Logan's Run

For anyone who has never seen the movie or read the book, wiki sums it up in this link. en.wikipedia.org...'s_Run

My question is to members, while I feel life is precious, overpopulation is a given. In today's world, technology has ensured a longer life for everyone. My question is why is euthanasia of people who can not care for themselves, or a world similar to Logan's run so disgusting to suggest as a possible means for population control. In the natural world, only the strong survive, and are able to carry on their strong traits to its offspring. I know other factors play a role in disease and retardation and such, but selective breeding or even genetic engineering could eliminate a lot of issues.

Originally posted by AMANNAMEDQUEST
I know other factors play a role in disease and retardation and such, but selective breeding or even genetic engineering could eliminate a lot of issues.

I'm pretty sure the Nazi's showed the world that is a sick and perverted thing to do.

People have a right to live, overpopulation is a problem that will be addressed when the need arises.

So yes, I think it is disgusting to suggest any form of population control.

Originally posted by Zanzibar

People have a right to live, overpopulation is a problem that will be addressed when the need arises.

So when does overpopulation become a problem, and how many people are just too many. I do think what the Nazis did was disgusting and perverted. I know everyone wants a offspring of their own blood. Yet there are thousands if not millions of children out there without homes. We apply these rules to dogs and cats, why not humans too?

Why not humans? I can't even believe you could say that, I really can't. Dogs and cats have a right to live, but in the long run, we are the dominant species on this planet and we should try to preserve life in any way. No matter how small.


Euthanasia is a choice that an individual should make for themselves, not an ideal that is to be forced onto them.

Originally posted by Zanzibar
we are the dominant species

actually there are far more ants then people...

most dominant....maybe

most destructive.....definetly

Originally posted by omega1
most dominant....maybe

No, we are the dominant species.

Dominant species means the species that cover and control the largest expanse of the Earth, which is us.

We have the capability to create and destroy wonderful things in equal measure, so I'd say we were pretty dominant.

They can put these on every street corner for all I care. If a person chooses to end their life, that's their decision. But for someone else to decide who should live or die is just wrong.

Should my doctor decide my illness is too difficult or expensive to correct be able to just put me out of my misery ?

Should the state decide that my contribution to society isn't sufficient, and then cart me off for extermination ?

Is the little retarded boy down the street going to be too much of a burden on the community, and as such, be put to death ?
He may never amount to much, but I love his crooked smile and friendly wave when I see him on the way to the store. That has value to me, even though I'll never be able to talk about physics with him, I see joy in his eyes.


The only people that should be put to death are the ones that destroy the lives of others.

I think at some point in the future we'll have to address over population but I'm guessing it will be through birth control rather than euthanasia. Voluntary euthanasia may become an accepted part of this too I believe.

This was my dad's view, but I agree with him.

All third generation welfare recipients should be sterilized.

If a family is still living off of tax dollars after 3 generations, that family
is a burden and should be removed from breeding populace.

In this day and age with free public schooling, anyone can graduate high
school and get a job.

Those that choose not to should also be choosing not to breed.

My 2 cent,
Lex

Originally posted by Lexion
If a family is still living off of tax dollars after 3 generations, that family
is a burden and should be removed from breeding populace.

A burden? I'm hearing Nazi-ish views in this thread again. A family that is poor does not make them a burden. Paying a few extra dollars to help them live their lives should not be something that people moan about.

No-one has the right to take away a person's right to reproduce, it's sick and depraved. Everyone on the planet has a right to carry on their family and that shouldn't be taken away just because they are poor.

My mother is dieing at this precise moment in time...she is in extreme pain and wants to go...she is tired and has told all her sons that enough is enough...if we could have legal euthanaisia we would and she would want it...instead we have to watch her get worse and suffer more everyday...more pain and more suffering...and this is no longer just her...how do you think we feel?????..we all have children and they are now feeling it as well...this is not something that can be cured...this is terminal...i am getting to the stage that i am tired as well...normally i would be working,looking after my little girl and playing pc games...but i cant think about that at the moment...the nazi veiwpoint is just plain wrong...everybody has something to offer for the betterment of the community but not everbody can last forever...where is the line between right and wrong?

Originally posted by Heratix
everybody has something to offer for the betterment of the community but not everbody can last forever...where is the line between right and wrong?

It's true that no-one lasts for ever, but the line between right and wrong, at least to me, is clearer than anything.

I am very sorry about your mother and I understand what you going through, watching a loved one suffer is a terrible thing. If that person consents to euthanasia then it's okay, the hospital should go along with it.

But, forcing euthanasia onto someone who has not consented to it is plain wrong. Evil even. Who can possibly think they have the right to decide if a person lives or not against their will? No-one.

Forced euthanasia is Nazi like. They forced their sick ideals onto people and killed millions because of one man. Forcing someone to die is the same, wrong.

The choice to live or die is one that an individual has to make for themselves, not one that another makes for them.

Zanzibar...thank you...u get my WATS...its up to the individual...not the state.

Population control via euthanasia is a horrid idea.

Who would get to decide what traits deserve death?

For that matter, what would be a qualifier for forced euthanasia? Age? Physical health? Mental health? Intelligence? Wisdom?

Population control should be through birth control, and not forced birth control at that.

What we need is education on birth control and ease of access to birth control on a world wide basis, but that won't happen since there's so many religious people out there who are against it.

A burden? I'm hearing Nazi-ish views in this thread again. A family that is poor does not make them a burden. Paying a few extra dollars to help them live their lives should not be something that people moan about.

No-one has the right to take away a person's right to reproduce, it's sick and depraved. Everyone on the planet has a right to carry on their family and that shouldn't be taken away just because they are poor.

I am going to disagree in part here, whereas there should always be provision made for the poorer families and as a community we should all accept our taxes going towards helping the less well off, it's an unfortunate reality that we now have generations of families who make the choice to live off the state rather than go out and get a job and contribute, this is becoming a massive problem in the UK and having a major knock on effect in many different ways. With regards to people like these there should be a cut off point, this is not an overly authoritarian position just common sense.

[edit on 17-4-2007 by ubermunche]

Originally posted by ubermunche
With regards to people like these there should be a cut off point, this is not an overly authoritarian position just common sense.

Doesn't make any sense to me. The British government chooses to supply poor people with money and other things. Paying a little extra in taxes, to me, doesn't really seem like such a hardship.

A way of combating this could be lowering the amount of benefit's these people receive, this will give them an incentive to go and find some other form of income.

Sterilizing them (which I know you didn't mention, but has been previously) is barbaric and as close to 'ethnic cleansing' one can get without genocide.

this is becoming a massive problem in the UK and having a major knock on effect in many different ways.

Would you be able to list some of these major knock on effects? Unsociable families on benefits are a problem, but other than that I don't really see any others.

While overpopulation may become an issue it isn't a crisis yet. I suggest we sit back and watch how China's efforts turn out before making a descision. I think that they are trying most of the methods mentioned here.

www.youtube.com...






sorry, don't know how to embed youtube vids yet



[edit on 17-4-2007 by Stale Cracker]

Originally posted by Zanzibar
Doesn't make any sense to me. The British government chooses to supply poor people with money and other things. Paying a little extra in taxes, to me, doesn't really seem like such a hardship.

A way of combating this could be lowering the amount of benefit's these people receive, this will give them an incentive to go and find some other form of income.

Like I said paying towards helping the genuinly needy is one thing, having your hard earned money used towards funding the lifestyle of people who have no intention of working butinstead play the system is hardly a sensible or fair set up.

Would you be able to list some of these major knock on effects? Unsociable families on benefits are a problem, but other than that I don't really see any others.

Well personally I think unsociable families on benefits do have a major knock on effect on society as it seems to reinforce this over developed sense of self entitlement coupled with a lack of social responsibility both of which seem to be having a corrosive effect on the wider society IMO. (Not that I'm laying all of societies ills at the door of the welfare state you understand) Added to that I can't see how it's exactly beneficial to the economy of the country that a big chunk of money is being spent on people who don't realistically need to have it. It also has quite an impact on my personal quality of life if, to bring home a livable wage, I have to work overtime to cover what's being taken out to help some slacker continue to live the life of Riley.

[edit on 17-4-2007 by ubermunche]

Originally posted by Zanzibar

Paying a little extra in taxes, to me, doesn't really seem like such a hardship.

Ok, fair enough. Let's put a check-box on our tax returns so those who want to contribute can, freely. Those of us who don't want our tax dollars
spent by someone who didn't earn them can with hold.

A way of combating this could be lowering the amount of benefit's these people receive, this will give them an incentive to go and find some other form of income.

See above.
That option should seriously lower the amount of their free ride.


Lex