alive) it wouldn't have mattered to me in the slightest. I would have ceased to exist and not ever comprehended what I missed. Would've mattered a bit to me.
I wasn't asking how you would feel as a fetus, I was asking how you would feel now, knowing that you aren't good enough to live in a future you're advocating for.


Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNumber42 (Post 749079)
Superior in regards to surviving and perpetuating humanity. These qualities could easily be distinguished and standardized by a board of scientists or the like, it wouldn't be hard and it definitely wouldn't put genetically deformed people on the upper side of the list, no matter how sorry for them we might feel or what sort of people they are.
Perpetuating humanity and surviving are kind of weak reasons. There has been a lot of emphasis placed on that in this thread but what is the point of surviving just for the sake of surviving?

Just because you're fit as a fiddle doesn't mean you wont go on to be a serial rapist. Just because you have some kind of deformity doesnt mean you won't go on to make some great contribution to science or the economy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNumber42 (Post 749079)
This isn't something that is going to happen 100 years from now, people are already starving, resources are already scarce. The world is already overpopulated. In 100 years, at the current rate, it will be far too late.
What we do will have no effect. We are not starving in our own countries, in fact, we all hail from some of the fattest countries out there. If you're argument is that lower populations in our home countries would mean there is more to share abroad, then that is kind of redundant because there is more to share already, we just aren't doing it. Starvation and overpopulation is a problem facing the third world, and we can't implement laws in other countries.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snufkin (Post 749165)

Yeah. It was very tongue in cheek, since I realise we're not actually killing anyone. I do feel like the gas chamber reference was relevant though.

I'm not sure how eugenics is going to get the population to not become overcrowded. It might slow it down, but eventually we'd have a nation of "superior" people who keep breeding. So we basically have more and more "superior" people. Nothing to do with fixing the numbers though.

I find the whole thing ridiculous. I'm not sure why the human race is in competition with itself to find "superior" people. I'm not trying to outdo anyone with what I'm capable of, I'm just happy to live. Maybe that makes me a hippy, and maybe I'm out of touch with reality.

But the way I see it, if two people with dwarfism love each other, I'm not gonna tell them not to have a child, who will most likely inherit their small stature. If two people with a mental disability love one another, who are we to tell them not to have a child?

It just seems to me like everyone is up on their high horses saying we should cut off the human race that isn't doing anything, or is worth less. Why should anyone be worth less? It's beyond racist, sexist, homophobic - it's playing God. The very thought of it stinks of extremism and the smell is sickening me.

Blond hair indeed. Next we'll be deeming Polish people inferior.
I couldn't agree with you more. I find it suprising how far right the views are of people who seem to think they're liberal.

Teenhelp is the only place I've ever seen people defend Colonel Gadaffi (outside of his loyalists in Libya). I think a lot of people here pat themselves on the back for making the 'hard decisions' and cutting through the 'political correctness' and coming to a conclusion based on logic and fact, when really all they're doing is taking a controversial view point and taking a ridiculous stand point for the sake of 'objectivity'.

Also I'm not saying there is a problem with having traditional 'right' values (and I'm not saying the right supports Gadaffi, because, well, nobody outside of TH and his own circle does) but there seems to be some sort of disconnect if you're preaching things that are just TOO far right for conservative politicians to even mention yet you label yourself like some kind of free spirit go with the wind la di da flowers and puppies liberal.

Oh and if not thinking I'm superior to people with genetic diseases and not wanting to sterilize a whole section of the community makes me one of those 'free spirit go with the wind la di da flowers and puppies liberals' then sign me up, baby.

Snufkin October 31st 2011 12:00 AM
Re: World Population to Reach 7 Billion on Oct. 31
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marguerite (Post 749193)
Teenhelp is the only place I've ever seen people defend Colonel Gadaffi (outside of his loyalists in Libya).
Yeah. It used to be that if you wanted to be seen as edgy all you had to do was put a pentagram round your neck and tell everyone you're Wiccan now. We're definitely taking things up a notch here by supporting extremist views and taking controversial viewpoints that no self-proclaimed liberal would ever stand for.

*puts daisy chain around head*

TigerTank77 October 31st 2011 01:39 AM
Re: World Population to Reach 7 Billion on Oct. 31
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snufkin (Post 749204)


Yeah. It used to be that if you wanted to be seen as edgy all you had to do was put a pentagram round your neck and tell everyone you're Wiccan now. We're definitely taking things up a notch here by supporting extremist views and taking controversial viewpoints that no self-proclaimed liberal would ever stand for.

*puts daisy chain around head*
The only way to be truly edgy is to approach every view point as the Devil's Advocate.

Works for me. :shades:

Ghost On The Highway October 31st 2011 03:08 AM
Re: World Population to Reach 7 Billion on Oct. 31
 
Couldn't agree more, Guile. We need to sterilize men, in my opinion after two children. Unfortunately that would be very hard to enforce, but I wouldn't want to make women go through the procedure just because it's easier to track. IDK where I stand on "eugenics," in theory I'm all for it, but in practice there are some really smart people who deserve sterilization at best and some "losers" who are wonderful people and should be allowed to have children. I believe abortion is wrong, so I think "extra" children should be placed up for adoption and their birth parents fined mercilessly.

Guile October 31st 2011 04:16 AM
Re: World Population to Reach 7 Billion on Oct. 31
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost On The Highway (Post 749297)
Couldn't agree more, Guile. We need to sterilize men, in my opinion after two children. Unfortunately that would be very hard to enforce, but I wouldn't want to make women go through the procedure just because it's easier to track. IDK where I stand on "eugenics," in theory I'm all for it, but in practice there are some really smart people who deserve sterilization at best and some "losers" who are wonderful people and should be allowed to have children. I believe abortion is wrong, so I think "extra" children should be placed up for adoption and their birth parents fined mercilessly.
It's equally easy to track, anyway, I'm not talking about castration, I mean sterilization. Also, I think that in general, intelligence is only a factor, you need a variety of proper qualities.

Finally, THEY GET IT!

XD

BDF October 31st 2011 09:58 AM
Re: World Population to Reach 7 Billion on Oct. 31
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost On The Highway (Post 749297)
Couldn't agree more, Guile. We need to sterilize men, in my opinion after two children. Unfortunately that would be very hard to enforce, but I wouldn't want to make women go through the procedure just because it's easier to track. IDK where I stand on "eugenics," in theory I'm all for it, but in practice there are some really smart people who deserve sterilization at best and some "losers" who are wonderful people and should be allowed to have children. I believe abortion is wrong, so I think "extra" children should be placed up for adoption and their birth parents fined mercilessly.
I'm not having anyone coming near my dick or balls with a pair of scissors. I'd rather kill them first.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guile (Post 749327)
Finally, THEY GET IT!

XD
Fascism will never be an option for me. That guy in the video may have good intentions, and actually I even agree with him on some things. But, and Godwin's law couldn't be more appropriate now, a Hitler exists in every party, fascist, communist, and democratic. However, it's only a democratic system that can keep such people in check. I could never trust my life completely in the hands of one person, especially someone whom I barely know and only hear of through TV adverts. Because one day I'd end up trusting the wrong person, and getting screwed inside out. Just like the German people got screwed by Hitler in the end. Too much power given to too few people is NEVER a good idea.

Guile October 31st 2011 07:47 PM
Re: World Population to Reach 7 Billion on Oct. 31
 
That video was a parody XD he was poking fun at people who don't vote, then bitch about politics...

dr2005 October 31st 2011 07:52 PM
Re: World Population to Reach 7 Billion on Oct. 31
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cosmo (Post 748175)
Me and my friend George have come to the conclusion that if we could have one wish, we'd wish for a plague to wipe out the genetically weakest half of the earth's population, thereby ensuring the survival of the superior half.
Until a virus comes along which the "superior half" have no immunity to because the gene which helped produce it was possessed by the "genetically weakest half". If you find that unrealistic, look at sickle cell anaemia and its effects on malaria resistance.

That, in a nutshell, is the problem with attempting genetic selection and eugenics - what is deemed "superior" is purely subjective, and by and large we don't have a clue what we're doing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guile (Post 748865)
We need to do it fairly, throw out race, colour, etc. Just do it based on important, genetically praiseworthy, qualities.
Coming up with a list of such qualities that people will actually agree on is very unrealistic, particularly when one's future survival is at stake. Self-interest tends to kick in when dealing with such matters.

On a broader note, I'm finding the seemingly widespread acceptance of eugenics and sterilisation as viable solutions to the population level both baffling and alarming, and that's before Godwin's Law comes into the equation. Given that most European countries will enter a state of population decline over the next few decades, and the changing nature of our climate and its inevitable impact on survival rates, I don't think we're in particular need for either measure frankly. The planet sustains billions of other lifeforms, after all, so it's not a question of resources. It's a question of balance.


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:10 AM.
Page 1 of 3 1 23
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search engine optimization by vBSEO.
All material copyright ©1998-2013, TeenHelp Inc. All rights reserved.
TeenHelp Inc. is a registered 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organisation in the United States of America.
Terms | Legal | Privacy | Conduct