Going "Green" = People Must Die! Why?

Originally posted by OhZone
Here we go again with all these folks who thing that humans can just go on breeding forever. That the next generation will surely have the majical answer to how to do it. Maybe they can make the Earth larger.

I do not wish to suggest that 'breeding' must get us anywhere but are we all mere animals according to you or do you reserve such sentiments only for people in over exploited parts of the world?
As it's so well understood the prosperity and rights for women results in fast declining birth rates why don't we just allow every and all populations to freely choose their leaders and rob some powerful nations of their means to dominate the world in their aim or preventing such democracy and wealth creation?

In the meantime all our waters are polluted with toxic chemicals.

And yet people live longer in the most developed nations?

All our waters are polluteted with animal and human feces.

Which is mostly the case in less well developed nations where there are no infrastructure to treat water?

No one has yet figured out what to do with all the garbage collected.

Sure we have! If our energy comes from renewable sources it becomes very easy to recycle and reuse much of what is current land filled.

No one has figured out how to disintigrate all this garbage into something that is non polluting.

Where have you been the last few decades? We don't know how to landfill what we can't for instance incinerate ( and you don't have to just blow that smoke into the air btw) in such a way that groundwater does not become contaminated?

No one has figured out how to process human and animal feces so as notto pollute the water and the air.

Never heard of the water treatment facilities that exists in most of the developed world?

And yet you defend you assumed "right" to reproduce.

Yes i do as i would not like others to be able to dictate to me. I can stand propaganda/information that would lead people to willingly not have children as such can be discussed but laws should never attempt to infringe so clearly on our human rights.

With just a wee bit of smarts anyone shoud be able to figure out if they are fit to reproduce.

Right, and with sufficient education and wealth many people might in fact choose not to do so but given desperate living with few rights and patriarchal societies women are going to have to suffer the consequences of horrid economic circumstances.

Isn't it obvious to you that there are millions of people with heritable defects that should be sterilized Right Now?
When you look in the mirror can you honestly say that you want your children to look like you do?

No, it's not obvious but maybe people should rather be sterilized for having sentiments such as the ones you have towards fellow human beings? Maybe the error is in calling such sentiments human? As to the reproduction, sure, i really hope they do.

Alas, beauty is heritable.
And so is intelligence.
Do you honestly think that mental retards should reproduce?[/quote[

Until we truly understood the root causes of such disabilities we have no business sterilizing anyone. I mean right or wrong doesn't even come into this as basically inhuman as the whole notion is.

"Oh", you say, "but they might have a normal child".
Well so what? Why does the world need that when there are healthy, intelligent beautiful people who can fill any percieved gap in the population numbers.

Because that's the anti-thesis to everything human beings have been democratically struggling for?

And then we have the clueless who suggest that cities be built in places where there are none today. LIke the "badlands" I guess. Just goes to show you have not done much traveling.
You be the first to put up a cabin ok?

badlands

With sufficient energy availability you can live anywhere and do practically anything imaginable.

Stellar

Originally posted by Heike
And lest you now accuse me of being a horrible person, I’m not.

few people are really 'bad persons' and they don't talk about it either way.

i appreciate your intent and what you are doing is certainly laudable, from a moral viewpoint, but as you might have noticed i can still pick apart your proposals without trying to offend or denigrate you just to point out the shortcomings of these ideas, which follow a pattern that is already firmly in place wrt other issues, from miniscule things like boneheaded speed limits down to more serious things which result in creeping undermining of personal responsibility and rights to go along with it, through overblown and shortsighted legislation, mostly, just because a few evil clowns put their pet in the microwave (dumb example, but i don't want to go off topic).

people are selfish, brutish and rude, could not care less, a general nusiance, etc yes, i concur.

nothing can reach them, except power. that's the problem if you want to change anything exercise power, because being friendly does nothing to your target audience while arguments will sometimes dissuade and affect those who are not in your sights.

so in short, what you proposed, ie. incentives would reah mostly people who don't fit your description, giving the a**hats even more leverage than they already appear to have. that's why i'm slightly concerned about people doing the wrong thing for the right reasons. intent alone does not carry the day. that's all i want to get across and if it did not work out, so be it, i'm not strictly on a crusade and i will desist, right here if you wish.

thanks for taking the time to reply, btw.


============

Originally posted by OhZone

Yeah, I heard of sewage treatment. What exactly do you know about it?
You give the impression that you think this causes complete decomposition. It does not.
Bacteria laden, chemical laden, prescription drug laden, effluent continually runs into our waterways.
Here in Florida there are ditches that carry it into the Gulf.
Septic tank overflow seeps into wells.

We have one of those incinerators in our area. They still need land fill.

You have no realistic idea of what goes on in this area. You are the one who is kidding. You have been misled by inadequate information. Are you unaware of the sewage problems in areas that flood? The people that get sick and die from the bacteria. You have a solution that will prevent flooding? You are going to stop hurricanes/cyclones?
And of course you are going top stop Earthquakes and breaking dams?

heck yeah, the way it's done is imperfect, but less people would not change that much. drugs that turn p'ss into hazardous waste do not help the issue, so replacing SSRIs with tryptophan which was used in that role before the FDA banned it for phony reasons might be a start. incinerator ash may even be recycled for its metals and it's unrealistic to assume that an industrial process leaves absolutely no trace, since flora and fauna obviously don't either. incinerators greatly reduce the amount of deposit, thereby making the system many times more sustainable. accidents can never be fully avoided, but sewage treatment in flood prone areas can be screened by dams or hardened by means of engineering. not installing safeguards is of course cheaper, that's why s**t happens far too often and at a profit - just take New Orleans.

...or gold mines using cyanide in the 3rd world. when they're done mining, the dam holding the pool of accumulated poison fails with alarming regularity and it will stay that way until a corp. is stripped to the bones when it does that. politics is betraying us, but fewer people alone won't change that, will it?

I think your worst fears about eugenic screening and the elite creating themselves superior in every way will come to pass. They have the advantage when it comes to exercising their survival instinct.

i for one believe that a disintigrating society can't summon the discipline to carry out an organised effort, which culling eugenics inevitably is and i don't feel like accepting nazi reich redux anytime soon.

besides, eugenics wouldn't dicatate a total number of people at a given time, it would select and reject on an individual basis. therefore, summoning it for purposes of population reduction with a clear numerical target is implicitly dishonest and shows that the topic was just used as a way of justification.

Originally posted by Long Lance
i think you're repeating yourself....

Well as you know repetition is the basis of all education ( and obviously also propaganda . ) so i have long since made peace with the fact that i would have to endlessly repeat myself with a wide range of different perspectives and sources to counter the same old misinformed views from being perpetuated here.

consider the chance they overlooked the idea in your recent posts. slim is an understatement, isn't it? so, why no feedback ?

I am also of the belief that it serves little purpose to embarrass those i disagree with by pointing out the lines of thinking/argument they no longer want to pursue. I would much rather discuss what they still feel confident about than to force the point resulting in them shutting up entirely not having learnt a thing.

imho, they don't want to hear about it, it might actually work!

I call these types 'doomers' for the good reason that they refuse to acknowledge anything positive while relentlessly pursuing every alarmist claim they can lay their shaky nervous hands on. I a way i feel very sorry for them as sadly people have a way of finding the disaster they see on their horizons.

Stellar

Originally posted by Heike
Sorry, Andy, I totally missed it. NOW I understand where you're coming from. [

I don't think it's quite true that Nature can't control human population. It just hasn't gotten really serious about it yet. Supervolcano, really big earthquake and massive tsunamis, asteroid strike ...

So the planet is intelligent?

The scientists keep telling us it's not a question of if, it's a question of when. Maybe that's what 2012 is really all about .. just a thought.

Scientist make many claims including some of the better funded types claiming that the world is warming and that we are all soon going to drown,starve or kill each other over water; right....

Anyway, I really do think that part of the solution would be to start changing public perception of having several kids. Being an only child has its advantages.

Including the possibility that it apparently makes single children inot arrogant suspicious types that dislikes humanity? Maybe that is reason enough for parents to have more than one child?

And call me a radical whatever, but I think a first important step would be to change the "first world" systems of social services to discourage people from having kids they can't support.

You can't discourage people from having children by not giving them the services they paid for. In fact under most circumstances not giving such services will simply result on MORE economic costs later as people must be extensively hospitalized or housed in jails/rehab centers. Providing mothers and their children with a minimum level of services is not only the humane thing that any democracy will yield but also a logical and efficient process by which to run a society.

Women on public assistance (welfare etc.) should be required to accept birth control (shots, IUD, etc.) in order to get their checks.

Yes, and this was tried in the US for the mentally 'retarded' before the nazi's observed it and copied it. It's just really sad that people still feel this way when most of those who get some measure of social benefits work full time which in fair economic systems should all them to feed/cloth and provide health services to their children.

Reproduction is not an inalienable right if other people have to pay for your children.

Reproduction must be an inalienable right which must be countered with proper protections for women as well as the type of jobs that could result in a living wage. If a society can not provide it's members with such employment it's the failure of the economic system and not the people.

This could be extrapolated to famine-stricken countries, too. I don't want to be party to children starving to death, but maybe passing out birth control along with the food would help over time.

Sure and i am very confident that if such measures would be instituted ( and the women protected from their husbands when they discover what's going on) women would jump at the chance.

/me hits the [post reply] button and starts looking for her flame-retardant suit.

As if that's going to help you.... I am still hoping you don't mean half the things your saying but that's probably daydreaming on my part.

Stellar

Originally posted by johnsky
Nobody here has a viable solution to the problem, but the facts are, the earths resources are finite, there is only so much room for crop growth etc.

The Earths resources may be finite but they are also VERY large and unlikely to be used up before we gain sufficient means to mine other planets or just transduce what we need. As for the crop growth you can grow food almost anywhere provided that you have sufficient access to water and that temperature fluctuations are not too great.

Whatever the solution may be, if we don't enact it, then the natural course of events will reduce our population anyways, through famine.

Obviously but you don't have to have shortages of food for famines to happen as is evident by a world of plenty in which nearly a billion people are suffering from malnutrition that is tantamount to starvation.

That's of course assuming we don't kill most of ourselves off fighting over those resources.

That's presuming that our corporate 'leaders' don't lie and cheat our various countries into destructive wars.

Eventually we will hit a population level that we simply cannot support.

Eventually the sun will expand and consume the Earth. Eventually both of us will be dead. I hope that you eventually stop typing and start studying and reflecting.

Whether our numbers come down voluntarily, or through famine and war, is the question.

No reduction of numbers are required to result in wealth for all.

There has to be a viable voluntary solution to this, because losing a huge chunk (if not the majority) of our population through famine and war isn't exactly desirable.

There are dozens of solutions non of which will be easily implemented due to the severe consequences it will have for the amount of control those in power can exercise over us. They will hide these solutions and technologies as long as they can and when they can't any longer they will unleash as much violence as they can to destroy all the progress we have managed while retaining as much as the wealth and control they have managed.

Stellar

To StellarX:

I admire your point of view, and to some extent I wish I could share it. I envy your ability to live in a world of good people.

Apparently I live in a different world. My first lesson came at the age of six weeks when my father threw me out of a 2nd story window for crying. It went downhill from there.

I would like to believe that people are inherently good, but they keep teaching me that they aren't.

If I can be said to have a philosophy, it's personal responsibility and freedom of choice. I can talk (or type) all day long about how the world would be if I were the queen of it, but when you bring me back to reality I'm not going to make anyone do anything, and my opinions, although I pass them out freely, will have no major impact on your world or anyone else's. I'll mind my own business and ask you to mind yours, without my interference.

I don't litter. I don't hit animals in the road. I help people when I have the chance. I've volunteered countless hours of my time to help animals and children. I give blood (20 units of it now according to my card). I've been a resident in a DVIS shelter and I've sheltered a family from an abusive man. I give to the United Way, every year, by payroll deduction. I'm not the misanthrope you want to believe that I am because of my views that differ from yours.

But most people aren't like me. People that I should have been able to trust, people who should have loved me and cared for me, instead used and abused me at every turn. I've lost count of the number of people who've taken advantage of me, lied to me, stolen from me, hurt me, etc. etc. Your opinion of what people are really like, no matter how eloquently and convincingly stated, will not invalidate my own lifelong experiences. I have seen what I have seen, and lived through what I have lived through. And honestly, I can't understand how you can even expect me to see your point of view when it is the opposite of what I have seen and experienced my entire 50 years of life. Nor can I accept that it is all the fault of my own preconceptions; I doubt that I had any at the age of six weeks.

It was nice debating with you for a while and I thank you for your time. I don't get to have conversations like these with people in my "real life" very often. But I hear that you are telling me that I am to blame for how I see the world and humanity, and I don't accept that. Until you are willing to see that my perception of humanity is just as real as yours and is based on my experiences and not my nature, I don't see the point of debating with you any further.

Redneck says:….”Would her 'better' parents have expended as much energy into making her a good person? Would they have stressed education as much? Would they have cared for her as much?”

****Hmmm, do I detect a bit of vanity there? An “I’m the best one for the job” complex?

I did state that a healthy body is what is a desirable form of perfection, didn’t I? After that most other things are a matter of personal preference. Eye color etc. which has nothing to do with perfection.

Over half the disabled wish they were dead. Those that are happy….good for them. I could never be. I’d kill myself.

You say the devil is in the details……
I have to wonder why it is that you see these demons in the unknown.

“I am glad you are pleased with my progress. I have to point out, however, that those symbols contain meanings based on their order as much as the recipient. The symbols are not in themselves offensive, but the meanings can be, and can be in a generic sense as much as a perceived one. Oh, well, I suppose I will be satisfied at my progress. I hope you are such with your version of self-responsibility.”

****Nothing has meaning unless you give it meaning.
Next time you make yourself offended don’t tell anyone. In doing so you reveal you weakness. Its Sort of like giving the henhouse key to the fox.


Redneck says,”Perhaps that is because there is a fear factor in it. You see, unlike you, I am looking at the details that would be necessary for any such population control to take place. It is those details, handled by a segment of society that has proven itself impotent and/or callous at every possible opportunity, that do indeed scare me”

****What details scare you….Color of eyes, color of hair, how tall….? And what if they did? Don’t you think that physical perfection is #1 on the list. They might however want all their “slaves” to be of uniform color and size. Lkely larger for doing manual tasks, smaller for specific tasks where small size would be necessary for getting into small spaces. And of course subservient and of low intelligence so that they never want for more. Have you ever read “Brave New World”? It is free on line:
Brave new world

Regards,
Ohzie

Stellarex, face it, we are animals. Some of us have gotten the idea that humans are somehow superior to other live species upon this earth. That is the ultimate vanity.

We have overpopulated the Earth to the extent to where we are wallowing in our own filth. Think that glass of water you just poured from the tap there is pure? Think again. Even the freshest appearing white waters in the mountains contain enough nasties to kill you.
You referred to “treatment” plants several times here.
If they are so great, why are all our waterways still polluted?
Do you live in a sanitized bubble?
So you think that “treated” water is pure water.. Have it analyzed. There’s a shocker waiting for you.

“As it's so well understood the prosperity and rights for women results in fast declining birth rates why don't we just allow every and all populations to freely choose their leaders and rob some powerful nations of their means to dominate the world in their aim or preventing such democracy and wealth creation?”

****What are you talking about?

“Sure we have! If our energy comes from renewable sources it becomes very easy to recycle and reuse much of what is current land filled.”
Where have you been the last few decades? We don't know how to landfill what we can't for instance incinerate ( and you don't have to just blow that smoke into the air btw) in such a way that groundwater does not become contaminated?

****Where do you see this happening?

“laws should never attempt to infringe so clearly on our human rights.”

****Be aware that your rights to reproduce end at the point where you infringe on the space and/or resources of another.

“Right, and with sufficient education and wealth many people might in fact choose not to do so but given desperate living with few rights and patriarchal societies women are going to have to suffer the consequences of horrid economic circumstances.”

****Again, I am not sure what you are saying here. If you are referring the the patriarchal society making incubators out of women – there is a neat sterilization method called band aid surgery…..They make 2 small incisions on your tummy and reach in and snip the fallopian tubes. You can go home within the hour. Incubator life is over.

“No, it's not obvious but maybe people should rather be sterilized for having sentiments such as the ones you have towards fellow human beings? Maybe the error is in calling such sentiments human? As to the reproduction, sure, i really hope they do.”

****So you want to stifle the propagation of free thinking spirits. You like the hive mind set, do you? I think people know when they look in the mirror whether they are truly ugly or not. If they have buck teeth, should they pass it on to their kids. Some people can feel really inferior over such things. And how about people born with the very heritable cleft pallet/hare lip? Should they freely infect all future generations with this condition?

“With sufficient energy availability you can live anywhere and do practically anything imaginable.”

****You have no idea of what you are implying. Can you just be realistic and see that what you are saying is totally impractical. Just put yourself in that little cabin in the badlands or in death valley, and imagine how and at what cost that “available energy” and everything else you need to survive will get to you. You do plan on having a job and going to work from here right? Add that into your picture. Let me know how you make out.

Do you know about the message of the Georgia Guidestones?

Georgia Guidestones

"LET THESE BE GUIDESTONES TO AN AGE OF REASON"
1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
2. Guide reproduction wisely - improving fitness and diversity.
3. Unite humanity with a living new language.
4. Rule passion - faith - tradition - and all things with tempered reason.
5. Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
6. Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
7. Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
8. Balance personal rights with social duties.
9. Prize truth - beauty - love - seeking harmony with the infinite.
10. Be not a cancer on the earth - Leave room for nature - Leave room for nature.

For those who did not like what I have said, you need to go to this site click on "Enter" and look at the diagram which shows a pie chart labled "The Guidstones' Population Targets for the Climax Event"
Then it shows the "pie" with a small section labled "surviving", and a very large section labled "Cull"

Then click on "Site Map"

uh oh, it's written in stone so it must be true

i'd love to know how they arrived at the 500 million number, especialy considering that technology has a great impact on that elusive total. just think of tranportation and how easy and cheap ferrying goods is nowadays compared to even 100 years ago.

like it or not, people can see through your shallow utopia and worse then a baseless belief in superiority of your own species is imho, the belief that you or any other single person or group knows what's best, know all the answers - it's essentially the definition of hubris.

there's an inherent mistake, too, the assumption that people will do aynthing to live a day longer, which has been proven wrong time and time again, suicide bombing being the post poignant example. like it or not, people who are willing to sacrifice whatever necessary to attain a goal will either achieve it or die trying.

either way, in the end the elites will either be dead or left to plow their own fields, which would certainly contradict their ideals of luxury and power.

reply to post by OhZone
A bit of vanity? Probably. I bet you could detect a bit of vanity in every single person on the face of the planet. I know I detect a lot of vanity in you. A bit of arrogance as well. You appear to have all the answers, even though you do not have all the facts.

I did state that a healthy body is what is a desirable form of perfection, didn’t I? After that most other things are a matter of personal preference. Eye color etc. which has nothing to do with perfection.

You might want to include the phrase "in my opinion" at the end of that.

Over half the disabled wish they were dead. Those that are happy….good for them. I could never be. I’d kill myself.

Well, at least you did personalize this with your own opinion. Maybe we are making progress.

You say the devil is in the details……
I have to wonder why it is that you see these demons in the unknown.

To be so all-knowing, you seem to be missing out on the definition of 'cliche'.

****Nothing has meaning unless you give it meaning.

Everything has meaning. If your 'arrangement of symbols' did not have meaning, why would you have used them? Or are you simply typing random characters on the screen?

Next time you make yourself offended don’t tell anyone. In doing so you reveal you weakness. Its Sort of like giving the henhouse key to the fox.

Oh, thank you for the advise. I am honored that someone as all-knowing as you would stoop to my level to advise me. (that was sarcasm, so you don't take it as literally as you do cliches)

****What details scare you….Color of eyes, color of hair, how tall….? And what if they did? Don’t you think that physical perfection is #1 on the list.

Oh, you've got it bad. Are you always this dense or are you showing it just to me?

Details of implementation...

I'm ignoring your link. I simply don't have the time to hassle with it. While I can justify defending my position here, I am not going to waste time on some web site (I assume) about eugenics and how 'wonderful' it is.

The problem with everything you have posted to this point is that you are so full of yourself and your 'perfect' world dream that you see none of the realities of life shared with a few billion other people. Perhaps that is your reason for this desire for eugenics: you are unable to deal with these other people who you apparently feel are so inferior to you.

You misread and misunderstand the responses made to you, then brag about how superior you are to others. Your posts reflect not a superiority, but an inferiority to the other posts in this thread (and in this forum). Your inability to look ahead to see expected results of your proposals, and your insistence that such unintended results are impossible, also indicate your lack of skill in debate and mental acuity.

Your attempts to anger me are blatantly obvious. And just as blatantly unfruitful. Perhaps you are more 'perfect' physically than I (at least in your mind), but I believe your superiority definitely stops there. I happen to believe that intelligence and wisdom are much more valuable than physical prowess, so rest assured, you are impressing no one save yourself.

I also suggest you do not rely on your physical 'perfection'; it tends to wane with age.

TheRedneck


[edit on 11-8-2008 by TheRedneck]

Originally posted by Heike
I haven’t addressed this point because I find the premise to be false. As we’ve already seen in this thread, facts, figures and sources can be found to support almost any point of view.

Only in the most general of ways but on closer inspection there is only one reality.

Based on what I SEE with my own two eyes, it’s not true. Every time I go to Walmart there are people with 3, 4, 5, and more kids. The client base where I work is 2/3 DHS kids, and most of them have multiple siblings - and this is a population that is already in foster care and being supported by social services.

www.infoplease.com...

Total fertility rate:
2.1 children born/woman (2008 est.)

www.cia.gov...

So 2 is the norm down from 4 a century ago. People see what they expect to see and unless we give at least some credence to statistics, numbers and science there really is no point discussing reality.

Among my coworkers, acquaintacnes, and “extended family,” the average number of kids per family is 3 or 4. These are American women, mostly educated, with all the education and economic rights they want, and they’re choosing to have more children.

So maybe you come from a area where people can afford four people or one where people don't have sense enough to have only two as is the national average?

Regarding the animal overpopulation scenario, there’s really nothing theoretical or hyptothetical about it. Deer are overpopulated where I live, and every Winter the scarcity of food happens. Some die, some live, and as soon as they regain their health on Spring growth, they start having more babies. That’s part of the reason we have a hunting season is so that some of them are killed by hunters instead of more of them starving to death over the Winter.

And i understand that very well. The fact is that since those who do survive eat very well they simply have many offspring again and again to fill the 'vacuum' that is presumed to exist when food is plentiful and predation of deer young minimal. If Animals are allowed to migrate freely ( which they mostly aren't these days) they should fill a region and reach a equilibrium of sorts as predators will naturally breed accordingly but since predators are destroyed faster than elk natural controls ( beside starvation ) does not exist to function.

And as for violent interactions being reserved for predators, that’s laughable. My chickens and ducks fight over food when I throw out “good stuff” like leftovers and stale bread, sometimes to the point of drawing blood.

Because you don't give them enough, yes. If animals are accustomed to getting 'enough' feed they wont fight over it but since much of the food stuffs we feed them these days are very high in nutrients they fight because their stomachs are never really full after the meal. I have raised enough sheep in my life ( with bruised toes and legs etc) to know that they are in no way aggressive if they are confident that they will have their fill of feed.

Horses will also fight over food, and so will other “prey” animals. I have seen rats and mice become cannibals when the food source that allowed overpopulation was taken away.

Your right in a way as while we know what is 'enough' feed to get them fat/healthy they would ideally fill their stomachs with the dominant/strongest being able to exercise their prerogative sometimes resulting in blood being drawn until the weaker gets the message.

Long Lance:
Okay, let’s dispense with the sugar coated platitudes and political correctness. I don’t like people, and I’d like to see less of them rather than more.

So you say but you have seem to have tried ( or at least believe you did) quite hard to 'do the right' thing? Would that not at best make you more of a disappointed idealist than someone who started out with all the wrong sentiments and beliefs? Under the current economic system the humane thing to do would in fact be to 'reduce' ( if there was a heaven to wish a billion odd people to i could consider it given the vast improvement in living standards they would enjoy) the world population but since the people who wants to do these things are normally those who have brought about the conditions that are destroying lives i'm not going to partake in their evil plans.

Every time I drive I see trash and dead animals littering the roadways. In 33 years of driving I’ve hit an animal exactly once, when a bird flew into my windshield. Certainly the dead turtles didn’t move too fast to be avoided. What difference does one less turtle make? Probably none, but it demonstrates a non-caring mindset that I despise.

Don't even start me on the people who wants to save animals instead of human beings; talk about misplaced empathy. Too ignorant/bigoted to help intelligent organisms so now empathy is redirected to helping animals. That being said i'm a sucker for trying to raising my own sick lambs but at least i have some perspective as to what i should probably have been doing with that time!

In the 11 months we’ve lived out in the country, nearly a dozen dogs and puppies have been dumped in our area. Horses are abandoned when people move or left in paddocks of dirt to starve to death if the owner runs short of money for feed and hay.

Yes, some human beings are as cruel towards animals as they are towards their fellows; no surprises there.

Our rivers and lakes are full of old Christmas trees, beer cans, cars, and other trash. People trespass on any property that isn’t adequately protected and steal anything they can find.

Some obviously do and it has as much to do with poverty and general economics as with customs and culture.

In the tiny rural town of Terlton (pop. 87), teenagers vandalized the town’s only store by breaking all the windows.

And if that was the norm shop windows would have gone out of existence some decades ago? What is the point of focusing on what we all know isn't exactly good for society or business? Did they at least have a point to make or were they just drunk and bored?

In nearby Mannford (hardly a bustling burb) young people beat the crap out of an elderly woman just because she asked them to turn their music down.

And in other news 25 000 starved to death today with a additional 20 -30 thousand dying due to disease. Most of this happened without anyone beating anyone else to death over food. If you want to discuss what is wrong with some culture's lets but given that the US state sends 18 year olds to kill people in other countries on a somewhat regular basis it's no surprise that a culture of violence and selfishness is engendered. In fact what should surprise us is that violent crime ( and most crimes in general ) in the US is declining DESPITE the overtly violent state and corporate culture that so diligently spreads it's message of needs and wants to be immediately fulfilled. All in all this is probably good testament to just how hard it is to override empathy and intelligence in general despite their claims to the contrary. .

Everywhere I look, people are stupid, arrogant, vicious, careless, wasteful, inconsiderate, selfish, and rude. Can’t like ‘em. I am against killing people (except for murderers and rapists but that’s another subject.)

Well since your not growing any younger you have earned the right to see what you want and to ignore what you wish. All i ask is that you do not generalize presuming that others wont contest claims that be statistically and numerical proven false.

It’s wrong. I do not condone, support, or approve of killing people. Period. But I’d be just tickled pink if somehow there were fewer people around instead of more, especially around where I live. If I had the money, I’d be a hermit.

There is in my opinion nothing inherently wrong about killing people in self defense ( meaning you don't go bomb their house on the other side of the world) IF you are doing so to protect yourself or others from what they are observed to be doing or are moving towards carrying out violence near you . There is no reason why you have to have all those sentiments about your fellow man to want to be a hermit of sorts. I don't have any of those beliefs and i like solitude as much as i hear wise people like to.

Continued

And lest you now accuse me of being a horrible person, I’m not. I work at a nonprofit that has an 89 year history of helping kids. I volunteer. I give money to the United Way every year. I donate blood. Just last week I stopped and gave a guy who’d run out of gas a ride to the gas station. Face to face, I am polite, superficially friendly, kind, and treat people the way I think I’d like to be treated in their position.

Isn't it strange then that you have these sentiments despite seeming to have done more formal things to help and aid others than i have? Face to face it always pays to be polite but that superficiality should not be confused ( and it can relatively easy be) with true empathy. I have in my life met more than enough bigots, racists and otherwise disingenuous people who do plenty of volunteer work, go to church and generally behave as expect to know that few people believe themselves to be 'bad' or part of the problems they keep complaining about. Since i don't know at you at all i wont presume that you fit into that group and will just ask you for some examples of the mistakes you can acknowledge having made which should give me some more insight as to how your reasoning process works.

There are after all obvious contradictions contained in the claim that people are vicious, stupid, arrogant,careless,wasteful, inconsiderate, selfish and rude and that you so charitable and good that you notice these apparently all prevailing failings in everyone but yourself. As i recall even Jesus strongly suggested that we should discover our own flaws and mend them before trying to fix the world?

In general, however, I don’t like people and you’ll never convince me that there should be more of them.

Well i like people and they seem to like me just fine until, in my experience, i start giving unsolicited advice, recommendations and are generally presumptuous enough to want to 'help' them without invitation. Being 'charitible' with 'advice' is just about the worse form of charity and try to reserve my charitable offerings along those lines to the Internet where complete strangers can ignore/apply it without having their pride impaired.

I started out in this thread to provide a gentler interpretation of the OP (people must die!) and I can't believe it's degenerated to this.

Well on just a few occasions one get exactly what you ask for.

But I guess you have a pretty clear picture of where I'm coming from now, and if you don't like it too bad. You asked for it.

And that's the brilliant thing about the Internet! Total strangers can offer each other advice and share views with no one being much the wiser as to how much is rejected and how much employed. Since we don't know each other in any tangible capacity there is very little pride at stake here and certainly some chance of someone learning something.

Stellar

Hi Redneck, Yeah, audacious and candid – that’s me. If that adds up to arrogant to you that’s OK. I do admit to being opinionated, but not all knowing.

Are you saying that you don’t think a healthy body is perfection and that it is desireable for the benefit of all concerned?

If you are referring to my link to Brave New World – this is a book that was written by Aldous Huxley, I think in the 40’s or 50’s.. He describes life in a future high tech society where everyone is conditioned from birth to do a certain job. Babies are grown in jars. There is also another book about the future that looks more like what we have today – “1984” where people are watched & listened to every minute of their lives. Kids report their parents taboo conversations. I’m sure you must have heard of it.

As to implementation of any eugenics plan….Do you think you will have a choice? Like the cameras, the tazers and the airport searches….people will get used to it. They are already too drugged & brainwashed to protest too vigorously.

Intelligence & wisdom without physical prowess are great if you are a head in a bottle.
Living in the natural world requires physical prowess. You must have been city raised.
I was farm raised. Intelligence and wisdom alone here does not make a survivor. Bears prowled around the house at night. We had no electricity. Laundry was done by hand. Water was drawn with a hand pump. I walked 2 miles to school & 2 miles back. Built really nice legs.

True, physical perfection does wane with age, but you have it when you need it and can better prepare for that decline.
Regards,
Ohzie
……………………………………..
To Long Lance,
As to that 500 million ideal population as set out on the Georgia Guidestones….they didn’t say where they got that. No one has been able to find out who exactly was behind the financing for this project. They have been there since the 80’s.

“ just think of tranportation and how easy and cheap ferrying goods is nowadays compared to even 100 years ago.”

****Just think how easy and cheap ferrying goods would be if there was not so much traffic.

I’ not the one who said the human species was superior.

My utopia? My shallow utopia? Can’t you think of ways to make this a better world?
What would your utopia be like? 500 billion people living like ants in an ant hill? And soilant green.

“either way, in the end the elites will either be dead or left to plow their own fields, which would certainly contradict their ideals of luxury and power.”

****Exactly, and for this reason I cannot understand why they would want a global nuclear war, nor why the build up of deadly biologicals. Are they somehow immune?
I have to wonder if they plan on leaving the planet.

reply to post by OhZone
Hello again OhZone

I remember the old joke that I used to use on people: "Were you born an idiot, or did you just work at it real hard?" Your question on physical perfection is like that. There is no good answer. So allow me to state my views on physical perfection in my words instead:

Physical health is a good thing, obviously. No one wants to go around unhealthy (except maybe me; I tend to feel my best when doctors are convinced I am dying. But that's another thread). Of course it is an aid to survival to be fit. But physical health is not the only thing which can be an asset toward survival.

Intelligence is the single most important advantage the human species has over other animals (IMHO, of course). Wisdom is the ability to implement that intelligence, so it too is a vital asset in survival. Both of these attributes would be worthless in a vegetating body, but so too would a 'perfect' body be useless without intelligence and wisdom to assist it.

I live in the country. I know all about what you speak. We even have bears around here as well. But which action would offer the best method of surviving an area that contained bears? Would it be better to build yourself up physically so you might be able to fight a bear hand to hand, or would it be better to learn to avoid conflicts with those bears? The former is an example of reliance on the physical; the latter, on intelligence and wisdom.

I still have not gotten an answer on who exactly defines 'perfection'. I assume you define it as yourself. So would it not be logical to assume that the next guy would define it as himself as well? In that sense, you no longer have physical 'perfection' and should have been aborted. I realize this is probably going to go right over your head, but I urge you to stop and think it over for a moment. You are not the only person on the planet. Also, perhaps there is some hidden disease factor lying dormant in your DNA, waiting for that opportune time to present itself. That would be a flaw in your 'perfection'.

The simple truth is that there is no such thing as physical perfection. We are all different. I see my physical abilities as just fine and adequate for any perceived needs. I also have my mind to back that physicality up. Your body is no doubt adequate for your perceived needs. Bravo.

As for eugenics being somehow mankind's destiny, I doubt it. I'm sure many more will try, as Adolph Hitler tried, but they will fail as well. Eugenics is counter to the survival instinct inherent in humans. As such, it will always be met with intense resistance, especially when the supporters realize they are not immune to it.

What is sad is that many will suffer and die as a result of these horrific proposals. All the resources that could be used to cure those you say are desperate for death will be wasted on the implausible concept that killing others for being less than you desire is somehow doing them a favor.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by OhZone

****Exactly, and for this reason I cannot understand why they would want a global nuclear war, nor why the build up of deadly biologicals. Are they somehow immune?
I have to wonder if they plan on leaving the planet.

Ockham's razor mandates a long and thorough look at insanity. not necessarily the true reason, but it squares will with what we're seeing. i have one last warning, though for everyone who's willing to listen to all of this bravado: the utopia of the USSR referred to people embracing the elite's designs as useful idiots, who were scheduled for disposition once their tasks had been finished. otoh, i'm quite certain that, had the revolution failed, retailiation would have been a given. no bonuses here, i'm afraid.

by the same token, isn't it strange how those who are willfully ignoring the rules of a society rely heavily on everybody else adhering them to the letter like a good sheep? a daring gamble if there ever was one.

Originally posted by Heike
Have you actually been reading the thread? If not, please do. If you have, may I suggest some courses in reading comprehension?

I said "tell me why more people is a good thing"
Stellar said "more people equals more intelligence"
I said "no, I dont think so and here's why"

And the reasons where not very good! One can surely argue that the intelligence might be misplaced, wasted or misinformed but it's certainly there to be educated and to better itself given the opportunity to do so.

So where do you get all that stuff about me placing demands on the world or trying to improve humanity? All I'm saying is that more people doesn't necessarily equal more intelligence,

Is that not like claiming that more calculators don't equal more computational power because you have decided that you wont be including batteries or operators? As per the definition of intelligence it's just the ability to acquire knowledge and to put it to beneficial use.

especially not since it seems like we have to breed a few thousand people to get one that actually has the intelligence and USES it for something

So how many people had formal educations a century ago? Have the pace of discovery improved as people gained the chance to acquire knowledge and to put it to their own beneficial use? Why do you think only one in a thousand people is intelligent ( please check the dictionary?) when modern economies would certainly not be possible on such a basis?

So she (or anyone) has yet to give me what I consider valid reasoning for why more people is good.

She? I seem THAT compassionate? Thanks....
More people does not HAVE to be good ( as is proved in many underdeveloped/over exploited countries) anymore than more people needs to be bad ( USA/Japan) .

I was being polite. Idealism was a relatively nice way of expressing my opinion about her view of humanity.

I don't consider myself to be a idealist and given my knowledge of the worlds history i would call myself a realist with aspirations.

Why would 'board time' reduce idealism any more than life experience?

Because there is little chance to discuss these matters in real life and in such detail without meeting with even more hostility or 'problems'. I don't think board time has changed me in a negative way but it have learned that attempting to counter beliefs is no more easy here than anywhere else.

I have plenty of the latter and accept reality - and humanity - for what it is, not what I would like it to be.

So at least we can agree that we both think ourselves better 'informed' than the norm? How's that for a start? What gets to me is that all those damn other people also think their so wonderful!

So yeah, were both human; well done.

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX
Only in the most general of ways but on closer inspection there is only one reality.

No. There are as many "realities" as there are people in this world. If you think there is only one objective reality and nothing else is real, there's really no point even trying to discuss anything with you.

Because you don't give them enough, yes. If animals are accustomed to getting 'enough' feed they wont fight over it

I KNEW you were going to say this. I should have sent a u2u to someone. One, you don't know what you are talking about. My chickens and ducks are FREE RANGE and have food 24/7. They always have enough food. They still fight over what they perceive as "better" though, like meat scraps, stale bread, fruit, etc.

Besides, we started this scenario talking about what happens when animals are faced with a scarcity of food. First you said "violent interactions are reserved for predators" now you admit that they will fight over food if they don't have enough. Well DUH! That's what I said in the first place! First you deny it then you use to imply that I don't take good enough care of my animals. Sheesh!

Don't even start me on the people who wants to save animals instead of human beings; talk about misplaced empathy. Too ignorant/bigoted to help intelligent organisms so now empathy is redirected to helping animals.

Um, yeah. I prefer to help living things that deserve my help because they are innocent and helpless instead of trying to save people from the consequences of their own behavior. I don't see a thing wrong with that.

-----------

Okay, I read all the rest of the stuff you posted and I'm just confused. Did you actually have a point or a message in there anywhere, or did you just want to take everything I said, pick it apart, and find a way to disagree with it? I can't find any coherent connection between all the little contentions you have posted.

Even when I say one thing "positive" that I would think would reflect YOUR side (i . e. I don't condone killing people) you have to disagree with that, too, by stating that killing people in self-defense is okay. What has that got to do with anything?

I think I'm getting a picture that you believe people are ENTITLED. Just because of the fact that a particular human being exists and has an IQ higher than other species, that human is entitled to food, shelter, clothing, and medical care, and if said human doesn't provide these things for him/herself, they should be provided by other humans. Is that right?

If so, then there's the huge gap between us.

When a human being is born, the parents are responsible for it until it is old enough to take care of itself. Once it has been reared to an age where it is capable of taking care of itself, it should. I am not entitled to a darn thing unless I earn it, and neither is any other able adult. I do not, and will never, feel responsible for you or anyone else. If I choose to help someone, that's my choice and I often do. But when people start telling me that I SHOULD help and try to make me feel guilty/ashamed/irresponsible if I don't, well, that's where I start getting angry and tell them to go fly a kite. The minute you tell me that I "owe" you something, you've lost me.

As I have said before and may end up having to say again, I believe in Personal Responsibility and Freedom of Choice. I'm not responsible for you, I'm responsible for me.

Originally posted by Heike
No. There are as many "realities" as there are people in this world.

I don't prescribe to the idea that no one is wrong/everyone is right. There is a objective reality ( the one we investigate by employing a scientific method) and our misunderstandings or misrepresentations hardly changes it.

If you think there is only one objective reality and nothing else is real, there's really no point even trying to discuss anything with you.

So stop discussing it then? Why not rather define what is 'real' if your arguing that there is nothing objective about reality and that everything just comes to perception? Have you successfully 'perceived' other cars out of your way or do you bump into them? Why do you think we have senses if our realities are entirely subjective? Bah.

I KNEW you were going to say this. I should have sent a u2u to someone. One, you don't know what you are talking about. My chickens and ducks are FREE RANGE and have food 24/7. They always have enough food. They still fight over what they perceive as "better" though, like meat scraps, stale bread, fruit, etc.

Well you didn't say anything about 'better'. If you give them enough of the better food so that everyone can eat their fill the biggest/strongest will eat first and the rest will wait quite patiently until their done. We really should decide on definitions first.

Besides, we started this scenario talking about what happens when animals are faced with a scarcity of food. First you said "violent interactions are reserved for predators" now you admit that they will fight over food if they don't have enough.

I suppose it comes down to just how much violence. Pushing and shoving tends to work wonders to establish authority and it's not all that violent. Obviously two sheep are not going to step aside and draw weapons as the rest will eat everything while their having their silly 'interaction'. The fighting is not about killing or seriously injuring but about getting first in line for limited food as tends to happen with animals that gets fed only as much as contains sufficient nutrients.

Well DUH! That's what I said in the first place! First you deny it then you use to imply that I don't take good enough care of my animals. Sheesh!

If you can't control your animals that's no business of mine. I can but state that mine knows how to wait for their food.....

Um, yeah. I prefer to help living things that deserve my help because they are innocent and helpless instead of trying to save people from the consequences of their own behavior. I don't see a thing wrong with that.

Yes, your a real humanitarian. Oh wait, your helping animals, scratch that then. If you find it gratifying to concentrate on caring for animals that's just fine but if you do so because you couldn't get it right when you tried to help people that's just failure. I don't see anything wrong with caring for animals either but i see plenty wrong in picking animals over humans because their easier to help; this isn't about your ego and satisfaction ( So what if they don't seem grateful enough to you? That's not why your doing it, right? ) and frankly that's probably the root of the problem.

Okay, I read all the rest of the stuff you posted and I'm just confused. Did you actually have a point or a message in there anywhere, or did you just want to take everything I said, pick it apart, and find a way to disagree with it?

While i try not to be your typical propagandist by 'sticking to my message' ( as normally done by people who does not wish to address disagreement) i would hope that it's clear how i feel about people who don't like humanity in general? Would you rather i ignore everything you say, as per norm on ATS, and just type a few paragraphs restating my position and expounding on my opinions? I am one of those self styled 'debunkers' who goes around the forum trying to impose some reason on otherwise misinformed/deluded people.

I can't find any coherent connection between all the little contentions you have posted.

I can establish the connections more precisely if you like so feel free to point me to what you wishes clarified. I am confident your inability to establish connections will help me to understand why you can't seem to form them with more of your fellow human beings.

Even when I say one thing "positive" that I would think would reflect YOUR side (i . e. I don't condone killing people) you have to disagree with that, too, by stating that killing people in self-defense is okay. What has that got to do with anything?

I appreciate the effort to seek 'common ground' but patronizing me with platitudes such as ' it's wrong to kill' is not doing much for me. You just concern yourself with what you believe and think; the fact that we are both human beings should provide us with more than sufficient common ground.

I think I'm getting a picture that you believe people are ENTITLED. Just because of the fact that a particular human being exists and has an IQ higher than other species, that human is entitled to food, shelter, clothing, and medical care, and if said human doesn't provide these things for him/herself, they should be provided by other humans. Is that right?

I believe that human beings will provide these things for each other naturally and if their sometimes corrupt leaders and self styled rulers didn't intervene to disrupt the cooperative tendencies that naturally exists we would have been far further along developing a more just existence for all.

If so, then there's the huge gap between us.

Well i am quite confident that your blowing the differences out of proportion for rhetorical effect. Either way i hope that's the case as the alternative couldn't have involved much of a life.

When a human being is born, the parents are responsible for it until it is old enough to take care of itself. Once it has been reared to an age where it is capable of taking care of itself, it should.

Obviously?

I am not entitled to a darn thing unless I earn it, and neither is any other able adult. I do not, and will never, feel responsible for you or anyone else.

So civilization should not naturally include justice? How do you earn justice and how would a society work where only the just are justly treated? Who's keeping score of who earned what and which methods they employed? The world you speak of sure sounds a lot like seventeenth century Britain and frankly i wonder if you think all the progress and rise in living standards where progress in the wrong direction? Do you think Europeans have been duped into socializing risks and benefits and that Americans keeps voting for nationalized health care because their too lazy to pay for their own? The people who work the longest hours in the industrialized world? Really?

If I choose to help someone, that's my choice and I often do. But when people start telling me that I SHOULD help and try to make me feel guilty/ashamed/irresponsible if I don't, well, that's where I start getting angry and tell them to go fly a kite.

Why would you get angry if someone rightly tells you/me that we should be doing more to aid our fellow man? I can understand if you feel ashamed/guilty/irresponsible for not doing more ( the feelings a normal human being would have) and even why you get angry when someone is socially inept enough to take a accusatory tone but what does that change about the fact that we really all should be?

The minute you tell me that I "owe" you something, you've lost me.

I think we all owe each other more than 'losing' each other over question of social ineptness? Who, amongst your circle of friends,have ever accused you of not doing enough to help mankind?

As I have said before and may end up having to say again, I believe in Personal Responsibility and Freedom of Choice. I'm not responsible for you, I'm responsible for me.

So do i? Your first responsibility SHOULD be to yourself but if your actions are not moderated by empathy to take into consideration your responsibilities towards others ( in terms of allowing them to pursue their own best interest when it does not impede yours) you are succumbing to the propaganda of the few who operates in that way against the best interest of the vast majority.

stellar

reply to post by StellarX


How is it that you missed this post? Nothing to say to that one?

For someone who claims to be:

I am one of those self styled 'debunkers' who goes around the forum trying to impose some reason on otherwise misinformed/deluded people.

you conveniently missed (ignored?) the one post in which I stated quite clearly why I don't see the world (and people) the same as you do, and stated that I see no point in debating with you any further until you can see and acknowledge that my point of view - based on my experience - is just as valid as yours.

There is objective, scientific reality, yes. But your OPINIONS of how I should view people, how I should treat people, how I should feel towards people, etc. are not objective, nor scientific. They are your opinions based on your experiences and feelings.

Which begs the question: Don't you have anything better to do than spend your time on ATS telling me what I should be doing and how I should live? Trust me, you aren't going to change me a bit so it's rather counterproductive and accomplishes nothing.

If you find it gratifying to concentrate on caring for animals that's just fine but if you do so because you couldn't get it right when you tried to help people that's just failure. I don't see anything wrong with caring for animals either but i see plenty wrong in picking animals over humans because their easier to help; this isn't about your ego and satisfaction ( So what if they don't seem grateful enough to you? That's not why your doing it, right? ) and frankly that's probably the root of the problem.

Excuse me, but not only are you really pushing my patience and tolerance, you missed my whole point. Animals are helpless. Animals are innocent. When animals are in need of help it's generally NOT THEIR OWN FAULT.

Most of the time when people are in trouble (barring natural disasters and accidents and so on and so forth), it IS their own fault.

That is the difference. It has nothing to do with gratitude or what's easy. The animals nearly always DESERVE the help. In my opinion people usually don't, having gotten themselves into the mess they're in.

EDit: In reference to the other posts i will get to them as soon as i can.

Originally posted by Heike
Well, Redneck, I see your points too although at this point I can't get worked up about it as I've never had any kids and never will. Eugenics would no doubt be terribly abused and cause more harm than good, simply because people just can't be trusted, especially people with any kind of power.

Definite trust issues...

What I don't understand is why people won't make these choices for themselves. My family has heart disease, congenital heart defects, diabetes, cancer, chronic obesity, and alcoholism. I chose not to have any children. If you KNOW you have some genetic disorder or inheritable disease, why wouldn't you just refrain from having children?

Because people sometimes have more hope than is good for them and some will care for those children whoever sick they might turn out to be... If you do not want to make similar commitments or take similar chances that is your choice and certainly seems to be very responsible at that.

I guess we can't expect stupid people to be smart enough to realize they shouldn't have kids, but maybe it could be explained to some of them.

If we are going to rob them of the means to the education they would like then we can only blame them so much. There is always room for compassion and we should all aim to involve more of it in our reasoning and judgements of of others.

I don't think Eugenics should be externally forced upon the population, I think people, if they truly cared about the human species, would voluntarily do it themselves instead of exercising their "right" to reproduce by adding another half-dozen sickly, snot-nosed brats that they don't bother to raise properly anyway to the world's population.

Which is why women seem to want less and less children as they become more independent and wealthy. The best way to exercise population control is to make people self reliant and secure in the knowledge that their two children will grow up to have children safely.

To me, it's just another indication that, in spite of all the big talk to the contrary, most people don't care about anything except their own wants and desires.

And frankly the planet would have been in far worse state if people were entirely selfless and just did what their told and strip mined the planet to it's core. People have been fighting for the right to have a little hovel and space enough to be self sufficient in food production from day one and most certainly did not choose cities and luxuries without knowing being forced to accept them in payment for services they would rather not be rendering. Obviously people attempts to look out for their own interest first but since our interest are so closely tied together this is no barrier to civilization and prosperity for all.

And don't take that personally because I'm not even thinking about pointing a finger at you. I'm just talking in general terms.

I'm sure i am guilty of some ignorance somewhere so your as free to point fingers as i am to judge it's accuracy.

Stellar

[edit on 24-8-2008 by StellarX]