Population Control - A necessary Evil?

Kill the weak, Take the strong. survival of the fittest mates, survival of the fittest.

 

thats not fair what about children?
im one of them

 

Too bad Swine flu wasn't more effective.

 

Tsk, tsk. This is just like everything else. Sure people did it themselves all the time, but the moment the government gets involved...

(Sex ed reference, kinda.)

The question is this: is there really a way to justify killing person A and not B? Ok, A is more intelligent, but what if A is lazy? B is more hard-working, but what if B will never contribute much to society?

There's no way to justify killing anyone. My solution: when we've used up all the resources and we're too bored to find new ones, we all die. Everyone off the boat.

 

Nah, we won't all die. A part will die. It's not that black and white. And it won't be like all the food will be gone from one day to the next.

Birth control should work (1 kid reduces population, 2 stabilizes it). Killing people once alive is not the option, that is inhumane. Basing it on IQ is not good, as you cannot accurately measure IQ. Neither can you measure hard working (cultural thing). Hard working in Europe might be very different from hard working in Africa.

Smacking your kids will only teach them that violence is a solution to problems, making them bullies.

 

On smacking: IT isn't necessarily HARMFUL, but it's not the best punishment, I know that I used to PREFER being smacked to say, having my games taken away. it really depends on what works
having to control your child a few times does NOT make you a bad parent, having to control several times per day... kinda does.

On pop control: IQ tests are a STUPID idea, my parents consisted of a drop-out and a druggie, yet here I am doing Stage 2 physics, helping heaps of people out per day and I'm not a vicious psychopath (well... for the most part )
The IQ of a parent does NOT in any way reflect their parenting skills, and my mother did a GREAT job considering she's a single parent and my brother severely autistic.

On the "paranoia": Quite simply I agree, the whole thing is almost ridiculous, yes we have a slight problem, but cmon people, we arent going to go extinct in 10 years -.-
You still have 2012 to be paraniod about, at least I find that problem funny.

 

I think people such as teen moms, prostitutes, strippers, most of hollywood and the like should be eradicated instead of the kids.

 

What you failed to mention is that in the Malthusian model is that eventually, by some event, the subsistence level of living will return to one where the world's resources can sustain the population. Now Malthusian theories are severely flawed because they do not take into consideration the evolution of technology, which in most cases, would result in an increase our level of living, thereby increasing the subsistence level.
The Neo-Classical model(1) and New Growth Model(2) of subsistence both address this issue by stating the new subsistence level will return to a level where the slope (not value) is equal to the original level ([1] if graphed) and [2] Because of technological evolution which increases our subsistence level of living, and because there is no Law of Diminishing Returns on new ideas (basically, new ideas/patents/inventions are made everyday) the subsistence level will constantly increase. (our level of living will constant become better)

Back on topic. Based on the New Growth Model I believe that we should not necessarily stop people from having too many kids, I think that people should be smart/think things through and have enough kids that they can financially and emotionally support. Potential parents should be taught how to raise kids, what will happen in potential situations as well as how to show your potential in the working world, as it may help the parents to get a promotion and attain more money in order to support the family better.

 

That can actually work.

In an ideal world in which people would have more common sense and rationality rather than counting mostly on their carnal instincts or whatnot.
People who do count on it so much as to have single moms on welfare, rape on a child-bearing age woman [some do deserve to be raped, but I'll leave that out for now], and "crack babies".

Sorry for bursting your bubble, but it's the truth.

 

Some deserved to be raped? I believe that no one should be raped, it goes against human rights. NO means YE-... I mean NO means NO. Crack babies I think I can understand because those kinds of drugs users get so high that they are unaware of what they are sexually doing (not to mention what they are doing in general).

 

My reason for some women "deserving" to be raped is becuase of the way they act and dress. Female teens bitch about when older guys look at them in a dirty way, but if they are dressing like some woman in a rap music video, then of course the older man will look at her and in the worst case scenario may lead to--you know.

It is their fault for not knowing the male mind so well as to dress so provacatively (sp?) as to some of the guys capable of raping them.

And also, certain behaviours can lead a woman to let it happen.

 

Rap? rape... rap... Rap = rape! Ohh.....

I don't think they need a raping, I think the feminist movement needs a wakeup call. It's like the feminists said at some point "good 'nuff" and went about their business, no longer feeling the need to let the public know their needs.

On the other hand, anyone can dress how they like. If you want to go nude, go nude. But one can't go nude, can one? Because we live in a society so obsessed with politeness...