The planet is in no danger at all. Whatever we do, however much damage we inflict, the planet will continue to exist. It will exist after all humans have died and, later, after all life has died. It will continue to exist until, in billions of years, it becomes consumed by the sun.
Speaking of a pointless rant, that was deep Jeremy. My meaning was clearly the planet's natural beauty as well as its ability to sustain life. It amazes me the tangents people go on to avoid the issue.
To imagine otherwise is hubris.
To argue as you do is inane. Building strawmen to knock down is sophomoric.
Spot on. After all, we know how successful that policy has proved to have been in China.
And we know how much better our world is getting with everyone reproducing, without any checks whatsoever.
This is a quite astonishing rant. It has no shred of moral justification. Shall we stop the Jews (of which I am one, not that that matters particularly) from reproducing? The Moslems? The Scientologists? (actually, that last example rather spoils my point but we'll let it pass). Or only the poor? The transiently poor? The poor who have been poor for five years? Those without qualifications
You raise some interesting points and problems Jeremy, but unfortunately you do it in an affonting way. However, you also blithely miss some key points and concepts. Why do you bring up religion and why do you miss the whole point of what I said? I never said people of certain religions should be prevented from reproducing; I said people who cannot care for themselves, by their own means, should be prevented from reproducing. In other words, people who need governement money to survive
should not be able to produce. This means, regardless of race or religion, if you don't have the wherewithal to feed and shelter yourself, you aren't fit to have children. It's pretty much that simple. As it stands, such people (since they don't do anything and have so much time on their hands) typically pump-put the most children ... all of whom are sustained by still more government money. Do you think increasing the amount of people unable to sustain themselves by their own means is preferable to preventing more such people from reproducing? I don't see where you pulled "religion" out of in this discussion (well, I have an idea, but let's keep it clean).
The invocation of Darwin to support such a policy is bizarre. Social policy leading to genetic modification? To quote John McEnroe, you cannot be serious!
What I said only seems bizarre to you because of your own cerebral shortcomings. I will explain what I meant, in the simplest terms, so that you might see the point. Now see if you can follow this thought: The law of Natural Selection = survival of the FITTEST. Meaning, in nature, those animals most
equipped to survive do so and thus reproduce the best
genes for future populations. I hope you're still with me. Unfortunately, in our society, by keeping people alive who can't even feed themselves (and by letting them reproduce unchecked), our government is encouraging survival of the UNfittest, which is (as I said) an abomination of nature. Nature favors reproduction of those MOST capable of survival; our government policy offers monetary favors to those LEAST capable of survival. We are, in essence, preserving dead weight in our society and encouraging them to make more dead weight.
My own suggestion would be the opposite: those people unable to sustain themselves should NOT be able to reproduce. In nature, they would die off, but we not only keep them alive ... we assist them in making more of their kind. As things stand, such people get more and more money the more and more kids they have. Rather then getting "extra" money when such people reproduce, it is my view they should have penalties for such irresponsibility. I am not sure what you think is "wrong" with this belief system. I find banning irresponsible reproduction far more tenable than the current system which encourages it.
To my way of thinking, having a child is the greatest and most complex personal responsibility that there is. And it is simply irresponsible for any person to have children when they can't even take care of their own needs, and it is even more irresponsible of our government to encourage this with its current model.
I shan't contribute further to this thread (unless provoked beyond endurance) because I have already come dangerously close to invoking Goodwin's law and the degree of detachment from reality showed by your post is little short of alarming. Sit down, take a stress pill and think things over, Jack.
Well, Jeremy, it seems you are the one who needs to take a chill pill. You are speaking of being "provoked" when I originally didn't even address you. You are now refusing to contribute further to this thread, which itself is an admission that you
are the one emotionally-affected by it.
Perhaps if you would stop arguing nonsense, and perhaps if you slowed down so that you understood what was being said, we might actually find ourselves more in agreement than not.